Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 35
`Entered: October 1, 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 IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 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 2:09 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 35
`Entered: October 1, 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 IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 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 2:09 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 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 IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, this is the final hearing and the
`
`hearing for IPR2014-01146, between Petitioner, Universal
`
`Remote Control, and Patent Owner, Universal Electronics. Per
`
`our August 4th order, each party will have 30 minutes, and you
`
`know the drill, so we'll go ahead and get started.
`
`Mr. Kang?
`
`MR. KANG: Your Honor, do you want appearances for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the record or --
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I'm sorry?
`
`MR. KANG: Do you want appearances for the record?
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: No, that's okay.
`
`MR. KANG: Thank you.
`
`If we can go to slide 2 of Exhibit 1057, please. So,
`
`16
`
`Your Honors, in this IPR, the fundamental issue here is whether
`
`17
`
`the claim should be construed properly, as we believe, or so
`
`18
`
`narrowly by -- as the Patent Owner suggests, which is even more
`
`19
`
`narrow than the Board's recognition of a possibly narrow
`
`20
`
`construction such that the claim deviates, again, from the intrinsic
`
`21
`
`record.
`
`22
`
`The term -- central term at issue is "configuration of the
`
`23
`
`entertainment device," and we believe that regardless of the claim
`
`24
`
`construction, the prior art reference Dubil does disclose the
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`claimed invention by allowing a user to invoke an activity set
`
`which then configures both a selected input and a selected output.
`
`So, generally speaking, on slide 2, the '207 patent is
`
`directed to configuring activities for home entertainment systems,
`
`and so you have got a remote control that interacts with different
`
`elements of a system, and as the patent discloses at column 1, the
`
`user can configure a system that has multi-inputs and/or multi-
`
`outputs, and, again, so the system is very flexible in that sense
`
`and covers either multi-inputs or multi-outputs.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So, if we look at the claim on Slide 3 of Exhibit 1057,
`
`11
`
`the phrase "configuration of the entertainment device" on the face
`
`12
`
`of the claim is, we believe, defined in the succeeding terms to
`
`13
`
`require, one, comprising one -- at least one of the plurality of the
`
`14
`
`devices being used as an audiovisual input source and at least one
`
`15
`
`of the plurality of devices being used as an audiovisual output
`
`16
`
`destination.
`
`17
`
`And so we believe on the plain meaning of the phrase
`
`18
`
`"configuration of the entertainment device," a configuration
`
`19
`
`comprises selecting one input -- at least one input and at least one
`
`20
`
`output.
`
`21
`
`If we look at page 4, Exhibit 1057, the Patent Owner's
`
`22
`
`construction is even narrower than the Board's alternative narrow
`
`23
`
`construction that was in the institution decision. The Patent
`
`24
`
`Owner has argued, although the phrase in their proposed
`
`25
`
`construction is "affirmatively performing switching," we now
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`know from the briefing that Patent Owner takes the position that
`
`that construction of their construction requires affirmatively or
`
`actively switching inputs and affirmatively or actively switching
`
`outputs, and we believe that that's even narrower than the Board's
`
`proposed narrow construction.
`
`The Board's actual construction adopted at the decision
`
`to institute is on the slide and does not necessarily require
`
`engaging in any switching activity. As Petitioner, we have
`
`adopted that position. We believe that's correct.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE CAPP: You understand that's not a final
`
`11
`
`construction for this case.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MR. KANG: Of course, I understand.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: That's what we came up with in the
`
`14
`
`absence of either one of you briefing it at the time of the decision
`
`15
`
`to institute.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. KANG: I understand.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: So, why were we right to come up with
`
`18
`
`that construction at the decision to institute stage?
`
`19
`
`20
`
`MR. KANG: If we turn to slide 5, I will show you.
