Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Date: April 1, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, MINN CHUNG, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`Roku, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, and 22–
`
`25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’642 patent”). Paper 2
`
`(“Pet.”). Universal Electronics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim,
`
`we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review. The Board has not
`
`made a final determination regarding the patentability of any claim.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’642 Patent
`
`The ’642 patent “relates generally to remote control devices and, more
`
`specifically, to relaying key code signals through a remote control device to
`
`operate an electronic consumer device.” Ex. 1001, 1:6–9. Each of such key
`
`code signals “corresponds to a function of the selected electronic device,
`
`such as power on, power off, volume up, volume down, play, stop, select,
`
`channel up, channel down, etc.” Id. at 1:25–28. A set of key codes
`
`associated with a particular electronic device is referred to as a “codeset.”
`
`Id. at 1:23–25. The number of key code signals may be large, particularly
`
`when a single remote-control device is used to control multiple electronic
`
`devices. Id. at 1:39–47. Accordingly, the inventor of the ’642 patent sought
`
`a system “for enabling a remote control device to control a selected one of
`
`multiple different electronic consumer devices without requiring the codeset
`
`associated with the selected electronic consumer device to be stored on the
`
`remote control device.” Id. at 1:51–55.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’642 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a system for relaying a key code through a remote control
`
`device to an electronic consumer device. Id. at 3:1–3. System 10 includes
`
`remote control device 11, key code generator device 12 (shown as a set-top
`
`box), first electronic consumer device 13 (shown as a video cassette recorder
`
`(“VCR”)), and second electronic consumer device 14 (shown as a television
`
`set). Id. at 3:5–8; 3:18–21, 3:27–28. With remote control device 11, a user
`
`responds to on-screen displays 15 of television set 14, generated by key code
`
`generator device 12, “to step through a sequence of menu screens to identify
`
`the codeset corresponding to the device that is to be controlled.” Id. at 3:12–
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`16, 3:27–33. For example, system 10 may, in this way, identify the
`
`appropriate codeset to enable remote control device 11 to communicate with
`
`VCR 13 and television set 14. Id. at 3:27–35.
`
`An alternative embodiment uses an “autoscan functionality” in which
`
`the user is “prompted by successive screens on display 15 to push the power-
`
`on key of remote control device 11 multiple times.” Id. at 7:60–66. As the
`
`user repeatedly presses the power-on key, “key code generator device 12 in
`
`turn generates key codes using different codesets until the electronic
`
`consumer device performs a desired function,” such as turning on. Id. at
`
`8:6–10. The user is prompted to stop pressing the power-on key once the
`
`user sees the desired function being performed by first electronic consumer
`
`device 13. Id. at 8:10–13. “When the user stops pressing the power-on key,
`
`then the key code generator device 12 identifies the codeset of the last
`
`transmitted key code to be the codeset used by the electronic consumer
`
`device.” Id. at 8:15–18.
`
`The ’642 patent explains that, in some instances, key code generator
`
`device 12 is capable of communicating with remotely maintained database
`
`of codesets 39 over network 38, which may be the Internet. Id. at 8:32–35.
`
`A new codeset, such as may be associated with a new electronic consumer
`
`device introduced into the market, may thus be distributed from database 39
`
`via network 38 and stored on a mass-storage hard disk within key code
`
`generator device 12. Id. at 8:35–43.
`
`After generating a key code, key code generator device 12 modulates
`
`the key code onto a carrier signal, such as an RF signal, to generate “first
`
`key code signal 19.” Id. at 4:35–37. Figure 5 of the ’642 patent is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a twelve-bit key code modulated onto first key code
`
`signal 19 using pulse-width modulation. Id. at 4:66–67. Remote control
`
`device 11 receives first key code signal 19 on an RF transmission from key
`
`code generator device 12, and relays the key code to the appropriate
`
`electronic consumer device, such as VCR 13, in the form of second key code
`
`signal 22. Id. at 5:37–44. The electronic consumer device receives second
`
`key code signal 22, recovers the key code, and, if the key code is correct for
`
`the device, performs the function desired by the user. Id. at 5:64–6:1, 8:6–
`
`18.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claims
`
`Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`(a) receiving a keystroke indicator signal from a remote
`control device, wherein the keystroke indicator signal indicates
`a key on said remote control device that a user has selected;
`
`(b) generating a key code within a key code generator
`device using the keystroke indic[a]tor signal;
`
`(c) modulating said key code onto a carrier signal,
`thereby generating a key code signal; and
`
`(d) transmitting said key code signal from said key code
`generator device to said remote control device.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:11–21.
