IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Patent No. 8,272,019
`Filing Date: June 18, 2010
`Issue Date: September 18, 2012
`Title: CLIENT-SERVER BASED INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM
`GUIDE SYSTEM WITH REMOTE SERVER RECORDING
`________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2019-01432
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION, LLC’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PAT. No. 8,272,019
`
`Declaration in Support of Petition 2 of 3
`
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1103
`
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Patent No. 8,272,019
`Filing Date: June 18, 2010
`Issue Date: September 18, 2012
`Title: CLIENT-SERVER BASED INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM
`GUIDE SYSTEM WITH REMOTE SERVER RECORDING
`________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2019-01432
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION, LLC’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PAT. No. 8,272,019
`
`Declaration in Support of Petition 2 of 3
`
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1103
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, QUALIFICATIONS, AND
`INDUSTRY TRENDS .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED .......................................................................... 10
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .............. 10
`
`V.
`
`THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`RELEVANT ART .........................................................................................14
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`PROGRAM GUIDE ..................................................................................18
`
`DIRECTORY ..........................................................................................20
`
`PROCESSING CIRCUITRY........................................................................21
`
`REMOTE MEDIA SERVER / REMOTE SERVER .........................................23
`
`VII. THE ’019 PATENT ....................................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`’019 PATENT OVERVIEW ......................................................................24
`
`’019 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ..................................................32
`
`’019 PATENT PRIORITY DATE ...............................................................42
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 44
`
`A. WOOD (U.S. PATENT APPLICATION PUB. NO. 2002/0057893) .............44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LAWLER (U.S. PATENT NO. 5,805,763) ................................................54
`
`ARTIGALAS (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,091,883) ...........................................76
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`D. GORDON (U.S. PATENT NO. 5,920,700) ...............................................80
`
`IX. FACTS AND OPINIONS RELEVANT TO THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE PETITION ............................................. 86
`
`A. WOOD IN VIEW OF LAWLER ..................................................................87
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................87
`
`Dependent Claim 2..................................................................133
`
`Dependent Claim 3..................................................................134
`
`Independent Claim 11 .............................................................136
`
`Dependent Claims 12-13 .........................................................137
`
`B. WOOD IN VIEW OF LAWLER AND ARTIGALAS .....................................139
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Independent Claim 5 ...............................................................139
`
`Dependent Claim 6..................................................................189
`
`Dependent Claim 7..................................................................192
`
`Dependent Claim 8..................................................................194
`
`Dependent Claim 4..................................................................196
`
`Independent Claim 15 .............................................................200
`
`Dependent Claims 14, 16-18...................................................202
`
`C. WOOD IN VIEW OF LAWLER AND GORDON .........................................205
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 9..................................................................205
`
`Dependent Claim 19 ...............................................................211
`
`D. WOOD IN VIEW OF LAWLER, ARTIGALAS, AND GORDON ...................212
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ...............................................................212
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 20 ...............................................................213
`
`X.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FROM CO-PENDING LITIGATION ........ 215
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 217
`
`Appendix A…………………………………………………………………..…A-1
`Appendix B…………………………………………………………………...…B-1
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I, Anthony “Tony” J. Wechselberger, declare that I have personal knowledge of
`
`the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and
`
`would do so competently.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner,
`1.
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, for the above-referenced inter partes review
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I reside in Escondido, California.
`
`I have been asked to provide a declaration regarding use of electronic
`
`program guides (EPGs) in managing the recording, transfer, and deletion of
`
`programming assets and related technologies, as well as relevant industry knowledge
`
`and practices. I have also been asked to render opinions regarding certain matters
`
`pertaining to U.S. Patent No. 8,272,019 (“the ’019 Patent”) and the unpatentability
`
`grounds set forth in the Petition for this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $350 per hour
`
`for my work on this matter. My compensation is in no way dependent upon my
`
`opinions or testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, QUALIFICATIONS, AND
`
`INDUSTRY TRENDS
`
`5.
