IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,200,855
`Filing Date: May 24, 2001
`Issue Date: April 3, 2007
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS OF MULTIPLEXING A PLURALITY OF
`CHANNELS IN A MULTIMEDIA SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00787
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Petition 1 of 3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties in Interest ........................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead & Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ............................ 2 
`RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................... 4 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Brief Description of Alleged Invention ................................................. 5 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6 
`D. 
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ....................................................... 7 
`1. 
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”) .............................................. 7 
`2. 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,218,864 / PCI Local Bus Specification, Rev.
`2.2 (“PCI”) .................................................................................. 9 
`3.  Wireless LANs (“Grier”) .......................................................... 10 
`4.  MPEG-2 (“Watkinson”) ............................................................ 10 
`5. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”) .......................................... 10 
`6. 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”) ................................... 11 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) ..................................................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 12 
`1. 
`As Proposed in the ITC Investigation ....................................... 13 
`2. 
`Interpretation as Means Plus Function ...................................... 13 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................................... 14 
`A.  Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-63 Are Obvious Over Hicks and PCI
`(Ground 1) and Claims 1-17, 19-20, 38-39, 54 are Obvious Over
`Hicks, PCI, and Usui (Ground 2) ........................................................ 14 
`1. 
`Claim 1 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 15 
`i
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`2. 
`Claims 2 and 5 (Grounds 1/2) ................................................... 29 
`Claim 3 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 31 
`3. 
`Claim 4 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 32 
`4. 
`Claim 6 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 33 
`5. 
`Claim 7 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 34 
`6. 
`Claim 8 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 35 
`7. 
`Claim 9 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 37 
`8. 
`Claim 10 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 37 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 11 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 39 
`11.  Claim 12 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 41 
`12.  Claim 13 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 43 
`13.  Claim 14 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 45 
`14.  Claim 15 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 46 
`15.  Claim 16 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 48 
`16.  Claim 17 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 49 
`17.  Claim 18 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 50 
`18.  Claims 19-20 (Grounds 1/2) and 21-27 (Ground 1) ................. 52 
`19.  Claim 28 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 53 
`20.  Claims 29-36 (Ground 1) .......................................................... 57 
`21.  Claim 37 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 59 
`22.  Claims 38-39 (Grounds 1/2), Claims 40-52 (Ground 1) .......... 60 
`23.  Claim 53 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 61 
`24.  Claims 54 (Grounds 1/2), Claims 55-63 (Ground 1) ................ 64 
`Grounds 3 and 4: Claims 2, 5, 20-21, 29, 39, 42, and 53-63 are
`Obvious Over Hicks, PCI, and Grier (Ground 3), and Claims 2, 5,
`20, 39, and 54 Are Obvious Over Hicks, PCI, Usui, and Grier
`(Ground 4) ........................................................................................... 65 
`1. 
`Claims 2 and 5 (Grounds 3/4) ................................................... 65 
`2. 
`Claims 20-21, 29, 39, 42, 53-63 (Ground 3), Claims 20, 39,
`and 54 (Ground 4) ..................................................................... 66 
`ii
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C. 
`
`Grounds 5 and 6: Claims 6-11, 13, 22-24, 26, 31-32, 34, 43-48,
`50, 57-60, and 62 Are Obvious Over Hicks, PCI, and Watkinson
`(Ground 5), and Claims 6-11 and 13 Are Obvious Over Hicks,
`PCI, Usui, and Watkinson (Ground 6) ................................................ 67 
`1. 
`Claims 6-11 and 13 (Grounds 5/6) ........................................... 67 
`2. 
