Applicant:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Darbee
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`v.
`
`Filing Date: October 8, 1993
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`Patent No.:
`
`5,414,761
`
`Trial Paralegal: Cathy Underwood
`
`Title:
`
`REMOTE CONTROL
`SYSTEM
`
`Attorney Doc.: 059489.144300
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALEX COOK
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Darbee
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`v.
`
`Filing Date: October 8, 1993
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`Patent No.:
`
`5,414,761
`
`Trial Paralegal: Cathy Underwood
`
`Title:
`
`REMOTE CONTROL
`SYSTEM
`
`Attorney Doc.: 059489.144300
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALEX COOK
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Alex Cook, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`1. My name is Alex Cook. I began work with home entertainment devices in
`
`the employ of a major equipment supplier to the cable TV industry in 1983 as an
`
`engineer designing set-top boxes. I have been directly involved in the design and
`
`development of remote control devices, including multi-device remote, two-way
`
`remotes and remotes with displays. In my work with cable TV and set-top boxes, I
`
`have dealt directly with the issues involved in the configuration and use of home
`
`entertainment systems. I am a member of the Society of Cable
`
`Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) and have participated in the setting of
`
`technical standards for use by the cable TV industry and in the IrDA setting
`
`standards for infrared data communication. I currently consult with Comcast Cable
`
`in the development of new electronic devices for the home.
`
`2.
`
`In 1977, I earned a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA.
`
`3.
`
`In 1978, I attended additional non-degree graduate level classes at Georgia
`
`Tech.
`
`4.
`
`Between the years of 1975 and 1977, I worked for the Georgia Tech
`
`Research Institute, where my responsibilities included computer programming and
`
`millimeter-wave and submillimeter-wave spectroscopy.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Between the years of 1978 and 1979 I worked for the Georgia Tech
`
`Research Institute as a Research Engineer, where my job responsibilities included
`
`the design of a distributed process energy management and control system, the
`
`design and programming of microcomputer circuits, and the design of power line
`
`data transmission circuits.
`
`6.
`
`Between the years of 1979 and 1980, I worked for Datec Systems, Inc., as an
`
`Engineer. At Datec, I helped develop a distributed process control system for the
`
`Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In this role, I developed real-time programming of
`
`supervisory control and data acquisition systems.
`
`7.
`
`Between the years of 1981 and 1983, I worked as an engineer for Loral
`
`Information and Display Systems in Atlanta, GA, as a Principal Engineer. My
`
`responsibilities there included the design of high speed display generator hardware
`
`for tactical displays in military aircraft.
`
`8.
`
`Between the years of 1983 and 1996, I worked in various engineering and
`
`engineering management positions at Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., in Norcross, GA, a
`
`major supplier of products to the cable TV industry. As an engineer, I designed set-
`
`top boxes for cable television including various remote control devices for use in
`
`cable TV. My work included hardware design of both digital and analog circuits,
`
`software design for microprocessors, product features and user interface design,
`
`and the design of all aspects of remote controls for use in cable TV. My
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`responsibilities also included the drafting of patent disclosures and the extensive
`
`review of patents in the field of cable TV technology (including remote controls).
`
`During this time I worked daily with entertainment system technology; basic,
`
`multi-device, and universal remote controls; and all aspects of user experience in
`
`home entertainment.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1996, I have worked as a consultant in product development including
`
`consulting work for UEI in 1996.
`
`10.
`
`I have also previously served as an expert witness for UEI in several patent
`
`infringement actions. Those litigations include Phillips Electronics North America
`
`Corp. v. Universal Electronics Inc., No. 94-392-RRM (D. Del. 1994) and
`
`Universal Electronics Inc. v. Remote Technologies, Inc., No. 8-06-cv-00566 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2006).
`
`11. From 2010 to the present, I have been a consultant to Comcast Cable. In that
`
`role, I have assisted in the development of the next generation of cable TV devices
`
`for the cable consumer, including set-top boxes, video gateways, video client
`
`devices, remote controls, and wireless devices for the home.
