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.: IPR2020-00789
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Petition 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`Real Parties in Interest ........................................................................... 1 
` 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`Lead & Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ............................ 2 
` 
`RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................... 4 
`  OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4 
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 4 
` 
`Brief Description of Alleged Invention ................................................. 5 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7 
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ....................................................... 8 
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,677,905 (“Bigham”) .......................................... 8 
` 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,778,550 (“Blahut”) ............................................ 9 
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”) ................................................ 9 
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0110245 (“Gruia”) .................................... 10 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 (“Humpleman”) ................................. 10 
` 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) ..................................................................................................... 11 
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 12 
` 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 13 
`1. 
`As Proposed in the ITC Investigation ....................................... 13 
`2. 
`Interpretation as Means Plus Function ...................................... 14 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................................... 14 
`  Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-4, 6-20, 22-28, 30-41, 43-55, and 57-63 Are
`Obvious Over Bigham and Blahut (Ground 1), and Claims 1-4, 6-17,
`19-20, 38-39, and 54 Are Obvious Over Bigham, Blahut, and Usui
`(Ground 2) ........................................................................................... 14 
`Claim 1 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 15 
` 
`Claim 2 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 31 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Claim 3 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 32 
`Claim 4 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 33 
`Claim 6 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 34 
`Claim 7 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 35 
`Claim 8 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 37 
`Claim 9 (Grounds 1/2) .............................................................. 38 
`Claim 10 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 42 
`  Claim 11 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 43 
`  Claim 12 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 45 
`  Claim 13 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 46 
`  Claim 14 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 47 
`  Claim 15 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 48 
`  Claim 16 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 50 
`  Claim 17 (Grounds 1/2) ............................................................ 51 
`  Claim 18 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 52 
`  Claims 19-20 (Grounds 1/2), 22-27 (Ground 1) ....................... 54 
`  Claim 28 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 55 
`  Claims 30-36 (Ground 1) .......................................................... 59 
`  Claim 37 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 61 
`  Claims 38-39 (Grounds 1/2), 40-41, 43-52 (Ground 1) ........... 62 
`  Claim 53 (Ground 1) ................................................................. 63 
`  Claim 54 (Grounds 1/2), Claims 55 and 57-63 (Ground 1) ...... 66 
`Grounds 3 and 4: Claims 5, 21, 29, 42, and 56 are Obvious Over
`Bigham, Blahut, and Gruia (Ground 3) and Claim 5 is Obvious Over
`Bigham, Blahut, Usui, and Gruia (Ground 4) ..................................... 66 
`Claim 5 (Grounds 3/4) .............................................................. 66 
` 
`Claims 21, 29, 42, and 56 (Ground 3) ...................................... 69 
` 
`Grounds 5-8: Grounds 1-4 Further Combined with Humpleman ....... 69 
` 
`  GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ..................................... 70 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71 
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) ..................................................... 72 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 73 
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................... 74 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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
`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,905 (“Bigham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,778,550 (“Blahut”)
`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. 1201:
`Ex. 1202:
`Ex. 1203:
`Ex. 1204:
`
`Ex. 1205:
`Ex. 1206:
`
`Ex. 1207:
`Ex. 1208:
`Ex. 1209:
`Ex. 1210:
`
`Ex. 1211:
`
`Ex. 1212:
`Ex. 1213:
`Ex. 1214:
`
`Ex. 1215:
`
`Ex. 1216:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Ex. 1217:
`
`Ex. 1218:
`
`Ex. 1219:
`Ex. 1220:
`Ex. 1221:
`Ex. 1222:
`
`Ex. 1223:
`
`Ex. 1224:
`
`Ex. 1225:
`
`Ex. 1226:
`
`Ex. 1227:
`
`
`
`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”)
`U.S. Published Application No. 2002/0110245 (“Gruia”)
`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
`Reserved
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1228:
`
`Ex. 1229:
`Ex. 1230:
`
`Ex. 1231:
`Ex. 1232:
`Ex. 1233:
`Ex. 1234:
`
`Ex. 1235:
`Ex. 1236:
`Ex. 1237:
`Ex. 1238:
`Ex. 1239:
`Ex. 1240:
`Ex. 1241:
`Ex. 1242:
`Ex. 1243:
`
`Ex. 1244:
`
`
`
`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
`Reserved
`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”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from The MPEG Handbook MPEG-1, MPEG-2,
`MPEG-4, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 2001
`(“Watkinson2001”)
`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
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1245:
`Ex. 1246:
`Ex. 1247:
`
`Ex. 1248:
`Ex. 1249:
`Ex. 1250:
`Ex. 1251:
`
`Ex. 1252:
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from PCI System Architecture, Fourth Edition, Tom
`Shanley and Don Anderson, Addison-Wesley, 1999
`(“Shanley”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,368 (“Phillips”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,457,681 (“Gaddis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,946,313 (“Allan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,182,094 (“Humpleman”)
`
`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
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

