`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00951
`U.S. Patent 9,911,325
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,911,325
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`Grounds for the Unpatentability of the ’325 patent ....................................... 2
`Overview of the ’325 patent .......................................................................... 4
`A.
`Embodiment 2 – Transmitting a Key Code from a Key Code
`Generator to an Electronic Consumer Device ......................................... 6
`The Examiner Provided No Rationale for Allowance During
`Prosecution of the ’325 Patent ................................................................ 7
`Level of ordinary skill in the art .................................................................... 8
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 9
`A.
`“Key code” and “Keystroke indicator” ................................................... 9
`B.
`“Key code signal” ..................................................................................10
`GROUND 1: Claim 1 of the ’325 Patent Is Unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 Over Rye In view of Skerlos.................................................. 10
`A. Overview of Rye ...................................................................................11
`B.
`Overview of Skerlos ..............................................................................12
`C.
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................................14
`[1.P]: “A first device for transmitting a command to control a functional
`
`operation of a second device, the first device comprising:” ......................14
`[1.1]: “a receiver;” ......................................................................................15
`[1.2] “a transmitter;” ..................................................................................15
`[1.3] “a processing device coupled to the receiver and the transmitter; and”
` ....................................................................................................................16
`[1.4] “a memory storing instructions executable by the processing device,
`the instructions causing the processing device to:” ...................................18
`[1.4.1] “generate a key code using a keystroke indicator received from a
`third device in communication with first device via use of the receiver, the
`keystroke indicator having data that indicates an input element of the third
`device that has been activated;” .................................................................19
`[1.4.2] “format the key code for transmission to the second device; and” 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`[1.4.3] “transmit the formatted key code to the second device in a key
`code signal via use of the transmitter;” .....................................................27
`[1.4.4] “wherein the generated key code comprises a one of a plurality of
`key code data stored in a codeset, wherein the one of the plurality of key
`code data is selected from the codeset as a function of the keystroke
`indicator received from the third device, wherein each of the plurality of
`key code data stored in the codeset comprises a series of digital ones
`and/or digital zeros, and” ...........................................................................27
` [1.4.5] “wherein the codeset further comprises time information that
`describes how a digital one and/or a digital zero within the selected one of
`the plurality of key code data is to be represented in the key code signal to
`be transmitted to the second device.” ........................................................29
`GROUND A: Claims 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 of the ’325 Patent are
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Rye In view of Skerlos
`and Woolgar. ................................................................................................ 33
`A. Overview of Woolgar ............................................................................33
`B.
`Claims 8 and 16 .....................................................................................35
`C.
`Independent Claim 9 .............................................................................38
`D.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................43
`E.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................44
`F.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................44
`G.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................45
`VIII. GROUND B: Claim 6 of the ’325 Patent is Unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 Over Rye In view of Skerlos And Gutman. ........................... 46
`A. Overview of Gutman .............................................................................46
`B.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................48
`GROUND C: Claim 14 of the ’325 Patent Is Unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 Over Rye In view of Skerlos, Woolgar, And Gutman........... 50
`GROUND 2.A: Claims 1, 6, 8, and 16 of the ’325 Patent are
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Caris In view of Dubil. ............ 51
`A. Overview of Caris .................................................................................51
`B.
`Overview of Dubil .................................................................................54
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................................55
`C.