`
`So, the specification itself disclosed as separately
`
`21
`
`powering on source devices and destination devices, and there's
`
`22
`
`nothing -- for example, as we show here on page 5, Figure 6 is
`
`23
`
`the flow chart showing the process for this setup, and there's no
`
`24
`
`required switching or selecting both the input and the output in
`
`25
`
`the claim or in the disclosed embodiment.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, for example, when a desired input is required,
`
`there's a determination made whether it's on or not, and if it's not,
`
`then a request is sent to turn it on. Similarly, on the output, if the
`
`destination is determined to be powered off, then a request is
`
`made to turn it on. The specification does not disclose or require
`
`actively switching between multiple outputs and multiple inputs.
`
`The flow chart definitely shows, through the alternative
`
`paths where it determines whether there are multiple inputs and
`
`outputs, and one of the options is no. And so unlike Patent
`
`10
`
`Owner's construction that requires active switching both at the
`
`11
`
`input side and the output side, we believe the specification
`
`12
`
`teaches alternative embodiments. It can cover multiple inputs
`
`13
`
`and outputs, but doesn't require it, because it specifically
`
`14
`
`discloses embodiments where there could be a single source or a
`
`15
`
`single destination.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Do you have a copy of the patent
`
`17
`
`handy?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`MR. KANG: Yes, sir.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: And I'm referring to Exhibit 1001,
`
`20
`
`column 9. There's a paragraph that begins at line 13 -- and it's a
`
`21
`
`fairly long paragraph, I don't care to read the entirety of it into the
`
`22
`
`record -- but let me, just for purposes of this question, read the
`
`23
`
`following portion, from about lines 23 down to line 29, and I
`
` 6
`
`24
`
`quote:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`"Further, while the preferred embodiment described
`
`above comprises a controlling device capable of bidirectional
`
`communication with an AV receiver or other central switching
`
`device, it will be appreciated that many of the steps of the
`
`inventive methods may also be practiced in a system comprising
`
`a controlling device which is in unidirectional (inward)
`
`communication with the central switching device."
`
`I want to hear your take on why we shouldn't take that
`
`language as context for the configuration language in Claim 1,
`
`10
`
`such that the specification indicates that a configuration requires
`
`11
`
`the capability of the AV receiver having a capability to function
`
`12
`
`as a central switching device.
`
`13
`
`MR. KANG: The specification at -- at the bottom of
`
`14
`
`column 4, to the top of column 5, which is a section that also
`
`15
`
`refers to switching, explains what it -- what kind of switching and
`
`16
`
`routing the specification is talking about. This system, of course,
`
`17
`
`is not a telecommunications router. There is not active switching
`
`18
`
`of signals on the fly. What we're talking about is switching to get
`
`19
`
`to the right input, to the right output, when you're watching a
`
`20
`
`movie, for example.
`
`21
`
`And so the specification teaches that -- at the bottom of
`
`22
`
`column 4 that there will be -- the inputs and outputs can be analog
`
`23
`
`or digital and there have to be A to B, A to C converters, the
`
`24
`
`proper HDMI converter, all sorts of codecs, that allow, as it says
`
`25
`
`at the top of column 5, what it calls the proper input/output
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`switching and routing functionality, and that's to ensure the
`
`proper coded input is decoded the right way at the proper output.
`
`And so the section that Your Honor read from column
`
`9, where it's talking about switching, in more detail at columns 4
`
`and 5 explains the kinds of switching that they're talking about.
`
`Again, it's not active signal switching, as we would see, like, in a
`
`router or telecommunications equipment. Here we're talking
`
`about the kinds of switching and routing required to make sure
`
`that the signals are correctly encoding or decoding for the proper
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`input and output.
`
`11
`
`So, the -- if we look at our Exhibit 1057, slide 6, Patent
`
`12
`
`Owner's expert conceded that nothing in the patent contradicts
`
`13
`
`what we believe is the proper construction, and so, for example,
`
`14
`
`he was asked:
`
`15
`
`"QUESTION: Is it fair to say that you did not identify
`
`16
`
`any portion of the patent that expressly excludes that the
`
`17
`
`configuration of the entertainment device may be accomplished
`
`18
`
`solely by passively powering on and off the desired and undesired
`
`19
`
`devices?"
