`
`
`Applicant:
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Patent No.:
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`Dresti et al.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`11/06/02
`
`
`7,831,930
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`System and Method for )
`Displaying a User
`)
`Interface for a Remote
`)
`Control Application
`)
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`
`
`Trial Paralegal: Kathy
`
`
`
`Underwood
`
`Attny Doc.: 059489.143600
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that his correspondence is being electronically filed with the USPTO on this
`25th day of March, 2015.
`
`
`
`By: /Eric J. Maiers/
`Eric J. Maiers
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`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 settop 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 settop 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 spectroscophy.
`
`1
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`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
`
`settop 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
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`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 Universal Electronics Inc. (“UEI” or “Patent Owner”) 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 settop 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 settop boxes and a two-way
`
`remote control with an LCD display.
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`13.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by UEI to provide an analysis of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,831,930 (“the ’930 Patent”) and the asserted prior art pursuant to the
`
`Board’s decision instituting an inter partes review of Claim 1 of the ’930 Patent,
`
`and specifically to rebut the opinions of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. James T. Geier. 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 November 20, 2001, which I
`
`understand from counsel is the priority date for the ’930 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $350 per hour for my work. My fee is
`
`not contingent in any way on the outcome of this inter partes review or any
`
`technical position I explain in this declaration. I have no financial interest in UEI
`
`or Universal Remote Control, Inc. (“URC” or “Petitioner”), and I have never been
`
`employed by Petitioner in any capacity.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`15.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the materials listed in Appendix A
`
`and relied upon my personal knowledge and experience in the relevant art.
`
`III. Legal Principles
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed by counsel and I understand that the purpose of the
`
`claim construction process is to determine the meaning of the terms in the claims
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`of the ’930 Patent to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time that the
`
`patent application was filed.
`
`17. Counsel has informed me that in inter partes review proceedings, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b) requires that the claim terms of an unexpired patent are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the surrounding claim language
`
`and the specification based on the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims, the specification, and the
`
`prosecution history are to be considered in order to construe the claims. These
`
`three sources are commonly referred to as “intrinsic evidence,” while everything
`
`else is referred to as “extrinsic evidence.”
`
`19. At the outset, 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.
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I will not offer opinions of the law, as I am not an attorney. However,
`
`counsel has informed me of several principles concerning patent validity and
`
`invalidity, upon which I have relied to arrive at my conclusions.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`unsolved needs, failure of others, copy by others, licensing, and skepticism of
`
`experts.
`
`25.
`
`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 ’930 Patent
`
`26. As noted above, I understand from counsel that the priority date of the ’930
`
`Patent is November 20, 2001.
`
`27.
`
`I agree with Mr. Geier that for purposes of the ’930 Patent, the relevant field
`
`concerns remote controls and consumer electronics. However, I believe that the
`
`relevant field would also concern home entertainment systems rather than home
`
`automation systems.
`
`28. As noted above, I have nearly four decades worth of experience in that field.
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`29.
`
`I agree in part with Mr. Geier’s understanding of the level of skill that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had around November 2001, as set
`
`forth in paragraph 17 of his declaration regarding the ’930 Patent.
`
`30. Specifically, I believe that someone with a bachelor degree in electrical
`
`engineering, telecommunications, or computer science (or an equivalent degree);
`
`with two years of experience in the communications industry; with an awareness of
`
`programmable universal remote controls; and with two years of experience with
`
`techniques for designing user interfaces would have been more than qualified as
`
`one having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`31. Rather, I believe that one having ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`either (a) a bachelor degree in electrical engineering, telecommunications, or
`
`computer science (or an equivalent degree) and an awareness of programmable
`
`universal remote controls, or (b) three or more years of technical experience
`
`working with programmable universal remote controls.
`
`32. Under any one of these proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, I would
`
`have qualified as one having ordinary skill in the art at latest by 1980.
`
`33.