` 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
`The ’855 patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i) and (iii)-(v) in
`
`the ITC (In re Certain Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and Software
`
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.)).
`
`The ʼ855 patent is also the subject of concurrently-filed related petitions for
`
`inter partes review that assert different grounds of unpatentability.
`
`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.
`
` 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
`
`2
`
`

`

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

`

` 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. 1201.
`
` 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. 1201 at Abstract, 1:7-9; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 45-46, 52. However, solutions for
`
`distributing multimedia content using an in-home multiplexed network and
`
`equipment were well-known before the Patent was filed. Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 47-51, 84-
`
`140.
`
`Bigham (Ex. 1208) teaches a Full Service Network that uses a host digital
`
`terminal (“HDT”) 1180 to distribute multiplexed broadcast video and interactive
`
`communication sessions to a plurality of users. Ex. 1208, Figs. 3A, 3B (1180),
`
`Abstract, 15:15-40, 20:1-54; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 134, 144. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“PHOSITA”) would have found it obvious to augment Bigham’s HDT 1180
`
`(which includes a line card) with the line card structure and corresponding
`
`communication scheme of Blahut. Ex. 1202, ¶ 144.
`
`Various claimed
`
`techniques—including
`
`time or
`
`frequency-division
`
`multiplexing for transmission of data (including video content), user control of
`
`4
`
`

`

`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. Ex.
`
`1202, ¶¶ 86-140; Ex. 1208 at 10:24-27, 11:1-16, 11:26-34, 12:35-44, 15:41-16:24,
`
`17:26-36, 20:6-54, 21:34-43, 22:14-26, 22:36-51, 23:10-24, 24:23-26, 29:32-36,
`
`31:11-26; Ex. 1211, [0008]-[0011], [0049]-[0051], [0028]-[0029], [0036], [0038],
`
`[0045]; Ex. 1215 at 19-22; Ex. 1216 at 16-22, 32-33, 25-27, 52-62; Ex. 1217 at 3-6,
`
`11, 91-92, 112, 118, 121, 154, 172-173, 176, 184; Ex. 1218 at 93-98; Ex. 1219 at
`
`1:32-2:61; Ex. 1226 at 8-13; Ex. 1230 at 18-19 (statistical multiplexing, STDM); Ex.
`
`1241 at 2:23-29, 3:41-48, 9:27-42, 11:64-13:21, 25:52-60, 29:20-31:10; Ex. 1213 at
`
`28-37.
`
`
`
`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. 1201 at 1:7-9, 5:46-6:8;
`
`Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 45-46, 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. 1201 at 5:46-53, 11:25-36, 12:18-22, Figs. 1-6; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 46, 52-54.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Ex. 1201, 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. 1201 at 7:23-31,
`
`11:37-49, 12:2-11; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 55-57. Various system components and data paths
`
`of the system are illustrated below. Ex. 1201 at 2:65-67, 11:25-66, 12:12-58, 38:66-
`
`39:12, 40:27-30, 41:19-39, 43:33-38, 43:50-55, Figs. 6, 12, 14-16, 31, 35; Ex. 1202,
`
`¶¶ 58-65.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1201, Fig. 6 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`The Patent application was filed May 24, 2001. The prosecution history is
`
`summarized in Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 66-83, but certain events are referenced below.
`
`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. 1203 at 1-11, 52-67, and 106-
`
`7
`
`

