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.: IPR2020-00788
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Petition 2 of 3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 1 
`  Real Parties in Interest ....................................................................... 1 
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 2 
` 
`Lead & Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ....................... 2 
` 
`II.  RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................. 4 
`III.  OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 4 
`Technical Background ........................................................................ 4 
` 
`Brief Description of Alleged Invention .............................................. 5 
` 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 7 
` 
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................................................... 9 
` 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,889,385 (“Rakib”) ............................................ 9 
` 
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,933,192 (“Crosby”) ........................................ 10 
` 
`Don Anderson, FireWire System Architecture, Second
` 
`Edition (“Anderson”) .............................................................. 11 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,275,588 (“Videcrantz”) ................................. 11 
` 
`  MPEG-2 (“Watkinson”) ......................................................... 12 
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”) .......................................... 12 
` 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) .................................................................................................... 13 
`The Becton-Dickinson Factors Weigh in Favor of Institution ...... 14 
` 
`Level of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................... 16 
` 
`  Claim Construction ........................................................................... 16 
`As Proposed in the ITC Investigation ................................... 16 
` 
`Interpretation as Means Plus Function ................................ 17 
` 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY .............................. 18 
`  Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20, 38-39, 43-44, and 54 Are
`Obvious Over Rakib, Crosby, and Anderson (Ground 1); Claims
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`18, 22-28, 30-34, 36-37, 40-41, 43-50, 52-53, 55, and 57-62 Are
`Obvious Over Rakib and Anderson (Ground 2) ............................ 18 
`Independent Claim 1 (Ground 1) .......................................... 18 
` 
`Claim 2 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 37 
` 
`Claim 3 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 38 
` 
`Claim 4 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 39 
` 
`Claim 6 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 40 
` 
`Claim 7 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 41 
` 
`Claim 8 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 42 
` 
`Claim 9 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 44 
` 
`Claim 10 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 45 
` 
`  Claim 11 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 47 
`  Claim 12 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 49 
`  Claim 13 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 50 
`  Claim 14 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 52 
`  Claim 15 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 52 
`  Claim 16 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 54 
`  Claim 17 (Ground 1) ............................................................... 55 
`Independent Claim 18 (Ground 2) ........................................ 56 
` 
`  Claims 19-20 (Ground 1) and 22-27 (Ground 2) .................. 58 
`Independent Claim 28 (Ground 2) ........................................ 59 
` 
`  Claims 30-34 and 36 (Ground 2) ........................................... 63 
`Independent Claim 37 (Ground 2) ........................................ 64 
` 
`  Claims 38-39 and 43-44 (Ground 1), and Claims 40-41, 43-50,
`and 52 (Ground 2) ................................................................... 66 
`Independent Claim 53 (Ground 2) ........................................ 67 
` 
`  Claim 54 (Ground 1), Claims 55 and 57-62 (Ground 2) ...... 70 
`  Grounds 3 and 4: Claims 5 and 14 are Obvious Over Rakib,
`Crosby, Anderson, and Videcrantz (Ground 3), and Claims 21, 29,
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`35, 42, 51, 56, and 63 are Obvious over Rakib, Anderson, and
`Videcrantz (Ground 4) ...................................................................... 71 
`  Motivation
`to
`Combine
`Videcrantz
`with
`Rakib/Crosby/Anderson and Rakib/Anderson as Applied to
`Claims 5, 14, 21, 29, 35, 42, 51, 56, and 63 ............................ 71 
`Claims 5 and 14 (Ground 3) ................................................... 76 