`
`I agree with Mr. Geier that universal remote controls started to emerge
`
`around the late 1980s. (Geier Decl. ¶ 20.) An increasing number of home
`
`appliances including audio/visual devices were being introduced back then that
`
`could be controlled via a remote. The universal remote controls of the late 1980s
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`were an attempt to simplify operation of these appliances by allowing users to
`
`control more than one appliance with a single remote.
`
`34. With the expansion of cable TV and satellite-delivered programming, the
`
`number of television channels available in the 1980s and 1990s began expanding
`
`rapidly. Cable systems moved from 12 channels to 36 channels, to 66 channels, to
`
`80 channels and beyond. As the number of channels grew, so did the difficulty in
`
`“clicking” through each channel to find the desired program or station. With
`
`growing numbers of channels, it was increasingly difficult to remember which
`
`station or program was associated with which channel. The idea of a favorite
`
`channel list allowed the creation of a subset of channels that could be cycled
`
`through, such that a user could advance through a subset of channels instead of all
`
`available channels.
`
`35. This technology was originally encompassed in cable TV converters and
`
`satellite receivers and later was included in “Cable Ready” TV sets. As technology
`
`progressed, favorite channel lists began to be encompassed in the remote control
`
`directly, as shown by Realistic, for example. The ability to display a channel
`
`number on the remote became possible after LCD displays were incorporated on
`
`battery-powered devices.
`
`36. Favorite channel lists were a shortcut method of stepping through a list of
`
`commonly accessed channels. In essence, a user could use a remote to step
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`through a subset of all available channels. This shortcut avoided the need to cycle
`
`through the complete list of channels to find specific content or a specific program.
`
`The favorite channel shortcut also avoided the need to look up a channel on a guide
`
`for direct channel entry.
`
`37. Even with this shortcut method, users of remotes up until the ’930 Patent
`
`were forced to step through favorite channel lists one channel at a time.
`
`38. Mr. Geier notes that a shortcut method of direct channel entry was also
`
`known at this time. The key codes for a given channel could be recorded as a
`
`“Macro.” “Macro” keys allow multiple key presses to be recorded and replaced
`
`with a single key press which when pressed, sequentially transmits the codes
`
`(channel numbers) for the recorded sequence. (Geier Decl.¶ 21.) I agree that this
`
`capability was well understood at the time.
`
`39. Mr. Geier states in paragraph 22 of his Declaration that the introduction of
`
`displays on remote controls in the 1990s means that programs to design user
`
`interfaces were also available at this time. I disagree with Mr. Geier’s logic and
`
`find the point superfluous. As one of ordinary skill in the art, I know that the
`
`software for any user interface of remote controls of this era was purposefully-
`
`written and hand optimized because of the limited amount of program memory.
`
`I’m not aware of any programs from this timeframe for the design of user
`
`interfaces on remote controls.
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`V. The ’930 Patent
`
`40.
`
`In general, the ’930 Patent discloses a universal remote with a user interface
`
`that displays a wide variety of information to a user. The user interface permits a
`
`user to define favorite channel lists associated with one or more home appliances.
`
`A favorites setup wizard assists a user to define these favorite channel lists, which
`
`may cover a variety of genres and types of media. Each favorite channel list may
`
`be specific to one particular home appliance or may span multiple home
`
`appliances.
`
`41. More specifically, the ’930 Patent introduced a remote that for the first time
`
`permitted users to view a list of favorite channels before selecting a channel from
`
`the remote’s display. In particular, the remote allowed users to select an icon
`
`representing a specific channel to which a TV or other home appliance could be
`
`tuned directly, without requiring the user to step through the channels on the
`
`favorite channel list. With this improvement, users of remotes could review and
`
`make a channel selection from a favorite channel list displayed on the remote
`
`without having to tune to each channel in a favorite channel list before reaching the
`
`desired channel. This functionality is disclosed in the specification, for example,
`
`beginning at column 19, line 28, which states how the user is given “direct access
`
`to his favorite programming (e.g., example, to cause the transmissions of
`
`commands to cause a device to tune to a favorite channel).”