`
`A description of my professional background and qualifications is
`
`provided below. An additional account of my work experience and qualifications is
`
`included in my resume, which is attached as Appendix A to this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from
`
`the University of Arizona in 1974 and a Master of Science degree in electrical
`
`engineering from San Diego State University in 1979. In addition, in 1984, I
`
`completed the Executive Program for Scientists and Engineers at the University of
`
`California at San Diego.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions
`
`(“EMS”), a position I have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this
`
`capacity, I perform consulting services related to technology and business
`
`development, content management, distribution and merchandising, systems
`
`engineering, and product design in the areas of industrial and consumer broadband
`
`and multimedia technologies and associated commercial systems. As a result of my
`
`twenty-five years of extensive technology experience in corporate life, and
`
`continuing as President of EMS, I have worked with various aspects of Internet,
`
`cable, broadcast, and satellite television programming distribution, including
`
`systems and equipment that included interactive television functions, remote control
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`units, and on-screen displays as used in electronic program guides in consumer
`
`appliances, such as set-top boxes.
`
`8.
`
`I have over forty years of experience working with high technology
`
`systems related to military, commercial, and consumer communication systems,
`
`networks, and appliances. I have held various design, leadership, and executive
`
`positions in, for example, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and product
`
`management at leading companies, such as TV/COM International, Inc. (TV/COM)
`
`and Oak Communications, Inc. (Oak), in those fields.
`
`9.
`
`As Vice President at Oak (in the 1980s), Chief Technology Officer at
`
`TV/COM (in the 1990s), and a consulting systems engineer (1999 to the present), I
`
`have specialized in the areas of digital communications technologies, systems and
`
`networks, including infrastructures, communications equipment, and associated
`
`signal processing, network management and command-and-control, and information
`
`security as used for content management, merchandising, and delivery to the
`
`receivers/consumers of information/content. Consumer appliances are often the
`
`receivers/consumers of the communications systems I’ve worked with, and I’ve
`
`been involved, for example, in the design, manufacturing, sales, and servicing of
`
`consumer appliances, such as set-top boxes (STBs), since the early 1980s.
`
`10. My experience includes the development of terrestrial broadcast,
`
`satellite uplink, and cable head end commercial equipment for television
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`transmissions, as well as consumer appliance equipment, such as STBs and other
`
`home-based or home-networked devices. These architectures included computer
`
`control systems for networks and associated network device command and control,
`
`and for management of content distribution and consumer appliance functions. For
`
`example, these systems are addressable. “Addressability” enables the system
`
`operator to control the delivery of content and network services, network sourcing
`
`and receiving devices (e.g., servers and transmission equipment and personal
`
`computer (PC) or STB receivers), and the consumer experience. Examples are
`
`delivery of software or data files, for which purchased or subscription services or
`
`content is available, electronic program guides, and à la carte functions such as pay-
`
`per-view (PPV) and video-on-demand (VOD).
`
`11.
`
`I have been a participant in the development and evolution of modern
`
`consumer digital audio and digital video communications systems and technologies.
`
`In 1980, Oak was developing and demonstrating high fidelity digital audio
`
`transmission systems for broadcast applications. At the same time, consumer
`
`electronics companies, such as Philips, Toshiba, Sony, and others, were doing
`
`research that eventually led to the audio compact disc. As a member of the research
`
`group at Oak, we shared ideas and information about sampling rates, analog-to-
`
`digital and digital-to-analog conversion, and compatibility between consumer
`
`storage/playback and broadcast applications. In 1991, my employer, TV/COM, and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`I began to participate in the newly formed International Organization for
`
`Standardization (ISO) MPEG-2 digital television standards initiatives, and in the
`
`following year, we participated in both the European Digital Video Broadcast (DVB)
`
`and U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) forums (which were
`
`based upon MPEG-2).
`
`12.
`
`In the early 1990s, as the technologies and standards in support of
`
`digital television (DTV) moved towards implementation, the dawn of the Internet
`
`age also arrived. This had a dramatic impact on the way broadband systems
`
`engineers like myself began to plan for the future. This is because the concept of
`
`convergence—the melding of traditional broadband communications systems and
`
`equipment, computers, and computer networks, with that of the telecommunications
`
`world—was changing the communications infrastructure and technology landscape.