`
`12.
`
`I am a named inventor on four granted and pending U.S. patents and patent
`
`applications, the majority of which relate to cable TV devices and technology
`
`including the use of infrared signaling to program set-top boxes and a two-way
`
`remote control with an LCD display.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by UEI to provide an analysis of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,414,761 (the “‘761 patent”) pursuant to the Board’s decision
`
`instituting an inter partes review of Claims 1, 9, 10, and 14-17 of the ‘761 patent.
`
`I have also been retained to analyze what a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`relevant field would have understood as of the priority date for the ‘761 patent. I
`
`understand that there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the priority
`
`date of the ‘761 patent is in 1987 or 1990. My opinions contained herein would
`
`not change regardless of whether the priority date of the ‘761 patent is 1987 or
`
`1990.
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $350 per hour for my work. My fee is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter, or on the positions I have taken in
`
`this declaration. I have no financial interest in Petitioner Universal Remote
`
`Control, Inc.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that UEI owns the ‘761 patent. I have no financial
`
`interest in UEI.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`16.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the Petition, the ‘761 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, the Declaration of Stephen D. Bristow, the Ciarcia and
`
`Hastreiter references, the Preliminary Response, the Board’s Institution Decision,
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 4,959,810. In preparing this declaration, I have also relied
`
`upon my personal knowledge and experience in the relevant art.
`
`III. Legal Principles
`
`17.
`
`I will not offer opinions of the law, as I am not an attorney. However,
`
`counsel has informed me of several principles concerning claim construction and
`
`patent validity and invalidity, upon which I have relied to arrive at my conclusions.
`
`18. Counsel has informed me that the purpose of claim construction is to
`
`determine the meaning of the terms in the claims of the ‘761 patent to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the time that the patent application leading to the ‘761
`
`patent was filed.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in inter partes review proceeding, the claim terms of an
`
`expired patent are to be construed in accordance with what one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood those terms to mean based primarily on the intrinsic
`
`evidence, namely, the claims themselves, the patent specification, and the
`
`prosecution history.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that the words of a claim are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`time that the patent application was filed. This is because patents and patent claims
`
`are addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the pertinent art,
`
`rather than the general public.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`It is my further understanding that the same words and phrases within a
`
`claim or claims are presumed to have the same meaning. It is also my
`
`understanding that different words and phrases within a claim or claims are
`
`presumed to have different meanings. Similarly, all words in a claim have
`
`meaning, and a word or phrase in a claim should not be interpreted so as to render
`
`other words or phrases in the claim superfluous.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed
`
`to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
`
`disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification and the prosecution history.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that it is permissible to draft claim terms in a means
`
`plus function format, that is to say, to recite a claim term according to its function,
`
`as opposed to its structure.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that the scope of a means plus function claim term is
`
`limited to the structures identified in the specification of the patent required to
`
`necessarily perform the claimed function.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “obvious” and therefore invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`
`such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations of
`
`nonobviousness such as unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but
`
`unsolved needs, failure of others, copy by others, licensing, and skepticism of
`
`experts.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a conclusion of obviousness may be based upon a
`
`combination of prior art references. I understand that it can be important to
`
`identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field to combine the elements in a way the claimed new invention does. I
`
`further understand that to determine obviousness the courts look to the interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. The State Of The Art As Of The Priority Date Of The ‘761 Patent
`
`28. As noted above, I understand from counsel that the priority date of the ‘761
`
`Patent is either 1987 or 1990. Again, my opinions contained herein would not
`
`change regardless of whether the priority date of the ‘761 patent is 1987 or 1990.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`It is my opinion that the relevant field is the intersection of the field of
`
`handheld remote control devices using infrared signaling to controlled devices with
`
`the field of computer communications.
`
`30. As noted above, I have nearly four decades worth of experience in that field.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`instant art requires such a person to have a working familiarity with battery-
`
`powered, handheld devices, infrared signaling and protocols, microprocessor-based
`
`circuit design, and computer communications.