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`42. Another aspect of the ’930 Patent involves defining how these lists of
`
`favorite channels can be displayed on the remote. While the claims refer to these
`
`lists as “lists of favorite channels” or “lists” for short, the detailed description of
`
`the ’930 Patent characterizes these lists as “Favorites Page(s)” in some places, such
`
`as in column 19, for example.
`
`43. Columns 19 and 20, FIGS. 17g & 17h, and Table 15 of the ’930 Patent all
`
`disclose examples of ways in which lists of favorite channels may be defined for
`
`display in a display of the remote. For example, column 20 explains with
`
`reference to FIGS. 17g and 17h that the remote permits a user to define how
`
`certain attributes of a favorite channel list will be displayed on the remote. A user
`
`can identify a label and an image to represent a particular channel when the
`
`favorite channel list is displayed on the remote.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`44.
`
`I have reviewed the Board’s Decision to Institute as well as the Board’s
`
`Decision on the Request for Rehearing. (Paper No. 9, Decision to Institute
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015); (Paper No. 12, Decision on Request for Rehearing
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015).) I do not believe that those decisions apply proper
`
`constructions of the claim terms “interact with” and “a channel represented on the
`
`at least one of the plurality of lists of favorite channels.”
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`45. Claim 1 requires that a user “interacts with” a favorite channel list when that
`
`favorite channel list is displayed on the hand held device “to cause the hand held
`
`device to transmit one or more command codes to the at least one of the plurality
`
`of home appliances associated with the specified mode for the purpose of tuning
`
`the at least one of the plurality of home appliances to a channel represented on the
`
`at least one of the plurality of lists of favorite channels.”
`
`46. At the very least, I believe that a user would need to select a channel from
`
`the displayed favorite channel list to cause the hand held device to send one or
`
`more command codes that tune one or more home appliances to a channel
`
`represented on the favorite channel list.
`
`47. My understanding of what it means to “interact with” a displayed favorite
`
`channel list to cause the effect recited in claim 1 is also based on the example list
`
`of favorite channels shown in FIG. 17a of the ’930 Patent. Taking any action less
`
`than selecting a channel from the favorite channel list in FIG. 17a would not cause
`
`the remote to tune an appliance to a channel represented on that list. For example,
`
`simply scrolling through or viewing the favorite channel list without selecting a
`
`channel would not cause the effect recited in claim 1.
`
`48.
`
`I believe that the claim construction proposed above also follows the
`
`examples provided in the specification of the ’930 Patent. For example, the
`
`specification states, “The presentation engine 1108 manages the user interface that
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`users interact with to command the operation of the remote control application, for
`
`example, to cause the transmission of commands to devices.” (’930 Patent at 7:61-
`
`64 (emphasis added).) In a second passage, the specification states, “By
`
`interacting with the wheel 110, the user may select a primary device 112 to initiate
`
`setup, or select another icon 114 to become the primary device” ’930 Patent at
`
`13:54-57 (emphasis added). In a third passage, the specification states, “The
`
`restore point may be reset if the user chooses to save the new configuration and
`
`update the restore point, for example by interacting with a check box in a save
`
`dialog.” (’930 Patent at 33:1-3 (emphasis added).) These passages demonstrate
`
`that to “interact with” involves the selection by the user of a specific displayed
`
`item.
`
`49. Claim 1 also indicates that based on the user’s interaction with the displayed
`
`favorite channel list, the hand held device (i.e., the remote) tunes at least one home
`
`appliance “to a channel represented on the at least one of the plurality of lists of
`
`favorite channels.”
`
`50. Counsel has informed me that when an element of a patent claim is preceded
`
`by the word “the,” that particular instance of the element refers back to the same
`
`element that was recited earlier in the claim (or a claim from which the subject
`
`claim depends).