`
`When television distribution went all-digital, the information of television became
`
`simply “data”—and it became possible for the technologies of digital television,
`
`computers and computer networks, and the telephony industry (which was in the
`
`midst of its transition to digital infrastructure that began in the 1970s) to coalesce.
`
`Support for on-line and Internet services demanded a high performance two-way
`
`data transmission capability, and so broadband network providers began to upgrade
`
`their distribution infrastructures accordingly.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In conjunction with this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief Technology
`
`Officer, I directed the expansion of our network products into broadband data
`
`communications generally, from its initial focus on digital television. Networks
`
`became more advanced in order to support real-time interaction between consumers
`
`and various information sources, and interactive and on-line applications led to rapid
`
`adoption of client-server information access architectures. The ubiquitous set-top
`
`box began to evolve from a minimalist appliance towards its current status as a
`
`communications hub of the consumer’s media room. This was supported by the
`
`exponential increase in the capabilities of powerful yet inexpensive integrated
`
`circuits, such as microprocessors and memory that allowed STBs to become more
`
`software driven and support advanced digital signal processing (DSP) needs.
`
`14. By the late 1990s STBs had evolved to support digital television signal
`
`processing, EPGs with multi-layered on-screen color graphics, and high
`
`performance hardware and software subsystems with sufficient memory to enable
`
`downloaded applications and storage of various associated content data types. Many
`
`of the architectural aspects were modeled on personal computers of the time,
`
`including central processing units (CPUs), memory, and input/output (I/O), with
`
`ambitious trends towards ever-increasing signal processing and memory/storage
`
`capabilities. The evolution of mass storage technologies (such as magnetic and
`
`optical storage) in conjunction with digital signal processing (such as digital
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`compression) led to the many examples of personal video recorder (PVR)/digital
`
`video recorder (DVR)-like art for local or remote content storage that I discuss below
`
`in my invalidity analysis.
`
`15. As Vice President of Engineering at Oak and Chief Technology Officer
`
`at TV/COM, I was directly involved in the evolution of STBs and interactive TV
`
`(ITV) throughout the 1980s and 1990s. For example, our systems and equipment
`
`evolved from basic one-way communications (broadcast/cablecast) to two-way
`
`communications between the cable head end (CHE) and STBs, with the latter
`
`supporting extensive real-time interactive applications such as à la carte and/or on-
`
`demand programming access such as PPV and/or near video on demand (NVOD).
`
`In my subsequent work as a consultant, I have experience with digital television EPG
`
`technologies and standards, such as the ATSC’s A/55 “Program Guide for Digital
`
`Television” and A/65 “Program and System Information Protocol” (PSIP) standards.
`
`16.
`
`In my consulting work, I have continued to work with technologies,
`
`equipment, and network infrastructures for content generation, distribution, and
`
`consumption. My current work involves both traditional and newly developing
`
`architectures and distribution channels. As an example of the latter, I am the chief
`
`security systems architect on behalf of the six major Hollywood studios for their
`
`“Digital Cinema Initiatives” (DCI) consortium. DCI has developed and evolved the
`
`requirements and specifications for transitioning first-run theatrical movie releases
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`from film to digital files for distribution and exhibition display. I am responsible for
`
`all elements of command and control and digital rights management (DRM) for the
`
`digital cinema system design and implementation. I also represent DCI at the
`
`Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), which has developed
`
`and is continuing to develop a set of internationally recognized standards for global
`
`adoption of digital cinema. The migration to all-digital distribution impacts other
`
`content distribution channels, such as early window release for hospitality, airplane,
`
`and cable/satellite VOD, as well as newer so called “over-the-top” (OTT)
`
`distribution channels based on Internet distribution. I have also been a strategy and
`
`technology consultant to content management and distribution entities in these areas.
`
`17.
