Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: October 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`____________
`
`Held: September 2, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C.
`MEDLEY, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 2, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: October 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`____________
`
`Held: September 2, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C.
`MEDLEY, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 2, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETER H. KANG, ESQ.
`FERENC PAZMANDI, ESQ.
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`
`KEITH J. BARKAUS, ESQ.
`Ostrolenk Faber LLP
`1180 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036
`
`JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., ESQ.
`ERIC J. MAIERS, ESQ.
`MATTHEW J. LEVINSTEIN, ESQ.
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Please be seated.
`
`Good afternoon. This is the hearing for
`
`IPR2014-01109, between Petitioner, Universal Remote Control,
`
`and Patent Owner, Universal Electronics. Per our August 4th
`
`order, each party will have 30 minutes of total time to present
`
`arguments.
`
`Petitioner, you'll proceed first to present your case with
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`respect to the challenged claims and grounds for which we
`
`11
`
`instituted trial; and then, Patent Owner, you can respond, take
`
`12
`
`your full 30 minutes. Then, Petitioner, you can reserve rebuttal
`
`13
`
`time.
`
`14
`
`So, we would like the parties to introduce themselves
`
`15
`
`since we have a different panel now. So, Petitioner, if you could
`
`16
`
`introduce yourself.
`
`17
`
`MR. KANG: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
`
`18
`
`afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Peter Kang of the Sidley
`
`19
`
`Austin law firm. We represent Petitioner, Universal Remote
`
`20
`
`Control. With me is Dr. Ferenc Pazmandi, also of my law firm,
`
`21
`
`and also Keith Barkaus, co-counsel at the Ostrolenk Faber law
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
`
`For Patent Owner?
`
` 3
`
`22
`
`firm.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. LUKAS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My
`
`name is James Lukas with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig.
`
`We represent the Patent Owner, Universal Electronics,
`
`Incorporated, and with me is Eric Maiers of Greenberg Traurig
`
`and Matt Levinstein.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thank you.
`
`So, go ahead, Petitioner.
`
`MR. KANG: Your Honors, the fundamental issues in
`
`this IPR are whether the Patent Owner should be allowed to
`
`10
`
`rewrite the claims via claim constructions which essentially
`
`11
`
`rewrite the plain meaning of the terms in the claims and add
`
`12
`
`temporal limitations and other limitations that are not required by
`
`13
`
`the plain meaning of the words in the claims or the specification.
`
`14
`
`One of the primary claim construction disputes is the
`
`15
`
`phrase "interact with," and the Patent Owner has rewritten that
`
`16
`
`claim via claim construction to mean "select a channel from," and
`
`17
`
`as we've discussed, we believe that's an improper claim
`
`18
`
`construction.
`
`19
`
`Secondarily, the Evans and Realistic prior art references
`
`20
`
`do disclose the disputed features of the '930 patent claims, even
`
`21
`
`under the Patent Owner's improper claim constructions.
`
`22
`
`So, generally -- if we can go to Exhibit 1057 at page 2,
`
`23
`
`the '930 patent at issue here discloses using multiple favorite
`
`24
`
`channel lists for remote controls, where you see on Figure 1 of
`
`25
`
`the slide, if you have got a remote control that has multiple target
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`devices, and the claims at issue here relate to having different
`
`favorite channel lists for different modes or different devices in
`
`the system.
`
`As the specification teaches, the user can specify a list
`
`of favorite channels for a number of categories, and those
`
`categories and channels on the list can be ones they want to cycle
`
`through, as the specification says, and so there may be favorite
`
`news channels to cycle through or favorite movie channels.
`
`Figure 17A shows an exemplary screen-shot in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`specification, and obviously this -- the -- well, the logos of the
`
`11
`
`networks and the channels in the screen-shot are shown in the
`
`12
`
`example. The claims at issue here are not directed to any
`
`13
`
`specifics of the graphical user interface or using particular
`
`14
`
`channel logos or any layout thereof. In fact, using commercial
`
`15
`
`broadcasting and logos on a screen like that was known in the art
`
`16
`
`prior to this patent. For example, the Pronto reference, which is
`
`17
`
`of record, discloses that. And so the claims at issue here really
`
`18
`
`deal with cycling through favorite channel lists and multiple
`
`19
`
`favorite channel lists in a multi-device system.
