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 discloses an interactive television application, such as an interactive television program guide (ITPG), that provides a transport control interface (e.g., a progress bar) when content is recorded or viewed. The core alleged invention involves visually distinguishing on the interface between different stored time segments of a video program, such as a segment recorded automatically into a buffer and a segment recorded in response to a specific user command.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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, which discloses a digital home communication terminal (DHCT), teaches most limitations of the independent claims, including an interface with a progress bar that displays automatically buffered content. However, Plourde does not explicitly show a segment recorded by user command that is visually distinct from the automatically buffered segment. Petitioner asserted Son teaches these missing elements through its "clipping" function, which allows a user to select and permanently save a portion of a buffered program, where the "clipped" user-selected region is visually distinguished on a guide bar.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Son with Plourde to add a useful feature and solve a known problem. Son's clipping function addresses a disadvantage in systems like Plourde—wasting storage by saving an entire buffered program—by allowing users to save only desired segments. Since both systems are PVRs with similar bar-type interfaces, incorporating Son's clipping feature into Plourde's DHCT would be an obvious improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both systems are similar PVR devices. The combination would involve applying known software techniques to extend Plourde's existing capability of differentiating content types on its progress bar, leading to a predictable result.

Ground 2: Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Plourde, Son, and 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 builds on the Plourde/Son combination for dependent claims 3 and 13, which require receiving a change in a program's running time and modifying the interface to reflect the new time length. Petitioner argued Safadi teaches this functionality by disclosing a PVR that uses electronic program guide (EPG) data to determine and display updated start and end times to account for schedule changes.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Safadi's teachings with the Plourde-Son system to address the well-known challenge of unpredictable program start and end times. This combination would improve recording accuracy and flexibility, which is a recognized benefit in Safadi.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as Safadi explicitly teaches its methods can be applied to other systems. Modifying the Plourde-Son interface to display updated timing information received via Safadi's method is a straightforward enhancement.

Ground 3: Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are obvious over Plourde, Son, and 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 addresses dependent claims requiring the simultaneous display of a second video program and either integrating information for both programs into a single interface (claims 7, 17) or providing a second, separate interface (claims 8, 18). Petitioner contended Tomita teaches these features by disclosing a system capable of picture-in-picture display of two video streams. Tomita shows both integrating information into one status bar and displaying separate status bars for each video.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tomita with the Plourde-Son system to provide enhanced viewing options, such as watching a recorded program while keeping an eye on a live one. Displaying a second progress bar is merely a duplication of parts to improve usability and independent control over each video stream.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would predictably result in a system that simultaneously displays programming from different sources. Plourde already includes a window manager that could be readily adapted by a POSITA to show multiple videos, as taught by Tomita.

• 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 for combining the references to achieve simultaneous display and updated timing information.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "buffer memory": Petitioner proposed construing "buffer memory" as a "device or storage area used to store data temporarily." This construction was argued to be critical for establishing that the hard disk drives used for time-shifting in prior art like Plourde fall within the scope of the claim term, countering any narrower interpretation that might be limited to RAM or similar volatile memory.
• "time length": Petitioner proposed construing "time length" as "duration of time," where the indication may be quantitative or qualitative. By adopting a broad construction allegedly consistent with the Patent Owner's position in a related proceeding, Petitioner sought to ensure that prior art references showing non-numeric or graphical representations of program duration satisfy this claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested that an inter partes review be instituted and that claims 1-20 of the ’956 patent be cancelled as unpatentable.