`Claims 22-24, 26, 31-32, 34, 43-48, 50, 57-60, and 62
`(Ground 5) ................................................................................. 70 
`D.  Grounds 7-12: Grounds 1-6 Further Combined with Osakabe ........... 71 
`VI.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ..................................... 78 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 79 
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) ..................................................... 80 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 81 
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................... 82 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001:
`Ex. 1002:
`Ex. 1003:
`Ex. 1004:
`
`Ex. 1005:
`Ex. 1006:
`
`Ex. 1007:
`Ex. 1008:
`Ex. 1009:
`Ex. 1010:
`
`Ex. 1011:
`Ex. 1012:
`Ex. 1013:
`Ex. 1014:
`
`Ex. 1015:
`
`Ex. 1016:
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,200,855 (“the ʼ855 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. App. No. 09/864,602
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), July 17, 2019 – Complainants’
`Notice of Patent Priority Dates / Conception Dates
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”)
`Excerpts from PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 2.2, PCI
`Special Interest Group, December 18, 1998 (“PCI”)
`Declaration of Doanh Vu
`Declaration of Stephen Kunin
`Reserved
`Extending PCI Performance Beyond the Desktop, Shlomo
`Weiss and Ehud Finkelstein, Computer, June 1999, pp. 80-87
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,864 (“Young”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”)
`Declaration of Dr. Carrie Gardner
`Excerpts from Computer Networks, Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
`Prentice Hall, Third Edition, 1996 (“Tanenbaum”)
`Excerpts from Communication Systems, Simon Haykin, John
`Wiley & Sons, Fourth Edition, 2001 (“Haykin”)
`Excerpts from MPEG-2, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 1999
`(“Watkinson”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1017:
`
`Ex. 1018:
`
`Ex. 1019:
`Ex. 1020:
`Ex. 1021:
`
`Ex. 1022:
`
`Ex. 1023:
`
`Ex. 1024:
`
`Ex. 1025:
`
`Ex. 1026:
`
`
`
`Excerpts from Digital Video: An Introduction to MPEG-2, B.
`Haskell et al., Chapman & Hall, 1997 (“Haskell”)
`Excerpts from Cable Television Handbook, Eugene R. Bartlett,
`McGraw-Hill Video/Audio Professional, First Edition, 2000
`(“Bartlett”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,474 (“Wasilewski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,873 (“Williams”)
`Excerpts from In re Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.),
`January 14, 2020 – Transcript of Telephonic Conference
`Excerpts from In re Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.),
`January 28, 2020 – Transcript of Administrative Hearing
`Volume VI
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), October 21, 2019 – Joint Claim
`Construction Chart
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), January 22, 2020 – Comcast
`Respondents’ Notice of Withdrawal of Claim Terms
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), March 20, 2020 – Order No.
`35: Initial Determination Granting Complainants’ Third
`Unopposed Motion for Partial Termination of the Investigation
`Without Prejudice [Motion Docket No. 1158-033]
`Excerpts from Telecommunications Engineer’s Reference Book,
`Fraidoon Mazda, Editor, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1993
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1027:
`
`Ex. 1028:
`
`Ex. 1029:
`Ex. 1030:
`
`Ex. 1031:
`Ex. 1032:
`Ex. 1033:
`
`Ex. 1034:
`
`Ex. 1035:
`Ex. 1036:
`Ex. 1037:
`Ex. 1038:
`Ex. 1039:
`Ex. 1040:
`Ex. 1041:
`Ex. 1042:
`Ex. 1043:
`
`
`
`Excerpts from Dictionary of Computing, Fourth Edition,
`Oxford University Press, 1996
`Excerpts from Switched, Fast, and Gigabit Ethernet, Third
`Edition, Robert Breyer and Sean Riley, Macmillan Technical
`Publishing, 1999
`Reserved
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, Sixteenth Edition,
`Telecom Books, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,021 (“Kokudo”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from Internetworking With TCP/IP Vol I: Principles,
`Protocols, and Architecture, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
`1995.
