Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`Entered: March 10, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: January 25, 2021
`__________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, MINN CHUNG, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`Entered: March 10, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: January 25, 2021
`__________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, MINN CHUNG, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JON WRIGHT, ESQ.
`ALI ALLAWI, ESQ.
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Ave, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JAMES LUKAS, JR., ESQ.
`BENJAMIN GILFORD, ESQ.
`Greenberg Traurig
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`
`
`
`ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`S. BENJAMIN PLEUNE, ESQ.
`Alston & Bird
`One South at The Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`(704) 444-1000
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, January
`
`25, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE FENICK: Good day. This is a trial hearing for
`IPR2019-01615, which relates to U.S. Patent 9,716,853. The
`Petitioner is Roku, Inc., and the Patent Owner Universal
`Electronics, Inc.
` I'm Sharon Fenick, and joining me are Judges Chung
`and Boucher.
` This time, we'd like to ask to -- counsel to
`introduce themselves and anyone else that you have with you,
`starting with Petitioner, please.
` MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Your Honors, and may it
`please the Board. This is Jon Wright from Sterne, Kessler,
`Goldstein & Fox, representing the Petitioner, Roku. And on
`the line is my colleague, Ali Allawi, also from Sterne,
`Kessler.
` And I'm not sure if anyone else is on the public
`line.
` JUDGE FENICK: Thank you.
` And for Patent Owner, please.
` Patent Owner, we're not hearing you if you're
`speaking.
` MR. LUKAS: Hello. Can you hear me now?
` JUDGE FENICK: Now we can.
` MR. LUKAS: Sorry about that. I'm here for the
`Patent Owner. This is James Lukas of the law firm Greenberg
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`Traurig. And also with me is Ben Gilford. I believe on
`behalf of Patent Owner there also might be Ben Pleune of
`Alston & Bird.
` JUDGE FENICK: Thank you.
` Mr. Wright mentioned the public audio line has been
`requested for this hearing. Additionally, a full transcript
`is being taken and will become part of the hearing record in
`due course.
` According to our hearing order, each side has one
`hour in order to -- in order to present. We'll start with
`the Petitioner because the Petitioner has the burden in this
`case. Petitioner can reserve time, followed by the Patent
`Owner who can also reserve time.
` Every member of the Panel has a copy of the
`demonstrative exhibits that were filed by both sides. And,
`in addition, we each have access to the entire record of the
`proceeding in case you choose to refer to something that's
`not on the slides but is in the record. When conducting the
`presentation, if you could, please take care to refer to
`slide number, exhibit, or page number that you're discussing
`for the record, which will make it easier for us to follow
`your presentation and also help with clarity in the
`transcript.
` If you could, please make sure you introduce yourself
`before you speak for the benefit of the court reporter. And
`if you could please mute yourselves when not presenting, that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`will also help with the clarity of our proceeding here.
` This time, are there any questions from either side?
` Mr. Wright?
` MR. WRIGHT: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE FENICK: Thank you.
` Mr. Lukas.
` MR. LUKAS: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE FENICK: Thank you.
` Mr. Wright, as I said, you'll go first. Would you
`like to reserve time for rebuttal?
` MR. WRIGHT: I -- I would, Your Honor. I'd like to
`reserve 15 minutes.
` JUDGE FENICK: Thank you. Please proceed, and -- and
`I'll let you know when the 45 minutes elapses.
` ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
` MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Your Honor. And may it
`please the Board, again, this is Jon Wright from Sterne,
`Kessler, representing the Petitioner, Roku.
` And I'll begin on slide 2, which has the instituted
`grounds. So slide 2 simply reproduces the Board's chart on
`the institution decision, and it accurately reflects the
`substance of the petition. Chardon is the primary reference,
`and the petition explains how Chardon discloses every element
`of every challenged claim. And the petition also sets forth
`how it relies on HDMI and Stecyk to supplement Chardon. And,
`again, the Board's institution decision accurately captures
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`the grounds. I'll thus spend the bulk of my time today on
`the Chardon reference.