`

`124. The applicant then amended each independent claim to include these
`
`limitations. Id. at 125-159; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 69-80.
`
`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. 1203 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. 1202, ¶¶ 68-69, 71-81.
`
`
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`The earliest priority date for the ’855 patent is May 24, 2001. Ex. 1204. None
`
`of the following prior art was cited or considered by the examiner during
`
`prosecution. Ex. 1202, ¶ 83; Ex. 1203.
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,677,905 (“Bigham”)
`Bigham (Ex. 1208) is a U.S. patent issued October 14, 1997 and is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Bigham teaches a Full Service Network that provides broadcast video
`
`distribution and interactive communication sessions to a plurality of users. Ex. 1208,
`
`Abstract, 15:15-40; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 134-135. The network includes a HDT 1180 that
`
`receives broadcast channel data from a plurality of sources and provides broadcast
`
`channel data to a plurality of digital entertainment terminals (“DET(s)”) 1217. Ex.
`
`8
`
`

`

`1208, Ex. 1208, Figs. 3A, 3B (1180, 1217), 15:15-40, 16:63-65, 19:29-49, 19:60-
`
`20:54; Ex. 1202, ¶ 135.
`
`Each individual subscribers’ premises may have up to four DETs. Ex. 1208 at
`
`20:24-27; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 136-137. Each DET is “able to select and process any digital
`
`or analog channel broadcast through the access subnetwork 152 to which the
`
`customer subscribes.” Ex. 1208 at 8:36-40; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 136-137.
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,778,550 (“Blahut”)
`Blahut (Ex. 1209) is a U.S. patent issued from an application filed February
`
`29, 2000. Blahut is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Blahut teaches an optical network used to send MPEG videos to end users’
`
`devices. Ex. 1209 at 4:22-46, 4:60-67; Ex. 1202, ¶ 138. Blahut’s network includes
`
`one or more Optical Line Terminals (“OLT(s)”) 113 in communication with one or
`
`more Optical Network Units (“ONU(s)”) 106. Ex. 1209 at 3:61-4:46.
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”)
`Usui (Ex. 1212) is a U.S. patent issued September 15, 1998, and is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Usui teaches a remote control that includes the same channel command
`
`options as recited in the Patent claims, for example, as in [1E]. Ex. 1212 at 6:33-7:3,
`
`Fig. 4; Ex. 1202, ¶ 132.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0110245 (“Gruia”)
`Gruia (Ex. 1221) is a publication of a patent application filed February 13,
`
`2001, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Gruia teaches a broadband optical communications network comprising at
`
`least one OLT in communication with a plurality of ONUs. Ex. 1221, [0001]-[0003],
`
`[0010]-[0011], [0030]-[0034]; Ex. 1202, ¶ 139. In Gruia’s network, the ONU
`
`encrypts its upstream communications to the OLT, which in turn decrypts the
`
`upstream communication. Ex. 1221, [0008]-[0011], [0049]-[0051], [0028]-[0029],
`
`[0036], [0038], [0045].
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 (“Humpleman”)
`Humpleman (Ex. 1251) is a U.S. patent issued from an application filed June
`
`24, 1998. Humpleman claims priority to provisional applications filed June 25, 1997
`
`and September 22, 1997. Humpleman is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-
`
`AIA).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Humpleman teaches a home network:
`
`Ex. 1251, Fig. 1, 4:20-7:2; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 140, 479-484.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`Bigham and Blahut
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1-4, 6-20, 22-28, 30-41,
`43-55, 57-63
`
`11
`
`

`

`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5-8
`
`Bigham, Blahut, and Usui1
`Bigham, Blahut, and Gruia
`Bigham, Blahut, Usui and
`Gruia
`Grounds 1-4 and
`Humpleman, respectively
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-4, 6-17, 19-20, 38-39, 54
`5, 21, 29, 42, 56
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`See Grounds 1-4 above
`
`
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill
`The alleged invention relates to the field of in-home networking. Ex. 1201 at
`
`1:5-22; Ex. 1202, ¶ 30. 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. 1202, ¶¶ 31-36.
`
`
`
`1 Independent claims 18, 28, 37, and 53 do not include limitations for which Usui is
`
`cited.
`
`12
`
`

