Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01615
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DON TURNBULL
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,716,853
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 1 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 2
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .............................................................................................. 5
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 6
`A. Anticipation....................................................................................................................... 6
`B. Obviousness ...................................................................................................................... 6
`C.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 7
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 8
`V.
`VI. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 10
`A.
`Technology Background ................................................................................................. 10
`B. U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853............................................................................................... 10
`C.
`Prosecution History ......................................................................................................... 13
`VII.
`ASSERTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES .................................................................... 14
`A. U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0249890 (“Chardon”) ............................ 14
`B. High-Definition Multimedia Interface Specification Version 1.3a (“HDMI v. 1.3a”) ... 15
`C. U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0254500 (“Stecyk”) ............................... 16
`VIII.
`OPINIONS ...................................................................................................................... 16
`A.
`Terms for Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 16
`“for use in controlling each of at least a first functional operation and a second
`1.
`functional operation of the intended target appliance” ........................................................ 17
`B. Ground 1: Chardon, HDMI v. 1.3a, and Steyck ............................................................. 18
`1.
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Chardon with HDMI v. 1.3a
`19
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Chardon with Stecyk ......... 23
`2.
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine HDMI v. 1.3a with Stecyk 26
`3.
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 26
`
`i
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 2 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`I, Don Turnbull, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Universal Electronics Inc. (to whom I will refer to as
`
`either Patent Owner or “UEI”) for this inter partes review proceeding (which I may refer to a
`
`times as an “IPR”).
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this IPR proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853, which I
`
`may refer to as just “the ’853 patent” for convenience. I understand that this IPR challenges
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ’853 patent.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ’853 patent is assigned to UEI.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, Roku, Inc. (to whom I may refer to as the
`
`Petitioner) filed a Petition to institute a review of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ’853 patent.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide an independent analysis of the ’853 patent in view of
`
`the asserted prior art publications cited in the Petition and to provide my opinions regarding the
`
`assertions in the Petition and the opinions of Dr. Samuel H. Russ. This declaration is limited to
`
`those issues.
`
`6.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of UEI. I am not receiving
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly fees based on my time actually spent
`
`analyzing and documenting my opinions herein on the ’853 patent, the asserted prior art
`
`publications cited in this declaration and in the Petition, and the issues related thereto. My
`
`compensation is not related to the outcome of this proceeding, and I will not receive any
`
`additional compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving the
`
`’853 patent.
`
`1
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 3 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7.
`
`My qualifications can be found in my curriculum vitae (or “CV”), which includes
`
`a summary of my professional and educational background, and which is attached this
`
`declaration as Exhibit 1.
`
`8.
`
`I am an expert in software design and architecture, including networked systems,
`
`with 30 years of research and development experience. My research and development endeavors
`
`cover various technologies related to multimedia information systems; human-computer
`
`interaction; interface design; user behavioral collection, analysis and modeling; and multimedia
`
`content organization and display, some of which are subject to patent and trade-secret protection.
`
`9.
`
`My current work centers generally on software research and design in the areas of
`
`information systems. This work includes consumer and enterprise applications such as content
`
`management systems, mobile technologies, recommendation systems, personalization, analytics
`
`applications, search tools and eCommerce platforms. I also research and invent solutions related
`
`to data mining and data science, collecting network and device usage data, software architecture
`
`and interaction design.
`
`10.
`
`I am involved in helping software companies, from small startups to large
`
`corporations, create new technologies and applications. To advise these companies, I research
`
`and monitor academic and industry technology developments to keep up-to-date regarding
`
`advances in the field. I am also aware of the history of software development from my
`
`professional and academic experience over the past 30 plus years.
`
`11.
`
`Academically, I received a B.A. in General Studies (in “Knowledge Engineering,”
`
`i.e., computer science, cognitive psychology, and philosophy) from The University of Texas at
`
`Arlington in 1988. In 1995, I earned an M.S. in Information Design and Technology from the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology where my concentration was on Internet and Web systems in
`
`2
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 4 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`their very early days with a focus on interactive multimedia systems and interfaces. My work at
`
`Georgia Tech included creating digital media, researching Web server technology, building Web
`
`sites, designing Web-based content management systems, content management methodologies,
`
`and information retrieval systems. In 2002, I received a Ph.D. in Information Studies from the
`
`University of Toronto where my research centered on information systems user behavior data
`
`collection, analysis and recommendation algorithm.
`
`12.