` So turning to slide 3, I'll briefly cover what's not
`in dispute here. So the Patent Owner does not separately
`argue any dependent claims, so all the grounds here rise and
`fall with independent claim 1. And, also, independent claim
`1, which is the only independent claim, it's a system claim.
`There's no dispute here that Chardon discloses the physical
`elements that make up the claim system.
` So moving to slide 4 and the disputed issues. So the
`disputed issues here center primarily on what Patent Owner
`refers to as the listing limitations because they center
`around how the claim system creates a listing. And the
`Patent Owner identifies four alleged deficiencies with
`Chardon, each of which I will cover in the presentation.
` Patent Owner also challenges the motivation to
`combine Chardon with both HDMI and Stecyk. And with respect
`to the HDMI spec, the Patent Owner alleges that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would've used a more recent version
`of the specification, but those arguments are both legally
`and factually deficient. And with respect to Stecyk, since
`the Patent Owner does not dispute that the Chardon --
`Chardon's link to command code database qualifies as a list,
`there's really no need for the Board to reach Stecyk or the
`Patent Owner's complaint about Stecyk.
` So I'd like to next move to slide 5 and give a brief
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`overview of how the '853 patent system works.
` And on slide 5, we see a logical topography of --
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Could I just -- could I just
`interrupt for a moment?
` MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: And I'm just wondering if you have a
`response to the Patent Owner's concern that -- that you
`actually have no grounds presented in the petition that
`relied just on Chardon, in which case then the Patent Owner's
`issue with respect to Stecyk would actually be relevant;
`wouldn’t you agree? If you -- if -- because in your summary,
`you only had the -- it appeared that you were only advancing
`the one ground based on the combination of the three
`references, but then in the body it seemed like maybe that
`wasn't what you were doing.
` MR. WRIGHT: Sure, Your Honor. So just referring
`back to slide 2, I think I'm focusing on the ground that
`relies on Chardon alone for this presentation. And I think
`the -- you know, to suggest that their -- that the ground
`requires all three references elevates form over substance,
`and I think the Board's decision on institution accurately
`captures the way in which the petition relied on Chardon on
`its own to disclose every element of every challenged claim.
` And then it relies on HDMI -- the HDMI specification
`to supplement what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would've known about common and HDMI feeders, and that's how
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`we effectively relied on HDMI in the ground.
` And then, with respect to Stecyk, it is really there
`in the alternative, in case the Patent Owner argued that
`Chardon's database -- so Chardon doesn't expressly say
`anything about a list. It doesn't use the word list. And in
`the event that the Patent Owner made an allegation that
`Chardon's link to database that we point to as reading on the
`claimed list -- in case the Patent Owner, you know,
`challenged that, well, then Stecyk, I think, expressly has
`disclosure of lists and that those lists could be substituted
`for Chardon's list of command codes.
` So, again, I think the decision on institution
`accurately captures the grounds that are set forth in the
`petition, and I think the petition lays it out as well. I
`hope that answers the question.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Yes, that's fine. Please go ahead.
` MR. WRIGHT: Okay. So returning to slide 5 and
`giving an overview of how the '853 patent system works. So
`on slide 5, again, we have the logical topography of
`controllable appliances in which the purported invention
`operates.
` And the '853 patent recognizes that in a home theater
`system, for example, there are likely to be many different
`controllable appliances, such as a set-top box, a receiver, a
`DVD player, a display, typically, and it recognizes that as
`the technology advances, the appliances in this logical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`topography may use different communication methods.
` And to deal with that, the '853 patent envisions what
`it calls the universal control engine, and that's element 100
`in annotated Figure 1 on slide 5. And the universal control
`engine sits in between a controlling device, like remote
`control 102, and an intended target appliance, such as
`set-top box 110 or display 106.
` And it is the -- the universal control engine's job
`to receive a command from the controlling device, like a
`volume-up or a power-off command, and to relay that command
`to the target appliance using the optimal communication
`method. So it's a bridge device effectively. And the
`exemplary, you know, different communication methods include
`sending a CEC command over an HDMI interface or an IR command
`over an IR interface. And to determine the optimal
`communication method for a particular appliance, the '853
`patent creates a listing. And the universal control engine
`then uses that listing to determine the best way to
`promulgate the request from the controlling device onto the
`intended target appliance.
