Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`v.
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`IPR2013-00127
`Oral Hearing, April 8, 2014
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Overview
`
`• Introduction to U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067
`
`• Prior Invention
`
`• Claim Construction
`
`• Prior Art Combinations
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067
`
`• Universal Remote Control with Macro
`Command Capabilities
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067
`
`• Universal Remote Control
`
`• “Direct entry” matching to plurality of home
`appliances
`
`• Enter code via pushbutton corresponding to
`set of codes and data in pre-loaded library
`
`• Capability to assign macro command to a
`macro pushbutton
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067
`
`• Representative claim 1:
`
`In a universal remote control comprising a keyboard having a plurality of
`pushbuttons including a macro pushbutton and a library of codes and data for
`use in transmitting operating commands to a plurality of different home
`appliances of different manufacturers, a readable medium having instructions for
`performing steps comprising:
`matching the universal remote control to a plurality of different home appliances
`of different manufacturers such that selected codes and data from the library
`are used to transmit operating commands to the matched home appliances in
`response to activation of selected pushbuttons of the keyboard, the
`pushbuttons of the keyboard being activated to directly identify each of the
`plurality of different home appliances of different manufacturers to which the
`universal remote control is to be matched; and
`assigning to the macro pushbutton a subset of the selected codes and data from
`the library whereafter activation of the macro pushbutton causes the universal
`remote control to use the subset of selected codes and data from the library to
`transmit a plurality of operating commands to one or more of the matched
`home appliances.
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• Inventors conceived claims 1-6 in 1986
`
`• Claims 1-6 reduced to practice in the
`fall/winter of 1986 – 1st Prototype
`
`• 2nd Prototype created in winter of
`1986/1987
`
`(Ellis Decl. and Exhibits)
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• Conception and reduction to practice
`evidenced by creation of user manuals
`and firmware source code and
`development of printed circuit boards
`
`• Conception and reduction to practice
`prior to publication of Magnavox,
`Evans, Wozniak, and CORE
`
`(Ellis Decl. and Exhibits)
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention -
`Conception
`• Inventors conceived claims 1-6 in 1986
`
`• According to Richard Ellis, co-inventor
`of the ‘067 patent:
`
`“In 1986, I, with the help of others, conceived of a universal “In 1986, I, with the help of others, conceived of a universal
`
`remote control for operating controlled devices such as remote control for operating controlled devices such as
`
`television sets, VCRs, cable converters, etc. In the beginning of television sets, VCRs, cable converters, etc. In the beginning of
`
`the development of the universal remote control disclosed and the development of the universal remote control disclosed and
`
`claimed in the ‘067 patent, our company was named Protostarclaimed in the ‘067 patent, our company was named Protostar
`
`Electronics, and the remote control was referred to as the Electronics, and the remote control was referred to as the
`
`Homer, or HCU, and was later named UNiWAND.”Homer, or HCU, and was later named UNiWAND.”
`
`
`
`(Ellis Decl., ¶ 6.)(Ellis Decl., ¶ 6.)
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention –
`Reduction to Practice
`• Claims 1-6 reduced to practice in the
`fall/winter of 1986
`
`• 1st Prototype – Homer Control Unit
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit A)
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention –
`Reduction to Practice
`• Second prototype in winter of 1986/1987
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit C)
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• Corroboration is not necessary if the
`documents themselves (e.g. user manuals
`and source code) establish earlier
`conception and reduction to practice
`
`“Exhibit 13 is before the board for the board to make its own “Exhibit 13 is before the board for the board to make its own
`
`determinations as to what this piece of evidence discloses. determinations as to what this piece of evidence discloses.