`
`From 2002-2009, I was an Assistant Professor at the School of Information at The
`
`University of Texas at Austin where I created and taught a variety of graduate-level courses
`
`including: Information Architecture and Web Design; Web Information Retrieval, Evaluation &
`
`Design; the Semantic Web; Information System Analytics; and Web Information System Design
`
`and Knowledge Management Systems. As faculty, principal investigator, and research team
`
`director, my areas of exploration included designing information system interfaces and
`
`architectures; large-scale data mining and algorithms (including Web use data for
`
`personalization); techniques for interface design for multimedia access; mobile interaction
`
`techniques; Web content classification; and the design of Web search engines, as well as
`
`studying their use.
`
`13. While an Assistant Professor, I formed and managed a number of research
`
`projects. These projects included information architecture and design for multimedia Web pages
`
`and Web sites; a survey of the history of technologies in Web browsers (including protocols,
`
`extensions and scripting functionality); a multimedia content classification system; and a set of
`
`methods for content analysis and topic distillation. I also advised graduate students and
`
`coordinated information technology research and development including Semantic Web
`
`applications, mobile information system prototypes and server architectures, user understanding
`
`3
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 5 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`of digital content manipulation, Web accessibility evaluation, Web link mining and analysis,
`
`information architecture design methodologies, and advertising methods and platforms.
`
`14.
`
`Before I was an Assistant Professor, I worked in a variety of roles in software
`
`research and development, including as a software developer (programmer) and designer,
`
`software engineering methodologist and a technology systems architect. From 1994 through
`
`2000, my own work was primarily focused on researching, designing and building Internet
`
`information systems. I was also a researcher and a Lead Technical Architect at IBM where I
`
`worked on building an Internet client/server platform for a multimedia client application
`
`combined with a database-driven Web site—the IBM-WorldBook Multimedia Encyclopedia. I
`
`also contributed to designs and advised on numerous other ongoing Internet-focused projects at
`
`IBM, including Web site development tools for eCommerce small business Web sites, digital
`
`video control interfaces, large enterprise (intranet) Web sites including portals, as well as the
`
`foundations for a usability practice at IBM to evaluate IBM software and consumer-based
`
`applications.
`
`15.
`
`Earlier, before the Web era, I was a software engineering methodologist and
`
`software developer creating Macintosh, Microsoft Windows, and IBM OS/2 software for
`
`building client/server applications that worked with (relational) databases over networks, which
`
`proved to be much of the supporting technology for Internet and Web applications. This
`
`included programming and working as a database administrator and using early Internet
`
`networking tools. I also designed and built early hypertext (SGML) authoring tools, which led to
`
`a more commercial use of the Internet beginning in the early 1990’s.
`
`4
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 6 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`16. My academic knowledge and professional experience also include network
`
`communication protocols, including Wi-Fi, HDMI, infrared and FireWire as well as the
`
`configuration and control of consumer electronic devices.
`
`17.
`
`I am also the author of numerous academic publications including: a textbook on
`
`Web-based information systems use and knowledge work; articles on human-computer
`
`interaction design; personalization for Web-information-retrieval and recommender systems; and
`
`numerous definitive works on information-architecture (Web site) methodologies, designs, and
`
`implementations. In addition, I am the named inventor on at least one United States patent
`
`focused on content delivery and personalization.
`
`18.
`
`Other details concerning my background, academic work, and professional
`
`history are set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed the ’853 patent, including the challenged claims, and its
`
`prosecution history.
`
`20.
`
`I have also reviewed the Petition for IPR filed by Petitioner, as well as the
`
`Exhibits attached, including:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1003: Declaration of Dr. Samuel H. Russ (“Russ”)
`
`EX1005: U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0249890 (“Chardon”)
`
`EX1006: U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0254500 (“Stecyk”)
`
`EX1010: High-Definition Multimedia Interface Specification Version 1.3a
`(“HDMI v. 1.3a”)
`
`21.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials listed above and any
`
`other documents cited in this declaration. I have also relied on my own education, knowledge,
`
`and experience in the relevant art.
`
`5
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 7 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`22.
`
`I have also considered the understanding of a person of ordinary skill around the
`
`time of the invention the ’853 patent.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`I am not an attorney and do not offer opinions on the law in this declaration.
`
`In forming my analyses and conclusions expressed here in this declaration, I have
`
`applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which were provided to me by
`
`counsel for the Patent Owner.
`
`A.