` So before turning to some of the details of how that
`link list is created, I'd like to give the same overview for
`how the Chardon reference works, and I'm turning to slide 6
`right now and looking at Chardon's system.
` And, as we can see on slide 6, Chardon has nearly
`identical logical topography of controllable appliances. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`Chardon discloses that those appliances can be, like the '853
`patent, a set-top box or a DVD player or a display, like HDMI
`display 105. And Chardon's invention is similarly embodied
`in what it calls a multimedia gateway. That's element 110 in
`Figure 1 of slide 6. And, just like the '853 patent, that
`multimedia gateway acts as a relay or a bridge between a
`controlling device, like remote control 115, and an intended
`target appliance, like HDMI display 105a.
` And, importantly, Chardon's directed to a similar
`problem as the '853 patent. It recognizes that -- the
`changing means by which devices in a logical topography my
`communicate. And, most importantly, Chardon solves the
`problem in effectively the same way as the '853 patent. Its
`multimedia gateway is configured to respond to the detected
`presence of the target appliance by creating an EDID-linked
`or vendor-ID-linked database of command code sets for
`multiple different communication methods, such as sending CEC
`commands over HDMI or IR commands over an IR interface, and
`Chardon's multimedia gateway, just like the '853 patent,
`relies on that link list to optimize the communication
`between the controlling appliance and the intended target
`appliance by acting as a bridge.
` So moving on to slide --
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Actually, before you move on, you
`just mentioned the -- the linked database. What is the
`difference between an unlinked database and the linked
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`database? Are the databases themselves in those two cases
`identical?
` MR. WRIGHT: So I think the best way to answer that
`might be to look at slide 7, which has the '853 patent's
`method of creating the listing.
` And what the '853 patent does is it obtains -- and
`this is Figure 9 from the '853 patent, and it's been split
`into two halves -- and what the '853 patent does first is it
`grabs the -- it determines or ascertains the appliances that
`are in the logical topography by obtaining, for example, an
`EDID from the appliance or a vendor ID from the appliance and
`identifies the appliances in the logical topography. And
`then -- and that's on the left-hand side of the flow chart of
`Figure 9.
` And on the right-hand side of the flow chart of
`Figure 9, what the '853 patent does is it obtains sets of
`command codes, the appliances, and then in step 926 and 928,
`it builds a command matrix. And that command matrix, which
`is stored in the UCE, is represented on slide 8. And the
`'853 patent's command matrix is a linked list. It has the
`functions down the left-hand side. It has the appliances
`across the top. It has an indication of which command
`protocol to use, and that is linked by a pointer to the
`appropriate command data value, and you can see that in the
`highlighted portion of the '853 patent specification on
`Figure 8.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
` So Chardon's list is -- is very similar. So if we go
`-- if we move back to slide 7, what Chardon's linked list
`does -- so Chardon, again -- well, actually, perhaps slide 10
`is a better slide to refer to. We may -- I may flip back to
`the Figure 9 flow chart.
` So in slide 10, the way that Chardon creates the
`listing is, as you can see on the left-hand side of slide 10,
`what's highlighted, Chardon collects the EDID from the HDMI
`display. And in this described embodiment, Chardon's HDMI
`display is the intended target appliance. So Chardon
`collects the EDID from the HDMI display, and then -- I'm in
`paragraph 44 now at the last highlighted section -- Chardon's
`multimedia gateway is configured to link the EDID for the
`HDMI display with a locally stored set of command codes, so
`IR command codes and CEC command codes, for the HDMI display.
` So Chardon similarly obtains an identification -- in
`this embodiment, it's the EDID from the HDMI display -- and
`then it links that EDID to a set of command codes, both IR
`command codes and CEC command codes, for the HDMI display.
`So it generates a very similar linked list.
` And then what both Chardon and the '853 patent do
`with the linked list is described on slide 11.
