Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 23
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
` Entered: June 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPENTV, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JAMES T. MOORE, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 3 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`Netflix, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736 (Ex. 1001, “the ’736
`
`patent”) on December 18, 2013. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). OpenTV, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response on March 27, 2014.
`
`Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b)
`
`and 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which states:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and
`any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Inter partes review is instituted only if the petition supporting the
`
`ground demonstrates “that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail with respect to claims 1-12 of the ’736 patent and,
`
`accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1-12.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 4 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’736 patent was asserted against
`
`Petitioner in OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01733 (D. Del.).
`
`Pet. 1. Petitioner also indicates that “a proceeding relating to European
`
`Patent EP 0 879 534, which claims priority to the parent of the ’736 patent,
`
`arising out of request number KG RK 13-1834 is pending in The Hague
`
`District Court, The Netherlands.” Id. The same parties and related patents
`
`are involved in the following petitions for inter partes review before this
`
`Board: Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., Case IPR2014-00252 (Dec. 16, 2013);
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., Case IPR2014-00267 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2013);
`
`and Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., Case IPR2014-00274 (PTAB Dec. 19,
`
`2013).
`
`C.
`
`The ’736 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The specification of the ’736 patent describes a method and system
`
`“for providing direct automated access to an online information services
`
`provider” by extracting an address that is embedded in a signal containing an
`
`audio or video program. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’736 patent explains that
`
`the address used to access online information is encoded either in the
`
`vertical blanking interval (VBI) of a video signal or some other portion of a
`
`signal that is not displayed so that the encoded address does not interfere
`
`with the program. Id. The system and method disclosed by the ’736 patent
`
`can detect and decode an encoded address and alert the user that additional
`
`information is available. Id. In response to the indication that additional
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 5 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`information is available, the user may opt to access the online information
`
`provider “by giving a simple command, e.g., pushing a special button on a
`
`remote control.” Id. “The system then automatically establishes a direct
`
`digital communication link to the online information provider through the
`
`address.” Id. One described embodiment provides a system that generates a
`
`secondary advertisement that is not derived from the primary advertisement
`
`when a user elects to skip or fast forward through the primary advertisement.
`
` Ex. 1001, 2:53-61.
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 6-9 are independent claims.
`
`Claims 1 and 6-8 are directed to methods, and claim 9 is directed to a system
`
`with means-plus-function limitations that provide similar function as the
`
`method steps of claim 1. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
`
`A method of providing to a user of online information
`1.
`services automatic and direct access to online information
`through an address associated with an online information source
`provided with a video program comprising:
`indicating to the user that an address has been provided
`with said video program; and
`electronically extracting said address and automatically
`establishing, in response to a user initiated command, a direct
`communication link with the online information source
`associated with said address so that the user has direct access to
`the online information.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 6 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Reference[s]
`Throckmorton1
`Throckmorton and Williams2
`Throckmorton and Kerman3
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1-3 and 6-12
`
`4
`
`5
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`1 Throckmorton et al. (“Throckmorton”), U.S. Patent No. 5,818,441, Oct. 6,
`1998 (Ex. 1004).
`2 Williams et al. (“Williams”), U.S. Patent No. 5,701,161, Dec. 23, 1997
`(Ex. 1005).
`3 Kerman, U.S. Patent No. 5,659,366, Aug. 19, 1997 (Ex. 1006).
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 7 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “automatically establishing, in response to
`
`a user initiated command, a direct communication link with the online
`
`information source.” Independent claims 1 and 6-9 each recite “so that the
`
`user has direct access to the online information.” Claim 9 recites “means for
`
`indicating to the user that an address is available for extraction from said
`
`electronic signal,” and “means for extracting an address associated with an
`
`online information source from an information signal embedded in said
`
`electronic signal, and for automatically establishing, in response to a user
`
`initiated command, a direct link with the online information source.”
`
`Dependent claim 10 recites “means for receiving an information signal from
`
`said online information source,” and “means for displaying an image signal
`
`detected from said received information signal.”
`
`Petitioner argues that the inventor of the ’736 patent did not provide
`
`any special meaning for the claim terms and, thus, the terms should be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meanings, as understood by an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan. Pet. 6-7. Petitioner proposes a construction for each of those
`
`terms based on the customary and ordinary meaning. Id. at 7-8. Patent
`
`Owner does not propose a construction for any term but argues that
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions lack material facts necessary to construe
`
`the claims. Prelim. Resp. 4-9. In particular, Patent Owner argues the
`
`Petition does not point to anything in the specification of the ’736 patent
`
`supporting the proposed constructions. Id. Patent Owner further asserts that
`
`any argument in Mr. Kramer’s declaration should not be considered because
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 8 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`the Petition itself must identify the evidence to support Petitioner’s
`
`constructions. Id.