`
`25.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference. I have been informed that under the principles of
`
`inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes the claimed
`
`elements, it anticipates.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if the
`
`claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or published
`
`anywhere, before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been informed that a claim is invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was patented or published anywhere, or was in public
`
`use, on sale, or offered for sale in this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the
`
`patent application. And I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), if
`
`an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent granted on an application for
`
`a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before the date of invention for such a claim.
`
`B.
`
`27.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`6
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 8 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”), taking into account (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include “long felt need” for the claimed invention, commercial success
`
`attributable to the claimed invention, unexpected results of the claimed invention, skepticism of
`
`others, failure by others to achieve the claimed invention, and “copying” of the claimed
`
`invention by others.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single prior art
`
`reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a single prior art reference or
`
`multiple prior art references, there must be a reason that would have prompted a POSITA to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in a manner that
`
`provides the elements of the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and
`
`this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that,
`
`under the law, the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to
`
`rely on hindsight in making the obviousness determination.
`
`C.
`
`29.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that claim construction is a matter that will be decided by the Board
`
`presiding over this IPR. I understand that the relevant inquiry in claim construction is the
`
`question of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms at the
`
`time of the earliest priority date, in light of the patent specification, the prosecution history, and
`
`any other relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`7
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 9 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`30.
`
`All of the opinions that I express in this declaration have been made from the
`
`standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’853 patent,
`
`which I may refer to as a “POSITA.”
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner has proposed that a POSITA would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree which involved software design and development coursework, for example,
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, cognitive science, industrial
`
`engineering, information systems, information studies, or a similar degree, and at least one year
`
`of work experience in software programming, development, or design of consumer applications.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner also proposes that additional education might substitute for
`
`some of the experience, and that substantial experience might substitute for some of the
`
`educational background.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`I agree with the Patent Owner’s proposed definition of POSITA.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has proposed that a POSITA would have had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent
`
`coursework, and at least one year of experience researching or developing structure and
`
`operating principles of common digital content reproduction and related appliances,
`
`contemporary television and home theater standards, and specifications of consumer digital
`
`reproducing devices of the time. Petition at 13. I also understand that the Petitioner has
`
`proposed that a POSITA would have had general knowledge of home theater systems, control of
`
`devices within the home theater systems, and remote control devices as of October 28, 2011.
`
`Petition at 13.
`
`34.
`
`I do not agree with the Petitioner’s definition, as it imports a number of specific
`
`and nuanced requirements that are not necessary to understand the invention of the ’853 patent.
`
`8
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 10 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`It is also not clear if the Petitioner’s “general knowledge” requirement is merely a user or
`
`consumer-level of understanding and usage of common home theater consumer products of the
`
`time or is a more specific technical awareness.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Russ, did not adopt Petitioner’s
`
`definition of POSITA.
`
`36.
`
`Rather, I understand that Dr. Russ has proposed his own definition of POSITA.
`
`Specifically, I understand that Dr. Russ has proposed that a POSITA would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent degree with two years of work
`
`experience relating to communications and consumer electronics. Russ at ¶ 19. I understand
`
`that Dr. Russ also proposes that a POSITA would have had general knowledge of remote control
`
`devices, consumer electronic devices, and various related technologies as of October 28, 2011.
`
`Russ at ¶ 18.
`
`37.
`
`Again, it is not clear if Dr. Russ’s reference to “general knowledge” is based on
`
`having used or observed remote control devices, consumer electronics and related technologies
`
`or indicates a more specific understanding of these stated technologies.
`
`38.
`
`I note that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Russ, does not represent that he meets the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition of POSITA.
`
`39.
`
`By contrast, I met each of the proposed definitions of POSITA as of the time of
`
`the invention of the ’853 patent.
`
`40. While I agree with the Patent Owner’s proposal for a POSITA, I performed my
`
`analysis of the ’853 patent and the asserted prior art from each of the proposed POSITA’s points
`
`of view, and the differences between them did not affect my overall conclusions set forth below.
`
`9
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 11 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`VI.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`41.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The ’853 patent “relates generally to enhanced methods for appliance control via
`
`use of a controlling device, such as a remote control, smart phone, tablet computer, etc., and in
`
`particular to methods for taking advantage of improved appliance control communication
`
`methods and/or command formats in a reliable manner which is largely transparent to a user
`
`and/or seamlessly integrated with legacy appliance control technology.” ’853 patent at 1:63-2:3.