` So what Chardon does is -- in this particular
`embodiment -- is it -- the remote control engine receives
`a command from a controlling device, and then it first sends
`a CEC command to try and control the target appliance. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`if it gets a response back that that was successful, then
`that's well and good, the CEC command worked. But if a
`response is not received, so the command code may have been
`not received or not properly executed, well, then Chardon
`will try an IR command code for the very same function. And
`that is sent on to the HDMI appliance.
` And the '853 patent works exactly the same way, and
`that's described from column 11, line 50, over to column 12,
`line 41. The '853 patent describes almost exactly the same
`function.
` First, it tries to send the command via CEC, and
`that's at column 11 -- column 11, line, say, 50 to 55, and
`then in column 12 it describes that if the CEC didn't work --
`and this is, for example, at column 12, line 24 -- it says,
`If no confirmation or a negative confirmation is received, at
`step 12 the UCE may -- programming may determine if an
`alternative method is available to communicate the command to
`the target appliance.
` And then it goes on further in column 12, kind of,
`like, around lines 37 to 40, it tries IR.
` So it relies on the created list in almost exactly
`the same way. So --
` JUDGE CHUNG: Counsel.
` MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
` JUDGE CHUNG: This is Judge Chung. While we're on
`the subject, which I think relates to one of the disputed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`issues, what exactly in Chardon are you mapping as the
`claimed listing of a first communication method and second
`communication method?
` MR. WRIGHT: Right. So turning to slide 13 --
`actually, turning to slide 12 first, the question that you
`asked, Judge Chung, is related to both the -- or, sorry, is
`related to the communication methods limitation that the
`Patent Owner has identified as a deficiency with Chardon.
` So turning to slide 16, this is where I address the
`communication methods limitation.
` So the Patent Owner alleges that the command codes
`generically do not qualify as a communication method and that
`Chardon's alleged listing is, therefore -- does not comprise
`a communication method. And they allege that the
`communication method is a medium or protocol.
` For example, CEC, IR, or RF for transmitting or
`receiving information, so three basic observations to make
`there. What the petition is pointing to to correspond to the
`communication methods limitation is the CEC command codes as
`for example a first communication method and the set of IR
`command codes as the second communication.
` And I -- I think it goes without saying that a
`database of CEC command codes unambiguously indicates to
`Chardon's multimedia gateway that if CEC is selected, that a
`CEC command code is transmitted by an HDMI interface, and
`that the EDID-linked database of IR command codes, if that is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`selected by Chardon's multimedia gateway, that that indicates
`that an IR command code is to be transmitted via an IR
`interface. And I think that reads directly on what the
`Patent Owner says is a communication, which is a medium or
`protocol for transmitting or receiving information.
` So Chardon's EDID-linked database -- and if we just
`turn to the next slide, which is slide 17 -- you can see in
`both paragraph 51 of Chardon that says, Linking an EDID to a
`make or model number of the HDMI display -- again, that's the
`intended target appliance here -- initiates the remote server
`to link the EDID to a set of IR command codes for the HDMI
`display and to link the EDID to a set of CEC command codes
`for the HDMI display stored in a remote database.
` And if you look at paragraph 39, which describes the
`memory 210 and the local database 220 in Chardon's multimedia
`gateway, says that the sets of command codes in the local
`files or the local database include at least one set of IR
`command codes, configured to be transmitted in IR or RF, and
`the set of command codes in the local file or local database
`may also include at least one set of CEC command codes.
` So what the petition points to for the first
`communication method and the second communication method is
`the set of CEC command codes and the set of IR command codes.
` JUDGE CHUNG: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much
`for the explanation.
` My next question is, where in the petition have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`you identified or explained this mapping?
` MR. WRIGHT: Okay. So in the petition, there are a
`couple of places. I'm going to try and find the clearest
`one.
` So on page 52 of the petition, which is in the
`section describing element 1.3 of the claim, the bottom of
`page 52 in the petition -- I'll give you a second to get
`there. This is kind of a summarizing paragraph.