`
`1. “automatically establishing, in response to a user initiated
`command, a direct communication link with the online information
`source” (the “automatically establishing limitation”)
`
`Petitioner asserts the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`
`automatically establishing limitation is “in response to a user initiated
`
`command, establishing a communication link to an online information
`
`source without the user performing additional steps.” Pet. 7. We do not see,
`
`nor does Patent Owner point to, anything in the specification of the ’736
`
`patent providing a definition for the automatically establishing limitation or
`
`any terms therein. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that the automatically
`
`establishing limitation should be construed according to its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, in light of the specification.
`
`We note that the ’736 patent explains that existing media receiving
`
`and display systems (e.g., radio and television receivers) provide only
`
`limited access to interactive information providers. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15-
`
`17. The ’736 patent expounds that current systems may either display an
`
`Internet address the viewer can access using his computer or provide access
`
`to a single information source from the media provider (e.g., the broadcast or
`
`cable operator), leaving the media provider in control of selecting the
`
`information provider. Id. at col. 1, ll. 17-29. The ’736 patent also points out
`
`that, while systems providing interactive access “through a broadcast or
`
`cable television signal” exist, “such systems are limited in the access they
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 9 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`provide to information sources directly available through the unitary cable or
`
`broadcast provider,” whereas “the present invention facilitates direct
`
`automated user access to an unlimited number of online information
`
`providers through provider addresses.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 59-67 (emphasis
`
`added); see also id. at col. 1, ll. 29-32 (“[n]o system yet exists which
`
`provides automated and direct user access to online information providers
`
`through an address embedded in a video or audio program signal”).
`
`While we conclude Petitioner’s proposed construction uses a plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the relevant terms, we determine it is not complete.
`
` In particular, Petitioner’s proposed construction does not appear to provide
`
`any meaning for the recited term “direct.” Therefore, based on the record,
`
`the broadest reasonable construction of the automatically establishing
`
`limitation is in response to a command from a user, establishing, without
`
`further input from the user, a communication link directly between the user
`
`and the online information source. As seen in the above analysis, each of the
`
`limitations includes receiving a command initiated by a user, which then
`
`triggers the connection being established automatically.
`
`Additionally, we note that, while a communication link is established
`
`in response to a user command and with no further input required from the
`
`user, there is no limitation on when or how the communication link is
`
`established. Furthermore, while the communication link must be established
`
`directly between the user and the information source, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that Internet routing involves various
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 10 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`intermediaries inherent to Internet traffic routing. The direct connection
`
`merely implies that the user does not need to go “through” the provider of
`
`the video program or any other intermediary not inherent to Internet traffic
`
`routing.
`
`2. “so that the user has direct access to the online information”
`(the “direct access limitation”)
`
`Petitioner asserts the ordinary and customary meaning of the direct
`
`access limitation is “displaying online information without the user leaving
`
`the screen to access the online information.” Pet. 7. Once again, we do not
`
`see, nor does Patent Owner point to, anything in the specification of the ’736
`
`patent providing a definition for the direct access limitation or any terms
`
`therein. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that the direct access limitation
`
`should be construed according to its ordinary and customary meaning, in
`
`light of the specification.
`
`We disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction. We are not
`
`directed to anything in the specification of the ’736 patent that indicates
`
`“direct access to the online information” requires the system to display the
`
`online information to the user without the user leaving the screen to access
`
`the information. See id. As discussed above with respect to the
`
`automatically establishing limitation, the ’736 patent indicates that direct
`
`access means that the user does not need to go through the program provider
`
`in order to access the online information. Therefore, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the direct access limitation is that the user has access to the
`
`online information directly from the online information source. Once again,
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 11 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`this means that the system establishes a communication link directly
`
`between the user and the online information source, without any intervening
`
`intermediary that is not inherent to Internet traffic routing.
`
`3. “means for indicating to the user that an address is available
`for extraction from said electronic signal”
`(the “indicating means”)
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the indicating means should be
`
`construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.4 Moreover, we agree
`
`with the Petitioner that the function of the indicating means is stated clearly
`
`in the claim as “indicating to the user that an address is available for
`
`extraction,” and does not need further explanation. Pet. 7. We also agree
`
`with Petitioner that the structure of the indicating means includes “a message
`
`or other indicator, or equivalents.” Id.; Ex. 1001, 3:60-63. However, the
`
`specification of the ’736 patent provides additional detail regarding the
`
`structure of the indicating means. Specifically, the structure of the
`
`indicating means is “a message displayed on a video screen, . . . a light, a
`
`sound or a wireless tactile indicator, e.g., vibrating wristband or clip-on unit
`
`. . . [or] a logo or message to be displayed for the user at points in the
`
`program which coincide with the presence of an embedded online
`
`information provider address” and equivalents thereof. Ex. 1001, 3:60-67.
