PTAB

IPR2019-00232

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Television Systems with Digital Video Recording and Adjustable Reminders
  • Brief Description: The ’741 patent relates to an interactive television system that allows a user to control playback of a broadcast program after it has begun. The system determines if an "archived copy" of the program is available and, if so, displays a notification that allows the user to retrieve and play the archived copy, for instance, to restart an in-progress program from the beginning.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Brenner and Berberet - Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-26 are obvious over Brenner in view of Berberet.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brenner (Patent 8,181,215) and Berberet (WO 2001/056285A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brenner taught the core functionality of the challenged claims: a "start-over" system that stores copies of broadcast programs at a head-end and prompts a user who tunes in late, allowing them to download and restart the program. While Brenner determined program availability, it did not expressly disclose using a "database." Petitioner asserted Berberet remedied this deficiency by teaching a system that archives and indexes programs in a searchable database, allowing users to restart programs in progress.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Brenner and Berberet to improve Brenner’s system using a known technique (Berberet’s server-side database and indexing) to solve a known problem (efficiently determining program availability). This combination would yield the predictable result of a more robust and efficient start-over system, as Berberet’s archiving system improves the same functionality offered by Brenner.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known database and indexing technique to a similar video storage system to achieve a predictable improvement in functionality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Brenner and McElhatten - Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-26 are obvious over Brenner in view of McElhatten.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brenner (Patent 8,181,215) and McElhatten (Patent 7,073,189).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to the first ground, Petitioner contended Brenner provided the foundational start-over system. To the extent Brenner failed to disclose a database or the creation of discrete, additional archived copies, McElhatten supplied these elements. McElhatten described a system allowing users to restart in-progress programs using head-end storage with "cache" and "library" managers to control access and retrieval, which a POSITA would understand constitutes a database. McElhatten also explicitly taught a feature for users to "archive" a program, creating an actual copy for long-term access.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate McElhatten’s sophisticated storage managers into Brenner’s system to improve the speed and efficiency of accessing stored programs. Since both patents addressed allowing users to control in-progress programs, a POSITA would readily turn to McElhatten to fill in implementation details left open by Brenner, such as efficient database management and user-initiated archiving.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating known storage management and archiving functionalities into a known start-over system, which would predictably result in a system with more efficient retrieval and enhanced user features.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Brenner and Berberet with White (Patent 6,804,825) to add automatic recording of missed programs based on user viewing habits. Further grounds combined the primary references with Bonomi (Patent 6,769,127) to add password authentication for accessing personal stored content.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner dedicated significant argument to the construction of "archived copy." It argued that under the Patent Owner’s own proposed construction during a parallel ITC investigation—"stored copy"—the term is broad and plainly read on the head-end stored programs in Brenner.
  • Petitioner also argued that even under a narrower construction adopted by the ITC—"a real or virtual copy of a program retained by a system"—the claims were still obvious. It contended that Brenner’s system, which downloads a copy from the head-end to a user's set-top box, meets this construction. Furthermore, it asserted that combining Brenner with Berberet or McElhatten, which teach creating discrete user copies or pointers on a server, would have rendered this limitation obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-26 of Patent 9,369,741 as unpatentable.