` 
`Claims 21, 29, 42, and 56 (Ground 4) .................................... 77 
` 
`Claim 35 (Ground 4) ............................................................... 77 
` 
`Claims 51 and 63 (Ground 4) ................................................. 78 
` 
`  Grounds 5 and 6: Claims 8-11 are Obvious Over Rakib, Crosby,
`Anderson, and Watkinson (Ground 5), and Claims 22-24, 31-32,
`45-48, and 57-60 are Obvious Over Rakib, Anderson, and
`Watkinson (Ground 6) ...................................................................... 78 
`Claims 8-11 (Ground 5) .......................................................... 78 
` 
`Claims 22-24, 31-32, 45-48, and 57-60 (Ground 6) .............. 81 
` 
`  Grounds 7 and 8: Claim 14 is Obvious Over Rakib, Crosby,
`Anderson, and Hicks (Ground 7), and Claims 35, 51, and 63 are
`Obvious Over Rakib, Anderson, and Hicks (Ground 8) ............... 82 
`Claim 14 (Ground 7) ............................................................... 82 
` 
`Claim 35 (Ground 8) ............................................................... 84 
` 
`Claim 51 and 63 (Ground 8) .................................................. 85 
` 
`VI.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ................................. 86 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 86 
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(D) ................................................. 87 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 88 
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................ 89 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1101:
`Ex. 1102:
`Ex. 1103:
`Ex. 1104:
`
`Ex. 1105:
`Ex. 1106:
`Ex. 1107:
`
`Ex. 1108:
`
`Ex. 1109:
`Ex. 1110:
`Ex. 1111:
`Ex. 1112:
`Ex. 1113:
`Ex. 1114:
`
`Ex. 1115:
`
`Ex. 1116:
`
`
`
`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. 6,889,385 (“Rakib”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,192 (“Crosby”)
`Excerpts from Don Anderson, FireWire System Architecture,
`Second Edition, 1999 (“Anderson”)
`Excerpts from PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 2.2, PCI
`Special Interest Group, December 18, 1998
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 7,162,145 to Na
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”)
`Reserved
`Declaration of 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. 1117:
`
`Ex. 1118:
`
`Ex. 1119:
`Ex. 1120:
`Ex. 1121:
`Ex. 1122:
`
`Ex. 1123:
`
`Ex. 1124:
`
`Ex. 1125:
`
`Ex. 1126:
`
`Ex. 1127:
`
`
`
`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 to Wasilewski
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,873 to Williams
`U.S. Publication No. 2004/0172658 (“Rakib ʼ658”)
`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
`Excerpts from In re Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1128:
`
`Ex. 1129:
`Ex. 1130:
`
`Ex. 1131:
`Ex. 1132:
`Ex. 1133:
`
`Ex. 1134:
`
`Ex. 1135:
`Ex. 1136:
`Ex. 1137:
`Ex. 1138:
`Ex. 1139:
`Ex. 1140:
`Ex. 1141:
`Ex. 1142:
`Ex. 1143:
`
`
`
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.),
`January 14, 2020 – Transcript of Telephonic Conference
`Excerpts from Switched, Fast, and Gigabit Ethernet, Robert
`Breyer and Sean Riley, Macmillan Technical Publishing, Third
`Edition, 1999
`Reserved
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, Telecom Books,
`Sixteenth Edition, 2000
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 6,275,588 (“Videcrantz”)
`Excerpts from Internetworking With TCP/IP Vol I: Principles,
`Protocols, and Architecture, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Third Edition,
`1995
`Excerpts from Wireless LANs: Implementing Interoperable
`Networks, Jim Geier, Macmillan Technical Publishing, 1999
`(“Geier”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,865,681 to Nuutinen
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,365 to Bellovin
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 6,487,362 to Yuen
`Reserved
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,927 to Hendricks
`Reserved
`Excerpts from MPEG-2, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 2001
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
` 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.
`
` 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.
`
` 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-
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`824-3000; Fax: 202-824-3001. Please address all correspondence to counsel at this
`
`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. 1101.
`
`III. OVERVIEW
` Technical Background
`The Patent relates to “in-home local area networking,” and more specifically
`
`to the idea of distributing multiplexed multimedia content to a plurality of devices.
`
`Ex. 1101, Abstract, 1:7-9; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 51-52. However, solutions for distributing
`
`multimedia content using an in-home multiplexed network and equipment were
`
`well-known before the Patent was filed. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 53-57, 90-91.
