Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date: January 21, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BROADBAND iTV, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Petitioner DISH Network L.L.C. filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026
`
`B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’026 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Patent
`
`Owner Broadband iTV, Inc. filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Resp.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Petitioner also filed an explanation for
`
`filing multiple petitions ranking its petition in Case IPR2020-01267 ahead of
`
`its Petition in this proceeding (Paper 3). Patent Owner filed a response
`
`(Paper 8). With our authorization (Paper 11), Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 13) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 14) directed solely to
`
`an issue regarding whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the
`
`Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an
`
`inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary
`
`response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes
`
`review in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’026 patent is the subject of three district
`
`court cases: Broadband iTV, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C.,
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-716 (W.D. Tex.) (“the Texas case”), Broadband iTV, Inc.
`
`v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-712 (W.D. Tex.), and Broadband
`
`iTV, Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 6:19-cv-714 (W.D. Tex.). See Pet. 4;
`
`Paper 6, 1. Petitioner filed another petition challenging claims 1–16 of the
`
`’026 patent in Case IPR2020-01267, and filed six other petitions challenging
`
`claims of related patents also asserted in the district court cases in
`
`Cases IPR2020-01280, IPR2020-01281, IPR2020-01332, IPR2020-01333,
`
`IPR2020-01359, and IPR2020-01360. Two different petitioners previously
`
`filed petitions challenging claims of a parent patent to the ’026 patent,
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 B2, in Cases IPR2014-01222 and
`
`CBM2014-00189, both of which were denied. See Pet. 5; Paper 6, 2.
`
`
`
`C. The ’026 Patent
`
`The ’026 patent discloses devices and methods for “converting,
`
`navigating and displaying video content uploaded from the Internet on a
`
`digital TV video-on-demand platform.” Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 42–46.
`
`Video-on-demand (VOD) systems allow a viewer to “navigate through a
`
`program guide via the remote control unit and send a request via the set-top
`
`box for a desired video program to be addressed from the head-end to the
`
`subscriber’s set-top box for display on the TV.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–19.
`
`The ’026 patent explains that “VOD content offerings [were] expected to
`
`increase dramatically” in the future and it was “desirable to find a way
`
`for . . . vast numbers of content publishers to transmit their programs to the
`
`home TV, and to enable home TV viewers to find something of interest for
`
`viewing among the vast numbers of new programs.” Id. at col. 2,
`
`l. 66–col. 3, l. 12.
`
`The disclosed VOD content delivery system “offers a gateway for
`
`greatly expanding TV viewing from a relatively small number of
`
`studio-produced program channels to a large number of new commercial
`
`publishers and ultimately a vast number of self-publishers or so-called
`
`‘citizen’ content publishers.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 3–12. The system provides
`
`subscribers with an electronic program guide (EPG) for navigating through
`
`“hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories” to find the title of
`
`desired video content, allowing subscribers to locate titles of interest “by
`
`navigating through the hierarchical addressing scheme of the provider’s
`
`EPG.” Id. at col. 3, l. 16–col. 4, l. 5.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`A VOD application server at a cable head end manages a database of
`
`templates and video content segments for “generating templatized VOD
`
`content.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 24–29, Fig. 1A. “The VOD content is generated in
`
`response to a viewer request signal transmitted from” the viewer’s digital
`
`set-top box to the cable head end. Id. at col. 5, ll. 29–33. The ’026 patent
`
`discloses that
`
`templates are of different types ordered in a hierarchy, and
`display of content in a template of a higher order includes links
`the viewer can select to content of a lower order in the hierarchy.
`Upon selecting a link using the remote control, the VOD
`Application Server 10 retrieves the template and video content
`of lower order and displays it to the viewer. Each successive
`templatized display may have further links to successively lower
`levels of content in the hierarchy, such that the viewer can use
`the series of linked templatized VOD displays as a “drill down
`navigation” method to find specific end content of interest.