`
`I am currently a member of
`
`the Society of Cable &
`
`Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE), the Society of Motion Picture and
`
`Television Engineers (SMPTE) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE). I have previously been a member of the International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG),
`
`and the Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) group, a Chief Technology Officer of
`
`TV/COM, and a voting member of the Advanced Television Systems Committee
`
`(ATSC).
`
`18.
`
`I am an inventor on U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020, issued July 23, 1985,
`
`and entitled “Multi-layer Encryption System for the Broadcast of Encrypted
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Information” and U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440, issued May 12, 1992, and entitled
`
`“Universal Decoder.” I have participated in U.S. patent prosecution, and have a
`
`general understanding of the process, and of the novelty and non-obviousness
`
`requirements for patentability.
`
`19. Over many years, I have published and/or presented a number of
`
`articles and papers related to content/information creation, transmission/distribution,
`
`and reception/consumption in various media sectors, including cable, satellite,
`
`broadcast/wireless, Internet, and digital cinema.
`
`20.
`
`I believe that my extensive industry experience (including experience
`
`with consumer appliances such as STBs, EPGs, television video signal processing,
`
`graphical user interfaces, and associated microprocessor/computer hardware and
`
`software) and educational background qualify me as an expert in the relevant field
`
`of interactive television. I am knowledgeable of the relevant skill set that would
`
`have been possessed by a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention of the challenged Patent. For purposes of this proceeding, the
`
`earliest effective priority date is June 11, 1999, the filing date of the first non-
`
`provisional patent application to which the ’019 Patent claims priority, because the
`
`’019 Patent is not entitled to its earlier provisional priority claim. See § VII.C below.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`In connection with my study of this matter and reaching the opinions
`21.
`
`stated herein, I have reviewed the exhibits accompanying this Declaration as well as
`
`the following documents:
`
`(A) the ’019 Patent;
`
`(B) the Petition and its accompanying exhibits;
`
`(C) other background patents mentioned in this Declaration; and
`
`(D) the prosecution history of the ’019 Patent.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`22. Although I am not an attorney, I have a general understanding of the
`
`applicable legal standards pertaining to the patentability issues presented in this
`
`proceeding. It is my opinion that the challenged claims 1, 2, 3, and 11-13 are
`
`unpatentable because they are rendered obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`by Wood in view of Lawler. It is also my opinion that the challenged claims 4-8 and
`
`14-18 are unpatentable because they are rendered obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) by Wood in view of Lawler and Artigalas. It is also my opinion that the
`
`challenged claims 9 and 19 are unpatentable because they are rendered obvious
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Wood in view of Lawler and Gordon. It is
`
`also my opinion that the challenged claims 10 and 20 are unpatentable because they
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`are rendered obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Wood in view of Lawler,
`
`Artigalas, and Gordon.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, in this inter partes review, Petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving that each challenged claim is unpatentable by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that to be valid, a patent claim must be “novel,” and is
`
`invalid if “anticipated” by a single prior art reference. I further understand a
`
`reference anticipates if it discloses each and every element as arranged in the claim,
`
`so as to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
`
`invention without undue experimentation.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if, at the time of the
`
`invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art to yield the patent claim. I also understand
`
`that it is not required (although it is acceptable) that each element/limitation of a
`
`patent claim be found in a single reference in order to find a patent claim obvious.
`
`For a patent claim to be found obvious, all the elements/limitations of the patent
`
`claim may be found in a combination of references at which a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been reasonably expected to arrive. I understand that a
`
`proper analysis of whether an invention is unpatentable for obviousness includes a
`
`review of the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the patent
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`claims at issue and the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention
`
`at the time of the invention, and other objective considerations identified below.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a showing of obviousness requires some articulated
`
`reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the combination of the references.
