`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SAMUEL H. RUSS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Roku EX1003
`U.S. Patent No. 10,325,486
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 1
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED............................................................... 4
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................... 5
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ................................................................ 6
`B.
`Claim Construction ..................................................................... 8
`C. Obviousness ............................................................................... 8
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ........................................... 9
`A.
`In-home entertainment system topography was well known. ........... 10
`B.
`Selecting remote-control commands: scanning, receiving, and
`dialog boxes were well known. ................................................... 12
`Programming Remote Control Devices ........................................ 19
`C.
`D. HDMI and CEC........................................................................ 25
`E.
`Bridge devices with multiple communication methods/mediums
`were well known....................................................................... 29
`Detecting and displaying controllable functions via a user interface
`on a home theater device were generally well known. .................... 30
`VI. THE CHALLENGED PATENT .......................................................... 32
`A.
`The Alleged Invention ............................................................... 32
`B.
`The Challenged Claims.............................................................. 38
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................ 38
`VII. THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ........................................................... 40
`A. Overview of Chardon (EX1005) ................................................. 40
`B. Overview of the HDMI Specification (EX1010) ........................... 44
`C. Motivation to Combine Chardon and HDMI Specification ............. 61
`VIII. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.............................. 63
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Chardon in view of the
`HDMI Specification. ................................................................. 64
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................ 64
`
`F.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`“[1.P] A method for configuring a user interface that
`is caused to be presented by a home theater device in
`a display device associated with the home theater
`device, comprising:” ............................................... 64
`“[1.1] receiving at the home theater device from a
`controllable appliance in communication with the
`home theater device via use of a high definition
`multimedia (‘HDMI’) connection data that functions
`to identify a controllable function of the controllable
`appliance;”............................................................. 68
`“[1.2] automatically adding by the home theater
`device to the user interface an icon representative of
`the controllable function of the controllable appliance
`that was identified by the data received from the
`controllable appliance;” ........................................... 80
`“[1.3] in response to the home theater device
`receiving from a controlling device a command
`transmission that is indicative of a selection of the
`added icon from the user interface when the user
`interface is displayed in the display device associated
`with the home theater device,” .................................. 85
`“[1.4] causing the home theater device to issue a
`command to at least the controllable appliance to
`control at least the controllable function of the
`controllable appliance that was identified by the data
`received from the controllable appliance.”.................. 90
`Dependent Claim 2: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the command transmission is received from the
`controlling device via use of an infrared communications
`protocol.”........................................................................ 98
`Dependent Claim 3: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the command transmission is received from the
`controlling device via use of a radio frequency
`communications protocol.” ............................................... 99
`Dependent Claim 4: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the command transmission is received from the
`controlling device via use of a wired communications
`protocol.”...................................................................... 100
`
`e.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`Dependent Claim 5: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the home theater device comprises a television.” .... 101
`Dependent Claim 6: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the home theater device comprises a set-top box.”.. 102
`Dependent Claim 7: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the home theater device comprises an A/V
`receiver.” ...................................................................... 104
`Dependent Claim 8: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the home theater device issues the command to the
`controllable appliance via use of a wired communications
`protocol.”...................................................................... 105
`Dependent Claim 9: “The method as recited in claim 1,
`wherein the controllable function of the controllable
`appliance comprises a controllable media rendering function
`that is provided via use of the controllable appliance.” ........ 105
`IX. OTHER EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO OBVIOUSNESS...................... 106
`
`9.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`I, Samuel H. Russ, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been asked by Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) to provide expert opinions
`1.
`
`in the above-captioned inter partes review proceeding involving U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,325,486 (“the ’486 patent”), which is entitled “System And Method For
`
`Optimized Appliance Control.”
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated by Roku on an hourly basis for the time I
`
`spend in connection with this proceeding. My compensation is not dependent in
`
`any way on the substance of my opinions or on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3. My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this declaration
`
`are summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum vitae, which is
`
`attached as Exhibit 1004. Exhibit 1004 also includes a list of my publications and
`
`the cases in which I have testified at deposition, hearing, or trial during the past
`
`four years.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in 1986 and a Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech in 1991.