`
`Unlike a situation where an inventor is proffering oral Unlike a situation where an inventor is proffering oral
`
`testimony attempting to remember specifically what was testimony attempting to remember specifically what was
`
`conceived and when it was conceived, a situation where, over conceived and when it was conceived, a situation where, over
`
`time, honest witnesses can convince themselves that they time, honest witnesses can convince themselves that they
`
`conceived the invention of a valuable patent, Eibel Process, 261 conceived the invention of a valuable patent, Eibel Process, 261
`
`U.S. at 60, 43 S.Ct. at 327, “corroboration” is not necessary to U.S. at 60, 43 S.Ct. at 327, “corroboration” is not necessary to
`
`establish what a physical exhibit before the board includes.” establish what a physical exhibit before the board includes.”
`
`Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis
`
`added). added).
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• User manuals were created after
`reduction to practice, approximately
`February 1987
`
`
`“we would not have gone to the time, effort and expense of “we would not have gone to the time, effort and expense of
`
`drafting user manuals for the HCU until we were confident we drafting user manuals for the HCU until we were confident we
`
`had working prototypes that were suitable for their intended had working prototypes that were suitable for their intended
`
`purpose.”purpose.”
`
`
`
`(Ellis Decl., ¶ 19.)(Ellis Decl., ¶ 19.)
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• User manuals were created after reduction
`to practice, approximately February 1987
`
`“[W]e [the inventors] would not have gone to the time, “[W]e [the inventors] would not have gone to the time,
`
`effort and expense of drafting user manuals for the HCU effort and expense of drafting user manuals for the HCU
`
`until we were confident we had working prototypes that until we were confident we had working prototypes that
`
`were suitable for their intended purpose… In early 1987, were suitable for their intended purpose… In early 1987,
`
`confident that we had successfully implemented our confident that we had successfully implemented our
`
`intended design in now multiple prototypes, we began intended design in now multiple prototypes, we began
`
`work on … drafting user manuals for the universal work on … drafting user manuals for the universal
`
`remote control.”remote control.”
`
`
`
`(Ellis Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.)(Ellis Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.)
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• User manuals were created after reduction
`to practice, no later than February 1987
`
`o Magnavox published on April 9, 1987 (Ex. 1006)
`o Evans published June 25, 1987 (Ex. 1004)
`o Wozniak has earliest possible priority date of June 23, 1987
`(Ex. 1003)
`o CORE has 1987 copyright date, with an alleged publication
`date of September 1, 1987 (Ex. 1005)
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Every element of claims 1-6 is found in each
`user manual and in the source code
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Rev. 1.1, p. 6, 7
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit D)
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Rev. 1.2, p. 9, 12
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit F)
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/24/1987, pp. 23-24
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/24/1987, pp. 27-28
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/24/1987, pp. 28-29
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`20
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Review Copy, p. 2, 12, 13
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit P)
`
`21
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 21
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Review Copy, p. 2, 12, 13
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit P)
`
`22
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 22
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Rev. 1.1, p. 5
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit D)
`
`23
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 23
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Rev. 1.2, p. 8, 9
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit F)
`
`24
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 24
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 2/23/1987, p. 27
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`25
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 25
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Review Copy, p. 9-11
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit P)
`
`26
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 26
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Rev. 1.2, p. 8, 9
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit F)
`
`27
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 27
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 4/17/1987, p. 31
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`28
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 28
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/17/1987, p. 32
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`29
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 29
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/17/1987, p. 33
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`30
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 30
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/17/1987, p. 34
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`31
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 31
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`HCU Source Code as of 3/17/1987, p. 35
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit L)
`
`32
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 32
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`Claim Language
`
`User Manual Review Copy, p. 10-11
`
`(Ellis Decl., Exhibit P)
`
`33
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 33
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Invention
`
`• Petitioner admits that the source code supports the
`claimed functionality at least as of April 30, 1987:
`
`“Thus, the only thing that is known for sure about the “Thus, the only thing that is known for sure about the
`
`software that provided all of the critical functionality software that provided all of the critical functionality
`
`(including the claimed direct entry and macro command (including the claimed direct entry and macro command
`
`functions) is that a version of it existed as of April 30, 1987.”functions) is that a version of it existed as of April 30, 1987.”