`
`20
`
`So, let's look specifically on page 3 of the slides. Claim
`
`21
`
`1 is one of the primary claims that the parties have been briefing
`
`22
`
`heavily and using as a representative claim. The phrase, as I said,
`
`23
`
`"interact with" appears in the third paragraph in the claim, and it
`
`24
`
`says that the user "may interact with the at least one of the
`
`25
`
`plurality of lists," the lists being the favorite channel lists.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The Patent Owner's claim construction is that "interact
`
`with" should be defined as "select a channel from," and so we
`
`believe that's an incorrect claim construction. On the face of the
`
`claim itself, if you look in the second paragraph, the second line
`
`from the bottom, there is the phrase "select at least one of a
`
`plurality of lists." So, on the face of the claim, when the Patent
`
`Owner wanted to use the word "select," they knew how to do that.
`
`So, just on the face of the claim, "interact with" should
`
`not have the same meaning as "select" or certainly not the more
`
`10
`
`limited meaning of "select a channel from," and so as shown in
`
`11
`
`the briefing, what has happened here is the Patent Owner has said
`
`12
`
`the words "interact with" mean "select," but "select" in the claim
`
`13
`
`doesn't mean select; "select" means "associate with." So, the
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner's approach to claim construction is to rewrite the
`
`15
`
`plain meaning of the words in order to specifically to avoid the
`
`16
`
`prior art.
`
`17
`
`As we said in our briefing, the phrase "interact with"
`
`18
`
`has its ordinary meaning. It is not a term of art. We gave
`
`19
`
`examples of how to interact with a list, such as scrolling,
`
`20
`
`button-pressing, channel up/down, that kind of thing, and our
`
`21
`
`position is that the specification, as taught, does not put any
`
`22
`
`specific limitation on how to interact with the list of favorite
`
`23
`
`channels.
`
`24
`
`If you look at the specification now on page 4 of
`
`25
`
`Exhibit 1057, the specification supports our claim construction,
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`Petitioner's claim construction, and the specification teaches that
`
`during the setup of favorites, a user may specify a group of
`
`channels that they always want to cycle through, such as scrolling
`
`or cycling through.
`
`And later on it says that you may want to limit the
`
`number of entries in a favorites list to balance the time consumed
`
`in stepping through the channel possibilities against the amount
`
`of material. Again, interacting with the favorite channel lists as
`
`disclosed in the specification at least includes this concept of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`stepping through or cycling and is not limited to selecting a
`
`11
`
`specific channel from, as the Patent Owner --
`
`12
`
`JUDGE CAPP: If I'm a human being, do I have to use
`
`13
`
`my hands to interact or can I interact with just a sensory modality,
`
`14
`
`like my eyes, by just reading the list?
`
`15
`
`MR. KANG: At the outer limits of what "interact with"
`
`16
`
`hypothetically perhaps -- but we believe in light of the
`
`17
`
`specification, we think there is more -- "interaction with" appears
`
`18
`
`at least to include some actual sensory modality, I suppose,
`
`19
`
`beyond merely just observing. And so we -- certainly for the
`
`20
`
`prior art, as dis -- as disclosed in the prior art, there is -- that
`
`21
`
`scrolling is at least interacting with, regardless of what the outer
`
`22
`
`bounds are, and we don't need to go that far.
`
`23
`
`So, if we look at slide 5 on page 1057, Patent Owner's
`
`24
`
`expert admits that interacting with can include scrolling. So, for
`
`25
`
`example, at deposition, we asked:
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`"QUESTION: There is nothing in there to suggest that
`
`scrolling through or viewing information in this way would be
`
`excluded from interacting with.
`
`And he said:
`
`"ANSWER: No, I don't see anything that excludes
`
`that."
`
`And further, he was asked:
`
`"QUESTION: When you press the up/down key to
`
`transmit a channel on the list or the second channel on the list, are
`
`10
`
`you interacting with the list?"