`

` 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. 1202, ¶¶ 37-44.
`
`1. 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.
`
`1252 at 61-632; Ex. 1223 at 5-12; Ex. 1224 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. 1202, ¶¶ 38-39.3
`
`
`
`2 The ALJ refers to an October 28 claim construction chart which is believed to be
`
`Ex. 1223 (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
`
`13
`
`

`

`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,
`
`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)). Ex. 1202, ¶ 44.
`
`
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-4, 6-20, 22-28, 30-41, 43-55, and 57-63 Are
`Obvious Over Bigham and Blahut (Ground 1), and Claims 1-4, 6-17,
`19-20, 38-39, and 54 Are Obvious Over Bigham, Blahut, and Usui
`(Ground 2)
`Bigham’s HDT 1180, in combination with Blahut’s OLT 113 and
`
`corresponding communication scheme, render these claims obvious. Ex. 1202, ¶¶
`
`141-147. These claims are also rendered obvious by Bigham and Blahut further
`
`
`
`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. 1201 at 42:64-43:7;
`
`Ex. 1203 at 108; Ex. 1228 at 37-42; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 41-46.
`
`14
`
`

`

`combined with Usui, which teaches each specific “channel selection command” type
`
`recited in claims 1, 19, 38, and 54 (if these command types are found to be missing
`
`from Bigham). Ex. 1202, ¶ 146.
`
`
`Ex. 1212, Fig. 4 (annotated); Ex. 1202, ¶ 194.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Claim 1 (Grounds 1/2)
`[1A] A method of multiplexing a plurality of channels in a
`multimedia system, the method comprises:
`Bigham teaches a Full Service Network that utilizes a HDT 1180
`
`(“multimedia server”) to provide broadcast video distribution to DETs 1217 within
`
`subscribers’ homes. Ex. 1208, Figs. 3A, 3B (1180, 1217), 15:15-40, 20:1-54; Ex.
`
`1202, ¶ 148. The HDT 1180 receives data from a plurality of sources, such as
`
`15
`
`

`

`broadcast server source 1101. Ex. 1208, Figs. 3A, 3B (1101, 1180), 15:15-40, 16:63-
`
`65, 19:29-49, 19:60-20:5; Ex. 1202, ¶ 153.
`
`Per Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed ITC constructions, Bigham’s
`
`Full Service Network (Ex. 1208, Figs. 1, 3A, 3B) (the claimed “multimedia system”)
`
`includes HDT 1180, a multimedia server (claims 1, 37, 53), including a tuning
`
`module (claim 28) in communication with a plurality of DETs 1217 within
`
`subscribers’ homes via network interface modules/controllers. Ex. 1208, Figs. 1
`
`(171, 172), 3A, 3B (1180, 1217), 15:15-40, 20:1-54, 22:15-51; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 148-157.
`
`Bigham teaches that each DET 1217, located within a subscriber’s home,
`
`receives a selection signal indicating a user-selected broadcast channel or pay-per-
`
`view event. Ex. 1208, Fig. 3B (1217), 21:34-43, 29:32-36. In response to receiving
`
`multiplexed user-selection signals from a plurality of DETs 1217, the HDT 1180
`
`retrieves ATM cells associated with each of the selected broadcast channels. Ex.
`
`1208 at 5:13-16, 20:1-54, 21:14-47; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 154-157. The HDT 1180 then
`
`multiplexes those ATM cells (“multiplexing a plurality of channels”) prior to
`
`downstream transmission. Id. at 20:6-54, 26:16-46; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 155-157.
`
`b.
`[1B] receiving a plurality of channels from a multimedia source;
`Bigham’s network receives channels from a plurality of broadcast service
`
`video information providers and a plurality of interactive service video information
`
`providers. Ex. 1208 at 8:7-55, 15:15-39; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 158-159; see also Ex. 1208 at
`
`16
`
`