`
`For example, Rakib teaches an in-home gateway that sends requested
`
`channels of multimedia content from multiple sources to peripheral devices. Ex.
`
`1105 at 5:53-60, 20:15-44, 33:11-22, Fig. 3; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 123-125.
`
`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
`
`May 24, 2001. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 92-135; Ex. 1103 at 7, 45-51, 58, 60-62, 64, 101-105,
`
`114, 125-159; Ex. 1105 at 33:23-28, 33:55-61, 34:24-61, Figs. 7A-7B (encoders,
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`transcoders, conditional access); Ex. 1114; Ex. 1115 at 19-22; Ex. 1116 at 25-27,
`
`57-62; Ex. 1117 at 91-92, 118, 154, 172, 176, 184; Ex. 1113, ¶¶ 67-75; Ex. 1118 at
`
`93-98; Ex. 1119 at 1:32-2:61; Ex. 1126 at 8-13; Ex. 1113, ¶¶ 76-88; Ex. 1141 at
`
`2:23-29, 3:41-48, 9:27-42, 11:64-13:21, 25:52-60, 29:20-31:10.
`
`
`
`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. 1101 at 1:7-9, 5:45-6:8;
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶ 52. 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.
`
`1101 at 5:46-53, 11:25-36, 12:18-22, Figs. 1-6; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 52, 58-60.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Channel commands are generated with a remote control at a client device and
`
`sent to the multimedia server via the communication path. Ex. 1101 at 7:23-31,
`
`11:37-49, 12:2-11; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 61-63. Various system components and data paths
`
`of the system are illustrated below. Ex. 1101 at 2:65-67, 11:25-12:58, 38:66-40:30,
`
`41:19-55; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 64-71.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`The Patent application was filed May 24, 2001. The prosecution history is
`
`summarized in Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 72-89, but certain events are referenced below.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`During prosecution, the examiner rejected claims over a combination of
`
`references that included Rakib ʼ658 (Ex. 1121), which shares some but not all
`
`disclosure with Rakib (Ex. 1105)1. Ex. 1103 at 8-9.
`
`During prosecution, a final Office action rejected all claims except those
`
`claims 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. 1103 at 1-11, 52-67, and 106-
`
`124. The applicant then amended each independent claim to include these
`
`limitations. Id. at 125-159; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 76-86.
`
`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 data. Ex. 1103 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. 1102, ¶¶ 74-75, 77-87.
`
`
`
`1 See infra § IV.A regarding why the grounds in this Petition differ from those raised
`
`during prosecution.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`The earliest priority date for the Patent is May 24, 2001. Ex. 1104. None of
`
`the following prior art was cited or considered by the examiner during examination
`
`of the Patent’s application. Ex. 1102, ¶ 89; Ex. 1103.
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,889,385 (“Rakib”)
`Rakib (Ex. 1105) is a U.S. patent that issued from an application filed June
`
`23, 2000, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Rakib discloses a home gateway that receives channel selection requests from
`
`client peripheral devices via a local area network (LAN), generates channel selection
`
`commands based on those requests, and sends the requested channels from a variety
`
`of sources to the peripherals. Ex. 1105 at 5:53-60, 20:15-44, 33:11-22, Fig. 3; Ex.
`
`1102, ¶¶ 123-125.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1105, Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,933,192 (“Crosby”)
`Crosby (Ex. 1106) is a U.S. patent that issued August 3, 1999, and is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Crosby describes a multi-channel digital video receiver compatible with
`
`satellite, terrestrial broadcast or cable transmission systems. Ex. 1106 at 1:8-12,
`
`2:46-58, Abstract, Fig. 1; Ex. 1102, ¶ 127. The receiver processes channel-up,
`
`channel-down, and previous-channel commands, and maintains a “user preference
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`list” of channels. Ex. 1106 at 2:2-9, 4:20-55, 5:13-59, 6:35-48, 7:28-33, Figs. 2, 3;
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 126-128.
`
`
`
`Don Anderson, FireWire System Architecture, Second Edition
`(“Anderson”)
`
`Anderson (Ex. 1107) was publicly available by July 1999. Anderson is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1113, ¶¶ 55-66.
