PTAB

IPR2019-00279

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

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2019-00279
  • Patent #: 9,621,956
  • Filed: November 12, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
  • Patent Owner(s): Rovi Guides, Inc.
  • Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Providing a Transport Control Interface
  • Brief Description: The ’956 patent describes an interactive television application, such as a program guide, that provides a transport control interface (e.g., a progress bar). The interface visually distinguishes between a first time segment of a video program recorded in response to a specific user command and a second time segment that is automatically recorded into a buffer memory.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Son in view of Pierre or Logan - Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16 are obvious 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 most limitations of the independent claims, including a system with a guide bar interface that visually distinguishes between different program segments. Specifically, Son disclosed using different colors to distinguish user-selected "clipping regions" (the claimed "first stored time segment") from other buffered program regions. However, Son's buffering was user-initiated (a "time-shift" function). Pierre and Logan were cited to supply the missing element of a video program segment being "automatically recorded into buffer memory." Pierre taught automatically recording the beginning of a program to a buffer in a set-top box, while Logan taught continuously digitizing and storing a broadcast program into a buffer memory without user attention.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Son with Pierre or Logan to enhance the user experience. The combination would expand the amount of buffered programming available for control (e.g., rewind) or recording, overcoming the drawbacks of purely user-initiated buffering and preventing the loss of program segments due to user error or interruption.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success because the references describe compatible digital television recording systems. Modifying Son’s software to incorporate the known, advantageous feature of automatic buffering from Pierre or Logan was a predictable improvement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Son, Pierre/Logan, and Horowitz - Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Son in view of Pierre/Logan and further in view of 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. It addressed 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 asserted that Horowitz taught this feature by disclosing an electronic program guide (EPG) that receives real-time updates to program scheduling information and modifies the on-screen guide display to show original versus updated running times.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to add Horowitz's teachings to the Son-Pierre/Logan system to improve recording accuracy. By incorporating real-time EPG updates, the system could more accurately record programs whose start or end times had shifted, a known problem that Horowitz was designed to solve.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because Horowitz taught a technique for improving a similar device (a DVR with an EPG). Integrating this known feature into the base system would involve a straightforward software modification to handle updated EPG data, which both Son and Horowitz already processed.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Son, Pierre/Logan, and Tomita - Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are obvious over Son in view of Pierre/Logan and further in view of 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 addressed claims requiring the generation of a second video program and a transport control interface that either integrates information from both programs (claims 7, 17) or displays a separate interface for the second program (claims 8, 9, 18, 19). Petitioner argued that while the base combination did not show simultaneous display of two programs, Tomita taught this. Tomita disclosed a recording apparatus that could simultaneously display two videos (e.g., in a picture-in-picture format) and could display either an integrated status bar for both or separate status bars for each.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tomita's teachings to provide the user with more viewing options, such as monitoring one program while navigating or watching another. This would improve the usability of Son's system, allowing a user to identify desired recording regions in one program while viewing another.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success due to the technical overlap between the systems. Implementing Tomita's picture-in-picture and multiple-interface display features was a known technique to improve comparable DVR systems.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 5, 7-10, 15, and 17-20 based on combinations that further included Safadi (Application # 2001/0051037). Safadi was used to teach the use of two tuners to watch and record programs from different channels or sources simultaneously, arguing this was a predictable extension of functionality.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "buffer memory": Petitioner argued for a construction of "device or storage area used to store data temporarily." This construction is broad enough to encompass not only volatile memory like RAM but also non-volatile storage like a hard disk drive (HDD) when used for temporary storage, as taught in the prior art. This interpretation was supported by the patent's specification, which described buffering programs to various storage devices, including HDDs.
  • "time length": Petitioner argued for a construction of "duration of time," where the indication could be either quantitative (e.g., 120 minutes) or qualitative (e.g., a proportional bar). This broad construction was asserted to be consistent with the patent owner's own proposed construction in a related ITC action and was necessary to read on prior art that showed program duration graphically.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued that the ’956 patent was not entitled to the filing date of its earliest provisional application ('080 provisional). The contention was that the '080 provisional failed to provide adequate written description for the key limitation requiring that the first and second stored time segments be "visually distinguished," a feature central to patentability. Therefore, Petitioner argued the effective priority date was the later non-provisional filing date, which would make certain references, such as Son, prior art under different statutory sections.

6. Relief Requested

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