` It says, Accordingly, Chardon discloses using an
`identity associated with the target appliance -- i.e., EDID
`or a device model -- make or model number or vendor ID -- to
`create a listing -- i.e., a linked database of IR command
`codes and CEC command codes linked to the EDID -- of at least
`a first communication, CEC command codes, and a second
`communication method different from the first communication
`method, e.g., IR command codes.
` And, again, a set of CEC command codes indicates to
`the multimedia gateway that you transmit the CEC command code
`over an HDMI interface, and a set of IR command codes
`indicates to the multimedia gateway that you send an IR
`command code via an IR interface.
` And on slide 11, even going back to, you know, what
`Chardon does with its listing and what I stepped through
`there, and it's exactly the same way that the '853 patent
`does it. Chardon will first, for example, try a CEC command
`code to the target appliance, and then, if that doesn't work
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`for the exact same function -- let's say it's a power-on
`function or a power-off function -- it will try to send the
`same -- achieve the same function by sending an IR command
`code.
` And it is those CEC command codes and IR command
`codes that correspond to the first and second communication
`methods, which, as the Patent Owner explains, can be a
`protocol.
` JUDGE CHUNG: Okay. All right. Thank you so much.
` MR. WRIGHT: Now there are other places where we
`mapped it, but that -- I felt that summary paragraph there
`kind of states it most clearly.
` JUDGE CHUNG: Great. Wonderful. Thank you.
` JUDGE FENICK: May I ask -- this is -- sorry, this is
`Judge Fenick.
` May I ask, with respect to Figure 5 that we just
`discussed, Chardon in the text discussing Figure 5 says that
`the method with respect to Figure -- I'm sorry. Let me let
`everyone be on the same page. I'm on paragraph 59 of
`Chardon.
` After describing this -- this high-level flow diagram
`of a method for operating their remote control engine, it
`says that the method described above is executed if the
`remote control engine has response information that indicates
`that the HDMI appliance is configured to send responses to
`the remote control engine for received CEC command codes,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`which -- which implies that there is some information that
`the remote control engine has that it should be sending CEC
`command codes.
` And my understanding of your argument is that it
`looks at the CEC command code and understands that it must be
`sent via CEC, but I'm not sure that you've pointed to
`something in Chardon that says that there's an indication in
`the listing that the code that's there needs to be sent via a
`specific method.
` MR. WRIGHT: So the multimedia gateway is going to
`know that to send a CEC command that that goes over an HDMI
`interface and that if you send an IR command, it's going to
`go over an IR interface. I don't think an IR, you know,
`infrared command, is going to be sent via a wired HDMI
`interface.
` But let me -- so what the Patent Owner seems to be
`implying is that the list somehow requires an express listing
`of CEC or IR, and we pointed this out in our reply at page
`12. But in the Patent Owner's surreply at page 14, the
`Patent Owner says -- this is at the bottom of page 14 of the
`surreply -- they say, Petitioner asserts in its reply that
`the Patent Owner implies that the communication methods
`limitation requires the literal names of different command
`transmission mediums to appear in the listing, but Patent
`Owner does not assert and has never asserted that such a
`requirement exists in the '853 patent.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
` So they say that, no, you don't need to have this
`express listing of CEC or IR, but, notably, the Patent Owner
`doesn't go on to explain what would be sufficient. They just
`say, no, no, no, we're not -- we're not saying you need to
`have some express indication here.
` And I think the larger point here is that the
`multimedia gateway -- and I don't think the Patent Owner can
`dispute this -- that the multimedia gateway indicates through
`its algorithm, based on its linked list, that CEC is the
`primary -- that the CEC command code database is the primary
`means to send its communication, that it's going to send that
`CEC command code via an HDMI interface and that, if that
`doesn't work, there's no response back that it did work or it
`can't confirm that it worked, well, then it's going to go to
`the IR command codes.
` And when it sends the IR command codes, it's not
`going to do it via the HDMI interface, it's going to do it
`via the IR interface. So I think that to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art and indeed to the equipment itself,
`a set of CEC command codes is going to be transmitted this
`one way and a set of IR command codes is going to be
`transmitted another way, through an IR interface.