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`And the answer was:
`
`"ANSWER: Yes, you're interacting with the list."
`
`And he went on to add further requirements of it, but he
`
`14
`
`at least admitted that that was interacting. So, our view is that
`
`15
`
`interacting should not mean select a channel from, which is a
`
`16
`
`very specific definition that the Patent Owner provides.
`
`17
`
`The second related claim construction issue is the
`
`18
`
`depiction on the display. So, if we look at slide 5 -- 6, I'm sorry,
`
`19
`
`of Exhibit 1057, the claim term here is that "the channel should
`
`20
`
`be represented on the at least one of the plurality of lists of
`
`21
`
`favorite channels," so the channel represented on. The Patent
`
`22
`
`Owner's construction has changed this phrase to mean a channel
`
`23
`
`depicted on the display of the remote when the user interacts with
`
`24
`
`the displayed list of favorite channels.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, again, on the plain face of the claim, the Patent
`
`Owner has rewritten the claim. The claim specifically, plainly
`
`says the channel is represented on the list. That has been
`
`morphed by the Patent Owner to the channel is depicted on the
`
`display. So, something that is represented on the list suddenly
`
`must be displayed at a specific time, when the user interacts with
`
`the displayed list of favorite channels. So, there are two changes
`
`to what we believe is the plain meaning of the claim in the Patent
`
`Owner's construction.
`
`10
`
`As with "interact with," the claim itself uses the word
`
`11
`
`"display" as a verb, meaning to display, and so if the Patent
`
`12
`
`Owner meant "represented on" to be displayed, they knew how to
`
`13
`
`say displayed in the claim. So, again, the plain meaning of the
`
`14
`
`claim tells us that "represented on" should have a different
`
`15
`
`meaning than "displayed or depicted on," and our position is this
`
`16
`
`should have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`17
`
`If we look at slide 7, again, the Patent Owner's expert
`
`18
`
`did testify that the phrase "depicted on" in his view is the same
`
`19
`
`thing as "displayed on," and the Patent Owner has replaced the
`
`20
`
`term "represented on" with "depicted on" or "displayed on the
`
`21
`
`display at the same time that the tuned-to channel is visible on the
`
`22
`
`display," and that's not the plain meaning of "represented on."
`
`23
`
`We believe the Patent Owner chose to use "represented on" to
`
`24
`
`have a different meaning than "displayed on."
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`If we turn to slide 8, I mentioned the Patent Owner's
`
`added a temporal limitation. So, this is more clear from the
`
`briefing than the exact proposed construction from Patent Owner.
`
`Patent Owner is taking the position that the channel to be
`
`displayed has to be displayed at the same time and before tuning
`
`occurs. In other words, there has to be this display, according to
`
`them, when the user selects the channel to mean before there's
`
`any tune-in and then at the time the channel's selected, and that --
`
`that construction is based on their definition of "interact with."
`
`10
`
`And there's nothing in the claim that imposes this
`
`11
`
`temporal limitation of when exactly the channel has to be
`
`12
`
`displayed. If anything, the claim talks about the list. So, there's
`
`13
`
`a -- two logical fallacies with Patent Owner's claim construction.
`
`14
`
`If we turn to page 9 of Exhibit 1057, so the proper claim
`
`15
`
`construction requires, of course, at some point displaying the list,
`
`16
`
`but as the Board recognized in the institution decision, a list
`
`17
`
`doesn't have to be displayed all at once. Items can be written or
`
`18
`
`printed or displayed one after the other, and we believe that is a
`
`19
`
`correct definition. We've adopted that. The patent does support
`
`20
`
`this construction by disclosing, for example, at Figure 15D icons
`
`21
`
`that are displayed one at a time, icons in a list displayed one at a
`
`22
`
`time.
`
`23
`
`If we turn to page 10, so, under the proper claim
`
`24
`
`construction, we believe the Evans prior art reference does
`
`25
`
`disclose displaying the name of the key or function, even under
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`the Patent Owner's narrow construction. So, for example, at
`
`column 11, at the bottom, to the top of column 12 of Evans, it
`
`discloses pushing a key button -- pushing a button and then the
`
`key functioning appears on the display, and then, as it says, when
`
`the -- a key being depressed to cause a second function to be
`
`performed, and at that time, we have the name, the function
`
`appearing on the display, and then the next function appearing on
`
`the display.