`
`Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is similar to independent
`
`claim 1, but recites transmitting the key code signal “to an electronic
`
`consumer device” instead of “to said remote control device.”
`
`2. A method comprising:
`(a) receiving a keystroke indicator signal from a remote
`control device, wherein the keystroke indicator signal indicates
`a ke[y] on said remote control device that a user has selected;
`(b) generating a key code within a key code generator
`device using the keystroke indic[a]tor signal;
`(c) modulating said key code onto a carrier signal,
`thereby generating a key code signal; and
`(d) transmitting said key code signal from said key code
`generator device to an electronic consumer device.
`
`Id. at 10:22–32.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Evidence
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`Mishra
`Dubil
`Rye
`Caris
`Skerlos
`
`US 2001/0005197 A1
`US 8,132,105 B1
`US 2004/0080428 A1
`US 7,562,128 B1
`US 4,426,662
`
`June 28, 2001
`Mar. 6, 2012
`Apr. 29, 2004
`July 14, 2009
`Jan. 17, 1984
`
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`In addition, Petitioner relies on a Declaration by Samuel H. Russ,
`
`Ph.D. Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, and 22–25 on the following
`
`grounds. Pet. 3.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9
`2, 22–25
`1–4, 6, 8, 9, 22–25
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`
`References
`
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`Mishra, Dubil
`Rye, Dubil
`Caris, Skerlos
`
`E. Real Parties in Interest
`
`The parties identify only themselves as real parties in interest.
`
`Pet. 74; Paper 3, 2.
`
`
`
`F. Related Matters
`
`Both parties identify Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.,
`
`No. 8:18-cv-01580 (C.D. Cal.), as involving the ’642 patent (“the related
`
`litigation”). Pet. 74; Paper 3, 2.
`
`The ’642 patent is one of several patents owned by Patent Owner that
`
`are challenged by Petitioner in various petitions for inter partes review,
`
`including in IPR2019-01595, IPR2019-01608, IPR2019-01613,
`
`IPR2019-01614, IPR2019-01615, IPR2019-01619, IPR2019-01620, and
`
`IPR2019-01621. See Pet. 74; Paper 3, 2. The parties also note that the
`
`following applications claim the benefit of the filing date of the ’642 patent:
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 12/462,526 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,004,389); U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 13/068,820 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,355,553); U.S. Patent
`
`Appl. No. 15/153,095 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325); U.S. Patent Appl.
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended various provisions of 35 U.S.C. Because
`the ’642 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
`relevant amendment), the pre-AIA versions of those provisions apply.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`No. 15/864,339; and U.S. Patent Appl. No. 16/057,544. Pet. 74–75; Paper 3,
`
`3.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Principles
`
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`
`“such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`indicia of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.2 Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
`
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`
`2 At this time, the parties do not address objective indicia of nonobviousness,
`which accordingly do not form part of our analysis. See Pet. 73 (“Petitioner
`is not aware of any alleged secondary considerations by Patent Owner.
`Petitioner believes that Patent Owner has not, to date, made any non-
`conclusory assertions of any secondary considerations of non-
`obviousness.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG
`
`v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage point
`
`obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998). “This legal construct is akin to the ‘reasonable person’ used as a
`
`reference in negligence determinations” and “also presumes that all prior art
`
`references in the field of the invention are available to this hypothetical
`
`skilled artisan.” Id. (citing In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993)).