`
`
`4 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’736 patent has a filing date before
`September 16, 2012 (effective date of AIA), we use the citation § 112, ¶ 6.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 12 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`
`According to Patent Owner, the Petition cites only to Mr. Kramer’s
`
`declaration and not to the specification of the ’736 patent in support of
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 5-6. While, in some
`
`instances, we may deny instituting review because the Petitioner does not
`
`cite to the appropriate evidence for support, we decline to do so in this case.
`
` Petitioner should have directly cited to the specification of the ’736 patent,
`
`rather than citing to the declaration, which in turn cites to the relevant
`
`portion of the specification. However, Petitioner’s failure to cite to the
`
`specification does not appear to be an attempt to circumvent the page limits.
`
` Moreover, the portion of the ’736 patent cited in Mr. Kramer’s declaration
`
`reveals the relevant structure without need for further analysis.
`
`4. “means for extracting an address associated with an online
`information source from an information signal embedded in
`said electronic signal, and for automatically establishing, in
`response to a user initiated command, a direct link with the
`online information source” (the “extracting and connecting
`means”)
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the extracting and connecting means
`
`should be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Petitioner
`
`asserts the ordinary and customary meaning of the function of the indicating
`
`means is “(i) extracting an address associated with an online information
`
`source from an information signal embedded in said electronic signal and
`
`(ii) automatically establishing, in response to a user initiated command, a
`
`direct link with the online information source.” Pet. 7-8. For the same
`
`reasons as discussed above with respect to the indicating means, the function
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 13 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`of the extracting and connecting means is stated clearly in the claim. We see
`
`nothing in the specification of the ’736 patent to alter the proposed
`
`construction of the function of the extracting and connecting means nor a
`
`need for further explanation. We also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that
`
`the structure of the extracting and connecting means is hardware and/or
`
`software. Id. at 8. According to the specification, the extracting and
`
`connecting means is an access controller including both an address extractor
`
`and a modem. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 5:43-6:7, 8:53-65. However, as identified
`
`in Mr. Kramer’s declaration, the specification provides additional detail. Ex.
`
`1005 ¶ 38.
`
`Specifically, the address extractor portion of the extracting and
`
`connecting means is “hardware and/or software to detect, decode and store
`
`an address which has been embedded in a video or audio program signal.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:45-47. The ’736 patent also explains that there are multiple
`
`ways to detect an address signal, including detecting an address transmitted
`
`in the vertical blanking interface or other portion of a video signal. Id. at
`
`5:50-52. The ’736 patent states that “[t]he details of the construction of
`
`address extractor 42 are well known in the art and need not be described in
`
`further detail.” Id. at 6:5-7. The modem portion of the extracting and
`
`connecting means also is described as hardware and/or software that can
`
`automatically establish a direct digital communication link to the online
`
`information provider. Id. at 8:60-65. Therefore, the extracting and
`
`connecting means is hardware, software, or some combination of hardware
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 14 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`and software that is programmed or configured to detect, decode and store
`
`an address transmitted as part of a program and use the address to establish a
`
`digital communications link directly between the user and the online
`
`information source, and equivalents thereof.
`
`Once again, we have considered Patent Owner’s argument regarding
`
`the failure of the Petition to cite to the specification of the ’736 patent but
`
`decline to deny institution on that basis in this case.
`
`5. “means for receiving an information signal from said online
`information source” (the “receiving means”)
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the receiving means should be construed
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Petitioner asserts the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the function of the indicating means is “receiving an
`
`information signal from said online information source.” Pet. 8. For the
`
`same reasons as discussed above, the function of the receiving means is
`
`stated clearly in the claim. We see nothing in the specification of the ’736
`
`patent to alter the proposed construction of the function of the receiving
`
`means nor a need for further explanation. We also agree with Petitioner’s
`
`assertion that the structure of the receiving means is “a modem, or
`
`equivalents.” Id.