`
`
`(Petitioner Reply, 7.)(Petitioner Reply, 7.)
`• Petitioner ignores that fact that the source code
`functions relevant to the ‘067 patent were actually
`created on or before March 24, 1987—before the
`alleged publication dates of each of CORE, Evans,
`Wozniak and Magnavox.
`
`34
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 34
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction
`
`• Two key terms:
`
`o “directly identify”
`
`o “library of codes and data”
`
`• Both terms found in each of claims 1-6
`
`35
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 35
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Directly Identify
`• CDCA Markman Ruling:
`
`Claim Limitation
`“pushbuttons of the
`keyboard being activated to
`directly identify each of the
`plurality of different home
`appliances of different
`manufactures to which the
`universal remote control is
`to be matched”
`
`(claim 1)
`
`CDCA Construction
`
`pushbuttons are pressed to
`enter codes that directly
`identify each particular
`home appliance to which
`the universal remote control
`is to be matched
`
`(Claim Construction Order, C.D. Cal. Civ. No. 8:12-cv-00329)
`
`36
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 36
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Directly Identify
`• CDCA Markman Ruling:
`
`Claim Limitation
`“instructions further
`perform the step of using
`activation of one or more of
`the pushbuttons of the
`keyboard to directly
`identify each of the
`plurality of different home
`appliances of different
`manufacturers to which the
`universal remote control is
`to be matched”
`
`CDCA Construction
`
`instructions further perform
`the step of using codes
`entered through
`pushbuttons that directly
`identify each particular
`home appliance to which
`the universal control is to be
`matched
`
`(claim 3)
`(Claim Construction Order, C.D. Cal. Civ. No. 8:12-cv-00329)
`
`37
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 37
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Directly Identify
`• CDCA Markman Ruling:
`
`Claim Limitation
`“using activation of one or
`more pushbuttons of the
`keyboard to directly
`identify each of the
`plurality of different home
`appliances of different
`manufacturers to which the
`universal remote control is
`to be matched”
`
`(claim 6)
`
`CDCA Construction
`
`using codes entered
`through pushbuttons that
`directly identify each
`particular home appliance
`to which the universal
`remote control is to be
`matched
`
`(Claim Construction Order, C.D. Cal. Civ. No. 8:12-cv-00329)
`
`38
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 38
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Directly Identify
`• CDCA Markman Ruling
`
`o Codes entered must be device-specific
`
`
`“By contrast, in the direct-entry/quick-set/quick-matching “By contrast, in the direct-entry/quick-set/quick-matching
`
`procedure, the user first determines the code that corresponds procedure, the user first determines the code that corresponds
`
`to the device of interest, and then enters that device-specificto the device of interest, and then enters that device-specific
`
`code into the remote.”code into the remote.”
`
`(Claim Construction Order, C.D. Cal. Civ. No. 8:12-cv-00329, 31)
`
`39
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 39
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Directly Identify
`• Petitioner’s Expert also defined “directly
`identify”:
`
`QQ
`
`What do the words directly identify mean to What do the words directly identify mean to
`
`you?you?
`
`AA
`
`
`
`To enter the user I.D. and model number.To enter the user I.D. and model number.
`
`
`QQ
`
`AA
`
`
`To enter the user I.D. and model number?To enter the user I.D. and model number?
`
`Yes.Yes.
`
`
`
`(Herr Dep., 81:1-5.)(Herr Dep., 81:1-5.)
`
`40
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 40
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Library of Codes and Data
`• What is a “library”?