`[1.P] “A first device for transmitting a command to control a functional
`
`operation of a second device, the first device comprising:” ......................55
`[1.1] “a receiver;” .......................................................................................56
`[1.2] “a transmitter;” ..................................................................................57
`[1.3] “a processing device coupled to the receiver and the transmitter; and”
` ....................................................................................................................58
`[1.4] “a memory storing instructions executable by the processing device,
`the instructions causing the processing device to:” ...................................59
`[1.4.1] “generate a key code using a keystroke indicator received from a
`third device in communication with first device via use of the receiver, the
`keystroke indicator having data that indicates an input element of the third
`device that has been activated;” .................................................................60
`[1.4.2] “format the key code for transmission to the second device; and” 61
`[1.4.3] “transmit the formatted key code to the second device in a key
`code signal via use of the transmitter;” .....................................................64
`[1.4.4] “wherein the generated key code comprises a one of a plurality of
`key code data stored in a codeset, wherein the one of the plurality of key
`code data is selected from the codeset as a function of the keystroke
`indicator received from the third device, wherein each of the plurality of
`key code data stored in the codeset comprises a series of digital ones
`and/or digital zeros, and” ...........................................................................65
` [1.4.5] “wherein the codeset further comprises time information that
`describes how a digital one and/or a digital zero within the selected one of
`the plurality of key code data is to be represented in the key code signal to
`be transmitted to the second device.” ........................................................68
`D.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................70
`E.
`Claims 8 and 16 .....................................................................................71
`GROUND D: Claims 8, 9 and 11-16 of the ’325 Patent are
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Caris In view of Dubil and
`Woolgar........................................................................................................ 72
`A.
`Claims 8 and 16 .....................................................................................72
`B.
`Independent Claim 9 .............................................................................73
`C.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`XII.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................75
`D.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................76
`E.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................76
`F.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................76
`G.
`Patent Owner is unaware of any secondary considerations of non-
`obviousness .................................................................................................. 77
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... 77
`XIII.
`Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................................................ 78
`XIV.
`XV. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ............................................... 78
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .....................................78
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ..............................................78
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............................79
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................................80
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325 to Mui (“’325 Patent”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325 (“Prosecution
`History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Samuel Russ
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0080428 to Rye et al. (“Rye”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,426,662 to Skerlos et al. (“Skerlos”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,562,128 to Caris et al. (“Caris”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,132,105 to Dubil et al. (“Dubil”)
`Markman Order SACV 18-01580 JVS (Dated August 8, 2019)
`“Device Specification for Infrared Detecting unit for Remote
`Control GP1UV70QS series,” Sharp Corporation Electronic
`Components Group, Opto-Electronic Devices Division (Dated
`December 27, 2002) (“GP1UV70”)
`“Data Formats for IR Remote Control,” Vishay Semiconductors
`(Dated August 27, 2003) (“Vishay”)
`“User Interface – Infrared Learner (Remote Control) AN2092”
`Project Guide, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (Dated
`November 11, 2002) (“Cypress”)
`“VCR Commander Service User’s Guide,” Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.,
`(Dated September 2000) (“VCR Commander”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,469,152 to Yamamoto et al. (“Yamamoto”).
`“Infrared Remote Control Transmitter RC5 Product Specification,”
`Philips Semiconductors (Dated June 15, 1999)
`“AT2400 AllTouch Remote Control User’s Guide,” Scientific-
`Atlanta, Inc. (Dated February 2002)
`“EXPLORER 2100 or 3100 Digital Home Communications
`Terminals User’s Installation Guide,” Scientific Atlanta, Inc.
`(Dated July 2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,909,471 to Bayley (“Bayley”).
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,745,192 to Bialobrzewski (“Bialobrzewski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,365,282 to Levine (“Levine”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,225,873 to Hill (“Hill”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,474 to Mikhak (“Mikhak”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,010 to Emelko (“Emelko”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,575 to Landry et al. (“Landry”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,730 to Maxon et al. (“Maxon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,134 to Epstein (“Epstein”)
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions, Ex. C-1, Universal
`Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc., 8:18-cv-01580 (C.D. Cal.)
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0168658 to Woolgar et al.
`(“Woolgar”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,861,262 to Gutman (“Gutman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,137,802 to Jones et al. (“Jones”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0249890 to Chardon et al.
