PTAB

IPR2019-00557

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

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: Unassigned
  • Patent #: 9,668,014
  • Filed: January 10, 2019
  • Petitioner(s): Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
  • Patent Owner(s): Rovi Guides, Inc.
  • Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Identifying and Storing a Portion of a Media Asset
  • Brief Description: The ’014 patent describes systems and methods for resolving voice commands that do not expressly name a media asset. The technology involves receiving a voice command, comparing a media asset identifier (MAI) from the command against a database of known MAIs, calculating a "degree of similarity" for non-exact matches, and suggesting a media asset to the user if the similarity exceeds a threshold.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground A: Anticipation over Julia - Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13-14 are anticipated by Julia.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Julia (Patent 7,222,073).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Julia, which discloses a speech-activated communications system for video-on-demand, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Julia described receiving a voice command that may be "garbled," comparing it to a database of media titles, calculating a similarity score, and suggesting higher-scoring titles to the user for selection. This process allegedly met all steps of independent claim 1, including receiving a voice command with an MAI, accessing a database, comparing the MAI with known MAIs, determining if a complete match exists, calculating a degree of similarity if no complete match is found, and selecting/providing a suggested MAI that exceeds a threshold for user confirmation.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Julia's method of generating a sequence of words from the voice command, comparing it with candidate titles, and calculating a similarity score directly maps onto the method claimed in the ’014 patent.

Ground B: Obviousness over Julia and Okimoto - Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13-14 are obvious over Julia in view of Okimoto.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Julia (Patent 7,222,073) and Okimoto (Application # 2008/0167872).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Julia taught nearly every limitation of the independent claims. To the extent Julia was found not to explicitly teach the claimed "option to confirm" (limitation 1[i]), Okimoto supplied this element. Okimoto disclosed a system that presents a suggested search result with an explicit user interface containing "yes" and "no" buttons for the user to confirm or reject the suggestion.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve the known functionality of Julia. Julia taught presenting results for "final selection," and a POSITA would have recognized that providing an interactive confirmation mechanism like Okimoto's yes/no buttons was a known and useful way to implement this final selection, making the system more user-friendly.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because implementing Okimoto's user interface would involve a straightforward software modification to Julia's system, as both systems are software-based.

Ground D: Obviousness over Julia, Okimoto, and Craner - Claims 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20 are obvious over Julia in view of Okimoto and Craner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Julia (Patent 7,222,073), Okimoto (Application # 2008/0167872), and Craner (Application # 2009/0100478).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Building on the Julia/Okimoto combination, Petitioner argued that Craner taught the additional limitations of dependent claims related to storing media assets. Craner disclosed an interactive media guidance system that could record media, which involved identifying a source, accessing the media, and storing it. Crucially, Craner taught managing storage space by determining if sufficient space exists for a new recording and, if not, providing the user an option to delete an existing recording to free up space. This mapped to the limitations of claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 20.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Craner's recording and storage management capabilities with Julia/Okimoto's voice search system to provide users with greater flexibility. This would allow users not only to find and view media on-demand but also to record it for later viewing, a known and advantageous feature. Craner's solution for managing limited storage space was a straightforward solution to a known problem in recording systems.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable, as it would involve adding known storage hardware (e.g., a DVR) and modifying the software of the base system to incorporate Craner's storage management logic, which was a well-understood task for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Julia/Okimoto with Hoffert (to add media previews to confirmation prompts), Clavin (to add voice control of specific devices using device identifiers), Yates (to add user profiles for personalizing results), Wang (to teach initializing software variables to default values), and Taranenko (to teach character-by-character string comparison for calculating similarity).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several terms should be construed according to their lexicographic definitions in the ’014 patent, including "media asset," "command," and "media asset identifier."
  • Means-Plus-Function: Petitioner contended that "Communications circuitry" (claim 11) and "Control circuitry configured to:" (claim 11) are means-plus-function terms under §112(f).
    • For "Communications circuitry," the function is "receiving a voice command from a user," with the corresponding structure being disclosed components like a microphone, user input interface, or various modems.
    • For "Control circuitry," the function is performing the subsequent method steps of the claim, with the corresponding structure being "control circuitry 304" from the patent’s figures, which comprises processing circuitry, storage, and other hardware executing software.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner highlighted that the concept of "degree of similarity" is implemented differently across the prior art, which made the asserted grounds non-redundant. For example, Petitioner argued that Julia used the count and order of matching words, while other references like Taranenko used character-by-character comparisons. This distinction was presented as critical, asserting that if the Board adopted a different construction of "degree of similarity," it could impact each ground differently.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the asserted grounds were not redundant to grounds asserted in three concurrently filed petitions against the same patent. It was stated that each petition asserted different primary prior art and that the various obviousness grounds relied on different statutory grounds and technical concepts, justifying separate consideration.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,668,014 as unpatentable.