UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-00217
`Patent No. 7,996,864
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`1
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1043
`Comcast v. Rovi
`IPR2017-00217
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-00217
`Patent No. 7,996,864
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`1
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1043
`Comcast v. Rovi
`IPR2017-00217
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`(Paper 18, p. 22)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`2
`
`
`
`•
`
`What is Not in Dispute
`• Rauch is prior art as to the ’864 patent (Paper 16, p. 15)
`• Claim 1 is representative of independent claims (Paper 32, p.
`19)
`Interpretation of “detailed program description” is irrelevant -
`-Patent Owner doesn’t dispute that prior art teaches this
`(Paper 32, p. 1)
`• Patent Owner has not disputed that the second way of
`modifying Rauch discloses all limitations of independent
`claims
`– Instead, Patent Owner creates a strawman (Paper 28, pp.
`43-45) and shoots it down (Paper 32, p. 19)
`• Patent Owner has not disputed that Rauch/Bennington and
`Rauch/Florin would have yielded predictable results (Paper
`32, pp. 5, 7)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`3
`
`
`
`’864 Patent – FIG. 2
`
`Paper 16 (Replacement Pet.), p. 4
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`4
`
`
`
`’864 Patent – FIG. 3
`
`Paper 16 (Replacement Pet.), p. 5
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`5
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1 (representative)
`
`[1a] A method for displaying an electronic program guide in an interactive
`television system having a tuner and a screen, the method comprising:
`
`[1b] simultaneously displaying a plurality of television program listings in
`a first area of the screen, a currently broadcast television program
`received by the tuner in a second, nonoverlapping area of the screen and a
`detailed program description of the currently broadcast television program
`displayed in the second area of the screen in a third nonoverlapping area
`of the screen; and
`
`[1c] switching the detailed program description displayed in the third area
`of the screen in response to a user input without changing the currently
`broadcast television program displayed in the second area of the screen.
`
`Note: Patent Owner has not disputed that claim 1 is representative of all
`independent claims. (Paper 32, p. 19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`6
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`• Examiner: Rauch teaches everything except the
`“without changing” limitation – taught by
`Marshall
`• Claims allowed after amendment to incorporate
`“without changing” in all claims
`• Examiner cited “without changing” limitation as
`basis for allowance
`• Petition cites 3 references that show this:
`Bennington, Florin, and Young
`
`(Paper 16, pp. 6-8, 11)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• ’864 patent has expired; apply Phillips construction
`• Patent owner contests only two claim terms:
`– “detailed program description”: irrelevant because
`patent owner doesn’t contest that prior art shows this
`under its own proposed interpretation (Paper 32, p. 1)
`– “marking”: patent owner’s citation to specification
`doesn’t support its position (Paper 32, pp. 1-3)
`• Only relevant for dependent claims 7-9
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`8
`
`
`
`FIG. 2 of Rauch
`
`(Paper 16, pp. 17-19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`9
`
`
`
`FIG. 6 of Rauch
`
`(Exhibit-1009, ¶ 41)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`10
`
`
`
`Rauch-Bennington Combination
`• Rauch teaches everything in independent claims
`except for “without changing” limitation (Paper
`16, p. 6)
`• Bennington – never cited by patent examiner –
`teaches this step (Paper 16, pp. 12, 16, 20)
`• Rationale to combine: Bennington teaches
`BROWSE mode – desirable to view information
`for other channels without changing the channel
`(Paper 16, pp. 16, 20-21)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`11
`
`
`
`Bennington’s Teachings
`
`“. . . there is a particular need for a flexible
`program schedule system that allows a user to
`view selected broadcast programs on a portion of
`the screen while simultaneously viewing program
`schedule information for other channels and/or
`services on another portion of the screen.”