`
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 9–20, Fig. 1B (depicting exemplary “drill down navigation”
`
`for a set of automobile infomercials, where the viewer can navigate by
`
`make, model, dealer, sales event, and inventory).
`
`Figure 1C of the ’026 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Figure 1C depicts “a templatized VOD display . . . generated in layers.” Id.
`
`at col. 7, ll. 18–19. As shown in Figure 1C,
`
`[a] Background screen provides a basic color, logo, or graphical
`theme to the display. A selected Template (display frame)
`appropriate to the navigation level the intended display resides
`on is layered on the Background. The Template typically has a
`frame in which defined areas are reserved for text, display
`image(s), and navigation links (buttons). Finally, the desired
`content constituted by associated Text, Image & Buttons is
`retrieved from the database and layered on the Template. The
`resulting screen display shows the combined background logo or
`theme, navigation frame, and text, video images, and buttons.
`
`Id. at col. 7, ll. 19–30.
`
`The ’026 patent also describes a web-based content management
`
`system for “enabling an individual user to upload content from their
`
`computer via a web browser to display a consumer-generated video ad”
`
`(e.g., a classified ad). Id. at col. 8, ll. 10–21, Fig. 2A. “The uploaded
`
`content includes meta data for classifying the video ad by title and topical
`
`area(s).” Id. at col. 8, ll. 21–22. A content conversion system
`
`“automatically converts the consumer-generated content” into a “video
`
`display format compatible with the VOD content delivery system,” and
`
`“[t]he converted video ad is indexed by title and classified topical areas
`
`according to the meta data supplied by the user.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 31–37,
`
`col. 12, ll. 15–28.
`
`The ’026 patent discloses that “implementation of a VOD content
`
`delivery system can be made on any digital television system that supports
`
`real-time two-way data transfer and interactivity between the digital Set Top
`
`Box and application servers and VOD servers located at headends or other
`
`service points within the television system network.” Id. at col. 13,
`
`l. 65–col. 14, l. 4. Implementation of the disclosed VOD content delivery
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`system for Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), where VOD is delivered in
`
`digital video packets using Internet Protocol (IP), “is identical [in operation]
`
`to the [disclosed] digital cable implementation.” Id. at col. 14, ll. 4–13,
`
`42–44.
`
`Figure 4 of the ’026 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts “a process flow for enabling content publishers on the
`
`Internet to upload video content to digital television service providers for
`
`viewing on the home TV.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 58–61. An author or publisher
`
`uploads content over the Internet from his or her computer, for example, to
`
`Web-based Content Management System 40. Id. at col. 15, ll. 26–38.
`
`“[H]ierarchical addressing metadata is associated with or tagged to the
`
`content when uploaded to the Web-based Content Management System 40,
`
`and is carried over into the VOD/EPG navigation scheme displayed on the
`
`TV.” Id. at col. 17, ll. 44–47. “[T]he author or publisher selects the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`category term, subcategory term(s) and title by which it is desired to find the
`
`program title in the TV EPG display hierarchy.” Id. at col. 17, ll. 34–38.
`
`Thus, “the addressing metadata identifying content uploaded on the Internet”
`
`is the same as the “EPG hierarchical addressing scheme used for the VOD
`
`program guide,” allowing the content to be “automatically listed in the EPG
`
`under the common addressing scheme to enable viewers to find any program
`
`of interest.” Id. at col. 17, ll. 30–34, 47–51.
