Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00282
• 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 relates to an interactive television application that provides a transport control interface, such as a progress bar, when television content is being recorded or viewed. The interface visually distinguishes between automatically stored (buffered) content and segments recorded in response to a specific user command.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Plourde and Son - Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, and 14-16 are obvious over Plourde in view of Son.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Plourde (Patent 7,257,308) and Son (Application # 2003/0067886).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Plourde, the primary reference, taught a digital video recorder with a transport control interface (progress bar) that displays automatically buffered video content and distinguishes buffered from non-buffered portions. Plourde allegedly taught all limitations of the independent claims except for indicating a first stored time segment recorded by user command and visually distinguishing it from a second, automatically recorded segment. Son was argued to supply these missing elements by teaching a "clipping" function that allows a user to select and permanently record a segment of a buffered program, with a guide bar that uses different colors to visually distinguish the user-selected "clipped" region from the merely time-shifted (buffered) region.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Son's "clipping" feature with Plourde's digital home communication terminal (DHCT) to improve its functionality. Son explicitly addressed the disadvantage of systems that store an entire buffered program, which wastes storage space. Adding Son's clipping function would provide the known benefit of saving storage and increasing user convenience by allowing users to save only desired portions (e.g., highlights) of a program.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Plourde and Son described similar PVR systems with bar-type user interfaces for managing buffered content. Integrating Son's software-based clipping function into Plourde's PVR application was a predictable combination of known elements to improve a known device.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Plourde, Son, and Safadi - Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Plourde and Son in view of Safadi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Plourde (Patent 7,257,308), Son (Application # 2003/0067886), and Safadi (Application # 2001/0051037).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Plourde and Son to address dependent claims 3 and 13, which required receiving a change in a video program's running time and modifying the transport control interface accordingly. Petitioner contended that Safadi taught this functionality by disclosing a PVR that uses electronic program guide (EPG) data to determine updated start and end times for programs, thereby addressing the common problem of schedule changes and overruns.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Safadi's teachings to the Plourde-Son combination to enhance recording accuracy and flexibility. The unpredictability of broadcast program times was a well-known problem, and Safadi provided a solution that would ensure desired programs were recorded in their entirety despite schedule shifts, a clear benefit for the user of the Plourde-Son device.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as combining these elements was an application of a known technique (using updated EPG data) to improve a similar device (the Plourde-Son PVR). The modification would involve a straightforward software update to the Plourde-Son system to extract and display the updated timing information taught by Safadi.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Plourde, Son, and Tomita - Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are obvious over Plourde and Son in view of Tomita.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Plourde (Patent 7,257,308), Son (Application # 2003/0067886), and Tomita (Application # 2003/0142956).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims related to displaying a second video program simultaneously and either integrating information for both programs into a single transport interface (claims 7, 17) or generating a second, separate interface (claims 8, 18). Petitioner argued Tomita taught these features by disclosing a recording apparatus capable of simultaneous recording and playback, displaying video from two separate portions of a program (e.g., picture-in-picture), and displaying either separate status bars for each video or a single integrated bar with multiple pointers.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Tomita's simultaneous display techniques into the Plourde-Son device to provide the user with enhanced viewing options, a recognized advantage. For claims requiring a second, separate transport interface, the motivation was to improve usability by allowing independent control over each displayed video stream. For claims requiring an integrated interface, the motivation was to conserve screen space.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because Plourde's system already included a window manager, making it readily adaptable for displaying multiple videos as taught by Tomita. Adding a second progress bar was argued to be a mere duplication of parts for a predictable, useful result.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground D) for claims 7-10 and 17-20 based on the combination of Plourde, Son, Safadi, and Tomita, relying on similar theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "buffer memory": Petitioner argued for the construction "device or storage area used to store data temporarily." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification's interchangeable use of "buffer memory," "memory buffer," and "buffer," and its disclosure that automatic buffering is performed by equipment that includes storage devices like hard disk drives.
• "time length": Petitioner argued for the construction "duration of time" where the indication may be quantitative or qualitative. This construction was consistent with one proposed by the Patent Owner in a related ITC action and was considered the broadest reasonable construction, as the ’956 patent specification was not explicit but suggested displaying a program's end time as its "time length."

5. Relief Requested

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