`Excerpts from Wireless LANs: Implementing Interoperable
`Networks, Jim Geier, Macmillian Technical Publishing, 1999
`Reserved
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 4,386,436 (“Kocher”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,487,362 (“Yuen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,128 (“Abecassis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,452,923 (“Gerszberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,927 (“Hendricks”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,380 (“Cheng”)
`Excerpts from The MPEG Handbook MPEG-1, MPEG-2,
`MPEG-4, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 2001
`(“Watkinson2001”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1044:
`
`Ex. 1045:
`Ex. 1046:
`
`Ex. 1047:
`
`
`
`Excerpt of In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband
`Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software Components,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), Verified
`Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`Amended
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”)
`Excerpts from FireWire System Architecture: IEEE 1394a, Don
`Anderson, Addison-Wesley, 1999 (“Anderson”)
`PCI System Architecture, Fourth Edition, Tom Shanley and
`Don Anderson, Addison-Wesley, 1999 (“Shanley”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties in Interest
` The real parties-in-interest are (i) Comcast Corporation, (ii) Comcast
`
`Business Communications, LLC,
`
`(iii) Comcast Cable Communications
`
`Management, LLC, (iv) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (v) Comcast
`
`Holdings Corporation, (vi) NBCUniversal Shared Services, LLC (formerly known
`
`as Comcast Shared Services, LLC), (vii) Comcast of Santa Maria, LLC, (viii)
`
`Comcast of Lompoc, LLC, (ix) Comcast Financial Agency Corporation, and (x)
`
`Comcast STB Software I, LLC. These entities are referenced below as “Comcast
`
`entity __” or as “Comcast entities __,” where “__” is one or more of (i) through (x).
`
`The ’855 Patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i), (iii), (iv), and
`
`(v) by Rovi Corporation of San Jose, California, and Rovi Guides, Inc. of San Jose,
`
`California. The action, before the International Trade Commission, is In the Matter
`
`of Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware
`
`and Software Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-1158 (“ITC Investigation”), which was
`
`instituted on May 22, 2019. The ’855 Patent was also asserted in the Central District
`
`of California in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-03096
`
`(C.D. Cal). That case is stayed until the determination of the ITC Investigation
`
`becomes final. The earliest date of service on any of the Comcast entities named in
`
`these proceedings was April 25, 2019.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for IPR
`
`of the ’855 Patent, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition
`
`or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`B. Related Matters
`According to the Office’s records from PAIR, the ’855 patent does not claim
`
`priority to any application and no application claims priority to the ʼ855 patent. The
`
`ʼ855 patent is also the subject of concurrently-filed related petitions for inter partes
`
`review that assert different grounds of unpatentability.
`
`C. Lead & Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`A power of attorney for counsel is filed herewith.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282)
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`First Back-Up Counsel
`Michael S. Cuviello (Reg. No. 59,255)
`mcuviello@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Additional Back-Up Counsel
`Jordan N. Bodner (Reg. No. 42,338)
`jbodner@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`Additional Back-Up Counsel
`Bradley C. Wright (Reg. No. 38,061)
`bwright@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John Fleming (Reg. No. 56,536)
`jfleming@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Shambhavi Patel (Reg. No. 73,478)
`spatel@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Garfield B. Simms (Reg. No. 45,109)
`gsimms@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`The address and contact information for all designated counsel is: Banner &
`
`Witcoff, Ltd., 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005; Tel: 202-
`
`824-3000; Fax: 202-824-3001. Please address all correspondence to counsel at this
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`address shown above. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the
`
`following address and the above emails: ComcastIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner petitions for review and cancellation of claims 1-63 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,200,855 (“’855 patent” or “the Patent”). Ex. 1001.
`
`III. OVERVIEW
`A. Technical Background
`The Patent relates to “in-home local area networking,” and specifically to the
`
`distribution of multiplexed multimedia content to a plurality of devices. Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract, 1:7-9; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 47-48. However, solutions for distributing multimedia
`
`content using an in-home multiplexed network and equipment were already well-
`
`known. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 49-53, 70, 82-83, 86-87.
`
`Hicks teaches a digital residential entertainment system including a broadband
`
`multimedia gateway (BMG) that demodulates multiplexed content from a variety of
`
`sources, and distributes that content to users over an in-house data network. Ex. 1005
`
`at 2:16-45, 6:28-42, Fig. 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would
`
`have found it obvious to augment Hicks’s BMG with the shared bus protocol defined
`
`in the PCI standard such that it taught the claims of the Patent.
`
`Various claimed
`
`techniques—including
`
`time or
`
`frequency-division
`
`multiplexing for transmission of data (including video content), user control of
`
`content via remote control devices, and data compression, encryption, and
`
`authentication used in transmitting and accessing multimedia content—were all
`
`well-known to a PHOSITA and taught by the prior art references cited herein as of
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`May 24, 2001. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 88-134; Ex. 1014 at 6-16, 23-25; Ex. 1015 at 19-22; Ex.