`
`32.
`
`I qualify as one having ordinary skill in the art from before the relevant time
`
`period to the present.
`
`V. The ‘761 Patent
`
`33. The ‘761 patent discloses a remote control system that includes an
`
`upgradeable universal remote control and a system for transmitting data to the
`
`upgradeable universal remote. I believe that prior to 1987, three types of remote
`
`controls existed. These are “fixed-function” remotes, “learning remotes,” and
`
`“programmable remotes.” The function(s) associated with each key in a fixed-
`
`function remote control are fixed and cannot be changed by the user. In this type
`
`of remote, all functionality is contained in a memory that cannot be changed.
`
`Multiple functions may be associated with each key, as chosen by other keys, but
`
`these multiple functions are pre-defined and limited. The internal operation of the
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`remote is also fixed as its programming is contained in a ROM or EPROM
`
`memory. Most remote controls prior to the priority date of the ‘761 patent were of
`
`this type.
`
`34.
`
`“Learning remotes,” which can capture, record, and playback the IR
`
`transmissions of other remote controls were known prior to the priority date of the
`
`‘761 patent. Some learning remotes, as mentioned by Ciarcia, required that all
`
`functionality be taught. In other remotes, some fixed-functions may be included
`
`while others can be learned.
`
`35.
`
`“Programmable remotes” allowed fixed or learned functions to be moved
`
`from key to key or assigned to unused keys. Functions could also be grouped
`
`together and assigned to one key (called a “Macro”).
`
`36. These remote control types are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most
`
`learning remotes are also programmable. And most remotes have some fixed or
`
`pre-programmed functionality.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, the Ciarcia Master Controller is both a learning and a
`
`programmable remote control.
`
`38. The ‘761 patent discloses a fourth type of remote control, namely the
`
`upgradeable remote control. In Ciarcia, the description of the Master Controller
`
`includes an EPROM. The contents of this type of memory cannot be changed once
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`programmed. In the described upgradeable remote of the ‘761 patent, the contents
`
`of all memory can be changed.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`A. “input means … for inputting commands into [the/said] remote
`control” (Claims 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17)
`
`39.
`
`I agree with the parties that the claim term “input means … for inputting
`
`commands into [the/said] remote control” is a means plus function claim term. I
`
`also agree with the parties that the function associated with this claim term is
`
`“inputting commands in to the remote control.” It is my opinion that the structure
`
`corresponding to the claimed function is a set of keys, push buttons, or something
`
`equivalent to these, that provide a signal to the CPU when activated so the CPU
`
`will know what function is to be carried out. This description refers to the
`
`remote’s keyboard or keypad, used to command the remote control to transmit IR
`
`signals.
`
`40.
`
`I disagree with Petitioner’s overly narrow recitation of the structure that
`
`performs the function of inputting commands into the remote control. For
`
`example, Claim 13 clearly states that the input means are coupled to the CPU. The
`
`specification also makes it clear that the CPU is not part of the input means.
`
`“When the CPU 56 determines which pushbutton 25 has been depressed the CPU
`
`56 will then know what function is to be carried out.” (‘761 patent, 8:7-9.)
`
`Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the CPU cannot be the structure
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`that performs the function of the input means. Further, the ‘761 patent discloses
`
`multiple different types of keypads, also called keyboards. For example the block
`
`diagram in Fig. 8 shows a 4 x 14 “keyboard.” This is also described as a 4 x 14
`
`keyboard at 6:48-55. The schematic of Fig. 9B shows an 8 x 8 arrangement of
`
`keys. As noted, this is effectively an 8 x 7 arrangement yielding 56 keys. Thus,
`
`the structure of the “input means” is a set of one or more keys or pushbuttons and
`
`should not be limited to any particular keypad configuration, as Petitioner asserts.
`
`B.
`
`“infrared signal output means […] for supplying an infrared
`signal to a controlled device” (Claims 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17)
`
`
`I agree with the parties that the claim term “infrared signal output means for
`
`41.