`
`Supported by the testimony of Dr. Russ, Petitioner proposes that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or equivalent degree with two years of work
`
`experience relating to communications and consumer electronics.” Pet. 12–
`
`13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–18). Patent Owner proposes instead that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree which
`
`involved computer programming coursework, for example, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, computer science, cognitive science,
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, or a similar degree, and at
`
`least one year of work experience in software programming, user interfaces,
`
`or human factors.” Prelim. Resp. 4. According to Patent Owner,
`
`“[a]dditional education might substitute for some of the experience, and
`
`substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational
`
`background.” Id. at 4–5.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation.
`
`Although Patent Owner acknowledges Petitioner’s statement, id. at 5, Patent
`
`Owner provides no explanation for the more specific requirements it sets
`
`forth for work experience. In addition, unlike Petitioner’s proposal, Patent
`
`Owner’s statement is not supported by testimonial evidence. We note,
`
`though, that for the limited purpose of determining whether to institute an
`
`inter partes review, we would reach the same conclusion under either
`
`proposed standard.
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`For petitions filed after November 13, 2018, as here, the Board uses
`
`“the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the
`
`claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the
`
`claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim
`
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The following
`
`terms are addressed by the parties.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`1. “key code”
`
`The parties agree that the term “key code,” which is recited in each of
`
`challenged independent claims 1 and 2, should be construed as “a code
`
`corresponding to the function of an electronic device, optionally including
`
`timing information.” Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 7. This construction was
`
`adopted by the district court in the related litigation. Ex. 1010, 12. The
`
`district court’s construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the phrase in light of the Specification, and we adopt the
`
`proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:49–53.
`
`
`
`2. “keystroke indicator signal”
`
`The parties agree that the term “keystroke indicator signal,” which is
`
`recited in each of challenged independent claims 1 and 2, should be
`
`construed as “a signal, distinct from a key code, corresponding to a pressed
`
`key [on a remote control].” Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. 8 (alterations in original).
`
`This construction was adopted by the district court in the related litigation.
`
`Ex. 1010, 12–13 (alteration in original). The district court’s construction is
`
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase in light of
`
`the Specification, and we adopt the proposed construction for purposes of
`
`this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:51–58.
`
`
`
`3. “key code signal”
`
`In the related litigation, the parties proposed different constructions of
`
`“key code signal,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1
`
`and 2. Ex. 1010, 13. The district court provided a construction that differs
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`from both parties’ proposed constructions, namely “a signal containing a
`
`modulated key code.” Id. at 13–23. Patent Owner proposes that this
`
`construction be adopted for this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. Petitioner
`
`does not specifically advocate for a particular construction but contends that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable both under the district court’s
`
`construction and under the construction proposed by Patent Owner in the
`
`related litigation, i.e. “a signal containing a key code.” Pet. 14.
`
`The district court’s construction is consistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the phrase in light of the Specification, and we adopt
`
`it for purposes of this Decision. See Ex. 1010, 13–23.
`
`
`
`4. “key code generator device”
`
`In the related litigation, the parties disputed whether “key code
`
`generator device,” which is recited in challenged each of independent
`
`claims 1 and 2, should be construed according to the provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 ¶ 63 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`
`means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be
`
`construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in
`
`the specification and equivalents thereof.”). Ex. 1010, 23–24. In advocating
`
`for construction as such a means-plus-function limitation, Petitioner
`
`contended that “[t]he structure is indefinite due to lack of sufficient
`
`
`3 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’642 patent has a filing date prior to
`September 16, 2012, the effective date of § 4(c) of the AIA, we refer to the
`pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See AIA § 4(e).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`corresponding structure.” Id. In contrast, Patent Owner argued that the term
`
`is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and should instead be construed as
`
`“an electronic consumer device, other than a remote control, that identifies a
`
`codeset and generates a key code from the identified codeset.” Id. As an
`
`alternative position, Patent Owner contended that “[t]o the extent 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112(6) applies, the corresponding structure is a set-top box, television, a
`
`stereo radio, a digital video disk player, a video cassette recorder, a personal
`
`computer, a set-top cable television box or a set-top satellite box and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Id.