`(“Chardon”)
`High-Definition Multimedia Interface – Specification Version 1.3a
`(November 10, 2006)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`Roku Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 11-16 of
`
`United States Patent No. 9,911,325 (“’325 patent”) to Mui, titled “Relaying Key
`
`Code Signals Through a Remote Control Device.” EX1001, ’325 patent. The
`
`Petition demonstrates that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 11-16 of the ’325 patent are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’325 patent allegedly solved problems related to programming remote
`
`control devices to control electronic consumer devices. But, the ’325 patent does
`
`not propose any novel or nonobvious solutions. Rather, using key code generator
`
`devices—such as set-top boxes—to facilitate the transmission of key codes to
`
`control electronic consumer devices was already well-known in the art. EX1003,
`
`Russ Decl., ¶¶26-28, 34-100.
`
`The ’325 patent describes the problem of remote control devices having
`
`insufficient memory to store thousands of codesets related to different electronic
`
`consumer devices. EX1001, 1:62-65. Further, the codesets may include different
`
`key codes corresponding to different functions such as “power on, power off,
`
`volume up, volume down, play, stop, select, channel up, channel down, etc.” Id.,
`
`1:39-42.
`
`To solve this alleged problem, the ’325 patent proposes and claims the well-
`
`known solution of transmitting a key code from a key code generator device to an
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`electronic consumer device in response to receiving a command from the remote
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`control. See Section III.A. Not only was this solution trivial, but it was also
`
`explicitly disclosed by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0080428 (“Rye”) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,562,128 (“Caris”). Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 4,426,662
`
`(“Skerlos”), U.S. Patent No. 8,132,105 (“Dubil”), U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2005/0168658 (“Woolgar”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,861,262 (“Gutman”) disclose
`
`other well-known and simple elements of the claims that would have been known
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”). These elements include
`
`modulation techniques for modulating a key code onto a carrier signal, using
`
`different communication protocols, and streaming media.
`
`Accordingly, there is at least a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim
`
`of the ’325 patent is unpatentable, as shown herein. As such, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board Institute trial on the grounds set forth herein and ultimately
`
`determine that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 11-16 of the ’325 patent are invalid.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR THE UNPATENTABILITY OF THE ’325 PATENT
`Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) requests inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 11-
`
`16 of the ’325 patent and a determination that those claims are unpatentable based
`
`on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`
`
`Ground Prior Art
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1
`
`8, 9, 11-13, and
`15-16
`
`6
`
`14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1, 6, 8, and 16
`
`8, 9, and 11-16
`
`1
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`2.A
`
`D
`
`Rye (EX1005)
`Skerlos (EX1006)
`Rye (EX1005)
`Skerlos (EX1006)
`Woolgar (EX1029)
`Rye (EX1005)
`Skerlos (EX1006)
`Gutman (EX1030)
`Rye (EX1005)
`Skerlos (EX1006)
`Woolgar (EX1029)
`Gutman (EX1030)
`Caris (EX1007)
`Dubil (EX1008)
`Caris (EX1007)
`Dubil (EX1008)
`Woolgar (EX1029)
`
`
`
`The ’325 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 which lists the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’325 patent as December 16, 2003. See EX1001, (22).
`
`The prior art references cited for each ground above qualify as prior art to the ’325
`
`patent for the following reasons:
`
`• Rye (EX1005) is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because it was filed on October 25, 2002, more than one year before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’325 patent.
`
`• Skerlos (EX1006) is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),
`
`102(b), and 102(e) because it was filed on January 18, 1982 and
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`published January 17, 1984, both dates being before the earliest priority
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`date of the ’325 patent.
`
`• Woolgar (EX1029) is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because it was filed on March 21, 2003 and claims priority to a foreign
`
`application filed on April 11, 2002, both dates being before the earliest
`
`priority date of the ’325 patent.
`
`• Gutman (EX1030) is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because it was filed on September 7, 2001, more than one year before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’325 patent.
`
`• Caris (EX1007) is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because it was filed on September 1, 2000, more than one year before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’325 patent.