`
`20
`
`21
`
`He says:
`
`"ANSWER: I agree, and I didn't find anything that
`
`22
`
`expressly excludes that."
`
`23
`
`So, we believe that the Patent Owner's own expert
`
`24
`
`conceded the proper construction, and in the briefing, Patent
`
`25
`
`Owner did not identify portions of the patent that would
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`contradict either the Board's decision at institution as to
`
`construction or Petitioner's.
`
`There is a typo, and I apologize for this, on page 6 of
`
`Exhibit 1057, the last bullet point. It should properly say that
`
`"Mr. Cook admits that none of the terms active, affirmative or
`
`switching appear anywhere in the claims, the disputed claims in
`
`the '207 patent." It is not intended to cover the entirety of the
`
`patent.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Is Mr. Cook is 30(b) -- what we would
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`call a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representative of
`
`11
`
`the of the Patent Owner or is he just a hired gun expert witness?
`
`12
`
`MR. KANG: He is a retained expert by the Patent
`
`13
`
`Owner.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Is it your position that Mr. Cook's
`
`15
`
`testimony is binding on the Patent Owner?
`
`16
`
`MR. KANG: He is an agent of the Patent Owner in this
`
`17
`
`sense, and so it is binding as a party admission. I believe that
`
`18
`
`would be the rule under the Federal Rules of Evidence. An
`
`19
`
`expert's admission will be binding on the party as an agent
`
`20
`
`representing them for this purpose. Certainly they rely on
`
`21
`
`Mr. Cook's testimony to rebut our position, and to the extent he's
`
`22
`
`made this admission, that certainly undercuts his testimony in
`
`23
`
`other parts.
`
`24
`
`So, under the proper claim construction, we believe the
`
`25
`
`reference discloses the configuration of the entertainment device,
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`but if we look at slide 7, we believe even under the Patent
`
`Owner's claim construction, Dubil does disclose configuration of
`
`the entertainment device.
`
`As we see here in Figure 4 from Dubil, the activity sets
`
`are on the left-hand side of the column, and a user configures, in
`
`Dubil, a -- invokes a particular activity, which, for example,
`
`defines a particular source, cable, and a particular audio output,
`
`TV, and the user can alternatively invoke a different activity set
`
`to watch TV movies, and that invokes a different input. It
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`switches to satellite as the input, and it switches to a different
`
`11
`
`output -- audio output, surround sound.
`
`12
`
`And we see from Figure 1 of Dubil that the VCR is --
`
`13
`
`sits at the center of the system, and it has the inputs from the
`
`14
`
`cable and satellite, as shown in Figure 4, available to it, and it has
`
`15
`
`outputs available to it to the audio system or the television. And
`
`16
`
`so the VCR is the linking element between these that would do,
`
`17
`
`as the Patent Owner requires, active switching both at the input
`
`18
`
`and at the output side.
`
`19
`
`So, if we look at the next slide, 8, of Exhibit 1057,
`
`20
`
`Mr. Cook did concede in deposition that the VCR in Dubil can be
`
`21
`
`used to select an input device. That's well known.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE CAPP: I want to go back and look at Slide 7
`
`23
`
`for a minute. That went a little quick for me.
`
`24
`
`Is the switching -- I'm watching TV and I want to
`
`25
`
`choose between watching cable or watching satellite.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`MR. KANG: Yes.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Why can't I send a signal to the
`
`television to switch from a cable input to a satellite input? Why,
`
`necessarily, do I have to go to the VCR to select an input from
`
`cable or satellite?
`
`MR. KANG: Dubil discloses that as an alternative,
`
`certainly, direct access to the television, and do you see in Figure
`
`1, there are direct connections between satellite and cable?
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, I get that, but the point is that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`you have made an affirmative case in front of us that identifies
`
`11
`
`the VCR as the entertainment device, not the television.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MR. KANG: Yes.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: So, where is it conclusively shown in
`
`14
`
`Dubil that the VCR has the ability to switch between a cable
`
`15
`
`input and a satellite input to then route that signal to the
`
`16
`
`television?