`
`The absence of the word “means” in the phrase creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`
`LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The district court found that
`
`“the presumption against means-plus-function claiming is overcome” and
`
`applied § 112 ¶ 6 to interpret “key code generator device.” Ex. 1010, 26. In
`
`its interpretation, the court found that “the relationship between the claimed
`
`components fails to provide information to conclude that the coined term
`
`‘key code generator device’ connotes sufficient structure.” Id.. In doing so,
`
`the court determined that “the claimed function is to generate a key code.”
`
`Id.
`
`In considering the corresponding structure, the district court rejected
`
`Petitioner’s contention that the structure is indefinite. See id. at 29 (“The
`
`disclosure in the patent specification supports the conclusion that ‘key code
`
`generator device 12’ is a corresponding structure clearly linked to the recited
`
`function of ‘generat[ing] a key code.’” (alteration in original)). Instead, the
`
`district court arrived at its articulation of the corresponding structure by
`
`observing that “[t]he disclosure for ‘key code generator device 12’ explains
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`that it generates a key code by (1) identifying (or being informed of) a
`
`codeset usable to communicate with the electronic device and (2) identifying
`
`the key code corresponding to a pressed key for that codeset.” Id. Because,
`
`according to the district court, “this disclosure effectively provides a
`
`software-like algorithm describing what the key code generator device must
`
`do to ‘generate’ a key code,” the district court incorporated such algorithmic
`
`features in its identification of the corresponding structure. Id. (noting
`
`testimonial evidence that off-the-shelf versions of the devices identified by
`
`the Specification would require modification to be able to perform the
`
`recited function).
`
`The district court accordingly supplemented its identification of the
`
`function of the recited “key code generator device” (i.e., “to generate a key
`
`code”) with the following structure: “a set-top box, television, stereo radio,
`
`digital video disk player, video cassette recorder, personal computer, set-top
`
`cable television box or satellite box . . . performing the steps of (1)
`
`identifying a codeset usable to communicate with an electronic consumer
`
`device . . . and (2) identifying the key code corresponding to a pressed key
`
`for that codeset . . . and equivalents thereof.” Id. at 30 (citations to
`
`Specification of the ’642 patent omitted).
`
`In this proceeding, Patent Owner proposes that we adopt the district
`
`court’s construction of “key code generator device.” Prelim. Resp. 8–9.
`
`Petitioner does not specifically advocate for a particular construction but
`
`contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable both under the district
`
`court’s construction and under the construction originally proposed by
`
`Patent Owner in the related litigation. Pet. 15. For purposes of this
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`Decision, and recognizing the preliminary nature of our findings and
`
`conclusions herein, we adopt the district court’s construction.
`
`Nevertheless, we note that in a related proceeding, namely IPR2019-
`
`01613, which challenges claims of a related patent having substantially the
`
`same disclosure as the ’642 patent, we identify a potential inconsistency in a
`
`concurrently issued decision. In particular, one of the challenged
`
`independent claims in IPR2019-01613 recites a limitation that appears to
`
`embrace the “autoscan” embodiment described in the Specification of the
`
`’642 patent. In IPR2019-01613, we ask the parties to take specific positions
`
`on the proper construction of “key code generator device” in light of our
`
`observation. Although the same issue does not appear to arise in the context
`
`of the claims challenged in this proceeding, in the interest of consistency
`
`between the two proceedings, we similarly ask the parties to take specific
`
`positions on the proper construction of the phrase. In addition, if the parties
`
`propose different constructions in the two proceedings, we ask that the
`
`parties justify such different constructions.
`
`
`
`D. Grounds Based on Mishra and Dubil
`
`1. Mishra
`
`Mishra discloses “a way to program a remote control unit to handle a
`
`variety of electronic devices in a fashion which is easy and quick for the
`
`user.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. Figure 1 of Mishra is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of control system 10, which includes
`
`processor-based system 12 in communication with remote control unit 18.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 7, 14. System 12 may be a set-top computer system that works
`
`together with conventional television receiver 14. Id. ¶ 14. Remote control
`
`unit 18 may include display 32, keypad 34, and joy-stick navigational
`
`control 44. Id. ¶ 15. In addition, remote control unit 18 may include
`
`telephone off-hook button 46 and buttons 50, 52 that act as “on” and “off”
`
`controls for dedicated electronic devices, such as audio/visual receiver 16.