`
`1016 at 25-27, 57-62; Ex. 1017 at 91-92, 118, 154, 172-176, 184; Ex. 1018 at 93-
`
`98; Ex. 1019 at 1:32-2:61; Ex. 1026 at 8-13; Ex. 1041 at 2:23-29, 3:41-48, 9:27-42,
`
`11:64-13:21, 25:52-60, 29:20-31:10.
`
`B. Brief Description of Alleged Invention
`The Patent describes a server that distributes multimedia (e.g., television
`
`channels) to client devices (televisions) within a home. Ex. 1001 at 1:7-9, 5:46-6:8;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 48. The server receives a plurality of channels from a plurality of
`
`multimedia sources (e.g., CATV, satellite, DVD), and multiplexes selected channels
`
`over a wired or wireless “communication path” (such as a known “ISO standardized
`
`communication system”), to a plurality of clients (televisions, laptops, etc.). Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:46-53, 11:25-36, 12:18-22, Figs. 1-6; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 48, 52-56.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Channel commands are generated with a remote control at a client device and
`
`sent to the multimedia server via the communication path. Ex. 1001 at 7:23-31,
`
`11:37-49, 12:2-11; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 57-59. Various system components and data paths
`
`of the system are illustrated below. Ex. 1001 at 2:65-67, 11:25-12:58, 38:66-40:30,
`
`41:19-55; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 60-67.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`
`
`C. Prosecution History
`The Patent application was filed May 24, 2001. The prosecution history is
`
`summarized in Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 68-85, but certain events are referenced below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`During prosecution, a final Office action rejected all claims except those
`
`directed to “monitoring a shared bus at specific time intervals, identifying a data
`
`frame at one of the specific time intervals that contains at least a portion of one of
`
`the plurality of channel selection commands.” Ex. 1003 at 1-11, 52-67, and 106-124.
`
`The applicant then amended each independent claim to include these limitations. Id.
`
`at 125-159; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 72-82.
`
`The examiner took official notice that several limitations were well-known
`
`and obvious, including: encrypting/decrypting information for security, compressing
`
`data for bandwidth purposes, and packetizing and framing. Ex. 1003 at 7, 58, 60-62,
`
`64, 114, 117-118, 120-121. The applicant never traversed the examiner’s official
`
`notice and never contested the rejection of claims corresponding to these limitations.
`
`Id. at 12-51, 68-105, and 125-159; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 70-71, 73-83.
`
`D. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`The earliest priority date for the ’855 patent is May 24, 2001. Ex. 1004. None
`
`of the following prior art was cited or considered by the examiner during
`
`examination of the Patent application. Ex. 1002, ¶ 85; Ex. 1003:
`
`1. U.S. Pat. No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”)
`Hicks (Ex. 1005) is a U.S. patent issued from an application filed December
`
`28, 2000, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1002, ¶ 120.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Hicks teaches a Broadband Multimedia Gateway (BMG) (highlighted below)
`
`that receives audio/video channels from various sources, and multiplexes the
`
`channels over a network to a plurality of set-top boxes (STBs) using different
`
`protocols and media. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 2:28-45, 3:36-67, 5:43-50, 6:1-42, Figs. 1,
`
`2, 6; Ex. 1002, ¶ 121. A user selects programs using a remote control at a client
`
`device. Ex. 1005 at 10:54-11:47, Fig. 3; Ex. 1002, ¶ 121.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The multiplexed channels are sent using various standards, such as MPEG,
`
`Ethernet,
`
`Internet Protocol),
`
`and
`
`can
`
`be
`
`compressed/decompressed,
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`encrypted/decrypted, and encoded/decoded. Ex. 1005 at 3:31-35, 4:1-11, 4:44-50,
`
`6:43-50, 8:38-67, 10:54-11:47, Figs. 1, 3, 6, claim 3; Ex. 1002, ¶ 122.
`
`2. U.S. Pat. No. 6,218,864 / PCI Local Bus Specification, Rev. 2.2 (“PCI”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,218,864 (Ex. 1011), which incorporates-by-reference PCI (Ex.