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`51. Therefore, the reference to “the at least one of the plurality of lists of
`
`favorite channels” in the last two lines of claim 1 appears to refer back to prior
`
`instances of “at least one of the plurality of lists” at column 38, lines 38-40.
`
`Because claim 1 states that the “at least one of the plurality of lists” is displayed
`
`when the user interacts with it, I believe that the channel to which the appliance is
`
`tuned is depicted on the favorite channel list that is displayed when the user
`
`interacts with the list.
`
`52. When one says that an object is “represented on” a favorite channel list that
`
`is displayed on the remote’s display, I believe that one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would interpret that phrase to mean that the object is depicted on or displayed
`
`on the remote’s display. It is common in the field of consumer electronics devices
`
`to refer to an object as being “represented on” a display. I believe that the ’930
`
`Patent’s extensive discussion in the context of the remote’s display and graphical
`
`user interfaces (GUIs) makes this interpretation all the more likely.
`
`53. The exemplary favorite channel list shown in FIG. 17a also supports this
`
`interpretation. For example, I’m not aware of any way a user could interact with
`
`the favorite channel list displayed in FIG. 17a to cause the remote to tune a TV to a
`
`channel from page 3 without first displaying page 3 and a representation of the
`
`channel to the user.
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`VII. Claim 1 of the ’930 Patent Is Not Rendered Obvious by the
`Combination of Realistic and Evans
`A. Realistic
`
`54. Realistic describes a remote of the type that required users to step through
`
`each channel of a favorite channel list one by one, as explained above. A user of
`
`the Realistic remote would have had no way of “jumping” between channels of the
`
`favorite channel list without stepping through each one. In comparison to the ’930
`
`Patent, Realistic does not permit a user to select a channel from a favorite channel
`
`list while the favorite channel list is displayed on the remote’s display.
`
`i.
`
`Allowing a Plurality of Lists of Favorite Channels to Be
`Defined for Display in a Display of the Hand Held Device
`55. Claim 1 recites a remote that “allow[s] a plurality of lists of favorite
`
`channels to be defined for display in a display of the hand held device.” As
`
`explained above, Columns 19 and 20, FIGS. 17g & 17h, and Table 15 of the’930
`
`Patent disclose exemplary ways in which lists of favorite channels may be defined
`
`for display in a display of the remote. Those examples illustrate how a user is
`
`permitted to define one or more attributes that govern how each favorite channel
`
`list appears in the remote’s display.
`
`56.
`
`If the patent applicant had intended merely for the remote to allow a user to
`
`define favorite channel lists that could be displayed, there would have been no
`
`need to specify that the favorite channel lists could be “defined for display in a
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`display of the hand held device” because claim 1 later specifies that the favorite
`
`channel lists are displayed in the remote’s display. The patent applicant therefore
`
`could have simply said, “allowing a plurality of lists of favorite channels to be
`
`defined.”
`
`57. The specification of the ’930 Patent states in column 20 that “[t]he final
`
`steps of the favorite setup wizard, illustrated in FIGS. 17g and 17h, allow a name
`
`1720 and image 1730 to be assigned to the favorites entry.”
`
`’930 Patent at 20:19-22 & FIGs. 17g & 17h.
`
`58. Based on this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that the phrase “allowing a plurality of lists of favorite channels to be defined for
`
`display in a display of the hand held device” as used in claim 1 involves providing
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`the user with an ability to define at least one attribute concerning how the favorite
`
`channel list is displayed in the remote’s display.
`
`59. Realistic does not describe a remote that permits “a plurality of lists of
`
`favorite channels to be defined for display in a display of the hand held device.”
`
`Realistic does not say anything about how a user can control any aspect about the
`
`appearance of any channel from any favorite channel list in any mode.