`
`Again, under the Patent Owner's narrow temporal
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`construction where there has to be something in the list displayed
`
`11
`
`before and at the time you're selecting, Evans discloses that, and
`
`12
`
`certainly -- Evans certainly discloses interacting with the key at
`
`13
`
`the time the function is displayed.
`
`14
`
`All right. So, if we look at page 11, the Realistic
`
`15
`
`reference discloses scrolling through the favorite channel list, and
`
`16
`
`that's the primary reference here. It discloses -- you can see,
`
`17
`
`there's a favorite mode, that is the -- that is invoked, and then by
`
`18
`
`pressing the channel up/down buttons, the remote transmits the
`
`19
`
`channels from the favorite channel list instead of the normal
`
`20
`
`channel, and the select left/right allows the user to select different
`
`21
`
`devices and different modes for the favorite channel list. So, the
`
`22
`
`combination of Realistic plus Evans meets the limitations even
`
`23
`
`under Patent Owner's narrow construction.
`
`24
`
`So, for example, if we look at slide 12, Patent Owner's
`
`25
`
`expert understood that Realistic does disclose displaying the
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`channel number when interacting with a list of favorite channels.
`
`So the question was:
`
`"QUESTION: In the case when you press the up
`
`channel button the second time, the first channel was displayed
`
`on the display. Isn't that correct?"
`
`And the answer is:
`
`"ANSWER: That's my understanding of how that
`
`works."
`
`So, just like Patent Owner requires under its narrow
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`construction of a display before and then during the tuning of
`
`11
`
`elements of a list, that occurs in Realistic.
`
`12
`
`The other claim term, if we turn to page 13, that Patent
`
`13
`
`Owner has disputed is this what is displayed issue, and the Patent
`
`14
`
`Owner intended that the channels defined for display, in the
`
`15
`
`display of a handheld device, that this term requires an attribute
`
`16
`
`of the channel to be displayed. This is incorrect. The word
`
`17
`
`"attribute" doesn't appear in the claim, that's something they're
`
`18
`
`reading into the claim, and it doesn't appear in the '930
`
`19
`
`specification.
`
`20
`
`If you look at the file history, that phrase, "defined for
`
`21
`
`display on the handheld device," was added to distinguish from
`
`22
`
`prior art where the favorite channel list was displayed in another
`
`23
`
`component, not the remote control, but it certainly was not added
`
`24
`
`to limit or in some way define how the favorite channels are
`
` 12
`
`25
`
`displayed and --
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Can we go back to Evans for a second?
`
`MR. KANG: Yes.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: When Evans does a -- makes a display,
`
`is it displaying for the purpose of you reading it and then
`
`choosing or is it displaying to indicate a confirmation of what you
`
`have already chosen?
`
`MR. KANG: The -- there are two presses. So, for
`
`example, it -- it's a confirmation, because it appears that that's the
`
`first highlighted sentence. It says, "This causes the name of the
`
`10
`
`key or function to appear on the display and causes the IR code
`
`11
`
`for the function to be operated." So, it's a confirmation to the
`
`12
`
`user that the proper -- that the function is what --
`
`13
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Let me pose this to you, because I'm
`
`14
`
`not sure I understand what you're arguing. I'm not sure you're
`
`15
`
`really addressing the Patent Owner's position.
`
`16
`
`The Patent Owner says when you get to the whereby
`
`17
`
`clause, you need to put all these clauses together so that you're
`
`18
`
`interacting to cause something and you're doing that when the list
`
`19
`
`is displayed. And if you put all that together where you are
`
`20
`
`interacting to cause in connection with the "when" of the display,
`
`21
`
`necessarily, you would wind up with you need it displayed at the
`
`22
`
`point in time that you make your selection, and the interacting is
`
`23
`
`the making of the selection, the way they interpret "interacting to
`
`24
`
`cause." What's wrong with that position?
