`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