`
`Id.
`
`Remote control unit 18 may communicate with system 12 using
`
`wireless communication such as infrared or radio-frequency links, and
`
`system 12 can translate a command signal received from radio control unit
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`18 into a format appropriate for controlling device 16. Id. ¶¶ 18, 20. “That
`
`is, it is not necessary to program [remote control unit 18] independently.
`
`Instead a variety of codes may be stored in the system 12.” Id. ¶ 20. Thus,
`
`when remote control unit 18 transmits a signal corresponding to a known
`
`function, system 12 can translate that signal and send information back to
`
`remote control unit 18 to control the particular device remote control device
`
`18 is to operate. Id. Figure 1 depicts two communication pathways that
`
`illustrate this relaying process. Namely, pathway 24 provides bidirectional
`
`communication between remote control unit 18 and system 12, while
`
`pathway 22 is between remote control unit 18 and device 16. Id. ¶ 34.
`
`For example, if a user presses a button on remote control unit 18, such
`
`as a “channel up button,” remote control unit 18 transmits a command to
`
`system 12, which receives the signal and “in turn sends [remote control
`
`unit 18] the necessary codes to increment the channel on the TV.” Id. ¶ 37.
`
`Remote control unit 18 takes these codes and sends them to the TV using
`
`protocols stored in its memory. Id.
`
`
`
`2. Dubil
`
`Dubil “relates to remote control devices and to a service for enabling
`
`the programming of remote controls to be used with consumer electronics
`
`(CE) equipment.” Ex. 1006, 1:6–8. Figure 1 of Dubil is reproduced below.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of system 100, which comprises server 102
`
`connected via Internet 104 to appliance 106, such as a set-top box or
`
`personal computer, at a user’s home. Id. at 4:48–51. Server 102 includes
`
`database 116, which maintains an inventory of control codes for
`
`commercially available consumer electronics equipment of various brands
`
`and types. Id. at 4:60–62.
`
`The user has “universal programmable remote control device 108,”
`
`which includes transmitter 112 for sending control codes to electronics
`
`equipment, such as TVs, VCRs, CD players, set-top boxes, DVD players,
`
`audio pre-amplifiers and tuners, etc. Id. at 4:51–57. Input 114 of remote
`
`control device 108 allows for communication with appliance 106. Id. at
`
`4:57–59. In operation, “[t]he user requests via appliance 106 a code set from
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`server 102 for control of the apparatus, type, brand, serial no., etc., as
`
`specified by the user and to be controlled via remote 108.” Id. at 5:6–8.
`
`The codes maintained in database 116 are formatted as XML
`
`(Extensible Markup Language) documents such that “relevant parameters of
`
`a particular control code or command are defined using XML tags.” Id. at
`
`4:64–66. “For example, tags are defined for the relevant controllable
`
`apparatus to which a code pertains, for its type number, for the IR or RF
`
`carrier frequency, for the duty cycle, the protocol type, for the repetition
`
`time, for the on/off times of the signal, etc.” Id. at 4:66–5:3. Dubil also
`
`discloses different modulation schemes that may be used in transmitting
`
`control codes having different bit patterns, including frequency-shift keying
`
`(“FSK”), binary phase-shift keying (“BPSK”), and pulse-width modulation
`
`(“PWM”). Id. at 4:33–37.
`
`
`
`3. Obviousness of Independent Claim 1
`
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mishra and Dubil. Pet. 20–26. In addressing the
`
`recited limitations, Petitioner draws a correspondence between (1) the
`
`recited “remote control device” and Mishra’s remote control unit 18, id. at
`
`21; (2) the recited “key code generator device” and Mishra’s system 12, id.;
`
`(3) the recited “keystroke indicator signal” and Mishra’s command signal
`
`transmitted from its remote control unit 18, id. at 22; and (4) the recited “key
`
`code” and Mishra’s determined “remote control code,” id. at 22–23. In
`
`doing so, Petitioner relies generally on Mishra’s described functionality to
`
`meet the limitations of claim 1 requiring “receiving a keystroke indicator
`
`signal from a remote control device” and “generating a key code within a
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`key code generator device using the keystroke indicator signal.” Id. at 22–
`
`23.
