PTAB

IPR2025-01311

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Content Reproducing Apparatus with Context-Sensitive Operation Panels
  • Brief Description: The ’091 patent describes a digital content reproducing apparatus, such as a set-top box, that displays content on a screen. The apparatus is configured to alternatively display different operation panels—a first panel with "linear" controls (e.g., play, pause) and a second panel with "interactive" controls (e.g., menu navigation)—based on "related information" associated with the digital content being reproduced.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Phillips in view of Wallis - Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11-15, 17, and 20 are obvious over Phillips in view of Wallis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phillips (Patent 7,293,276) and Wallis (Application # 2005/0188408).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Phillips discloses the core elements of a digital content reproducing apparatus that alternatively displays different operation panels. For example, Phillips showed an interactive panel for Video-on-Demand (VoD) menus (Fig. 17a) and a linear panel for video playback controls (Fig. 18). However, Phillips did not explicitly teach using metadata received from an outside server to decide which panel to display. Petitioner asserted Wallis remedies this by teaching a system where metadata attributes associated with content govern the presentation of selectable controls, explicitly distinguishing between "linear and non-linear controls." Wallis’s metadata functions as the claimed "panel related information" used for deciding whether to display linear or interactive operation buttons.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wallis's metadata-driven control logic with Phillips's user interface to create a more dynamic, customized, and future-proof system. This would allow the operation panel to be tailored to the specific content being displayed without hard-coding the logic, making the system more flexible and accommodating of new content types.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that integrating Wallis's attribute table into Phillips's system would be a straightforward application of well-known programming techniques (e.g., using an "if" statement based on a data attribute). The outcome would be predictable and well within the capabilities of a POSITA.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Phillips-Wallis in view of Uchida - Claims 2, 6, 10, and 16 are obvious over the Phillips-Wallis combination in view of Uchida.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phillips (Patent 7,293,276), Wallis (Application # 2005/0188408), and Uchida (Patent 8,773,360).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Phillips-Wallis combination to address claims requiring specific display characteristics. Claims 2, 6, 10, and 16 relate to displaying the operation panels in the "substantially same panel rendering area" and maintaining the "rendering area size of the reproduced digital contents" even when a panel is displayed. Petitioner argued that while Phillips-Wallis taught the alternative panels, Uchida explicitly disclosed a solution to the problem of on-screen displays obscuring content. Uchida taught a display divided into a dedicated content area and a dedicated control panel area, ensuring the content area's size is maintained regardless of which control panel (linear or interactive) is shown in the dedicated panel area.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Uchida's dedicated panel area concept with the Phillips-Wallis system to enhance the user experience. This modification would provide a consistent graphical interface where controls never obstruct the video content, a known objective in user interface design. Phillips itself contemplated reducing video size to show information on the periphery, indicating this design choice was a known alternative.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would be a simple software modification to define fixed, non-overlapping display regions, which is a predictable and straightforward task for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ellis'430 in view of Wallis - Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 14-19 are obvious over Ellis’430 in view of Wallis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellis’430 (Application # 2002/0174430) and Wallis (Application # 2005/0188408).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Ellis'430 as an alternative primary reference that, like Phillips, disclosed a system with distinct operation panels. Ellis'430 taught an interactive "browse or flip overlay" for navigating live TV channels (Fig. 16) and a separate linear operation panel with playback controls (e.g., rewind, play, stop) for viewing recorded programs (Fig. 39). The petition argued Ellis'430 disclosed displaying these panels alternatively. As in Ground 1, Wallis was combined to supply the teaching of using metadata ("panel related information") delivered from an outside server to control which type of panel is displayed.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that for combining Phillips and Wallis: to improve the user interface of Ellis'430 by allowing the operation panels to be dynamically populated and selected based on metadata associated with the digital content. This would provide a more customized and flexible user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: Similar to the other grounds, Petitioner argued that integrating the metadata-based logic from Wallis into the system of Ellis'430 would be a predictable and obvious modification for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including adding Logan (Application # 2012/0087637) to the Phillips-Wallis combination to explicitly disclose server-controlled, time-related display information for on-screen elements. Further grounds added Ellis (Application # 2004/0154040) to teach the concept of an "appreciation term" (a predetermined time limit for content availability) as the claimed "time related information."

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,812,091 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.