`
`• Dubil (EX1008) is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because it was filed on October 10, 2000, more than one year before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’325 patent.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’325 PATENT
`The ’325 patent generally relates to conventional remote control devices and
`
`controlling electronic consumer devices using key codes corresponding to device
`
`functions. See EX1001, Abstract, 1:19-22. As described in the Background section
`
`of the ’325 patent, these well-known key codes correspond to functions such as
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`“power on, power off, volume up, volume down, play, stop, select, channel up,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`channel down, etc.” Id., 1:39-42. The Background section further explains that it
`
`was well-known to group the key codes into codesets having different bit patterns
`
`and timing information corresponding to different functions of the electronic
`
`consumer device. See id., 1:42-53. It was also well-known to use the timing
`
`information to modulate the key codes onto carrier signals to generate key code
`
`signals. See id., 1:48-53.
`
`According to the ’325 patent, one limitation of the widespread use of
`
`codesets is the existence of “thousands of codesets” used to control electronic
`
`consumer devices. Id., 1:60-62. The ’325 patent explains that manufacturers of
`
`remotes may wish to limit the memory on their remote control devices to a size
`
`that is insufficient to store the thousands of existing codesets. Id., 1:62-65.
`
`In response to this described problem, the ’325 patent describes two well-
`
`known solutions using a “key code generator device” to manage the codesets and
`
`generate key codes, as depicted in Figure 1. See id., 2:10-22. The claims of the
`
`’325 patent are only directed to the second solution—Embodiment 2.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`A. Embodiment 2 – Transmitting a Key Code from a Key Code
`Generator to an Electronic Consumer Device
`Embodiment 2 describes a key code generator device controlling an
`
`electronic consumer device in response to receiving a command from the remote
`
`control device. EX1001, 6:31-33. The key code generator device sends a key code
`
`signal directly to the electronic consumer device. Id.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`In particular, a user presses a key on the remote control, and the remote
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`
`
`control transmits a conventional keystroke indicator signal to the key code
`
`generator device 12. Id., 6:43-47. The key code generator device then determines
`
`which key code of the identified codeset corresponds to the pressed key. Id., 6:47-
`
`54. The key code generator device then performs a conventional modulation of the
`
`key code onto a carrier signal to generate a key code signal. Id., 6:24-30.
`
`In contrast to Embodiment 1, here, the key code generator device then
`
`transmits this key code signal directly to the electronic consumer device. Id., 6:60-
`
`61; EX1003, ¶¶34-36. Upon receiving the key code signal, the electronic consumer
`
`device performs the corresponding instruction. See EX1001, 6:61-65.
`
`B.
`
`The Examiner Provided No Rationale for Allowance During
`Prosecution of the ’325 Patent
`The Examiner did not provide any rationale or explanation for allowing the
`
`’325 patent. The Examiner allowed some claims, but initially rejected the
`
`challenged claims with a Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 21, 2017.
`
`EX1002, 68-78. In response, the Applicant amended claim 1 to recite that a
`
`selection of key code data from a codeset in response to receiving a keystroke
`
`indicator from the “third device” (such as a remote control). EX1002, 80-86.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`EX1002, 81.
`
`
`
`In the remarks, the Applicant argued the applied prior art reference
`
`“discloses a system in which the handset includes a memory in which is stored
`
`appliance control codes.” EX1002, 85. The Applicant argued that the novel feature
`
`of the ’325 patent were the added elements in the amendments presented above.
`
`Id., 85-86. In response to these amendments, the Examiner indicated that the
`
`claims were allowable without providing any additional explanation or rationale.
`
`See id., 92-94.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the ’325 patent was filed,
`
`would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent degree with
`
`two years of work experience relating to communications and consumer
`
`electronics. EX1003, ¶¶15-18.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) applies to this proceeding. See 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51340-
`
`51359 (Oct. 11, 2018); 37 C.F.R. 42.100. Under this standard, words in a claim are
`
`given their plain meaning, which is the meaning understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, and after reading the
`
`entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13.