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. KANG: Two things. There is interacting to cause
`
`the -- the claim requires interacting to cause the function to occur,
`
`and certainly pulling it up and causing the function to -- that
`
`causes the function to occur. There's no dispute about that in
`
`Evans or in Realistic.
`
`The other point is both Evans and certainly Realistic
`
`discloses an edit mode where you can -- you set it up first. You
`
`set up what all your favorite channels are, and so you can cycle
`
`through those and then cause, once you have set it up, what
`
`10
`
`channel you want to pick. So, if the idea is that somehow you
`
`11
`
`need to know beforehand what it is that you next want to choose,
`
`12
`
`Realistic discloses that, because the -- you set -- these are not
`
`13
`
`unknown favorite channels. They are your favorite channels.
`
`14
`
`You have defined them.
`
`15
`
`So, before -- at the time when you are going through
`
`16
`
`edit mode, you are, in fact, scrolling through them and interacting
`
`17
`
`with them, and then during the actual operation, the channel
`
`18
`
`number comes up, and that tells you whether you've chosen the
`
`19
`
`correct favorite channel. If it's an unintended favorite channel,
`
`20
`
`you hit channel up again and you cycle through them, as anyone
`
`21
`
`would with a favorite channel list.
`
`22
`
`The -- so, again, going back to what needs to be
`
`23
`
`displayed, Patent Owner's argument about "attribute," we believe,
`
`24
`
`is not -- is reading another limitation into the claim that's not
`
`25
`
`there. The reference does disclose displaying the channels in the
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`display, and that -- to the extent there is any attribute needed, the
`
`channel itself gives you all the information you need on what
`
`should be displayed and what is used.
`
`We would note that in the '930 patent itself, Table 15,
`
`which is an attribute table, includes channel number as an
`
`attribute, and so to the extent that they're reading attribute into the
`
`claim, Realistic discloses displaying channel number, which is
`
`one of the preferred embodiments of an attribute, and so that
`
`would not be a way to distinguish Realistic.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`If we turn to slide 14, one of the -- I'm sorry, the next
`
`11
`
`slide, please -- one of the secondary arguments Patent Owner has
`
`12
`
`made is that Realistic and Evans should not be combined, and we
`
`13
`
`believe that's an incorrect view of obviousness and the law. Both
`
`14
`
`Realistic and the Evans patent come from the same company. A
`
`15
`
`person of ordinary skill with the Realistic reference, which is an
`
`16
`
`owner's manual, if they had any questions or were curious at all
`
`17
`
`about any other details of how the remote works, they would
`
`18
`
`know that the user’s manual doesn't necessarily disclose all the
`
`19
`
`internal workings, and it would be obvious to look for a patent
`
`20
`
`assigned to the same company, at the same time period, to see
`
`21
`
`how those details work. And this is well discussed in the expert
`
`22
`
`testimony of Mr. Geier, it is not refuted, and we believe it is
`
`23
`
`obvious to combine these references, at a minimum.
`
`24
`
`A tertiary argument is whether the Realistic owner’s
`
`25
`
`manual qualifies as prior art. If we can go to the next slide,
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`Exhibit 1054 shows -- actually, if we can go back. So the
`
`Realistic manual itself is Exhibit 1003. It's hard to see on the
`
`screen, but the -- it has a catalog number in the lower right-hand
`
`corner, which is catalog number 15-1903, and we submitted into
`
`evidence, in opposition -- in evidence, I'm sorry -- if we can go to
`
`the next slide -- the RadioShack catalog from 1990, Exhibit 1054,
`
`which has the same remote, and it has for sale, for about $99.99,
`
`model number 15-1903, the same model number as on the
`
`Realistic manual itself.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Further, if we turn to the next slide, page 16, we've
`
`11
`
`submitted into evidence Exhibit 1053, a Los Angeles Times article
`
`12
`
`from 1991, which is a review of Realistic universal remote model
`
`13
`
`15-1903, for sale under a hundred dollars, same price, same
`
`14
`
`model number. We believe this is more than sufficient evidence
`
`15
`
`to show the Realistic reference is prior art.