`
`17
`
`MR. KANG: Well, the VCR -- well, Figure 1 does
`
`18
`
`show directly that the VCR takes alternate inputs from cable or
`
`19
`
`satellite and has an output directly to the television. As people
`
`20
`
`I'm sure have known in the art, you couldn't use your VCR as an
`
`21
`
`antenna to watch TV; you could use it to watch a video in the
`
`22
`
`VCR. So, switching inputs from the VCR -- on the input side of
`
`23
`
`the VCR is known, and, in fact, Mr. Cook did admit that Dubil
`
`24
`
`discloses a VCR that allows active switching at the inputs. So,
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`that's one element that's shown where the VCR is the
`
`entertainment device.
`
`The other --
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, you know, take a look at the
`
`upper right-hand corner graphic you've got there, you've got
`
`highlighted as "Watch TV."
`
`MR. KANG: Yes.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Why should I read across those
`
`columns and come to the conclusion that the VCR is in the loop
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`in any sort of active way to direct the signal? Why can't I
`
`11
`
`interpret that as I'm hitting the remote and I'm either selecting
`
`12
`
`cable or satellite input for the TV, where the switching is taking
`
`13
`
`place at the TV, and then the switching for the TV to go to
`
`14
`
`surround sound just sends a passive signal through the VCR to
`
`15
`
`the audio system?
`
`16
`
`MR. KANG: The Dubil disclosure -- can we go to slide
`
`17
`
`12 of our slides, please?
`
`18
`
`The Dubil disclosure talks about the activity manager as
`
`19
`
`the portion of the system that is -- the part of the entertainment
`
`20
`
`device that is doing the kind of switching that's required here.
`
`21
`
`The specification teaches us that the activity manager is stored in
`
`22
`
`any storage device, and the patent specification tells us that a
`
`23
`
`set-top box could be a storage device, a TiVo device could be a
`
`24
`
`storage device, or a VCR could be a storage device.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, the activity sets in Dubil are a way to quickly get to
`
`a particular desired format or configuration of the system. So,
`
`again, if we go up to -- back to slide 7, as you see, the presets in
`
`Dubil allow the user to set up -- this is a preconfigured
`
`arrangement, and so while Dubil is flexible enough to allow
`
`direct access to the television and whatnot, one of -- the invention
`
`disclosed in Dubil is to create these activity sets so that a user
`
`need not do it manually. They can -- when they have preset the
`
`configurations, they can then hit the desired configuration for
`
`10
`
`watch TV news, and it will automatically do the -- the input and
`
`11
`
`output switching that's desired, right?
`
`12
`
`And the -- Dubil also discloses that the VCR can be
`
`13
`
`placed in the system loop any time for recording. So, in other
`
`14
`
`words, in Dubil, one of the express purposes of having the VCR
`
`15
`
`in the center there is so that the user can record programs that are
`
`16
`
`being watched. And so in that system, you would not want to
`
`17
`
`bypass the VCR if you want to have the capability of recording
`
`18
`
`what you're watching.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, I could output the audiovisual
`
`20
`
`signal from the television to the VCR, and then I could use the
`
`21
`
`TV to select the input for the TV, right?
`
`22
`
`MR. KANG: You could -- I'm not sure Dubil discloses
`
`23
`
`routing the satellite signal back through the TV out to the VCR. I
`
`24
`
`suppose -- I suppose it could, but it doesn't preclude the point of
`
`25
`
`routing it the other way.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE CAPP: But the Patent Owner introduces some
`
`testimony that there's never been a VCR in the history of mankind
`
`that had this sort of switching capability. I'm not going to
`
`comment on whether that's true or not, but what's your response
`
`to that in view of the teaching of Dubil? Is Dubil limited to
`
`known, off-the-shelf VCRs, or is there a new teaching in there
`
`about how you can modify a VCR?
`
`MR. KANG: Well, one of the features in Dubil is that
`
`if you see one of the activity sets, watch TV movies, it allows
`
`10
`
`switching the audio from TV to audio for surround, and that is an
`
`11
`
`express teaching of an audio output switching in a VCR that, you
`
`12
`
`know, is in Dubil.