`
`Anderson describes aspects of FireWire, also known as IEEE 1394, which is
`
`one of the bus standards used in Rakib’s gateway 308, and which defines a bus
`
`standard for interconnecting nodes and transmitting data organized into packets. Ex.
`
`1107 at 2, 35-38, 74-78, 80; Ex. 1105 at 33:48-34:4; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 129-130.
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,275,588 (“Videcrantz”)
`Videcrantz (Ex. 1132) issued from an application filed March 21, 2000, and
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Videcrantz
`
`describes
`
`performing
`
`compression/decompression,
`
`encryption/decryption, and authentication of data communication packages on a
`
`local area network (LAN). Ex. 1132, Abstract, 1:66-2:11, 29:10-67; Ex. 1102, ¶¶
`
`131-132.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
` MPEG-2 (“Watkinson”)
`Watkinson (Ex. 1116) was publicly available by June 1999, and is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Ex. 1113, ¶¶ 33-43.
`
`Watkinson teaches aspects of MPEG -2 video and audio encoding relied upon
`
`for claimed limitations related to compression, packetizing and framing. Ex. 1116 at
`
`11-13, 32-33, 52-56; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 133-134.
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”)
`Hicks (Ex. 1111) 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).
`
`Hicks teaches a digital residential entertainment system (Figure 1), including
`
`a Broadband Multimedia Gateway (BMG) that receives video and audio channels
`
`from various sources, and multiplexes the channels over a network to a plurality of
`
`clients, such as a digital television, set-top box, etc. Ex. 1111, Abstract, 2:28-45,
`
`3:36-67, 5:43-50, 6:1-42, 7:24-8:13, 11:48-12:3, Figs. 1, 2, 6; Ex. 1102, ¶ 135.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`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.2
`
`Grounds
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Rakib, Crosby, Anderson3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Rakib and Anderson
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1-4, 6-17, 19-20, 38-39,
`43-44, 54
`18, 22-28, 30-34, 36-37,
`40-41, 43-50, 52-53, 55,
`57-62
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Rakib, Crosby, Anderson,
`Videcrantz
`Rakib, Anderson,
`Videcrantz
`Rakib, Crosby, Anderson,
`Watkinson
`Rakib, Anderson,
`Watkinson
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`5, 14
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`21, 29, 35, 42, 51, 56,
`63
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`8-11
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`22-24, 31-32, 45-48,
`57-60
`
`
`
`2 While Rakib was not considered, related reference Rakib ʼ658 (Ex. 1121) was. See
`
`infra § IV.A.
`
`3 Independent claims 18, 28, 37, and 53 do not include limitations for which Crosby
`
`is cited, and thus are listed under Ground 2.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Grounds
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`References
`Rakib, Crosby, Anderson,
`Hicks
`Rakib, Anderson, Hicks
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`14
`
`35, 51, 63
`
` The Becton-Dickinson Factors Weigh in Favor of Institution
`In evaluating whether to exercise discretion to deny institution based on
`
`previously considered prior art, the Board has identified six non-exclusive factors.
`
`See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 62-63 (listing Becton-
`
`Dickinson factors 1-6). Collectively and for the following reasons, each factor
`
`weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`Primary reference Rakib is asserted here in combination with Anderson for all
`
`grounds, and for some grounds also with Crosby, Videcrantz, Watkinson, and/or
`
`Hicks. None of these references were considered during prosecution.
`
`Notably, the examiner did not consider Anderson, upon which all grounds in
`
`this Petition rely to teach that the Firewire bus protocol disclosed in Rakib performs
`
`“monitoring a shared bus at specific time intervals… and identifying [a data
`
`frame/packet]… to recapture… [the channel selection command/request]” as
`
`similarly recited in all independent claims. See claim elements [1F], [18C], [28F],
`
`[37D]-[37E], [53D].