`
`1006), issued April 17, 2001 from an application filed August 10, 1999. Ex. 1011,
`
`front page, 1:46-48. These references have a prior art date of August 10, 1999 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1002 at 123-126 (a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood the ’864 patent as incorporating-by-reference the complete [Exhibit
`
`1006]), Ex. 1007 (authenticating Ex. 1006 in the ’864 patent file wrapper); Ex. 1008
`
`at 23-34 (Ex. 1006 was submitted with the application when filed); 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.11(a); Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000).
`
`PCI, as included in the ’864 patent file wrapper, is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) (pre-AIA) as of August 17, 2001. Ex. 1008 at 35-39 (the file wrapper
`
`including Ex. 1006 was publicly available); Ex. 1002 at 125.
`
`PCI, as being publically available February 1999, is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 14-32; see also Ex. 1047 at 4 (“The latest version,
`
`2.2 . . . became available in February of 1999.”); Ex. 1001 at 13:13-15, 18:47-50,
`
`52:23-26 (identifying “PCI” as an internal shared bus).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`PCI specifies a PCI Local Bus (“shared bus”) including a synchronous bus
`
`architecture with data transfers being performed in frames at specific clocked time
`
`intervals. Ex. 1006 at 21, 24, 29-31, 46, 67-68, Figs. 3-5, 3-6; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 126-128.
`
`3. Wireless LANs (“Grier”)
`Grier (Ex. 1034) was published in 1999, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 38-40.
`
`Grier teaches the IEEE-802.11 wireless communication standard including
`
`client device authentication and Wired Equivalent Privacy (“WEP”) encryption. Ex.
`
`1034 at 43-44, 64-68; Ex. 1031 at 1:14-2:20, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 129-130.
`
`4. MPEG-2 (“Watkinson”)
`Watkinson (Ex. 1016) was published in 1999, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 28-37.
`
`Watkinson teaches aspects of MPEG-2 video and audio encoding including
`
`compression, packetizing and framing. Ex. 1016 at 11-13, 32-33, 52-56; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 132-133.
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”)
`Usui (Ex. 1012) issued September 15, 1998, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Usui teaches a remote control including the same channel command options
`
`as recited in the Patent claims, for example, as in [1E]. Ex. 1012 at 6:18-7:3, Fig. 1;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 134.
`
`6. U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”)
`Osakabe (Ex. 1045) issued from an application filed December 5, 1997, and
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Osakabe discloses an IEEE-1394 shared bus that communicates remote
`
`control commands and MPEG video streams between devices. Ex. 1045 at Abstract,
`
`7:28-48; Ex. 1002, ¶ 119.
`
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1–63 on the following grounds and
`
`references.
`
`Grounds
`1
`
`References
`Hicks and PCI
`
`2
`
`Hicks, PCI, and Usui1
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1-63
`1-17, 19-20, 38-39,
`54
`
`
`
`1 Independent claims 18, 28, 37, and 53 do not include limitations for which Usui is
`
`cited.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7-12
`
`
`
`Hicks, PCI, and Grier
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Hicks, PCI, Usui, and Grier
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Hicks, PCI, and Watkinson
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Hicks, PCI, Usui, and Watkinson
`Grounds 1-6 and Osakabe,
`respectively
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2, 5, 20-21, 29, 39,
`42, 53-63
`2, 5, 20, 39, 54
`6-11, 13, 22-24, 26,
`31-32, 34, 43-48,
`50, 57-60, 62
`6-11, 13
`See Grounds 1-6
`above
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`The alleged invention relates to the field of in-home networking. Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:5-22; Ex. 1002, ¶ 32. A PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention (May 24,
`
`2001) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline and at least two years of
`
`experience with distributed computing systems such as multimedia systems, or
`
`would have had equivalent experience either in industry or research, such as
`
`designing, developing, evaluating, testing, or implementing the aforementioned
`
`technologies. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 33-38.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`All claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning to a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention, except as identified
`
`below. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 39-46.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`1. As Proposed in the ITC Investigation
`The Parties in the ITC Investigation provided claim constructions (and the
`
`Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted claim constructions) for certain claim
`
`terms. Ex. 1021 at 61-632; Ex. 1023 at 5-8; Ex. 1024 at 1. This Petition applies all
`
`of the constructions adopted by the ALJ and proposed by both parties as alternatives
`
`in the analysis below. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 39-40.3
`
`2. Interpretation as Means Plus Function
`No claims of the Patent include a means/step plus function limitation. To the
`
`extent Patent Owner argues any of claims 28-63 include a means-plus-function term,
`
`
`
`2 The ALJ refers to an October 28 claim construction chart which is believed to be
`
`Ex. 1023 (dated October 21). The date appears to be an error.