` And, again, the Patent Owner is not saying that you
`need to have some express listing there, but they don't go on
`and say, oh, well, you know, what would be sufficient. And
`it's our position that a set of CEC command codes is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`sufficient to identify, especially once it's been linked to a
`specific device, like an HDMI display or -- or any other
`device in the logical topography, that it's going to know
`what command -- what medium to use. And I'll -- I'll make --
` JUDGE FENICK: Sorry. This is --
` MR. WRIGHT: Go ahead.
` JUDGE FENICK: -- Judge Fenick again.
` MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
` JUDGE FENICK: If it knows because of the device that
`it's linked to that it should send commands in a certain way,
`I mean, my understanding is that it -- that the claim
`requires two -- two different commands with two different
`methods to be available for an appliance.
` So it can't -- it can't be the fact that the type of
`appliance it's linked to tells it what communication method
`to use because there are -- there are two communication
`methods with two different command -- two different
`functional -- sorry, two different communication methods for
`each of two functional methods -- functional operations that
`are -- that you have for a certain target appliance. So it
`can't be the type of target appliance that's telling it what
`the command code -- how the command code should be sent.
` Is that -- am I misunderstanding you?
` MR. WRIGHT: Well, the -- well, the EDID, for
`example, for an HDMI display -- so -- so most displays I
`think we all recognize can receive commands different ways.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`It can take an IR request, they have an IR transceiver
`inside, and they're also wired up to all of the different
`source appliances, for example, in your home theater. So it
`can receive commands via different ways.
` And what the EDID does is that is effectively a --
`it's a -- it's a metadata format that allows a display device
`to describe its capabilities to a source device. And it has
`manufacturer name and serial number, product type, etcetera.
` And for every -- so let's take a volume up or a
`volume down, for example, and look at that in the context of
`Figure 5 in slide 11. So for the -- for a command -- and
`let's just say -- let's just say it's a power -- power-on
`command -- Figure 5 would go through, and it would first try
`-- because the HDMI display has said I'm an HDMI display, and
`here's my capabilities, and it's my preference that you send
`things via CEC, and it goes through and it sends -- it relays
`the power-on command via CEC, but for some reason it doesn't
`work for this appliance because the technology is advanced or
`because the Chardon envisions there is a -- for example, a
`custom command code.
` Well, Chardon accounts for that and says, okay, if I
`send the power-on via the CEC -- the -- the power-on CEC
`command code via HDMI and that doesn't work or I don't get
`confirmation that it works, well, then I'm just going to go
`to my secondary communication method, which is IR, and I will
`try sending the same function, I will try to achieve the same
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`function, but do it with an IR command.
` So where -- when the -- and if we -- maybe it helps
`if we go to claim 9 -- or, sorry, to slide 9, which has claim
`1, when you have at least a first communication method and a
`second communication method different from the first
`communication method -- this is on that 1.4 -- for use in
`controlling each of at least a first functional operation and
`a second functional operation.
` So what that means is you have -- I don't think
`there's any dispute that there's multiple functional
`operations here -- power on, power off, volume up, volume
`down, changing the input -- that what element 1.4 is talking
`about -- and I don't think there's any dispute with respect
`to this claim construction -- is that it uses a -- you have
`to have a first communication and a second communication
`method that can control at least a -- a first functional
`device, so that would be using CEC first or IR second, both
`to try to power on the device, and then, because there's also
`a power off and a volume up and a volume down, that that same
`thing would be played out for each one of these potential
`intended functions for the target appliance.
` I know that the claim is not drafted in a way that
`that is just manifestly clear, but I don't think there's a
`dispute with respect to that interpretation of what the claim
`requires.
` JUDGE FENICK: This is Judge Fenick. Are you -- so
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01615
`Patent 9,716,853 B2
`
`you're saying that the listing includes two communication
`methods, which -- which are, in Chardon, the codes used for
`each of two different communication methods, and, based on
`the type of target
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