`
`supplying an infrared signal to a controlled device” is a means plus function claim
`
`term. I also agree with the parties that the function associated with this claim term
`
`is “supplying an infrared signal to a controlled device” and that the corresponding
`
`structure is IR lamp driver circuitry coupled to a CPU and one or more LEDs.
`
`42.
`
`I disagree with any proposed construction that requires a specific number of
`
`LEDs or otherwise includes other specific aspects disclosed in the specification of
`
`the ‘761 patent that are not required to supply an infrared signal to a controlled
`
`device.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“data coupling means including receiving means coupled to the
`CPU for enabling at least one of (a) instruction codes or (b) code
`data for creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions … to be
`supplied from outside the remote control through the receiving
`means directly to the CPU for direct entry to the memory” (Claim
`1)
`
`
`I agree with the parties that the claim term “data coupling means including
`
`43.
`
`receiving means coupled to the CPU for enabling at least one of (a) instruction
`
`codes or (b) code data for creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions … to be
`
`supplied from outside the remote control through the receiving means directly to
`
`the CPU for direct entry to the memory” is a means plus function claim term. I
`
`also agree with the parties that the function associated with this claim term is
`
`enabling code data for creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions to be
`
`supplied from outside the remote control through the receiving means directly to
`
`the CPU for direct entry to the memory. I further agree that the corresponding
`
`structure for this claim term includes a terminal of a receiving port coupled to an
`
`input port of the CPU.
`
`44.
`
`I disagree, however, with Petitioner’s proposed construction because it
`
`requires specific aspects disclosed in the specification of the ‘761 patent that are
`
`not required to enable code data to be supplied from outside of the remote control
`
`to the CPU.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`It is my opinion that a data port, including, but not limited to the serial port
`
`described in the ‘761 patent, enables the receipt of data. Thus, the applicable
`
`structure need not be limited to a serial port.
`
`46.
`
`I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the structure corresponding to
`
`this claim term must be a serial receiving port that is directly coupled to an input
`
`port of the CPU. The plain language of Claim 1, as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, would not require “direct” coupling, i.e., a specific type of physical
`
`connection between the receiving port and the CPU as Petitioner appears to
`
`require. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim
`
`language to be referring to the flow of the code data to the CPU.
`
`47.
`
`I further disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the ‘761 patent does not
`
`disclose a structure for receiving at least one of instruction codes or code data for
`
`creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions and directly entering such code
`
`data into the memory. Petitioner misunderstands this claim term. One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand the function of the “data coupling means
`
`including receiving means” is to allow the remote control to receive instruction
`
`codes or code data, not to create the IR lamp driver instructions. Petitioner appears
`
`to leap from data coupling means directly to the IR lamp driver instructions,
`
`without realizing that the data coupling means including receiving means permit
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`the remote control to receive instruction codes or code data that is subsequently
`
`used to create the IR lamp driver instructions.
`
`48. There is ample disclosure of structure in the ‘761 patent specification that
`
`permits receiving instruction codes or code data from outside of the remote control.
`
`Any distinction perceived by Petitioner regarding whether the terminal of the data
`
`port coupled to the CPU can receive data, but not instruction codes or code data,
`
`does not exist in the specification of the ‘761 patent.
`
`D.
`
`“data coupling means for periodically coupling said computer to
`said remote control for receiving from said computer memory
`and inputting into said memory means of said remote control at
`least one of (a) said instruction codes or (b) said code data for
`creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions” (Claims 14 and
`15), and
`
`“data coupling means for periodically coupling said computer to
`said remote control for receiving from said computer memory
`and inputting into said memory means of said remote control said
`instruction codes” (Claims 16 and 17)
`
`I agree with the parties that, with respect to Claims 14 and 15 “data coupling
`
`
`49.