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Rakib ʼ658 (Rakib, Ex. 1105, claims priority as a continuation-in-part to its
`
`parent and has overlapping and different disclosure with Rakib ʼ658), was asserted
`
`during prosecution as a secondary reference in combination with a reference not used
`
`in this Petition. The examiner alleged that a television video adapter 30 in Rakib
`
`ʼ658 monitors an internal bus. Ex. 1103 at 8-9, 47-50; Ex. 1121, ¶¶ [0082]-[0086],
`
`Fig. 5. In contrast, this Petition asserts monitoring a different bus in a different device
`
`(a host bus in gateway). Ex. 1105, Figs. 3 (gateway 308), 7A (host bus 756); see,
`
`e.g., infra § V.A.1.f. Even to the extent the disclosures of Rakib ʼ658 and Rakib may
`
`overlap, the examiner did not consider or combine Rakib ʼ658 with any of the
`
`references asserted in this Petition.
`
`This Petition offers substantial evidence and facts not previously presented or
`
`considered, and there is no overlap between the arguments presented during
`
`prosecution and the grounds presented herein.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`The alleged invention relates to the field of in-home networking. Ex. 1101 at
`
`1:5-22; Ex. 1102, ¶ 36. A PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention (May 24,
`
`2001) would have had a bachelors 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. 1102, ¶¶ 37-42.
`
` 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. 1102, ¶¶ 43-50.
`
`
`As Proposed in the ITC Investigation
`The parties in the ITC Investigation provided claim constructions (and the
`
`Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted some claim constructions) for certain
`
`terms, including: “An apparatus for multiplexing channels in a multimedia system,”
`
`a “tuning module,” “channel selection request,” “channel selection command,”
`
`“shared bus,” and “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 requests.” Ex.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`1127 at 61-634; Ex. 1123 at 5-8; Ex. 1124 at 1. This Petition applies all of the
`
`constructions adopted by the ITC or proposed by both parties as alternatives in the
`
`analysis below. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 43-44.5
`
`
`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,
`
`the corresponding structure in the Patent, and how that structure is disclosed by the
`
`
`
`4 The October 28 claim construction chart referenced in page 61 lines 4-6 is believed
`
`to refer to Ex. 1123 (dated October 21). The date appears to be an error.
`
`5 Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 16-25, 29, 31-33, 38-39, 42, 45-49, and 54-61 recite “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
`
`listed 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.
`
`1101 at 42:64-43:7; Ex. 1103 at 108; Ex. 1128 at 37-42; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 45-49.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`references, is identified in the analysis of each claim below (see 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3)). See also Ex. 1102, ¶ 50.
`
`V.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20, 38-39, 43-44, and 54 Are
`Obvious Over Rakib, Crosby, and Anderson (Ground 1); Claims 18,
`22-28, 30-34, 36-37, 40-41, 43-50, 52-53, 55, and 57-62 Are Obvious
`Over Rakib and Anderson (Ground 2)
`
`
`Independent Claim 1 (Ground 1)
`Rakib in view of Crosby and Anderson teach claim 1. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 139-208.
`
`a.
`
`[1A] A method of multiplexing a plurality of channels in a
`multimedia system, the method comprises:
`
`Rakib discloses a home gateway 308 (a multimedia server) multiplexing a
`
`plurality of channels to a plurality of peripherals via a local area network (LAN). Ex.
`
`1105 at 20:15-44, 23:64-26:37, 33:11-22, Fig. 3 (below); Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 143-146; see
`
`also Ex. 1105 at 4:45-6:49, 7:54-67, 19:25-31, 19:47-63, 32:9-44:46, 53:26-54:31,
`
`56:29-39, 56:59-58:17, Figs. 7A-7B, 8.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1105, Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`b.
`
`[1B] receiving a plurality of channels from a multimedia source;
`
`Gateway 308 receives channels, including subchannels, from multimedia
`
`sources such as CATV, broadcast television, and satellite (e.g., DirecTV). Ex. 1105
`
`at 25:36-26:34, Fig. 3 (below); Ex. 1102, ¶ 149; see also Ex. 1105 at 4:45-6:40,
`
`19:47-63, 24:8-25:48, 32:9-35:61, 36:47-53, 37:6-38:25, 40:53-61, 41:21-43, 50:38-
`
`43, 51:53-60.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1105, Fig. 3 (excerpted/annotated).