`
`The parties are currently involved in a parallel civil action involving the
`
`’325 patent and its parent case, the ’642 patent. See Section XV. The ’325 patent to
`
`Mui is one of nine patents in that action. In this proceeding the parties agreed upon
`
`constructions for “key code” and “keystroke indicator signal” but requested a
`
`district court construction for the term “key code signal” Patent Owner’s claim
`
`construction positions and the district court’s resolution is set forth below.
`
`Petitioner does not believe that any other terms require construction in this
`
`proceeding. As demonstrated in each of the Grounds below, the claims are
`
`unpantentable under both Patent Owner’s and the court’s claim constructions of
`
`each of the claim terms below.
`
`“Key code” and “Keystroke indicator”
`A.
`In the parallel civil action, Patent Owner and Petitioner have agreed on a
`
`construction for the claim term “key code” as “a code corresponding to the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`function of an electronic device, optionally including timing information.”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`EX1010, Markman order, 12. Patent Owner and Petitioner have also agreed on a
`
`construction for the claim term “keystroke indicator” as “a signal, distinct from a
`
`key code, corresponding to a pressed key [on a remote control].” Id., 12-13. While
`
`Petitioner does not set forth or advocate for any specific construction of “key code”
`
`or “keystroke indicator signal” in this Petition, the combination of references
`
`described in every Ground below render obvious the challenged claims of the ’325
`
`patent under these constructions, as well as their plain and ordinary meanings.
`
`“Key code signal”
`B.
`In the parallel civil action, Patent Owner previously proposed a construction
`
`for “key code signal” as being “a signal containing a key code.” EX1010, 13. The
`
`court provided its own construction of a “signal containing a modulated key code.”
`
`Id., 13-23. For purposes of this proceeding, the combination of references
`
`described in every Ground below render obvious the challenged claims of the ’325
`
`patent under either of these constructions.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIM 1 OF THE ’325 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER RYE IN VIEW OF SKERLOS
`A POSA would have found claim 1 of the ’325 patent obvious in light of the
`
`disclosures of Rye (EX1005) and Skerlos (EX1006). EX1003, ¶¶101.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`A. Overview of Rye
`Similar to the ’325 patent, Rye describes a transceiver [first device] that
`
`receives a “function control rf signal from the remote control unit 10.” EX1005,
`
`¶23. “[T]hose signals are converted in transceiver 30 to corresponding binary
`
`coded infrared (IR) signals, which are then transmitted over-the-air to the selected
`
`audiovisual component to control its operation.” Id. Figure 2 from Rye depicts a
`
`schematic diagram of RF remote control unit 10 [third device], while Figure 3
`
`depicts a schematic diagram of the transceiver. Id., ¶¶19-20; EX1003, ¶102.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`EX1005, FIGs. 2, 3 (annotated).
`
`The “transceiver includes a memory for [an] IR code library that stores the
`
`remote control codes for the commercial brands of audiovisual component.”
`
`EX1005, ¶16. When the transceiver receives a command signal from the remote
`
`control, the received “control signals are converted to corresponding coded
`
`infrared control signals which are transmitted to the selected audiovisual
`
`component” [second device]. Id; EX1003, ¶103.
`
`B. Overview of Skerlos
`Skerlos describes a well-known binary modulation scheme known as “pulse
`
`code modulation (PCM)” used to wirelessly transmit control codes. EX1006, 2:12-
`
`20, 2:68-3:8. Skerlos describes an IR remote control that uses the PCM technique
`
`to transmit control codes to achieve a desired control function. Id., Abstract. As
`
`admitted in the Background section of the ’325 patent, modulating key codes onto
`
`carrier signals was already well-known in the art. EX1001, 1:48-52. Skerlos
`
`confirms this understanding. Both Skerlos and the ’325 patent describe the
`
`modulation of a carrier frequency using a binary number. The ’325 patent depicts a
`
`key code signal having a “modulated digital zero and digital one” in Figures 5 and
`
`6A-6B while Figures 1A-1C from Skerlos also depict a binary key code modulated
`
`onto a carrier signal. See EX1001, 3:6-8, 5:21-27; EX1006, 2:68-3:8, 3:20-36;
`
`EX1003, ¶106.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIGs. 1A-1C.