`
`“a table programmed into the remote
`control, the table comprising a variety of
`command codes corresponding to
`particular appliances of different
`manufacturers”
`
`(Hayes Decl., ¶ 27)
`
`41
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 41
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction –
`Library of Codes and Data
`• During reexamination of the ‘067
`patent, the BPAI construed “codes”:
`
`
`“Reading the claim term ‘codes’ in the context “Reading the claim term ‘codes’ in the context
`
`of the entire patent, we interpret ‘codes’ as of the entire patent, we interpret ‘codes’ as
`
`transmission schemes for relaying ‘data’ to a transmission schemes for relaying ‘data’ to a
`
`controlled apparatus.”controlled apparatus.”
`
`
`
`(BPAI Decision on Appeal, 16.)(BPAI Decision on Appeal, 16.)
`
`42
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 42
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Claim Construction – To
`Assign
`• The Board adopted the CDCA Markman
`rulings
`
`• Board construction of claims 2 and 5:
`
`o using pushbuttons “to assign” the subset of the selected
`codes and data from the library to the macro
`pushbutton means “pushbuttons are used to designate
`or set apart the macro pushbutton as being associated
`with the subset of the selected codes and data from
`the library.”
`
`(Board Decision, 7)
`
`43
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 43
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Rumbolt + Magnavox
`
`• Rumbolt + Magnavox + Evans
`
`• Wozniak + CORE
`
`44
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 44
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`Rumbolt
`
`Magnavox
`
`45
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 45
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`The combination of Rumbolt and
`Magnavox does not render claims 1, 3, 4,
`and 6 obvious
`
`46
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 46
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Rumbolt teaches away from using the
`keypad to program the remote
`
`o Rumbolt DIP switches are inexpensive
`
`(Ex. 1002)
`
`47
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 47
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Rumbolt teaches away from a
`combination that uses a keypad to
`program the remote
`
`o Programming via pushbuttons increases cost—
`firmware would need re-writing to make buttons
`“state aware”
`o A battery back-up would be required to preserve
`programming if DIP switches were not used
`because the remote would lose programming
`upon a loss of power (e.g., battery change).
`
`(Hayes Decl., ¶ 18)
`
`48
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 48
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Magnavox does not disclose a “direct
`entry” remote control
`
`o Where is the teaching of how the “appropriate
`code” is entered?
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`49
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 49
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Combining Rumbolt and Magnavox still
`does not result in the claimed invention
`o Neither Rumbolt nor Magnavox discloses “the pushbuttons
`of the keyboard being activated to directly identify each
`of the plurality of different home appliances of different
`manufacturers to which the universal remote control is to
`be matched,” (claims 1, 4), or “using activation of one or
`more pushbuttons of the keyboard to match the universal
`remote control to the plurality of different home
`appliances of different manufacturers,” (claims 3, 6).
`
`(Ex. 1002, Ex. 1006, U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`50
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 50
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Combining Rumbolt and Magnavox still
`does not result in the claimed invention
`o Rumbolt uses DIP switches NOT activation of pushbuttons of
`a keyboard
`
`o Magnavox does not disclose entering a code via
`pushbuttons of a keyboard either:
`
`
`“To identify a particular VCR, a viewer simply “To identify a particular VCR, a viewer simply
`
`presses the REC button on the remote, presses presses the REC button on the remote, presses
`
`the on/off button on the VCR or cable box and the on/off button on the VCR or cable box and
`
`enters the appropriate code.” (Ex. 1006 enters the appropriate code.” (Ex. 1006
`
`(emphasis added))(emphasis added))
`(Ex. 1002, Ex. 1006, U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`51
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 51
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Combining Rumbolt and Magnavox still
`does not result in the claimed invention
`o “enters the appropriate code” does not specify entering
`the code via pushbuttons of the remote, as opposed to via
`DIP switches or some other means. Magnavox is
`ambiguous.
`o Petitioner’s expert admits that Magnavox doesn’t expressly
`disclose entering the code via pushbuttons of the remote.
`(Herr Dep., 57:18-21)
`o To say that Magnavox implies using pushbuttons to enter a
`code constitutes impermissible hindsight reasoning.