`
`means for periodically coupling said computer to said remote control for receiving
`
`from said computer memory and inputting into said memory means of said remote
`
`control at least one of (a) said instruction codes or (b) said code data for creating
`
`appropriate IR lamp driver instructions” is a means plus function claim term. I
`
`also agree with the parties that the function is “periodically coupling said computer
`
`to said remote control for receiving from said computer memory and inputting into
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`said memory means of said remote control at least one of (a) said instruction codes
`
`or (b) said code data for creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions.”
`
`50.
`
`I further agree with the parties that, with respect to Claims 16 and 17, “data
`
`coupling means for periodically coupling said computer to said remote control for
`
`receiving from said computer memory and inputting into said memory means of
`
`said remote control said instruction codes” is a means plus function claim term. I
`
`also agree with the parties that the function is “periodically coupling said computer
`
`to said remote control for receiving from said computer memory and inputting into
`
`said memory means of said remote control said instruction codes.”
`
`51.
`
`I further agree with the parties that the structure for both claim terms noted
`
`above includes a terminal of a receiving coupled to an input port of the CPU.
`
`52.
`
`I disagree, however, with Petitioner’s proposed construction because it
`
`requires specific aspects disclosed in the specification of the ‘761 patent that are
`
`not required to meet the claimed function, including that the structure be limited to
`
`the terminals of a serial port.
`
`53.
`
`It is my opinion that a data port, including, but not limited to the serial port
`
`described in the ‘761 patent, enables the receipt of data. Thus, the applicable
`
`structure need not be limited to a serial port.
`
`54.
`
`I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the structure corresponding to
`
`this claim term must be a serial receiving port that is directly coupled to an input
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`port of the CPU. The plain language of these claims, as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, would not require “direct” coupling, i.e., a specific type of
`
`physical connection between the receiving port and the CPU as Petitioner appears
`
`to require. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim
`
`language to be referring to the flow of the code data to the CPU.
`
`55.
`
`I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ‘761 patent does not
`
`disclose any structure for “periodically coupling said computer to said remote
`
`control.” The ‘761 patent discloses using a cable to couple the remote control to a
`
`computer as well as various data ports to attach the cable from the computer to the
`
`remote control. (See, e.g., ‘761 patent col.2 ll.55-63 (explaining that the remote
`
`control can be periodically coupled to a computer).) In my opinion, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that a cable (from the computer) may be
`
`attached and unattached, i.e., periodically coupled to the remote control via a data
`
`port. Further, I have reviewed the’810 Patent to which the ‘761 Patent claims
`
`priority, and in my opinion, the ‘810 patent also discloses periodically coupling the
`
`remote control to a computer. (See, e.g., ’810 Patent col.8 ll.46-47 (referencing
`
`“infinite upgradability” for the remote control).)
`
`56. For the same reasons noted above, I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion
`
`that the ‘761 patent lacks structure for receiving code data and instruction codes.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`57.
`
`E.
`
`“coupling means for coupling the receiving means to a computer,
`directly, through a telephone line, through a modem and a
`telephone line, or through decoding means and a television set”
`(Claim 1)
`
`
`I agree with the parties that “coupling means for coupling the receiving
`
`means to a computer, directly, through a telephone line, through a modem and a
`
`telephone line, or through decoding means and a television set” is a means plus
`
`function claim term. I also agree with the parties that the function associated with
`
`this claim term is “coupling the receiving means to a computer directly, through a
`
`telephone line, through a modem and a telephone line, or through decoding means
`
`and a television set,” and that the corresponding structure includes a cable for
`
`coupling the receiving means of the remote to (i) a computer directly, (ii) a
`
`telephone line, (iii) a modem, or (iv) through a VBI decoder to a television set.”
`
`58.
`
`I disagree, however, with Petitioner’s proposed construction because it
`
`requires specific aspects disclosed in the specification of the ‘761 patent that are
`
`not required to supply an infrared signal to a controlled device. Specifically, I
`
`disagree that the structure corresponding to this claimed function is limited to the
`
`example structures shown in Figures 20-25 of the ‘761 patent. The Petitioner
`
`simply ignores other structures that one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude
`
`are perfectly acceptable structures that can perform the claimed function. (‘761
`
`Patent, Fig. 10 & col.9 ll.44 – col.9. l.64; id. at Fig. 20 & col.19 ll.43-59.)