`
`The ’853 patent explained that “the recent proliferation of wireless and wired communication
`
`and/or digital interconnection methods such as WiFi, Bluetooth, HDMI, etc., amongst and
`
`between appliances has resulted in a corresponding proliferation of such communication
`
`protocols and command formats.” ’853 patent at 1:45-50. However, “appliance manufacturer
`
`adoption of such newer methods remains inconsistent and fragmented.” ’853 patent at 1:52-54.
`
`Thus, there may be “confusion, mis-operation, or other problems when a user or manufacturer of
`
`a controlling device, such as a remote control, attempts to take advantage of the enhanced
`
`features and functionalities of these new control methods.” ’853 patent at 1:54-59.
`
`B.
`
`42.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`The ’853 patent is titled “System and Method for Optimized Appliance Control”
`
`and was issued on July 25, 2017.
`
`43.
`
`The’853 patent issued from an application, filed on November 23, 2015, that was
`
`a continuation of an application, filed on July 7, 2013, which itself was also a continuation of
`
`another application, filed on October 22, 2012. Additionally, the ’853 Patent claims priority to
`
`two provisional applications, dated October 28, 2011, and August 8, 2012, respectively.
`
`44.
`
`The ’853 patent’s “invention comprises a modular hardware and software
`
`solution, hereafter referred to as a Universal Control Engine (UCE), which is adapted to provide
`
`10
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 12 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`device control access across a variety of available control methodologies and communication
`
`media, such as for example various infrared (IR) remote control protocols; Consumer Electronic
`
`Control (CEC) as may be implemented over a wired HDMI connection; internet protocol (IP),
`
`wired or wireless; RF4CE wireless; Bluetooth (BT) wireless personal area network(s); UPnP
`
`protocol utilizing wired USB connections; or any other available standard or proprietary
`
`appliance command methodology.” ’853 patent at 2:4-16. As the ’853 patent states, since “each
`
`individual control paradigm may have its own strengths and weaknesses, the UCE may be
`
`adapted to combine various control methods in order to realize the best control option for each
`
`individual command for each individual device.” ’853 patent at 2:16-20. For example, “CEC
`
`commands may be used to power on and select inputs on a TV appliance while IR commands
`
`may be used to control the volume of the same TV appliance.” ’853 patent at 2:42-45.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner challenges Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, which are
`
`directed to the universal control engine (“UCE”) described above, and which are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`1. A universal control engine, comprising:
`
`a processing device; and
`
`a memory device having stored thereon instructions executable by the processing device,
`
`the instructions, when executed by the processing device, causing the universal control
`
`engine
`
`to respond to a detected presence of an intended target appliance within a logical
`
`topography of controllable appliances which includes the universal control engine by
`
`using an identity associated with the intended target appliance to create a listing
`
`comprised of at least a first communication method and a second communication method
`
`11
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 13 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`different than the first communication method for use in controlling each of at least a first
`
`functional operation and a second functional operation of the intended target appliance
`
`and
`
`to respond to a received request from a controlling device intended to cause the
`
`intended target appliance to perform a one of the first and second functional operations
`
`by causing a one of the first and second communication methods in the listing of
`
`communication methods that has been associated with the requested one of the first and
`
`second functional operations to be used to transmit to the intended target appliance a
`
`command for controlling the requested one of the first and second functional operations
`
`of the intended target appliance.
`
`3. The universal control engine as recited in claim 1, wherein the instructions
`
`cause the universal control engine to initiate a detection of the presence of the intended
`
`target appliance within the logical topography of controllable appliances.
`
`5. The universal control engine as recited in claim 1, wherein the instruction cause
`
`the universal control engine to cause a prompt to be displayed in a display associated
`
`with the universal control engine in response to a detected presence of the intended target
`
`appliance within a logical topography of controllable appliances, the prompt requesting a
`
`user to provide data indicative of the identity associated with the intended target
`
`appliance.
`
`12
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 14 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`7. The universal control engine as recited in claim 1, wherein the instructions
`
`cause the universal control engine to initiate an interrogation of the intended target
`
`appliance to determine which of a plurality of communication methods are supported by
`
`the appliance for use in receiving a command for controlling at least one of the first and
`
`second functional operations and using results obtained from the interrogation to create
`
`the listing.
`
`C.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’853 patent.