`
`60. The Realistic remote has a display that is limited to a single line of text of
`
`about eight or nine characters.
`
`61. The Petition alleges that favorite channel lists can be defined according to
`
`Realistic, and the Petition also alleges that favorite channel lists can be displayed
`
`according to Realistic. (Paper No. 1, Pet. at 24 – 25.) Even if those statements
`
`were true, the Petition fails to specify how Realistic allows “lists of favorite
`
`channels to be defined for display in a display of the hand held device.”
`
`62. Paragraphs 17 – 23 and 37 of Mr. Geier’s declaration do not prove anything
`
`with respect to Realistic’s disclosure of this claim limitation because those
`
`paragraphs similarly analyze the relevant claim limitation as two isolated
`
`fragments.
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`
`ii.
`
`Whereby the User May Interact with the At Least One of the
`Plurality of Lists When Displayed in the Display of the Hand
`Held Device to Cause the Hand Held Device to Transmit One
`or More Command Codes to the at Least One of the Plurality
`of Home Appliances Associated with the Specified Mode for
`the Purpose of Tuning the at Least One of the Plurality of
`Home appliances to a Channel Represented on the at Least
`One of the Plurality of Lists of Favorite Channels
`63. The whereby clause of claim 1 limits claim 1 to remotes that allow users to
`
`select a channel from a favorite channel list while that favorite channel list is
`
`displayed on the remote such that the user’s selection then causes the remote to
`
`tune a TV or other home appliance directly to the channel the user selected from
`
`the displayed favorite channel list without requiring the user to step through all of
`
`the channels on the favorite channel list.
`
`64. The most obvious reason why Realistic does not disclose the limitations of
`
`the whereby clause of claim 1 is because Realistic does not disclose displaying a
`
`favorite channel list when any of the favorite channel lists are being used. (Ex.
`
`1003, Realistic at 38 – 39.) As the Petition recognizes, Realistic only “discloses
`
`that pressing the CHANNEL keys transmits the channels from the favorite channel
`
`list.” (Paper No. 1, Pet. at 27 (citing Realistic at 39).)
`
`65. The Board appears to recognize Realistic’s failure to teach this limitation.
`
`The Board said in its Decision to Institute, “Although a channel number is not
`
`shown in Realistic in the illustrated step 2 of using the favorite-channel feature
`
`(reproduced supra), when the remote transmits the command code (channel
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`number) to the device, one would not necessarily draw the inference that the
`
`channel number is not displayed when the command code is transmitted.” (Paper
`
`No. 9, Decision to Institute at 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015).)
`
`66. Because Realistic does not disclose the ability to display a favorite channel
`
`list when the favorite channel lists are being used, Realistic does not disclose a
`
`remote that permits a user to “interact with the at least one of the plurality of lists
`
`when displayed in the display of the hand held device to cause the hand held
`
`device to transmit one or more command codes to the at least one of the plurality
`
`of home appliances associated with the specified mode for the purpose of tuning
`
`the at least one of the plurality of home appliances to a channel represented on the
`
`at least one of the plurality of lists of favorite channels.”
`
`B. Evans
`
`67. Evans also describes a remote of the type that required users to step through
`
`channels one by one, as explained above. For example, the specification of Evans
`
`states that the remote has “channel keys 20A and 20B which may be used to step
`
`either down or up respectively to select a desired channel, station, or the like for a
`
`particular device being controlled . . . .” (Ex. 1004, Evans at 4:11-14.)
`
`20
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2029, Page 21
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`
`i.
`
`Whereby the User May Interact with the At Least One of the
`Plurality of Lists When Displayed in the Display of the Hand
`Held Device to Cause the Hand Held Device to Transmit One
`or More Command Codes to the at Least One of the Plurality
`of Home Appliances Associated with the Specified Mode for
`the Purpose of Tuning the at Least One of the Plurality of
`Home appliances to a Channel Represented on the at Least
`One of the Plurality of
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