`
`(Ex. 1002, Ex. 1006, U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`52
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 52
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`Rumbolt
`
`Magnavox
`
`Evans
`
`53
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 53
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`The combination of Rumbolt, Magnavox,
`and Evans does not render claims 2 and 5
`obvious
`
`54
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 54
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Evans does not teach a “direct entry”
`remote or a “library of codes and data”
`
`o Evans is a pure learning remote control and does not disclose
`“direct entry” via pushbuttons
`
`o Learning remote controls like Evans emulate or repeat emissions
`recorded from a source remote
`
`(Paper No. 18 at 27-28, 33-34)
`
`55
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 55
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Evans does not teach a “direct entry”
`remote or a “library of codes and data”
`
`
`“Accordingly, the ‘library of codes and data’ required by the claims of the ‘067 patent requires a table “Accordingly, the ‘library of codes and data’ required by the claims of the ‘067 patent requires a table
`
`of data stored in memory comprising codes identifying particular appliances… Under that of data stored in memory comprising codes identifying particular appliances… Under that
`
`construction of ‘library of codes and data,’ Evans does not disclose such a library, even after it has construction of ‘library of codes and data,’ Evans does not disclose such a library, even after it has
`
`learned the codes of a user’s household appliances. Indeed, the ‘library of codes and data’ disclosed learned the codes of a user’s household appliances. Indeed, the ‘library of codes and data’ disclosed
`
`by the ‘067 patent enables the remote control described by that patent to inherently operate a largeby the ‘067 patent enables the remote control described by that patent to inherently operate a large
`
`number of appliances directly out of the box simply by setting the remote control (using number of appliances directly out of the box simply by setting the remote control (using
`
`identification codes listed in a table in the instruction booklet) to use the codes and data already identification codes listed in a table in the instruction booklet) to use the codes and data already
`
`stored in memory at the time of manufacture. By contrast, the Evans remote control must be taught stored in memory at the time of manufacture. By contrast, the Evans remote control must be taught
`
`each code and piece of data to operate each appliance. Even after the Evans remote control has been each code and piece of data to operate each appliance. Even after the Evans remote control has been
`
`taught a variety of appliances, it still does not comprise such a ‘library of codes and data’ becausetaught a variety of appliances, it still does not comprise such a ‘library of codes and data’ because
`
`there is no library of data stored on the remote control that enables it to operate other appliances there is no library of data stored on the remote control that enables it to operate other appliances
`
`without learning from a separate remote control device. Rather, the Evans remote control can only be without learning from a separate remote control device. Rather, the Evans remote control can only be
`
`matched to a different appliance by teaching the remote each associated command code separately, matched to a different appliance by teaching the remote each associated command code separately,
`
`whereas the ‘067 patent discloses a remote control inherently capable of operating a wide variety of whereas the ‘067 patent discloses a remote control inherently capable of operating a wide variety of
`
`devices using a pre-existing library.”devices using a pre-existing library.”
`
`
`
`(Hayes Decl., ¶¶ 29-30)(Hayes Decl., ¶¶ 29-30)
`
`56
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 56
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• The combination of Rumbolt, Magnavox
`and Evans does not render claims 2 and
`5 obvious
`o Like Rumbolt and Magnavox, Evans also fails to disclose
`“the pushbuttons of the keyboard being activated to
`directly identify each of the plurality of different home
`appliances of different manufacturers to which the
`universal remote control is to be matched,” (claims 1, 4).
`
`(Ex. 1002, Ex. 1006. Ex. 1004, U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`57
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 57
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• The combination of Rumbolt, Magnavox
`and Evans does not render claims 2 and
`5 obvious
`
`o Evans also does not disclose “using activation of one or
`more pushbuttons of the keyboard to assign the subset of
`selected codes and data from the library to the macro
`pushbutton,” (claims 2, 5) (emphasis added).