`(Exhibit-1003, col. 3 lines 4-9; Exhibit-1009, ¶
`85) (emphasis added)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`12
`
`
`
`Bennington Figs. 11 &12
`
`(Exhibit-1009, ¶¶ 47-48)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`13
`
`
`
`Rauch-Bennington Combination
`• At least two different ways to modify Rauch based
`on Bennington:
`– First way: Remove steps 610, 612, and 614 of Rauch’s
`FIG. 6 so that channel doesn’t change when scanning
`through program information for other channels (Paper
`16, pp. 20-21; Exhibit-1009, ¶¶ 87-88; Exhibit-1031, ¶¶
`30-37)
`– Based on Bennington’s teaching of not changing channel
`while viewing what’s on other channels (Paper 16, p. 20)
`– First way only mapped to independent claims, not
`dependent claims (Paper 32, p. 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`14
`
`
`
`Rauch-Bennington Combination
`
`• First way: remove
`steps 610, 612, and
`614 of Rauch’s
`FIG. 6
`(Exhibit-1009,
`¶¶ 87-88)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`15
`
`
`
`Rauch-Bennington Combination
`
`Second way: Modify Rauch to have different modes,
`like Bennington, so if different mode is selected (like
`Bennington’s BROWSE mode), Rauch would not
`change channel while moving through the guide
`(Paper 16, pp. 21-23; Exhibit-1009, ¶ 88; Exhibit-
`1031, ¶¶ 38-41)
`– Based on Bennington’s teaching of different modes:
`change channel in one mode, don’t change channel
`in other mode
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`16
`
`
`
`Rauch-Bennington Combination
`
`• Second way: Modify
`Rauch’s FIG. 6 to add
`steps 604 and 606
`(Exhibit-1009, ¶ 88)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`17
`
`
`
`“Teaching Away” Argument (Paper 28,
`pp. 40-41) is Without Merit
`• This panel already rejected this argument
`(Paper 32, p. 7; Paper 18, p. 12)
`
`* * *
`
`• Nothing in Rauch “criticizes, discredits, or
`otherwise discourages” investigation into the
`combination (Paper 32, pp. 7-9)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`18
`
`
`
`“Intended Purpose” Argument (Paper
`28, pp. 12-14) is Without Merit
`• Rauch’s own system displays a bitmap or blank
`window if the selected program is not currently
`being broadcast – this alone disproves Patent
`Owner’s argument (Paper 32, pp. 9-10)
`• Nothing in Rauch requires all 3 items of
`information to be displayed concurrently (Paper
`32, p. 9) and Rauch has no “intended purpose”
`(Paper 32, pp. 12-13)
`• Rauch-Bennington’s multiple modes preserves
`synchronization at user’s option (Paper 32, p.
`10) – don’t select Browse mode
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`19
`
`
`
`“Principle of Operation” Argument
`(Paper 28, pp. 14-17) is Without Merit
`• Rauch has no single “principle of operation”
`(Paper 32, p. 11)
`• “Principle of operation” line of cases is weak,
`discredited, and easily distinguished (Paper
`32, pp. 11-13)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`12.
`
`Patent Owner's ianosed blinders are so oppressive as to deny the
`
`PUSH basic alternative considerations of creativity. The approach Patent Owner
`
`takes to describing the goals and objectives of essentially all
`
`the prior art
`
`completely.r overlooks that at a high level the}.r all have a common purpose: To
`
`assist a user in understanding what programming is available when and on what
`
`channel. Patent Owner and its expert fail to observe simple relationships or
`
`options between the prior art's basic displayed electronic program guide [EPG)
`
`components.
`
`Instead. Patent Owner focuses on artificially rigid distinctions in the
`
`(Exhibit-1031, ¶ 12)
`
`prior art teachings that obfuscate the siinplicitj,r of the combinations. As I noted
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`21
`
`(Exhibit-1031,11 12)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`within the entirety cf the debate we are dealing with dnly three fimdamental
`
`maying parts: a grid pcrtian. an additianal details pcrtian. and a graphics cr PIP
`
`partic-n.
`
`The first
`
`twc operate essentially in the same way in the primary
`
`references.
`
`leaving only the graphics pci‘tic-n tc- be melded by snggestians cr
`
`teachings of the prior art as a whale. Patent Dinner denies the PDSA any basic
`
`lmcwhnw cf EPCrs. displays. cur eyen ccnsideratian cf the spread cf similarities and
`
`differences faimd in the pricr art.
`
`I didn‘t need a road map cr hindsight derived
`(Exhibit-1031, ¶ 12)
`fl'cm the ”"354 claims: It's already present in the pricr art.
`In my cpim'an. Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`22
`
`(Exhibit-1031,11 12)
`
`
`
`“More Obvious to Do it Differently”
`
`• Patent owner argues that it would have been
`more obvious to combine Rauch with
`Bennington or Florin differently (Paper 32, p. 15)
`• Irrelevant – issue is “whether Petitioner has
`demonstrated that it would have been obvious to
`combine the cited references in the manner the
`Petitioner proposed.” CaptionCall v. Ultratec,
`IPR2014-00780 (Paper 32, p. 15)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`23
`
`
`
`Rauch-Florin Combination
`
`• Florin allows user to
`move through
`listing of TV
`programs on other
`channels while
`continuing to view
`currently-tuned
`program (Paper 16,
`pp. 41-42)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`24
`
`
`
`Rauch-Florin Combination
`• Petition also showed two different ways of combining
`Rauch with Florin:
`• First way: same as Rauch-Bennington: end Rauch’s
`change selection routine early (remove steps 610,
`612, and 614 in FIG. 6 of Rauch) (Paper 16, p. 45)
`• Based on Florin’s teaching of continuing to show the
`currently-tuned channel while moving through a
`program list (Paper 16, p. 44)
`• Applicant’s admission: “the currently viewed program
`250 is highlighted in the program list, and remains in
`the display as a user highlights other listings.”