`
`I understand that in consideration of the issue of obviousness it is important to
`
`identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have led a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to combine elements of the references in
`
`a way that yields the claimed invention.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim may be considered unpatentable for
`
`obviousness for various reasons. I have been informed that the following exemplary
`
`rationales may support a finding of obviousness:
`
`(A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(B) simply substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`(C) use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way;
`
`(D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement
`
`to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success;
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`(F) known work in a field that prompts variations in the work in the same or
`
`a different field that leads to predictable results; and
`
`(G) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`
`led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a prior art reference or
`
`combine multiple prior art references or teachings to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that various objective or “real world” factors may be
`
`indicative of non-obviousness. I understand that such factors include:
`
`(A)
`
`the commercial success of the claimed invention;
`
`(B)
`
`the existence of a long-felt, unresolved need for a solution to the problem
`
`solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(C) failed attempts to solve the problem solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(D) copying of the claimed invention;
`
`(E) unexpected results of the claimed invention;
`
`(F) praise for the claimed invention by others in the relevant field; and
`
`(G) willingness of others to accept a license under the patent because of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`
`RELEVANT ART
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined from the vantage point of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. With respect to the relevant art, the Background of the Invention
`
`as disclosed in the challenged ’019 Patent provides an overview of the state of the
`
`art leading up to the ’019 Patent’s effective priority date of June 11, 1999, the filing
`
`date of the first non-provisional patent application to which the ’019 Patent claims
`
`priority. In particular, the following admissions appear in the alleged invention
`
`background, demonstrating what was well-known at the time.
`
`30. The ’019 Patent discloses that interactive program guides were in the
`
`prior art:
`
` . . . interactive television program guides have been
`developed that allow television program information to be
`displayed on a user's television. Interactive television
`program guides allow the user to navigate through
`television program listings using a remote control. In a
`typical program guide, various groups of television
`program listings are displayed in predefined or user-
`defined categories. Listings are typically displayed in a
`list, grid, or table.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 1:26-36.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`31. The ’019 Patent teaches that program guides were distributed to STBs
`
`by a cable system head end, and implemented on the STB, which is typically
`
`connected to a user’s television and VCR such that program recordings can be made
`
`via the program guide. Ex. 1101 at 1:34-40. It was typical for recordings to be made
`
`directly from the program guide, as disclosed in the incorporated by reference U.S.
`
`Patent Application Ser. No. 08/924,239, filed September 5, 1997 (now U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,141,488):
`
`A user may select a program for viewing or recording from
`the program guide. For example, the user may place a
`highlight region on top of a desired program listing and
`press a "record" button on a remote control. Pay programs
`may be ordered by placing the highlight region on a pay
`program listing and pressing an “order” button.
`
`Ex. 1108 at 1:24-29; Ex. 1101 at 1:40-44.
`
`32. The ’019 Patent also discloses it was known to use program guides to
`
`enable users to record one program while watching another. Ex. 1101 at 1:58-63.
`
`Additionally, it was known to record digitally onto hard disks, and that such
`
`“products have also been developed by TiVo, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif., and Replay
`
`Networks, Inc. of Mountain View, Calif.” Ex. 1101 at 1:64-2:3. The POSA would
`
`have known that TiVo and Replay Networks products (aka PVRs and/or DVRs)
`
`provided greatly enhanced flexibility over VCRs for local recording of user selected
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`programming content using their built in program guides. Additionally, the POSA
`
`would have also understood this entailed managing the recording, playback, and
`
`saving vs. deletion processes of the programs on the hard drives of these consumer
`
`products—from the program guide user interface.
`
`33. The ’019 Patent discloses that interaction between the STB and servers
`
`at a cable system head end via a return path was known, which enabled STBs to
`
`make information requests of the head end. Ex. 1101 at 2:9-16. The ’019 Patent
`
`goes on to describe that it was known for cable head ends to make recordings of
`
`programs for later access by users, implemented as a video-on-demand service:
`
`Video-on-demand (VOD) systems have also been
`developed. Such systems typically record all programs
`that are distributed by a headend, or only a chosen subset
`of programs. In the former approach, vast amounts of
`storage is required at the server to ensure that all possible
`videos desired by users will be available. In the latter
`approach, users are limited to viewing only those
`programs that the headend operator decided to record.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 2:17-24.
`
`34.