`
`• Because Evans is a learning remote, it has a library of
`waveforms, not a library of codes and data
`
`(Ex. 1002, Ex. 1006, Ex. 1004, U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,067)
`
`58
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 58
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`Wozniak
`
`CORE
`
`59
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 59
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`The combination of Wozniak and CORE
`does not render claims 1-6 obvious
`
`60
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 60
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• The combination of Wozniak and CORE
`does not render claims 1-6 obvious
`o Neither of the remote controls of Wozniak nor CORE can
`be matched to a particular appliance through direct
`identification via pushbuttons.
`
`o Petitioner’s expert concedes this point.
`
`(Herr Dep., 81:1-81:3, 81:15-82:5, 83:13-18)
`
`61
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 61
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Petitioner’s expert conceded that neither Wozniak
`nor CORE discloses the “directly identify” element
`
`o First Dr. Herr defined what it means to “directly identify”:
`
`
`
`Q. … What do the words ‘directly identify’ mean to you? Q. … What do the words ‘directly identify’ mean to you?
`
`
`
`A. To enter the user I.D. and model number. A. To enter the user I.D. and model number.
`
`
`
`(Herr Dep., 81:1-81:3)(Herr Dep., 81:1-81:3)
`
`62
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 62
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Next Dr. Herr confirmed that Wozniak does not
`disclose the “directly identify” element
`
`Does Wozniak disclose entering the user I.D. and model number via push buttons of Does Wozniak disclose entering the user I.D. and model number via push buttons of
`
`a target device?a target device?
`
`Only -- the question should read only from the keyboard or buttons.Only -- the question should read only from the keyboard or buttons.
`
`
`I said via push buttons.I said via push buttons.
`
`Yeah, well, they use the push buttons to enter it when it's in learning mode too. Yeah, well, they use the push buttons to enter it when it's in learning mode too.
`
`When they put the other device in front of it, they have to use the buttons to enable When they put the other device in front of it, they have to use the buttons to enable
`
`it.it.
`
`
`Okay.Okay.
`
`If you're only using the buttons, the answer is no.If you're only using the buttons, the answer is no.
`
`
`Okay. So if you're only using the buttons, Wozniak does not disclose entering a user I.D. Okay. So if you're only using the buttons, Wozniak does not disclose entering a user I.D.
`
`and model number of the --and model number of the --
`
`No.No.
`
`
`
`QQ
`
`
`
`AA
`
`
`QQ
`
`AA
`
`
`QQ
`
`AA
`
`
`
`QQ
`
`
`
`AA
`
`
`
`(Herr Dep., 81:15-82:5 (emphases added))(Herr Dep., 81:15-82:5 (emphases added))
`
`63
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 63
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Dr. Herr then also confirmed that CORE does not
`disclose the “directly identify” element
`
`
`
`QQ
`Okay. So, again, just to clarify, so it is your opinion that the Okay. So, again, just to clarify, so it is your opinion that the
`
`Core Reference Manual does not disclose entering the user I.D. and model Core Reference Manual does not disclose entering the user I.D. and model
`
`number --number --
`
`AA
`
`
`
`No.No.
`
`
`QQ
`
`AA
`
`
`-- of the target device via push buttons?-- of the target device via push buttons?
`
`That is correct.That is correct.
`
`
`
`(Herr Dep., 83:13-18)(Herr Dep., 83:13-18)
`
`64
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 64
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Wozniak, like Evans, is a pure learning
`remote and therefore does not have a
`“library of codes and data”; it has a library
`of waveforms
`
`• This is confirmed by the names of
`Wozniak’s two modes of operation:
`
`o Learning Mode
`o Emulation Mode
`(Ex. 1003, Ex. 1004)
`
`65
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2008, Page 65
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2013-00127
`
`

`
`Prior Art Combinations
`
`• Petitioner’s expert concedes that
`Wozniak does not teach a “library of
`codes and data”
`
`
`“It is my opinion that the on