`
`
`
`Figures 7A-7B, highlighted below, show tuners (700, 702, 704, 780, 902, 914,
`
`944) of gateway 308 connected to multimedia sources (satellite, HFC/CATV,
`
`terrestrial). Ex. 1105 at 32:9-52, Figs. 7A-7B; Ex. 1102, ¶ 150; see also Ex. 1105 at
`
`7:64-65, 35:4-5, 36:47-53, 37:17-39, 43:18-67.
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1105, Figs. 7A-7B (joined/annotated).
`
`Figure 8 is highlighted below to show receiving modules of a modular version
`
`of gateway 308. Ex. 1105 at 53:25-38; Ex. 1102, ¶ 151; see also Ex. 1105 at 7:66-
`
`
`
`67, 56:66-57:67, Fig. 8.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`1105, Fig. 8 (annotated).
`
`Ex.
`
`c.
`
` [1C] receiving a plurality of channel selection commands by:
`receiving, from a plurality of clients, a plurality of channel
`selection requests; and
`
`Rakib’s peripherals (the “plurality of clients”) request channels via keyboards,
`
`remote controls, and menus. Ex. 1105 at 33:23-35, 36:47-37:7, Fig. 3 (330); Ex.
`
`1102, ¶¶ 153-154; see also Ex. 1105 at 20:15-44, 24:49-54, 35:14-27, 43:56-63,
`
`49:4-13, 49:56-63, 51:37-53, 54:10-15, 54:27-29, Figs. 7A-7B, 9A-9E.
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`Requests are sent
`
`from peripherals as Ethernet “packets”/frames6
`
`encapsulating IP packets, and are received in gateway 308 by router/NIC 326/786
`
`and forwarded to the gateway’s host central processing unit (“CPU”) 728. Ex. 1105
`
`at 33:23-25; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 155-157; see also Ex. 1105 at 22:51-57, 34:53-61, 35:20-
`
`27, 36:38-46, 37:6-13, 47:53-48:18, 48:60-50:3, 51:37-60, 53:25-54:31, Figs. 3, 7A,
`
`8, 9A. The requests identify desired channels and Ethernet/IP addresses of the
`
`requesting peripherals. Ex. 1105 at 34:37-52, 37:6-13; Ex. 1130 at 8-9 (Frames
`
`generally, Ethernet Frames/Packets specifically), 17 (“The specific native protocol
`
`of the data network may term the packet as a packet, block, frame or cell.”); Ex.
`
`1133, 37, 39-40, 44-45, 53, 59-61, Figs. 7.3, 7.5; Ex. 1134 at 39-40, 83-88; Ex. 1113,
`
`
`
`6 Rakib refers to Ethernet “packets,” which are often called Ethernet “frames.” Ex.
`
`1130 at 8 (figure: “An Ethernet Frame”), 9, 17; Ex. 1102, ¶ 157. As explained for
`
`claim 10, the Patent, and Patent Owner’s ITC expert, treat “packets” and “frames”
`
`as interchangeable, and this is how a PHOSITA would understand the terms. Infra,
`
`§ V.A.9; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 157, 247-251. Rakib similarly treats packet and frame based
`
`protocols interchangeably. Ex. 1105 at 33:35-34:15 (PCI bus with frames, or
`
`Firewire bus with packets); Ex. 1102, ¶ 157; Ex. 1107 at 53, 80; Ex. 1108 at 46, 67-
`
`69.
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`¶¶ 44-54, 100-119; Ex. 1102 at ¶¶ 156-160; see also Ex. 1105 at 42:14-36, 48:48-
`
`52, 54:10-15, Figs. 8, 9A (708).
`
`In sum, the requests from the peripherals (the claimed “plurality of clients”)
`
`include IP packets (the claimed “plurality of channel selecti