`
`I agree with the opening background statement that the relevant field of
`
`art of the ’019 Patent “relates to interactive television program guide systems, and
`
`more particularly, to interactive television program guide systems that allow users
`
`to record programs and program guide data on a media server.” Ex. 1101 at 1:18-
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`21. Notably, as the alleged invention background discloses, the moving parts of this
`
`statement were all well-known at the time. As a result, and as my invalidity analysis
`
`herein demonstrates, all the moving parts of the challenged claims were also in the
`
`prior art.
`
`35.
`
`It is my opinion that as of the ’019 Patent’s effective June 11, 1999,
`
`priority date, a POSA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, applied mathematics, or a similar
`
`discipline, as well as two or more years of relevant industry or research experience
`
`with systems that transmit video across networks and use electronic program guides
`
`or similar graphical user interfaces. Based on the types of problems encountered in
`
`this art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the
`
`technology, I have assumed, this level of ordinary skill in my analysis.
`
`36.
`
`I worked in the relevant field with such persons at, and leading up to,
`
`the time of the alleged invention of the ’019 Patent, and thus, I am familiar with the
`
`knowledge that such persons had at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In making this Declaration, I have been asked to consider the terms
`37.
`
`found in the claims of the ’019 Patent according to the ordinary meaning that a POSA
`
`at the time of the claimed invention would have given to the terms. I have reviewed
`
`the Petition as to the claim constructions provided therein, and I have applied the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`constructions set forth in the Claim Construction section of the Petition to my
`
`analysis of the prior art.
`
`38. The earliest effective priority date to which the ’019 Patent is entitled
`
`is June 11, 1999, the filing date of the first non-provisional patent application to
`
`which the ’019 Patent claims priority. See § VII.C below.
`
`Program guide
`A.
`39. A “program guide” should be construed as “an application that causes
`
`display of program information on user television equipment.”
`
`40. The basic function of a program guide is to provide information about
`
`video programs, and an interactive program guide (IPG) provides such information
`
`via an interactive application. For example, the ’019 Patent explains that IPGs
`
`“allow television program information to be displayed on a user’s television.” Ex.
`
`1101 at 1:26-30.
`
`41. The ’019 Patent broadly describes optional features of an IPG in terms
`
`of what is “typical” for a program guide:
`
`In a typical program guide, various groups of television
`program listings are displayed in predefined or user-
`defined categories. Listings are typically displayed in a
`list, grid, or table.
`
`Program listings and other program guide data are
`typically provided by a satellite uplink facility to a number
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`of cable system headends. Each headend distributes the
`program guide data to a number of users. Interactive
`television program guides are typically implemented on
`the users set-top boxes. A typical set-top box is connected
`to a user's television and videocassette recorder.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 1:30-40 (emphasis added). Similarly, the ’019 Patent states:
`
`Some current television platforms support a return path
`between the set-top boxes and the headends. Client-server
`based program guides have been developed in which set-
`top boxes act as clients that communicate with servers
`located at headends via return paths. The servers typically
`provide program listings information (e.g., program titles
`and broadcast times) to the set-top boxes in response to
`requests that are generated by the set-top boxes.
`
`Video-on-demand (VOD) systems have also been
`developed. Such systems typically record all programs
`that are distributed by a headend, or only a chosen subset
`of programs.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 2:9-19 (emphasis added).
`
`42. Based on the ’019 Patent’s disclosure, these features should be
`
`considered optional features of a program guide due to the use of optional language
`
`in the specification, and because there is no other reason to limit the claim term to
`
`require these optional features. Thus, the ’019 Patent does not limit the term
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`“program guide” to software that displays information by category or in a list, grid,
`
`or table, to particular networks or data sources such as satellite uplinks or head ends,
`
`to particular hardware such as set-top boxes, or to particular configurations such as
`
`client-server configurations.
`
`43. The proposed construction, consistent with the ’019 Patent itself, omits
`
`these optional features and focuses on the display of information about video
`
`programs. The proposed construction also omits any limitation that would require
`
`the program guide to be “intera
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