`
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Challenged claim 1 of the ’026 patent is independent. Claims 2–16
`
`depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1, with brackets noting
`
`identifiers referenced in the Petition, recites:1
`
`1. [1.preamble] An Internet-connected digital device for
`receiving, via the Internet, video content to be viewed by a
`subscriber of a video-on-demand system using a hierarchically
`arranged electronic program guide,
`
`Internet-connected digital device being
`the
`[1.a]
`configured to obtain and present to the subscriber an electronic
`program guide as a templatized video-on-demand display, which
`uses at least one of a plurality of different display templates to
`which the Internet-connected digital device has access, to enable
`a subscriber using the Internet-connected digital device to
`navigate in a drill-down manner through titles by category
`information in order to locate a particular one of the titles whose
`associated video content is desired for viewing on the
`Internet-connected digital device using the same category
`information as was designated by a video content provider in
`metadata associated with the video content;
`
`[1.b] wherein the templatized video-on-demand display
`has been generated in a plurality of layers, comprising:
`
`
`1 Claim 1 was corrected in two certificates of correction dated December 4,
`2018, and February 12, 2019. Ex. 1101.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`[1.b.(a)] (a) a first layer comprising a background screen
`to provide at least one of a basic color, logo, or graphical theme
`to display;
`
`[1.b.(b)] (b) a second layer comprising a particular display
`template from the plurality of different display templates layered
`on the background screen, wherein the particular display
`template comprises one or more reserved areas that are reserved
`for displaying content provided by a different layer of the
`plurality of layers; and
`
`[1.b.(c)] (c) a third layer comprising reserved area content
`generated using the received video content, the associated
`metadata and an associated plurality of images to be displayed in
`the one or more reserved areas in the particular display template
`as at least one of text, an image, a navigation link, and a button,
`
`[1.c] wherein the navigating through titles in a drill-down
`manner comprises navigating from a first level of the hierarchal
`structure of a video-on-demand content menu to a second level
`of the hierarchical structure to locate the particular one of the
`titles, and
`
`[1.d] wherein a first template of the plurality of different
`display templates is used as the particular display template for
`the templatized display for displaying the first level of the
`hierarchical structure and wherein a second template of the
`plurality of different display templates is used as the particular
`display template for the templatized display for displaying the
`second level of the hierarchical structure,
`
`[1.e] wherein the received video content was uploaded to
`a Web-based content management system by a content provider
`device associated with the video content provider via the Internet
`in a digital video format, along with associated metadata
`including title information and category information, and along
`with the associated plurality of images designated by the video
`content provider, the associated metadata specifying a respective
`hierarchical location of a respective title of the video content
`within the electronic program guide to be displayed on the
`Internet-connected digital device using
`the
`respective
`hierarchically-arranged category information associated with the
`respective title,
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`[1.f] wherein at least one of the uploaded associated
`plurality of images designated by the video content provider is
`displayed with the associated respective title in the templatized
`video-on-demand display.
`
`
`
`E. Evidence
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,159,233 B2, filed Jan. 29, 2001, issued
`Jan. 2, 2007 (Ex. 1106, “Son”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0113100
`A1, published June 19, 2003 (Ex. 1108, “Hecht”);
`
`Robert G. Scheffler, Ingest & Metadata Partitioning:
`Requirements for Television on Demand (Ex. 1109, “Scheffler”);
`and
`
`CableLabs Video-on-Demand Content Specification
`Version 1.1, MD-SP-VOD-CONTENT1.1-01-020927 (2002)
`(Ex. 1111, “CableLabs”).