`
`I understand that the Examiner initially rejected all claims as obvious either over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,379,778 (“Hayes”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0165555 (“Deng”) or
`
`Hayes in view of Deng and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,968,399 (“Noda”). EX1002 at
`
`170-178.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that the Applicants responded that “Hayes does not disclose, teach,
`
`or suggest using an identity associated with an intended target appliance to create a listing,” but
`
`rather that “Hayes discloses a system in which a remote control uses location data to determine
`
`which command code sets to use when transmitting commands.” EX1002 at 207 (emphasis in
`
`original)
`
`49.
`
`Further, I understand that the Applicants argued “Deng also fails to disclose,
`
`teach, or suggest using an identity of an appliance to create a listing as claimed” because Deng
`
`only describes selecting power level “based upon a characteristic of the data to be transmitted
`
`without regard to any identity of the intended target device.” EX1002 at 208 (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`50.
`
`I understand that the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance thereafter for all
`
`claims as originally filed. EX1002 at 221-229.
`
`13
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 15 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`VII.
`
`ASSERTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`51.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner asserts that Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ’853 patent
`
`are invalid as obvious over one ground involving the combination of three references. Petition at
`
`3. I briefly discuss each of the three references in turn below.
`
`A.
`
`52.
`
`U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0249890 (“Chardon”)
`
`I understand that Chardon was identified during prosecution of the ’853 patent by
`
`an Information Disclosure Statement by the Applicants, which was signed and dated by the
`
`Examiner as considered and later acknowledged in an Office Action. EX1002 at 81, 170, 182-
`
`186. Chardon is even cited on the face of the ’853 patent. Therefore, I understand that the
`
`Examiner expressly considered the disclosures of Chardon when it was determined that the
`
`claims of the ’853 patent were patentable.
`
`53.
`
`Chardon “generally relates to remote-control systems” that utilize the “High
`
`Definition Multi-Media Interface (HDMI) standard” and “the Consumer Electronic Control
`
`(CEC) standard, which provides for connected HDMI appliances (e.g., connected via HDMI
`
`cables) to remotely control one another.” EX1005 at [0001], [0003].
`
`54.
`
`Chardon asserts that “[o]ne complication that the CEC standard introduces is the
`
`allowance of custom CEC command codes for HDMI appliances.” EX1005 at [0004]. Chardon
`
`explains that “not all HDMI appliances that are interconnected will be configured to understand
`
`the custom CEC command codes of other HDMI appliances,” so “new remote-control systems,
`
`such as new embedded remote-control systems, are needed to provide solutions for known short
`
`comings in the CEC standard.” EX1005 at [0004]-[0005]. Thus, Chardon discloses a “remote-
`
`control engine is configured to identify CEC command codes, which are transferred over the bus
`
`and that are not in the sets of known CEC command codes, which are stored in the local
`
`memory,” “the unrecognized CEC command code may be transferred from the remote-control
`
`14
`
`UEI Exhibit 2001, Page 16 of 38
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01615
`Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`engine . . . to the remote server,” and “the remote server may be configured to transfer function
`
`information for the unrecognized CEC command code to the remote-control engine so that the
`
`remote-control engine will thereafter recognize the previously unrecognized CEC command
`
`codes.” EX1005 at [0052]-[0053].
`
`B.
`
`High-Definition Multimedia Interface Specification Version 1.3a (“HDMI v.
`1.3a”)
`
`55.
`
`HDMI v. 1.3a is purportedly dated November 10, 2006, on the face of the
`
`document.
`
`56.
`
`HDMI v. 1.3a is a specification to describe the High-Definition Multimedia
`
`Interface (“HDMI”) “for transmitting digital television audiovisual signals from DVD players,
`
`set-top boxes and other audiovisual sources to television sets, projectors and other video
`
`displays.” EX1010 at 1. The specification states that HDMI “can carry high quality multi-
`
`channel audio data and can carry all standard and high-definition consumer electronics video
`
`formats.” EX1010 at 1.
`
`57.
`
`HDMI v. 1.3a states that it is the latest revision of many versions of the HDMI
`
`standard:
`
`Date
`11/10/2006
`6/22/2006
`12/14/2005
`8/22/2005
`5/20/2004
`12/09/2002
`
`Version
`1.3a
`1.3
`1.2a
`1.2
`1.1
`1.0
`
`EX1010 at iii-iv.
`
`58.
`
`HDMI v. 1.3a also states, “All standards are subject to revision, and parties to
`
`agreements based on this standard are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the
`
`15
`
`UE