`

`4:4-12, 7:8-30, 9:9-25, 19:45-59, 21:49-60, 22:14-25, 23:25-26:65, 27:65-28:19. A
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that each of these providers corresponds to the
`
`claimed “multimedia source.” Ex. 1202, ¶ 161. Each broadcast video provider may
`
`produce up to 60 broadcast channels. Ex. 1208 at 19:29-44; Ex. 1202, ¶ 158. These
`
`channels are received by the HDT 1180 (“receiving a plurality of channels from a
`
`multimedia source”) via optical fibers 1170 and parallel buses. Ex. 1208 at 15:15-
`
`39, 19:60-20:18; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 160-161; see also Ex. 1208 at 4:4-12, 7:8-30, 8:12-
`
`20, 9:9-25, 16:63-65, 21:49-60, 22:14-25.
`
`Thus this is taught in Bigham. Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 158-162.
`
`c.
`
`[1C] receiving a plurality of channel selection commands by:
`receiving, from a plurality of clients, a plurality of channel
`selection requests; and
`Each of Bigham’s plurality of DETs 1217 can receive, through a remote
`
`control device, a selection signal indicating a user-selected broadcast channel or a
`
`pay-per-view event (“channel selection command”). Ex. 1208 at 10:24-28, 20:6-9,
`
`21:34-43, 22:14-26, 29:32-36; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 164-165. These selection signals
`
`(“channel selection commands”) are sent from the DETs 1217 (“plurality of clients”)
`
`to the ONU 1210, which multiplexes these selection signals together and transmits
`
`these signals (“channel selection requests”) to the HDT 1180 (“receiving, from a
`
`plurality of clients, a plurality of channel selection requests”). Ex. 1208 at 20:6-21,
`
`21:25-45, 26:16-26; Ex. 1202, ¶ 165.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Bigham’s multiplexed signals (“channel selection requests”) include channel
`
`selection signals that identify both a selected broadcast channel (“particular
`
`channel”) and the DET (“client”) from which the channel selection signal originated.
`
`Ex. 1208 at 20:36-54; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 166-168. This meets the agreed upon ITC
`
`construction of “channel selection request” as “data that identifies a particular
`
`channel and at least one of the clients.” Ex. 1223 at 5 (top); Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 166-168.
`
`Thus this is taught in Bigham. Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 163-169.
`
`d.
`
`[1D] receiving a plurality of channel selection commands by:
`…
`processing the plurality of channel selection requests to produce
`the plurality of channel selection commands,
`After receiving the multiplexed signals (“channel selection requests”)
`
`comprising
`
`the plurality of channel selection signals (“channel selection
`
`commands”), Bigham’s HDT 1180 responds by identifying the ATM cells that
`
`correspond to each individual channel selection signal. Ex. 1208 at 20:36-54; Ex.
`
`1202, ¶ 172. A PHOSITA would have understood that in order to respond to each
`
`individual channel selection signal, the HDT 1180 would extract those individual
`
`channel selection signals from the multiplexed signals (“processing the plurality of
`
`channel selection requests to produce the plurality of channel selection commands”).
`
`Ex. 1208 at 20:36-54, 21:25-45, 26:16-47; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 173-175.
`
`Thus this is taught in Bigham. Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 170-176.
`
`18
`
`

`

`e.
`
`[1E] wherein the each of the plurality of channel selection
`commands includes at least one of: last channel selection
`command, next channel selection command, previous channel
`selection command, favorite channel selection command, and
`select channel from user define list;
`Bigham (Ground 1) or Bigham and Usui (Ground 2) teaches this. Ex. 1202,
`
`¶¶ 177-200. Bigham teaches that each of its DETs 1217 (“clients”) receives channel
`
`selection signals (“channel selection commands”) from a user through a remote
`
`control device. Ex. 1208 at 10:24-27, 20:6-9, 21:34-43; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 178-185.
`
`Bigham teaches that it was known to display, by a set-top terminal and TV, “a menu
`
`of video programming information.” Ex. 1208 at 3:20-32. Bigham also teaches, in a
`
`pay-per-view situation, allowing a user to use a menu to select a channel using a
`
`remote control or keyboard. Ex. 1208 at 21:49-60, 29:32-37. Further, Bigham’s
`
`network and DET 1217 may coordinate presentation of a user-customized graphical
`
`menu displaying available programming. Ex. 1208 at 11:17-47, 11:66-12:26, 21:49-
`
`60, 47:27-42. A PHOSITA would have understood this to correspond to the claimed
`
`“select channel from user define list.” Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 185-187.
`
`If Bigham does not explicitly disclose that its remote control includes these
`
`specific channel selection options, a PHOSITA would have recognized that
`
`Bigham’s remote control would include well-known channel up and down keys and
`
`a number key pad, which we