`
`Skerlos further explains that the format of the PCM signals follows a
`
`particular timing scheme for transmitting the PCM signals. EX1006, 3:20-36. In
`
`this manner, the “pulse code modulation (PCM) approach provides for an
`
`increased number of available codes and associated television receiver control
`
`functions.” Id., 2:12-20. Thus, Skerlos teaches the modulation of a key code onto a
`
`carrier signal to generate a key code signal; EX1003, ¶107.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`[1.P]: “A first device for transmitting a command to control
`
`a functional operation of a second device, the first device
`comprising:”
`Figure 3 from Rye as annotated below depicts a “smart” addressable RF/IR
`
`transceiver, which teaches the claimed “first device.” See EX1005, Abstract, ¶23.
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIGs. 2, 3 (annotated).
`
`Rye teaches a “handheld remote control unit” that sends signals to a
`
`transceiver [first device], causing the transceiver to generate “corresponding binary
`
`coded infrared (IR) signals [key code signals], which are then transmitted over-the-
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`air to the selected audiovisual component [second device] to control its operation.”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`EX1005, Abstract, ¶23. In this manner, Rye operates in the same manner as the
`
`’325 patent in transmitting a key code from the first device to a second device to
`
`control a functional operation of a second device. Id.; EX1003, ¶¶112-113.
`
`[1.1]: “a receiver;”
`
`Rye discloses this feature. As shown in Figure 3, “transceiver 30 includes an
`
`rf antenna 32 whose output is connected to the input of an rf receiver 34.” EX1005,
`
`¶23; EX1003, ¶114. The RF receiver teaches the claimed receiver. EX1003, ¶114.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`[1.2] “a transmitter;”
`
`Rye discloses this feature. As shown in Figure 3, transceiver 30 includes an
`
`“IR emitter 48.” EX1005, ¶25. The IR emitter transmits binary coded infrared (IR)
`
`signals over-the-air to a second device to control its operation. Id., ¶23. Rye further
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`describes the IR emitter as providing binary coded drive signals to an LED which
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`transmits correspondingly coded IR control signals to the selected or addressed
`
`audiovisual component. Id., ¶25. The IR emitter teaches the claimed transmitter.
`
`EX1003, ¶115.
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`[1.3] “a processing device coupled to the receiver and the
`transmitter; and”
`Rye describes two processors coupled to the RF receiver and the IR emitter:
`
`main processor 38 and IR processor 42. EX1005, ¶¶23-25. These processors teach
`
`the claimed processing device coupled to the receiver and transmitter and are
`
`depicted in Figure 3 as annotated below. EX1003, ¶¶116-118.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`Rye explains that main processor 38 is coupled to the RF receiver via the
`
`demodulator 36. EX1005, ¶23. Main processor 38 looks up an address code
`
`corresponding to the transceiver and compares this address code to one that is
`
`received from the remote control to determine whether the received command code
`
`is intended for the transceiver. Id.
`
`In response to detecting a matching address, main processor 38 transmits an
`
`output to infrared (IR) processor 42. Id., ¶24. IR processor 42 identifies a
`
`corresponding control code (i.e., a key code) corresponding to the device to be
`
`controlled (i.e., the second device) from a code lookup table. Id. The determined
`
`key code is then output from IR processor 42 to IR emitter 48. Id., ¶25. Thus, main
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`processor 38 and IR processor 42 teach a processing device coupled to a receiver
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`
`(i.e., the RF receiver) and a transmitter (i.e., IR emitter). EX1003, ¶¶116-118