`
`
`
`F. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–16 of the ’026 patent are unpatentable
`
`on the following grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References/Basis
`
`1–16
`
`103(a)2
`
`Hecht, Son, Scheffler3
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims
`of the ’026 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of
`the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`3 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–16 are unpatentable “over the combination
`of Hecht, Son, Scheffler and/or CableLabs, when considered in view of the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet. 7. The use of
`“and/or” in this context typically implies multiple asserted grounds.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References/Basis
`
`1–16
`
`1–16
`
`
`
`103(a)
`
`Hecht, Son, CableLabs
`
`103(a)
`
`Hecht, Son, Scheffler,
`CableLabs
`
`
`Reviewing Petitioner’s contentions regarding claim 1, Petitioner relies on
`Hecht and Son as teaching certain limitations, and relies on Scheffler and
`CableLabs in the alternative for other limitations. See, e.g., id. at 31–33
`(relying on Hecht alone, or in combination with Scheffler, for limitation
`1.preamble), 33–40 (relying on Hecht alone, or in combination with
`Scheffler “and/or” CableLabs, for limitation 1.a), 40–42 (relying on Hecht
`for limitations 1.b.(a) and 1.b.(b)), 47–49 (relying on Hecht combined with
`Son for limitation 1.e). Thus, we understand Petitioner to be asserting three
`obviousness grounds, with the term “and/or” applying to the last two
`references in the combination, Scheffler and CableLabs. Also, we do not
`include the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`listing the grounds themselves, recognizing that such knowledge is
`considered in every obviousness analysis. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (inter
`partes review “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed
`publications”); Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330,
`1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Although the prior art that can be considered in inter
`partes reviews is limited to patents and printed publications, it does not
`follow that we ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge when determining
`whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art. . . . Regardless
`of the tribunal, the inquiry into whether any ‘differences’ between the
`invention and the prior art would have rendered the invention obvious to a
`skilled artisan necessarily depends on such artisan’s knowledge.”); Randall
`Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he knowledge of [an
`ordinarily skilled] artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must
`be consulted when considering whether a claimed invention would have
`been obvious.”); Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd., 606 F.3d 1338, 1349
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[The obviousness] analysis requires an assessment of the
`. . . ‘background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
`the art.’” (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007))).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006)). The question of obviousness is
`
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including “the
`
`scope and content of the prior art”; “differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue”; and “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Additionally,
`
`secondary considerations, such as “commercial success, long felt but
`
`unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the
`
`circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
`
`have relevancy.” Id.
`
`A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`
`each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR,
`
`550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that
`
`a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`
`1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
`
`(for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`A petitioner’s assertion of obviousness “cannot employ mere conclusory
`
`statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based
`
`on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
`
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner argues that the ’026 patent “has a priority date of March 12,
`
`2007,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time would have had
`
`“a degree in computer engineering, computer science, information systems,
`
`or a similar discipline, along with three-to-four years of experience with the
`
`design and/or implementation of VOD and EPG systems,” and would have
`
`been “knowledgeable about existing VOD architectures used by cable
`
`companies and industry specifications, like those produced by [Cable
`
`Television Laboratories, Inc.].” Pet. 10, 14 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 97). Patent
`
`Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`“either (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical or video engineering and/or
`
`computer science with experience in digital television or (2) at least 2 to 4
`
`years of experience in the design and/or implementation of digital television
`
`and video on demand.” Prelim. Resp. 42. Neither party provides
`
`substantive argument in favor of its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`or explains how the difference in proposed levels would impact the
`
`obviousness analysis. Based on the record presented, including our review
`
`of the ’026 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the
`
`’026 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of
`
`this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, col. 1, l. 48–col. 3, l. 12 (describing in the
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`“Background of Invention” section of the ’026 patent various cable
`
`television and VOD systems where “a viewer can navigate through a
`
`program guide via the remote control unit and send a request via the set-top
`
`box for a desired video program to be addressed from the head-end to the
`
`subscriber’s set-top box for display on the TV”).
`
`
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`
`We interpret the challenged claims
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
`the patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). “In determining the meaning of [a] disputed
`
`claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record,
`
`examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Claim terms
`
`are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the
`
`context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to
`
`this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Petitioner provides proposed interpretations for the claim terms
`
`“Web-based content management system” and “Internet Protocol TV (IPTV)
`
`system,” and argues that the term “hierarchically-arranged category
`
`information associated with the respective title” should be given its “plain
`
`and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14–16. Patent Owner argues that interpreting
`
`“Web-based content management system” “would be time intensive and
`
`require extensive analysis,” but does not otherwise respond to Petitioner’s
`
`arguments. See Prelim. Resp. 29. We have reviewed the parties’ papers and
`
`conclude that no terms require express interpretation to determine whether to
`
`institute an inter partes review in this proceeding.4 See Nidec Motor Corp.