`
`3 Claims 1-2, 8-12, 16-25, 29, 31-33, 38-39, 42, 45-49, and 54-61 recite the phrase
`
`“at least one of [A] and [B],” where “[A] and [B]” is a comma delineated list of
`
`singular items. Though not expressly construed, both parties in the ITC proceeding
`
`and the examiner during examination treated these phrases as requiring only one of
`
`the items, which: is indicated by the “at least one of” preceding each list, is consistent
`
`with the supporting disjunctive lists in the specification, and avoids ambiguous claim
`
`interpretations where the listed items are mutually exclusive. Ex. 1001 at 42:64-
`
`43:7; Ex. 1003 at 108; Ex. 1028 at 37-42; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 41-46.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`the corresponding structure in the Patent, and how that structure is disclosed by the
`
`references is identified in the analysis of each claim below (see 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3)).
`
`V. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-63 Are Obvious Over Hicks and PCI (Ground
`1) and Claims 1-17, 19-20, 38-39, 54 are Obvious Over Hicks, PCI, and
`Usui (Ground 2)
`Hicks’s BMG, with its internal shared bus implemented according to PCI,
`
`renders all claims obvious. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 138-139.
`
`Hicks’s BMG with “shared bus” implemented according to PCI
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`These claims are also rendered obvious by Hicks and PCI combined with
`
`Usui, which teaches each specific “channel selection command” type recited in
`
`claims 1, 19, 38, and 54 (if these command types are missing from Hicks). Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 140-141.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1012, Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`
`
`1. Claim 1 (Grounds 1/2)
`Claim 1 is obvious over Hicks in view of PCI (Ground 1) and Hicks in view
`
`of PCI and Usui (Ground 2).
`
`a. [1A] A method of multiplexing a plurality of channels in a
`multimedia system, the method comprises:
`Per the parties’ proposed ITC constructions, Hicks’s BMG (Fig. 1 (100)) (the
`
`claimed “multimedia system”) is a multimedia server (claims 1, 37, 53), including a
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`tuning module (claim 28), within a user’s home as part of an in-home
`
`communication network. Ex. 1005 at 2:16-45, 3:54-67; Ex. 1023 at 5; Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`142-147; see also Ex. 1005, Abstract, 5:57-6:16, 7:56-63, 8:15-21, 11:48-12:3, Figs.
`
`1 (100), 2 (110), 6 (600).
`
` Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The BMG extracts multiplexed channels (programs) from multimedia sources
`
`(e.g., an antenna, direct broadcast satellite (DBS), or cable TV (CATV)), and re-
`
`multiplexes the channels onto a shared bus within the BMG and onto a local network
`
`for transmission to STBs 300, thus disclosing [1A]. Ex. 1005 at 4:44-50, 7:16-23,
`
`8:15-67, 11:3-8; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 147-148.
`
`b. [1B] receiving a plurality of channels from a multimedia source;
`Tuners/demodulators (102, 120) in Hicks’s BMG receive a plurality of
`
`information signals (“receiving a plurality of channels”) multiplexed in a composite
`
`information signal from CATV, satellite, terrestrial broadcast TV or radio, mass
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`storage, etc. (each a “multimedia source”). Ex. 1005 at 3:43-58, 6:1-42; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 149-151; see also Ex. 1005 at 6:66-7:23, 8:22-51, 9:17-21, 12:4-10, 12:44-47,
`
`12:57-66, 17:60-18:3, 18:50-60, Figs. 1-4, 6.