`
`16
`
`The final issue -- go to the next slide -- is secondary
`
`17
`
`considerations. Fundamentally, there has been no showing of
`
`18
`
`nexus here between the Logitech and the Nevo something
`
`19
`
`products and the '930 patent, certainly not the way it's been
`
`20
`
`construed by Patent Owner. The Logitech license included many
`
`21
`
`other patents besides '930. Logitech itself has many patents. The
`
`22
`
`Logitech license was signed to settle litigation.
`
`23
`
`The proponent witness of this argument by Patent
`
`24
`
`Owner is not an expert witness. He did no technical analysis of
`
`25
`
`the '930 patent. There was no claim charts to try to read the
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`claims on the Nevo products from Logitech, and based on the
`
`limited discovery we did take, it appears that neither of -- the
`
`Logitech products don't use all the claimed features. There is no
`
`evidence that they necessarily have multiple favorite channel
`
`lists.
`
`And so there's no testimony from the Patent Owner's
`
`expert on this graphical user interface, and as I believe we've
`
`pointed out, the Nevo product itself failed in the market and was
`
`unsuccessful. So, we fail to see how there are secondary
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`11
`
`So, for all these reasons, we believe the claims should
`
`12
`
`be found invalid, and I will reserve the remainder of my time for
`
`13
`
`rebuttal.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
`
`MR. LUKAS: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
`I'd like to get into the patent claims and what this
`
`17
`
`invention really has to do with. I think if you read the
`
`18
`
`specification, if you read the claim -- the instituted Claim 1, it's
`
`19
`
`pretty clear that Petitioner's arguments are unavailing and that the
`
`20
`
`Claim 1 is not invalid.
`
`21
`
`And I think the point we need to get at in the context of
`
`22
`
`this invention is you had -- you had prior remotes and you had
`
`23
`
`prior universal remotes, but a big issue was, well, how -- what
`
`24
`
`if -- how do I get to the channels I watch a lot, and how does
`
`25
`
`my -- what if I'm down in the basement and I want to get to the
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`channels that I watch in the basement a lot? What if my wife
`
`watches certain channels a lot and I watch other channels?
`
`Instead of cycling through the cable box and the 500 or
`
`700 channels that the cable box has, what the invention created
`
`here was the ability to have a user interact with a graphical user
`
`interface and select, for instance, a TV mode, and then, by
`
`selecting that TV mode, associating one or more favorite lists for
`
`that TV mode, such that the favorite list could be displayed on a
`
`graphical user interface, and that person could then interact with
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`specific channels that were represented on that interface.
`
`11
`
`If you read the claims -- and we are going to get there --
`
`12
`
`you can see that's what this Claim 1 of the -- of the '930 patent
`
`13
`
`discusses and recites. So, here's an example, just a quick
`
`14
`
`summary of the '930 patent. It provides mode-specific favorite
`
`15
`
`lists displayed as favorite pages on a display of a handheld
`
`16
`
`device. This is a figure from -- this is Figure 17A from the
`
`17
`
`specification showing a page of a favorites list and showing
`
`18
`
`various channels represented on that display. It allows a user to
`
`19
`
`specify a mode and to select for display one or more favorite
`
`20
`
`channel lists associated with the chosen mode. And as I said,
`
`21
`
`once again, the user can specify an appliance, a user, a room
`
`22
`
`mode, and then select for display associated favorite lists.
`
`23
`
`This is -- this patent has already been before the Board.
`
`24
`
`The Board allowed claims 1 through 4, and now we're going to
`
`25
`
`get into just a general overview of Claim 1 and the '930 patent.
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I just remind you to please
`
`refer to your slide deck so when we go back in the transcript we
`
`will have context? Thank you.
`
`MR. LUKAS: Yes.
`
`So, now I can show specific examples from the
`
`specification, and this is Figure 14, slide 7, and this is showing
`
`the display and the ability of the user to select the TV mode. As
`
`you can see right there in the middle, above the word "Sony TV,"
`
`a representation of a TV.