`
`13
`
`I have not done a full survey of whether other prior art
`
`14
`
`VCRs have that feature, but it is correct that -- it is incorrect for
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner to assert that there are no VCRs in the prior art that
`
`16
`
`have alternate, switchable outputs, because Dubil itself discloses
`
`17
`
`a switchable output. And, indeed, the Patent Owner's narrow
`
`18
`
`construction that requires affirmatively switching never says -- at
`
`19
`
`least in the words of it never says that the switching must be both
`
`20
`
`at the input and at the output, all right? It just says affirmatively
`
`21
`
`switching.
`
`22
`
`Your Honors' tentative decision in the decision to
`
`23
`
`institute also does not specifically require active switching at the
`
`24
`
`input and active switching at the output. It just says some
`
`25
`
`affirmative switching, and our position is Dubil does disclose and
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`has conceded disclosing switching of the inputs, and that should
`
`alone meet the Patent Owner's construction as proposed,
`
`assuming additional arguments are not read into the claim.
`
`The -- and, again, Dubil does disclose actively
`
`switching the audio outputs, and so, again, we believe both on the
`
`input side, because of the admission, and the output side from the
`
`disclosure, that Dubil satisfies even the claim as construed by
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Before the hearing's over -- and this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`can be at the end of your rebuttal time -- I would like to have
`
`11
`
`page and line number in Dubil for where you say there's active
`
`12
`
`switching of inputs and active switching of outputs in terms of an
`
`13
`
`express disclosure.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`MR. KANG: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`If we look at the related argument that Patent Owner has
`
`16
`
`raised as to the "command value" phrase -- if you would, page 9
`
`17
`
`of our slides, please -- Patent Owner's argument is that there is no
`
`18
`
`command value that corresponds to an activity key that is
`
`19
`
`associated with configuration. This is a bootstrapped argument.
`
`20
`
`Because under Patent Owner's view, there is no configuration,
`
`21
`
`there can be no command value associated with that, and,
`
`22
`
`therefore, we believe these fail. Of course, Dubil does disclose,
`
`23
`
`as we showed in Figure -- in paragraph 28, the sequence of
`
`24
`
`commands are, in fact, communicated.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, do the Patent Owner and the
`
`Petitioner agree on what it means for a command value, what the
`
`definition of a command value is?
`
`MR. KANG: No. So, it appears that the Patent Owner
`
`takes the position that the command value has to be a single bit or
`
`a single -- some single bit of data --
`
`JUDGE CAPP: And you disagree with that?
`
`MR. KANG: The phrase "command value" is not --
`
`doesn't say -- there is nothing inherent in the phrase or in the
`
`10
`
`specification that limits it to a specific binary term.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE CAPP: If the two of you disagree on the
`
`12
`
`meaning of a key term in the claim, why isn't that briefed in a
`
`13
`
`Markman sort of way?
`
`14
`
`MR. KANG: It was raised by the Patent Owner late in
`
`15
`
`the process, and I believe we did address the command value -- I
`
`16
`
`mean, we made sure these are not new arguments, but we did
`
`17
`
`address the command value issue in -- in response. I believe the
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner addressed this issue from the viewpoint of does
`
`19
`
`Dubil disclose it, not what does it mean, and so we addressed
`
`20
`
`their point there, that it does disclose it.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, the point is, the -- the argument
`
`22
`
`that it does disclose or it doesn't disclose may turn on what the
`
`23
`
`word means in the first place, and neither of you have briefed or
`
`24
`
`argued to us what the term means. So, what are we supposed to
`
`25
`
`do in our final written decision if the case is going to turn on the
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`meaning of "command value" and neither of you have argued or
`
`briefed, in a Markman sense, how that term should be construed?
`
`MR. KANG: Well, certainly we have taken the position
`
`that the commands in Dubil that are -- the commands
`
`communicated qualify as command value, so to the extent that
`
`that argument was made, there is a claim construction inherent in
`
`that.