`
`c. [1C] receiving a plurality of channel selection commands by:
`receiving, from a plurality of clients, a plurality of channel selection
`requests; and
`Hicks’s users enter remote control
`
`instructions (“channel selection
`
`commands”) at respective STBs (using a broadcast program guide, search function,
`
`or direct channel number entry), and the STBs communicate these instructions via
`
`the in-home network formatted according to a particular communication protocol
`
`(“channel selection requests”), which the BMG receives at its data switch/router 105
`
`(Figure 2), thus disclosing [1C]. Ex. 1005 at 4:21-62, 11:20-47, 12:4-51 (step 440),
`
`15:9-11, Figs. 2, 6 (95, 105), 4 (steps 440-470); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 152-157.
`
`Each message requests “that the digital multimedia content be delivered to the
`
`digital STB,” and in response to receiving the message, the BMG sends the identified
`
`content to the STB. Ex. 1005 at 4:41-50, 12:4-51, Fig. 4 (steps 440-470); Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 157-158. Hicks’s in-home network uses well-known standard protocols including
`
`Ethernet, IEEE-802.11, and Internet Protocol to communicate the messages in
`
`frames and/or packets including header information that includes an address of the
`
`STB from which the message originated. Ex. 1005 at 3:2-26, 5:43-48; Ex. 1030 at
`
`8-11 (“Ethernet Frame,” definition of “Frame”), 14 (“Internet Protocol Datagram”),
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`17 (definition of “Packet”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 159-163; see also Ex. 1005 at 5:43-48,
`
`5:62-67, 7:37-45, 8:15-21, 9:49-54, 10:56-61, 11:4-8; Ex. 1033 at 37 (IP datagram
`
`format), 39-40 (frame and packet encapsulation), 44-45, 53, 59-61, Fig. 7.5; Ex.
`
`1034 at 83-88.
`
`Thus, the messages (“plurality of channel selection requests”) received from
`
`the STBs (“plurality of clients”) each identifies a particular channel and STB to
`
`which the content should be delivered, meeting the agreed upon ITC construction of
`
`“channel selection request.” Ex. 1023 at 5; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 157-159, 164.
`
`d. [1D] processing the plurality of channel selection requests to
`produce the plurality of channel selection commands,
`Hicks’s data switch 105 (Figures 2, 6) receives each STB’s instructions in the
`
`protocol format of the in-home network—for example, using Ethernet, IEEE-
`
`802.11, and/or IP encoded data (“channel selection requests”), and Hicks’s processor
`
`130 (Figures 2, 6) would de-encapsulate the instructions (“channel selection
`
`commands”) from the protocol format in order to interpret them, thus performing
`
`[1D]. Ex. 1005 at 3:14-26, 5:43-48, 8:15-21, 11:4-8, 11:20-47; Ex. 1001 at 12:18-
`
`25; Ex. 1030 at 8-9 (“Ethernet Switch”), 11 (“Ethernet Frame,” definition of
`
`“Frame”), 14 (“Internet Protocol Datagram”), 17 (definition of “Packet”); Ex. 1033
`
`at 37, 39-40 (“Datagram Encapsulation”), 44-45, 53, 59-61 (Internet Layer routing),
`
`Fig. 7.5; Ex. 1034 at 68-69, 83-88; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 159-163, 166-169, 171.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Hicks’s processor 130 processes the STB instructions to produce a “select
`
`second transmission instruction” (Ex. 1005 at 12:42-44 (step 450)) to control a tuner
`
`in signal processing circuit 120 (Figures 2, 6) (also the claimed “channel selection
`
`commands”), thus providing another example of [1D]. Ex. 1005 at 4:21-50, 8:44-
`
`54, 12:38-51, Fig. 12 (450); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 166-168, 170-171.
`
`Both the original user instructions and the control instructions sent from the
`
`processor to the tuner, meet both parties’ proposed ITC constructions of “channel
`
`selection commands”. Ex. 1023 at 6-7; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 165, 169-171; see also Ex. 1001
`
`at 12:18-25.
`
`e. [1E] wherein the each of the plurality of channel selection
`commands includes at least one of: last channel selection command,
`next channel selec