`(Exhibit-1022, p. 7; Paper 16, p. 44)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`25
`
`
`
`Rauch-Florin Combination
`• Second way: modify
`Rauch’s change
`selection routine to
`continue watching
`the previously-
`watched channel if
`the selected program
`is not on (Paper 16,
`p. 46)
`• Replace “blank
`window”
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`26
`
`
`
`Rauch-Florin Combination
`
`• Patent owner’s arguments against Rauch-
`Florin (teaching away, principle of operation,
`and intended purpose) are similar to Rauch-
`Bennington
`• Argument should be rejected for same reasons
`as the Rauch-Bennington combination
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`27
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino Combination
`
`• Young teaches using a cursor to switch a program
`note overlay without changing a currently-tuned
`channel (Paper 16, pp. 61-63)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`28
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino
`• Florin teaches
`simultaneously
`displaying current
`program with program
`listings (Paper 16, p. 65)
`• Obvious to modify
`Young to also display
`current program on the
`same screen (Paper 16,
`pp. 65-67)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`29
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino
`
`• Motivation to combine: Florin teaches beneficial
`result of providing program listing with PIP
`window that doesn’t change as user scrolls
`through program listings (Paper 16, p. 68)
`• Predictable results: easy to add Florin’s PIP
`window to Young (Paper 16, p. 68)
`• ’864 patent admits that PIP windows were well-
`known (Paper 16, p. 68)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`30
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino
`
`Paper 16, p. 70
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`31
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino
`• Young in combination with Florin teaches
`everything in claim 1 except the
`“nonoverlapping” limitation (Paper 16, p. 65)
`• Yoshino teaches desirability of nonoverlapping
`sections on the screen (Paper 16, p. 69; Exhibit-
`1009, ¶ 118)
`• Rationale: explicit motivation to modify Young-
`Florin to avoid loss of part of information on the
`screen (Paper 16, p. 71)
`• Also predictable result (Paper 16, p. 71)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`32
`
`
`
`Yoshino – FIG. 1
`
`(Exhibit-1009, ¶¶ 72-73)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`33
`
`
`
`“Would Render Young Unsatisfactory”
`Argument is Flawed
`• “Young’s goal is to maximize the number of
`program schedule lines within the guide”
`(Paper 28, p. 51) – combination would negate
`• Response:
`– Young states many “objects;” not all are required
`in every variation (Paper 32, p. 25)
`– Young states that auto-roving feature is used to
`“minimize concealment of the guide” – removing
`overlap would achieve this even better (Paper 32,
`p. 25)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`34
`
`
`
`Rauch “Contemplated Young’s
`Embodiment and Rejected it” – Not True
`• Argument made in Paper 28, pp. 53-54
`• Response:
`– No evidence that Young is the specific prior art
`mentioned in background of Rauch
`– Petitioner’s combination relies not solely on
`Young, but Young as modified by Florin and
`Yoshino
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`35
`
`
`
`Yoshino’s “Non-Standard
`Configuration” is Irrelevant
`• Patent Owner argues that Yoshino relies on a
`“non-standard configuration” – no evidence as
`to how a POSITA would have combined with
`Young and Florin (Paper 28, p. 55)
`• Response:
`– Yoshino only relied on for teaching “non-
`overlapping” screen areas – aspect ratio is
`irrelevant
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`36
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino-Cherrick
`
`• Cherrick teaches switching the program in PIP window as
`user moves through program listings (Paper 16, pp. 88-89)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`37
`
`
`
`Young-Florin-Yoshino-Cherrick
`• Motivation to combine: Young teaches using
`channel up/down command to change channel
`(instead of cursor) and dragging cursor when
`channel is changed
`• Cherrick teaches that you should change the
`program in PIP window when user moves
`through program listings
`• Obvious to modify PIP window to change
`program to match tuner (Paper 16, pp. 88-90)
`• Predictable results (Paper 16, p. 90)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`38
`
`
`
`Cherrick Not “Inconsistent” With Florin
`
`• Patent Owner argues inconsistent to “continue
`viewing” (Florin) versus “change the channel”
`(Cherrick) (Paper 28, p. 56)
`• Wrong because Young teaches both scenarios:
`• when cursor is not united with currently-tuned channel,
`don’t change the channel,
`• when cursor is united with currently-tuned channel (channel
`up/down button), change the channel (Paper 32, p. 30)
`• Only issue is what to show in PIP window, which
`Young doesn’t have
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`39
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`• Three combinations all supported with clear
`rationales to combine prior art
`• Three different references show “without
`changing” limitation that examiner couldn’t find
`• “Principle of operation,” “intended purposes”
`and “teaching away” arguments are not
`persuasive
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`40
`
`
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
