PTAB

IPR2019-00279

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Providing a Transport Control Interface
  • Brief Description: The ’956 patent describes an interactive television application that generates a transport control interface (e.g., a progress bar) for display when viewing or recording television content. The interface visually distinguishes between user-initiated recordings and content that is automatically recorded into a buffer memory.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16 over Son in view of Pierre or Logan

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Son (Application # 2003/0067886), Pierre (Patent 6,678,463), and Logan (Patent 5,371,551).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Son taught nearly all limitations of the independent claims. Son disclosed a video recording system with a guide bar interface that indicates program status and visually distinguishes between different program segments, such as user-selected "clipping regions" (the claimed "first stored time segment") and other buffered program content. However, Petitioner contended that Son's time-shift buffering was user-initiated, not automatic. To supply this missing element, Petitioner pointed to Pierre and Logan, which both explicitly taught systems that automatically and continuously recorded a broadcast program into a buffer memory ("second stored time segment") without user intervention.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Son with Pierre or Logan to enhance Son's user-initiated buffering system with the known benefits of automatic buffering. This modification would expand the amount of buffered programming available for a user to control (e.g., rewind) or record, prevent missed recordings from user error or interruption, and allow a user to record an entire program even after it had already started.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a known automated buffering technique (from Pierre or Logan) into a similar digital television recording system (Son) via a straightforward software modification. The systems shared compatible components and functionalities.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 3 and 13 over Son, Pierre/Logan, and Horowitz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Son (Application # 2003/0067886), Pierre (Patent 6,678,463) or Logan (Patent 5,371,551), and Horowitz (Application # 2004/0078817).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Son and Pierre/Logan and added Horowitz to teach the limitations of dependent claims 3 and 13, which required "receiving a change in running time of the video program" and "modifying the transport control interface" to reflect that change. Petitioner argued that Horowitz explicitly disclosed an electronic program guide (EPG) system that receives real-time updates to broadcast schedules and modifies the on-screen guide to display updated program running times, distinguishing between original and updated schedule information.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Horowitz's teachings to improve the recording accuracy of the Son-Pierre/Logan system. By using updated EPG data to adjust recordings, the combined system would prevent recordings from being cut short or starting late due to schedule changes, a well-known problem that Horowitz was designed to solve.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating a known feature (real-time schedule updates) into a system that already used EPG data (Son). A POSITA would expect success in modifying the system's software to use this updated data to adjust the transport control interface, yielding the predictable result of more accurate program information and recordings.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 7-10 and 17-20 over Son, Pierre/Logan, and Tomita

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Son (Application # 2003/0067886), Pierre (Patent 6,678,463) or Logan (Patent 5,371,551), and Tomita (Application # 2003/0142956).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Tomita to the base combination to address claims related to simultaneously displaying a second video program and either integrating information into a single interface (claims 7, 17) or providing a second, separate interface (claims 8, 9, 18, 19). Petitioner asserted that Tomita taught a recording apparatus that could simultaneously display two different videos (e.g., a currently recording program and a previously stored program) in a picture-in-picture format. Tomita also disclosed displaying either a single, integrated status bar with pointers for both videos or separate, distinct status bars for each video.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tomita's functionality with the Son-Pierre/Logan system to provide the user with enhanced viewing flexibility. This would allow a user to monitor one program (e.g., a live news broadcast) while simultaneously viewing or setting recording points on another buffered program, a clear usability improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: The technical overlap between the systems (TV recording, on-screen interfaces) made the combination predictable. Displaying a second program and a corresponding second progress bar was argued to be a mere duplication of parts for a known purpose, with the expected result of allowing independent control and monitoring of two programs.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds G-J) that further included Safadi (Application # 2001/0051037) to teach the use of two tuners for simultaneously recording programs from different sources.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "buffer memory": Petitioner proposed the construction "device or storage area used to store data temporarily." This construction was argued to be broad enough to encompass storage devices like hard disk drives (HDDs), as described in the ’956 patent's specification and taught by prior art like Pierre. This contrasts with a potentially narrower construction limited to more volatile memory like RAM, which is taught by Logan.
  • "time length": Petitioner argued the broadest reasonable construction is "duration of time," consistent with the Patent Owner's position in a related ITC action. This construction encompasses both quantitative (e.g., 120 minutes) and qualitative (e.g., a progress bar's proportional length) indications of duration.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued that the ’956 patent was not entitled to the March 18, 2003 filing date of its provisional application. Petitioner contended the provisional failed to provide adequate written description for the key limitation requiring that the two stored time segments (user-initiated and automatically buffered) be "visually distinguished" on the transport control interface. Therefore, Petitioner asserted the effective priority date was the March 18, 2004 filing date of the first non-provisional application, which brings more prior art into scope.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’956 patent as unpatentable.