`
`In particular, Petitioner contends that the “generating” limitation is
`
`disclosed by Mishra’s determination of a corresponding control code
`
`through translation of a command signal received from remote control unit
`
`18 by system 12 into a format appropriate for controlling device 16:
`
`“Specifically, upon receipt of the keystroke indicator signal, Mishra’s set top
`
`box translates the keystroke indicator signal into a format appropriate for
`
`controlling a particular device, thereby generating a key code.” Pet. 23.
`
`Patent Owner disputes this contention, arguing that “[t]he Petition and Russ
`
`declaration fail to provide any insight into what Mishra means by ‘translate,’
`
`and fail to provide any explanations as to how translating and using a
`
`keystroke indicator signal to generate a key code are the same thing.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 12. In a similar argument, Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`
`identification of Mishra’s system 12 as corresponding to a “key code
`
`generator device” because “it does not disclose the function of generating a
`
`key code.” Id. at 13. But Patent Owner has not, at this time, proposed any
`
`construction of “generating” that is inconsistent with Petitioner’s position.
`
`Indeed, the method described by the ’642 patent, in which “key code
`
`generator device 12 determines which key code of the codeset previously
`
`identified in step 100 corresponds to the pressed key,” appears similar to that
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`described by Mishra. Ex. 1001, 4:24–26.4 We accordingly find Petitioner’s
`
`identification for the “generating” limitation sufficient at this stage.
`
`For the “modulating” limitation, Petitioner relies on the combination
`
`of Dubil with Mishra, observing that Mishra teaches wireless transmission of
`
`control codes to a remote control in response to user selection of a button on
`
`the remote control. Pet. 24. “For the specific details behind Mishra’s
`
`wireless transmission of control codes, a [person of ordinary skill in the art]
`
`would have looked to references, such as Dubil, which explicitly describe
`
`the transmission of control codes, such as Mishra’s, via modulation onto a
`
`carrier signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–126). Patent Owner disputes
`
`this showing, arguing that “[w]hile Dubil discloses that the codes are
`
`extracted from an XML file and supplied to remote 108, Dubil does not
`
`describe how they are supplied.” Prelim. Resp. 15. In particular, Patent
`
`Owner contends that “Dubil does not disclose that the extracted codes are
`
`supplied specifically via modulation on a carrier signal.” Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, 5:18–23). This attorney argument is contrary to the testimonial
`
`evidence provided by Dr. Russ that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`“would have understood Dubil’s use of well-known modulation protocols
`
`and IR and RF carrier frequencies to transmit control codes would render
`
`obvious modulating a control code onto a carrier frequency.” Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 127. In particular, Dr. Russ testifies that a person of skill in the art “using
`
`the system described in Mishra would have easily implemented and utilized
`
`
`4 We also note that, in the related litigation, the district court asserted (in the
`context of considering its construction of “key code generator device”) that
`“any challenge Roku has to the meaning of the term ‘generate,’ including a
`suggestion that it could only be satisfied by creating a key code from
`scratch, is rejected.” Ex. 1010, 29.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01612
`Patent 7,589,642 B1
`
`the same parameters described in Dubil to modulate a control code onto an
`
`IR or RF carrier frequency and transmit the corresponding signal to a remote
`
`control.” Id. ¶ 128. At this stage, in the absence of opposing evidence
`
`presented by Patent Owner for us to evaluate, we find Petitioner’s showing
`
`sufficient.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Mishra fails to disclose a “key code
`
`signal” distinct from a “keystroke indicator signal.” Prelim. Resp. 16. This
`
`argument is not persuasive because Petitioner identifies the recited “key
`
`code signal” a