`
`v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and
`
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not
`
`construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not
`
`‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted)).
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness Grounds Based on Hecht, Son, Scheffler, and CableLabs
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–16 are unpatentable over Hecht,
`
`Son, and Scheffler; Hecht, Son, and CableLabs; and Hecht, Son, Scheffler,
`
`and CableLabs under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), citing the testimony of Samuel H.
`
`Russ, Ph.D., as support. Pet. 31–68 (citing Ex. 1103). We are not persuaded
`
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`asserted grounds for the reasons explained below.
`
`
`
`
`4 The district court in the Texas case construed certain terms of the
`challenged claims. Ex. 3001.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`1. Hecht
`
`Hecht discloses a “system for managing different, incompatible types
`
`of broadcast and non-broadcast multimedia content and related information.”
`
`Ex. 1108 ¶ 2. A digital media server (e.g., set-top box) processes
`
`multimedia content from Internet and broadcast communication channels for
`
`display on a network device (e.g., television). Id. ¶¶ 32, 39–40, Fig. 1. The
`
`content can include, for example, EPG data “transmitted over a live EPG
`
`feed,” “on-demand/Internet data,” and “recorded video programs and CD
`
`audio content.” Id. ¶¶ 91–92. The digital media server includes a data
`
`management interface through which applications and a graphical user
`
`interface (GUI) access the various types of incoming content. Id. ¶ 92,
`
`Fig. 10. The data management interface comprises “nodes” (i.e., “generic
`
`data interfaces” that gather data from various media databases and make the
`
`data available to the applications and GUI through function calls) and
`
`“services” (i.e., “actions which may be performed on nodes”). Id.
`
`¶¶ 93–94, Fig. 1. The GUI “populates itself with data provided by a relevant
`
`set of nodes” (e.g., menu items, sub-menu items, text descriptions, graphics).
`
`Id. ¶¶ 94–97.
`
`Hecht’s GUI allows the user to “navigat[e] through program content”
`
`and purportedly improves on existing EPGs that were difficult to navigate to
`
`“locat[e] a particular program on a particular channel” and provided “only a
`
`limited amount of information” about programs. Id. ¶¶ 5–8, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Figure 4b of Hecht is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4b depicts a “home page” multimedia navigation GUI comprising
`
`graphical information region 410, video display region 440, first menu
`
`region 420 (unlabeled, but including color-coded headings 425, 426, 427,
`
`and 428), second menu region 430, and menu arrow 450. Id. ¶¶ 42–48.
`
`Hecht describes “a logical menu hierarchy for accessing multimedia content
`
`and system functions” whereby “the first menu region 420 represents menu
`
`items higher up the menu hierarchy from the elements listed in the second
`
`menu region 430” and “[a]s a user moves up and down through the elements
`
`in the first menu region 420, the list of selectable choices in the second menu
`
`region 430 changes accordingly” (e.g., “Television” selected in Figure 4b).
`
`Id. ¶ 43, 49–50, Figs. 5a–5d (depicting the right-to-left motion of the regions
`
`as the user navigates the menus). The GUI includes a selection element that
`
`“may be moved in any direction to select menu items within the menu
`
`hierarchy (e.g., via a remote control or other cursor control device),” causing
`
`a request to be sent for the selected content. Id. ¶ 44. Information region
`
`410 “display[s] context-sensitive information related to the highlighted
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`menu element.” Id. ¶ 45. “The supplemental graphics content and/or
`
`information contained within the information region 410, as well as
`
`information contained within the menu hierarchy itself,” can be transmitted
`
`“over the same communication channel as the underlying multimedia
`
`content (e.g., in an MPEG-2 transport stream for cable/satellite providers)
`
`and/or via an alternate communication channel (e.g., via a dialup over
`
`standard telephone lines or via a high speed Internet connection such as DSL
`
`or Cable Modem).” Id. ¶ 46.