`
`The function of the modem and the fact that it may be implemented in
`
`hardware and/or software generally is described above with respect to the
`
`extracting and connection means. Moreover, the ’736 patent further
`
`indicates the modem is used “for transmitting and receiving digital
`
`information signals between access controller 10 and public switching
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 15 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`network 30 through an information signal carrier line 32.” Ex. 1001, 6:59-
`
`62. Therefore, we conclude the receiving means is a modem implemented in
`
`hardware, software, or some combination thereof programmed or configured
`
`to receive information signals and its equivalents.
`
`As discussed above, we have considered Patent Owner’s argument
`
`regarding the failure of the Petition to cite to the specification of the ’736
`
`patent but decline to deny institution on that basis in this case.
`
`6. “means for displaying an image signal detected from said
`received information signal” (display means)
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the display means should be construed
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Petitioner asserts the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the function of the indicating means is “displaying an
`
`image signal detected from said received information signal.” Pet. 8. For
`
`the same reasons as discussed above, the function of the display means is
`
`stated clearly in the claim. We see nothing in the specification of the ’736
`
`patent to alter the proposed construction of the function of the receiving
`
`means nor a need for further explanation. Petitioner asserts that the structure
`
`of the display means includes a “computer monitor or other display device,
`
`or equivalents.” Id.
`
`The ’736 patent explains “[r]eceived information signals are operated
`
`upon by processor 58 for displaying upon conventional TV reproducing
`
`system 22 or high resolution reproducing system 40, e.g., a computer
`
`monitor or other display device.” Ex. 1001, 7:57-61. Therefore, we
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 16 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`conclude the display means is a television, computer monitor, and
`
`equivalents.
`
`As discussed above, we have considered Patent Owner’s argument
`
`regarding the failure of the Petition to cite to the specification of the ’736
`
`patent but decline to deny institution on that basis in this case.
`
`B.
`Asserted Obviousness Grounds Based on Throckmorton,
`Throckmorton and Williams, and Throckmorton and Kerman
`
`1. Overview of Throckmorton (Ex. 1004)
`
`Throckmorton describes systems and methods for providing apparent
`
`or actual two-way interactive access to information related to a one-way data
`
`stream, such as a television program broadcast. Ex. 1004, Abstract.
`
`Throckmorton provides a consumer of broadcast programming with access
`
`to data relevant to the programming in real time (i.e., “during the process of
`
`program reception”). Id. at 1:59-64. Throckmorton describes supplying a
`
`one-way data stream, including the primary data stream and associated data,
`
`to a consumer, at which point the primary data stream may be rendered to
`
`the consumer and the associated data may be accessed. Id. at 3:6-14. If the
`
`primary data stream is a television broadcast, the associated data may be
`
`encoded in the vertical blanking interval (VBI). Id. at Abstract, 7:63-65.
`
`Throckmorton describes two preferred embodiments for interacting
`
`with the associated information. The first preferred embodiment provides
`
`the consumer with apparent two-way interactive access and is described as
`
`providing additional online information relevant to the primary data stream
`
`that can be stored locally at the consumer’s receiver. Id. at 7:53-67. The
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 17 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`consumer then has access to the online information, and it appears to the
`
`consumer that the locally stored data is coming from an online service. Id. at
`
`8:1-15. The second preferred embodiment provides the consumer with
`
`actual two-way interactive access and is described as adding a two-way
`
`communication channel connected to the microprocessor that provides
`
`access to online information. Id. at 8:16-24. Throckmorton explains that the
`
`two-way communication channel allows access to information for which
`
`only references (such as URLs), rather than actual data (such as web pages),
`
`have been received. Id. at 8:63-9:15. Throckmorton also discloses that the
`
`second embodiment may deliver actual data, rather than just references, so
`
`that the consumer experiences apparent interactivity even if the consumer
`
`does not have a two-way communication channel. Id. at 9:16-26.
`
`The primary difference between the first and second preferred
`
`embodiments is that the second preferred embodiment includes a two-way
`
`communication channel (and an associated network protocol manager)
`
`connected to the processor and a remote data manager. See id. at 8:18-19,
`
`8:26-27, Figs. 3-5.
`
`2. Overview of Williams (Ex. 1005)
`
`Williams describes a system and method for providing real time data
`
`(including emergency broadcast messages) on the same screen on which a
`
`user is viewing broadcast programming. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Williams
`
`allows for the real time data to be extracted and displayed, superimposed
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 18 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`over any video signal being viewed, including broadcast programming and
`
`VCR playback. Id.
`
`3. Overview of Kerman (Ex. 1006)
`
`Kerman describes a system for providing a visible and/or audible
`
`alarm upon the occurrence of certain events. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Kerman
`
`discloses extracting an information signal from a received television signal
`
`and, upon determination that a certain event has occurred, activating the
`
`visible and/or audible alarm. Id. Kerman discusses that the event triggering
`
`the alarm may include receipt of a certain message, program, or details about
`
`a program. Id.