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`59.
`
`I also disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction that a terminal of the
`
`receiving port form part of the claimed “coupling means.” In my opinion, the
`
`express language of the claims conflicts with Petitioner’s proposal. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the “coupling means” cannot include
`
`the “receiving means” because the function of the “coupling means” is to couple
`
`the “receiving means.”
`
`F.
`
`“a data transmission system including said data coupling means
`for coupling said remote control to said computer, directly,
`through a telephone line, through a modem and a telephone line,
`or through decoding means and a television set” (Claims 15 and
`17)
`
`
`It is my opinion that the claim term, “a data transmission system including
`
`60.
`
`said data coupling means for coupling said remote control to said computer,
`
`directly, through a telephone line, through a modem and a telephone line, or
`
`through decoding means and a television set” is not a means-plus-function
`
`limitation.
`
`61. To the extent the Board determines that this claim term requires
`
`construction, it is my opinion that the Board should construe the term as one or
`
`more transmission lines coupled to “said data coupling means.” “Said data
`
`coupling means” should be construed as set forth herein above.
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`G.
`
`“code data”
`
`62.
`
`In my opinion, the Board should construe code data to mean: “instructions
`
`and timing information for generating an infrared signal.”
`
`63. The claims at issue explicitly delineate between “code data” and an infrared
`
`signal. (‘761 patent at Claims 1, 14-17.)
`
`64. The specification also supports my proposed claim construction of “code
`
`data. Specifically, the specification explains the type of information that makes up
`
`“code data”:
`
`In the method for learning or acquiring code data for infrared codes
`disclosed herein, no counting of pulses is carried out. Instead the
`method involves the following steps:
`
`(a) receiving a transmission of a train of pulses from a remote control
`transmitter;
`
`(b) recording the point-in-time of an edge of each pulse in a train of
`the pulses;
`
`(c) transforming the recorded point-in-time data into a list of
`instructions for generating a replica of the train of pulses;
`
`(d) timing the duration of a train of the pulses;
`
`(e) timing the period between trains of pulses;
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`(f) associating a function key of the universal remote control device
`10 with the time duration of the train of pulses and the list of
`instructions for generating a replica of the train of pulses;
`
`(g) determining whether or not repetitions of the transmission of train
`of pulses is present;
`
`(h) ignoring repetitions of the train of pulses;
`
`(i) noting that repetitions are present; and
`
`(j) storing for use in a universal remote control device, the information
`acquired in steps (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i).
`
`(‘761 patent at col. 10 ll. 45-68.)
`
`65.
`
`In my opinion, step (c) identifies instructions, and steps (d), (e), (f) and (i)
`
`identify timing information, each of which are reflected in my proposed
`
`construction of “code data.”
`
`66. The following passage confirms that the above instructions that comprise the
`
`code data are used to generate infrared codes, i.e., signals:
`
`The code data is stored in the RAM 54 of the remote control device 10
`and the sequence of steps the circuitry 42 goes through to take the
`code data in the RAM 54 and generate the infrared code therefrom is
`set forth in [FIG. 14].
`
`(‘761 patent at col. 11 ll. 34-38.)
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 21
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`
`
`67.
`
`In my opinion, both FIG. 14 and the corresponding text of the specification
`
`confirm that the claimed “code data” is different from an IR code or signal, and
`
`that the code data is used to generate the IR code based on instructions and timing
`
`data.
`
`VII. The Disclosures of Ciarcia and Hastreiter
`
`68.
`
`It is my opinion that neither Ciarcia nor Hastreiter meet the “code data for
`
`creating appropriate IR lamp driver instructions for causing said infrared signals,”
`
`“code data for creating appropriate IR la
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