`
`Hecht further describes “[a]dditional embodiments of the graphical
`
`information region 410” as shown in Figures 7a–7d. Id. ¶ 72. Figure 7a of
`
`Hecht is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 7a depicts information region 700 comprising four regions displaying
`
`different information: title area 710, flag area 712, description area 714, and
`
`status area 716. Id. ¶¶ 72–76. Information region 701 provides a specific
`
`
`
`example. Id. ¶ 76.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Figure 7b of Hecht is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 7b depicts an “exemplary full screen information region” when a user
`
`“select[s] an ‘info’ button on the remote control device (or other input
`
`device) to obtain more information about a particular listing.” Id. ¶ 77.
`
`Figure 7d of Hecht is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`Figure 7d depicts “three content-provider-specific information regions” for
`
`the content provider HBO. Id. ¶ 79. Information region 730 includes
`
`“a layout where the underlying information is unchanged, but the
`
`background changes (i.e., displaying HBO in this case),” information region
`
`740 shows “more content provider customization,” and information region
`
`750 includes “a graphic used for an individual event, episode, or movie.” Id.
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner relies on Hecht as allegedly teaching the majority of the
`
`limitations of claim 1, and relies on Son, Scheffler, and CableLabs for
`
`certain aspects of the claim. Pet. 31–50. We focus on limitations 1.c and
`
`1.d, as they are dispositive. Claim 1 recites an Internet-connected digital
`
`device configured to present an EPG as a “templatized video-on-demand
`
`display,” using at least one of a plurality of different display templates to
`
`enable a subscriber to “navigate in a drill-down manner through titles by
`
`category information in order to locate a particular one” for viewing,
`
`[1.c5] wherein the navigating through titles in a drill-down
`manner comprises navigating from a first level of the hierarchal
`structure of a video-on-demand content menu to a second level
`of the hierarchical structure to locate the particular one of the
`titles, and
`
`[1.d] wherein a first template of the plurality of different
`display templates is used as the particular display template for
`the templatized display for displaying the first level of the
`hierarchical structure and wherein a second template of the
`plurality of different display templates is used as the particular
`
`
`5 In the certificate of correction dated February 12, 2019, claim 1 was
`corrected to recite a first level of the “hierarchal structure.” We read this
`portion as referring to the recited “hierarchical structure.” See Ex. 1101.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268
`Patent 10,028,026 B2
`
`display template for the templatized display for displaying the
`second level of the hierarchical structure.
`
`Petitioner relies solely on Hecht for limitations 1.c and 1.d, asserting that
`
`Hecht “teaches or renders obvious” the limitations. Id. at 44–46.
`
`With respect to limitation 1.c, Petitioner argues that Hecht teaches
`
`“navigating through categorically arranged menus with one level shown on
`
`the left, and a second level shown on the right, with the navigation causing
`
`the second level to move to the left and expose a third level (to locate a
`
`title).” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 48 (disclosing “penetrat[ing] down into
`
`the menu hierarchy”), 50 (describing the menu sequence shown in
`
`Figures 5a–5d), 63 (describing the “two menu paradigm” of Figures 4a–4n
`
`and 5a–5d)). Thus, although not explicitly identified as such, Petitioner
`
`appears to rely on a left-side menu, such as the “Home” menu in Figure 5a,
`
`as the claimed “first level of the hierarchal structure,” and on a right-side
`
`menu (which moves left as the user navigates), such as the “Television”
`
`menu in Figures 5a and 5c, as the claimed “second level of the hierarchical
`
`structure.” See id.
`
`With respect to limitation 1.d, however, Petitioner takes a different
`
`approach. Petitioner argues that “Hecht uses templatized displays as menu
`
`pages in its EPG and uses nodes to further define the layout of regions
`
`within those menu pages” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that “the nodes can provide the claimed ‘first’ and ‘second’
`
`templates used at the different levels of the EPG’s hierarchical structure.”
`
`Id. at 45. First, Petitioner argues that the “home page” shown in Figure