`
`If Patent Owner is asserting that the reference is
`
`distinguishable because of a specific definition of "command
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`value" that Patent Owner has not proposed, we had nothing to
`
`11
`
`respond to on that point, and, therefore, we would -- I would take
`
`12
`
`the position that Patent Owner has failed on its argument, because
`
`13
`
`they have not correctly set it up.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Let me ask you this question. I've got a
`
`15
`
`remote control in my hand, I hit a button, and it sends a signal,
`
`16
`
`and it turns one or more of the components to turn on or off. Has
`
`17
`
`that communicated a command value?
`
`18
`
`MR. KANG: The command value has to correspond to
`
`19
`
`an activity key. So, there has to be an activity key set up. But,
`
`20
`
`yeah, assuming that --
`
`21
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Well, if the activity key includes
`
`22
`
`turning units on and off, then would that -- you know, yes or no --
`
`23
`
`be a command value?
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. KANG: Yes. And, again, a fair reading of the
`
`specification doesn't put any limits on "command value." We
`
`believe it has its ordinary meaning.
`
`The -- if we look at slide 10, one of the reasons we don't
`
`believe this is a significant issue is because, again, Patent Owner's
`
`expert admitted that acknowledging -- acknowledged pressing a
`
`key on the remote does invoke an activity set, and that sends, as
`
`the testimony shows, a set of commands to various home
`
`entertainment system components, and so the -- we believe that
`
`10
`
`mostly this argument relies on the lack of a configuration
`
`11
`
`underlying the command value.
`
`12
`
`Similarly, if you go to the next slide, Patent Owner
`
`13
`
`makes a similar argument that there's no configuration associated
`
`14
`
`with command value, which is used after receiving a signal which
`
`15
`
`includes the command value, and, again, that's a bootstrapping
`
`16
`
`argument which we would believe fails, Your Honors, because of
`
`17
`
`the configuration definition.
`
`18
`
`And if we look at the next slide, Dubil does disclose, in
`
`19
`
`fact, the receipt of a signal. The remote control in Figure 5, page
`
`20
`
`12 of Exhibit 1057, is sending a signal to the user interface which
`
`21
`
`then activates the activity manager to go get the activity set data
`
`22
`
`from storage, and that includes a command value that's associated
`
`23
`
`with the activity set; otherwise, the activity manager wouldn't
`
`24
`
`know what to go and retrieve. And so on the -- the disclosure of
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`Dubil, we disagree. We believe it does disclose the signal portion
`
`of the command value limitation.
`
`Finally, on -- on the -- the claim 13, if we turn to the
`
`next slide, again, the downloading limitation is a limitation Patent
`
`Owner disputed. Again, the Dubil reference discloses storing and
`
`downloading the configuration information into the entertainment
`
`device from a computer. It discloses using a PC. It discloses that
`
`you have the application, using that is then downloading
`
`information to the storage device, and as I mentioned before, this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`specification, for example, at paragraph 19 says that you could
`
`11
`
`have a TIVO or VCR, other things could be storage devices, and
`
`12
`
`so we think the downloading limitation is clearly shown by Dubil.
`
`13
`
`On the next slide, with respect to dependent Claim 15,
`
`14
`
`which requires the display associated with the entertainment
`
`15
`
`device, again, there is a display shown -- we saw it in Figure 1,
`
`16
`
`the television -- and, again, Patent Owner's expert conceded that
`
`17
`
`there are at least two display devices that illustrate activity sets
`
`18
`
`disclosed in Dubil, and so we believe that one of ordinary skill --
`
`19
`
`let's go to the next slide -- as conceded by Mr. Cook, one of
`
`20
`
`ordinary skill would understand that you would be selecting
`
`21
`
`components for display by manipulating graphical user interfaces,
`
`22
`
`and the Dubil reference does disclose using menus or graphical
`
`23
`
`components to do this setup.