`
`4. Analysis of Asserted Obviousness Ground Based on
`Throckmorton (Claims 1-3 and 6-12), Throckmorton and
`Williams (Claim 4), and Throckmorton and Kerman (Claim 5)
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-3 and 6-12 would have been obvious
`
`in view of Throckmorton (Pet. 9-39), claim 4 would have been obvious in
`
`view of Throckmorton and Williams (id. at 39-42), and claim 5 would have
`
`been obvious in view of Throckmorton and Kerman (id. at 42-47).
`
`Regarding the obviousness challenge to claims 1-3 and 6-12, Petitioner
`
`discusses the two embodiments of Throckmorton and provides a motivation
`
`for combination of the two embodiments, including that a combination of
`
`the two disclosed embodiments is the combination of elements in the manner
`
`described in the reference, resulting in two-way communication while
`
`viewing a program. Id. at 13. Petitioner further argues that Throckmorton
`
`teaches the proposed combination and “specifically teaches such a result.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 19 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`Id. Petitioner maps portions of Throckmorton to each of the limitations in
`
`claims 1-3 and 6-12. Id. at 14-39.
`
`Petitioner provides a description of Williams’s teachings, a reason to
`
`combine Williams with Throckmorton, and a mapping of Williams to the
`
`additional limitation recited in claim 4. Id. at 39-42. Petitioner also
`
`describes Kerman’s teachings, a reason to combine Kerman with
`
`Throckmorton, and a mapping of Kerman to the additional limitation recited
`
`in claim 5. Id. at 42-47.
`
`Patent Owner argues the Petition does not map the cited art to the
`
`claim language as construed by Petitioner, specifically the proposed
`
`construction of “so that the user has direct access to the online information.”
`
` Id. at 10-12. As discussed above, our construction is different from that
`
`proposed by Petitioner. Therefore, we look to Petitioner’s application of the
`
`cited art to the claim limitations as we have construed them. We have
`
`analyzed Petitioner’s challenges to claims 1-12 and are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Throckmorton teaches the recited “so
`
`that the user has direct access to the online information,” as construed.
`
`Specifically, the cited portions of Throckmorton discuss establishing a
`
`connection between the consumer and the online information source,
`
`without the program provider, or any other entity, acting as an intermediary.
`
` Id. at 16-18 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:1-12).
`
`Patent Owner’s primary contention regarding the teachings of the
`
`cited references is that Petitioner has not shown where the recited
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 20 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`“automatic” or “automatically,” in regards to establishing a connection, is
`
`found in Throckmorton. Prelim. Resp. 12-15. However, each of Petitioner’s
`
`mappings identified by Patent Owner states that the connection is
`
`established automatically because the system performs the connection and
`
`retrieving. Id. at 13-14. As discussed above, in each of the automatically
`
`establishing limitations, the connection is established in response to some
`
`user initiated command. Thus, in this case, as discussed in our construction
`
`of the automatically establishing limitations, the “automatic” or
`
`“automatically” means that the connection is established without further
`
`input from the user after receipt of the user initiated command. Therefore,
`
`we are persuaded Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Throckmorton
`
`teaches the automatically establishing limitations.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the Petition does not provide a complete
`
`obviousness analysis. Id. at 15-17. In particular, Patent Owner argues that
`
`the Petition cites to disparate sections of Throckmorton (i.e., both of
`
`Throckmorton’s preferred embodiments) without explaining which of the
`
`embodiments is being relied on for the proposed ground or how the two
`
`embodiments would be combined to render the claims obvious. Id. at 16-17.
`
` Patent Owner also asserts the obviousness analysis is incomplete because
`
`the proposed motivation is conclusory and insufficient. Id. at 17-19.
`
`We agree with the parties that Throckmorton teaches both a one-way
`
`communications embodiment and a two-way communications embodiment.
`
`Throckmorton’s disclosure indicates that both embodiments provide a
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-11 Filed 04/12/16 Page 21 of 23
`
`IPR2014-00269
`Patent 6,233,736
`
`consumer with access to online information during the process of program
`
`reception. As discussed above, Throckmorton’s description of the two-way
`
`communications embodiment explains that the two-way communications
`
`embodiment adds a two-way communication channel to the system
`
`described by the one-communications way embodiment. Ex. 1004, Abstract,
`
`8:16-9:25; See Pet. 9. Therefore, for purpose
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