`
`10
`
`Then in slide 8, once you've done that, you get to a TV
`
`11
`
`control page, and then, as you can see up at the top, there's a
`
`12
`
`favorite list or button key that the specification talks about. And
`
`13
`
`so what happens is now in the claim, the user has selected a TV
`
`14
`
`mode, and then by doing that, the remote control has determined
`
`15
`
`what favorite lists are associated with that mode that you can then
`
`16
`
`display when you select those favorite lists.
`
`17
`
`You can see down on slide 8, you are able to -- on the
`
`18
`
`device control mode, you are able to scroll through pages, at 192,
`
`19
`
`of the TV device control page.
`
`20
`
`Here's a -- probably a -- the best example of what I've
`
`21
`
`just been summarizing. Here's the -- here's a remote control
`
`22
`
`device with a graphical user interface, and the idea that these
`
`23
`
`claims don't discuss -- don't recite a graphical interface is plain
`
`24
`
`wrong. As you'll see when we get into the claims, the words
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`"display" and "interface" are said over and over again, and it's --
`
`you know, it appears all over the specification.
`
`But right -- but just to show you what we -- what we've
`
`talked about from the spec, at slide 9, you select TV. You get the
`
`TV control page once you've done that. It's now associated what
`
`favorite lists were connected to that -- to that TV control mode,
`
`and then you can select the favorites. And then right in the last
`
`display, you have a display of a TV list of favorite channels, one
`
`page of that favorite channel list.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE CAPP: In other words, there's more on the list
`
`11
`
`than you can display, at least in some embodiments.
`
`12
`
`MR. LUKAS: That is true, yes. You could have
`
`13
`
`multiple pages. For instance, say you wanted -- you had more
`
`14
`
`than, I think, ten channels, you had 30, you could have three
`
`15
`
`pages of ten channels displayed, though.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Let me ask you this: Let's
`
`17
`
`hypothetically take a look at an embodiment that has, like you
`
`18
`
`said, 30 channels.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. LUKAS: Sure.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: And instead of putting icons up there,
`
`21
`
`they're numbered, just textually numbered, and the manual
`
`22
`
`selection is to go into a hard keypad and type in the number of the
`
`23
`
`channel. If I had displayed 1 through 10 but I happen to know the
`
`24
`
`channel I want to look at is channel 22, and I hit 2-2 on the key
`
`25
`
`pad, does that fit within the scope of your claims or not?
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. LUKAS: I do not believe that it does. I think you
`
`have to go into the display and interact with that display. Now,
`
`you could -- you could -- you can scroll through -- I think I -- I
`
`just want to make sure. You can scroll through different pages
`
`and interact with a channel on that -- on that -- but it has to
`
`actually be on a -- you have to be able to interact when the
`
`display is displayed on the user interface.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: So, once the channel you want to watch
`
`is no longer displayed because you've scroll down, that channel is
`
`10
`
`no longer immediately accessible to select. Is that your
`
`11
`
`interpretation of the claim?
`
`12
`
`MR. LUKAS: If you've no longer -- if you've scrolled,
`
`13
`
`for instance, to the second page and you -- and you now -- you
`
`14
`
`say you now go to a hard pad and you just press one of the
`
`15
`
`channels that was on the original one, I don't think that's using the
`
`16
`
`favorite channel list as Claim 1 describes. I think that would just
`
`17
`
`be entering a channel, as has been known in the prior art, just
`
`18
`
`entering a channel on a hard key. Am I interpreting that right?
`
`19
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, let me re-ask the question this
`
`20
`
`way.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`MR. LUKAS: Okay.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: On your slide 9, the right-hand side, the
`
`23
`
`first upper left-hand station is CNN, correct?
`
`24
`
`MR. LUKAS: Correct. That's correct.
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01109
`Patent 7,831,930 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE CAPP: All right. So, if you put a 1 by CNN
`
`indicating that that's choice number one, and then you scroll to
`
`page 2, so we no longer can see the CNN and the 1, if I
`
`understand you correctly, I can no longer select CNN by hitting
`
`the 1 key on my keypad, because it's no longer being displayed
`
`contemporaneously with me hitting the keypad.
`
`MR. LUKAS: I think you're -- I think that is not
`
`covered by Claim 1. I think that would not be interacting with
`
`the fa
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