`
`24
`
`And so in conclusion, configuration of the
`
`25
`
`entertainment device we believe to be properly construed,
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`consistent with the BRI standard, and we believe Dubil does
`
`disclose all the elements in the claim at issue.
`
`I will reserve the remainder of my time, if I have any,
`
`for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. You have five minutes
`
`left.
`
`MR. MAIERS: So, Your Honors, what I'm going to
`
`talk about, I'm going to touch on three main issues. First, I'm
`
`going to provide a brief introduction to the '207 patent. Next I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`will discuss the claim construction of the configuration
`
`11
`
`entertainment device that Judge Capp and Mr. Kang were
`
`12
`
`discussing quite a bit in the opening. And then I'll explain why
`
`13
`
`Dubil does not anticipate the challenged Claims 13 through 15.
`
`14
`
`First, with reference to the '207 patent, what the '207
`
`15
`
`patent is an activity-based configuration of an entertainment
`
`16
`
`system, and what that means is you have got different activities
`
`17
`
`that you may have in your home entertainment system that
`
`18
`
`involve different sources and different destinations. For example,
`
`19
`
`you may have a "watch a movie" activity that will involve a DVD
`
`20
`
`player as an input source and your big home theater projector as
`
`21
`
`your output destination, whereas your "watch TV" activity may
`
`22
`
`just use your cable box as the input source and your television as
`
`23
`
`the -- as the output destination.
`
`24
`
`Now, the background talks about remote centric
`
`25
`
`methods for automatically config -- for automating configuration
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`operations such as this. For example, using macros, and what a
`
`macro is, again, is a series of commands that are executed in
`
`sequence in response to the pressing of a single button. The
`
`problem with those macro commands -- and for Judge Medley
`
`and Judge Blankenship, we discussed this this morning -- is that
`
`oftentimes you can have a situation where your device gets out of
`
`sync.
`
`For example, the macro command is intended to turn
`
`the television on, but if the television is already on and that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`command is issued, then you're turning the television off, and
`
`11
`
`everything becomes out of sync, and now you've got to go grab
`
`12
`
`all your other other remotes and figure out what buttons need to
`
`13
`
`be pressed to straighten everything out. So, in other words, those
`
`14
`
`methods can be subject to error.
`
`15
`
`Now, the '207 patent also talks about -- I'm sorry. The
`
`16
`
`'207 patent overcomes this problem by proposing an
`
`17
`
`entertainment device centric method, an entertainment device
`
`18
`
`centric paradigm. Because one central device is serving as the
`
`19
`
`central -- the central routing terminal for all of your home
`
`20
`
`entertainment devices, you don't have this problem of devices
`
`21
`
`getting out of sync because it is controlling what is connected to
`
`22
`
`what. So, getting out of sync is no longer a concern under the
`
`23
`
`'207 patent.
`
`24
`
`Real briefly, the challenged claims in this case are
`
`25
`
`Claims 13, 14, and 15, and I'm not going to belabor the text of the
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01146
`Patent 8,243,207 B2
`
`claims, but it is important to note that there is some
`
`differentiations between some of the claims, and the Board
`
`highlighted one of them in the institution decision, and that is that
`
`independent 14 is similar in scope to Claim 13; however, Claim
`
`13 adds the limitation of downloading that Mr. Kang talked about
`
`earlier and we'll discuss later on.
`
`And Claim 15 involves a claim that requires displaying
`
`in a display, in a graphical user interface, the ability for a user to
`
`select an input device and an output device. There is more to it
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`than that. We will unpack that limitation a little bit later.
`
`11
`
`Now, going to the issue of claim construction,
`
`12
`
`obviously the key term here is "configuration of the electronic
`
`13
`
`device," and that term appears in all of the challenged claims.
`
`14
`
`The Board noted in its institution decision that it proposed two
`
`15
`
`potential competing constructions, and we'll call them the active
`
`16
`
`construction and the passive construction. In the active
`
`17
`
`construction, the situation is that you are affirmatively selecting
`
`18
`
`the inputs and outputs of the -- you have a central entertainment
`
`19
`
`device that is affirmatively selecting inputs and
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