`
`5.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have been a member of the faculty of the
`
`University of South Alabama as an Assistant and Associate Professor in the
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. During that time, I have won
`
`awards for excellent teaching and have been actively publishing research in home
`
`networking and digital video recording (DVR) technologies. I am active in the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and am a Distinguished
`
`Lecturer for the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society. As a consultant, I have
`
`conducted briefings for members of the financial community on technology trends
`
`in the cable, satellite, and IPTV sectors.
`
`6.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, I worked for Scientific-Atlanta (now Cisco’s
`
`Service Provider Video Tech. Group), where I managed a cable set-top box (STB)
`
`design group that designed four STB models, including the Explorer 4200 (non-
`
`DVR) and 8300 (DVR) models. Both models sold several million units. As design-
`
`group manager, I was responsible for managing the design and prototyping
`
`activities of the group, for interfacing with other groups (especially integrated-
`
`circuit design, procurement, software developers, the factory where prototypes
`
`were built, and product managers), and for maintaining the hardware and
`
`mechanical development schedule. Since the products were produced in extremely
`
`high volumes, the projects had very high visibility in the company, and therefore
`
`carried a great deal of responsibility.
`
`7.
`
`Also while at Scientific-Atlanta, I became a staff expert in home
`
`networking, conducting demonstrations of wireless video technology, and
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`managing a group that developed a new coaxial home networking system. The
`
`coaxial system won a Technology and Engineering Emmy® Award in 2013. I
`
`became a staff expert in DVR reliability, and led a team that improved the
`
`software, hardware, repair, and manufacturing processes. I am a named inventor on
`
`fifty-one (51) patent applications that were filed while I was at Scientific-Atlanta,
`
`twenty-eight (28) of which have issued as U.S. patents as of the writing of this
`
`declaration.
`
`8.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was a Staff Electrical Engineer and then Matrix
`
`Manager at IVI Checkmate (now Ingenico), where I managed the hardware design
`
`team that completed the design of the eN-Touch 1000 payment terminal. This
`
`terminal was in widespread use, for example, at the self-checkout at Home Depot.
`
`9.
`
`I also served on the faculty of Mississippi State University from 1994
`
`to 1999 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer
`
`Engineering where I taught circuit board design and two-way interactive video
`
`classes, among other things.
`
`10.
`
`I have also authored thirty-two (32) journal articles and conference
`
`papers. A recent conference paper on digital video recording won second place in a
`
`“Best Paper” competition at the 2011 International Conference on Consumer
`
`Electronics in Las Vegas, NV.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`11.
`
`knowledge, and experience relevant to the ’486 patent. Furthermore, I have
`
`specifically considered the following documents listed below in addition to any
`
`other documents cited in this declaration.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1004
`1005
`1007
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1016
`
`1021
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,325,486 to Arling (“’486 patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’486 Patent
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Samuel Russ
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,837 to Chardon et al. (“Chardon”)
`U.S. Publication No. 2004/0148632 to Park et al. (“Park”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0005197 to Mishra et al.
`(“Mishra”)
`High-Definition Multimedia Interface – Specification Version 1.3a
`(November 10, 2006)
`User Manual Harmony 900 – Remote Control User Guide, Version
`1.0, Logitech (“Harmony 900 User Guide”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,068,183 to Stecyk (“Stecyk”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,792,133 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/680,876 to Arling et al. (“’876
`Provisional”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0249890 to Chardon et al.
`(“Chardon II”)
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Don Turnbull (IPR2019-01615)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`Description
`International CES 2000 Report – Universal Electronics Inc. (2000)
`(http://www.remotecentral.com/ces2000/uei.htm) (“CES 2000
`Report”)
`AT2400 AllTouch Remote Control User’s Guide, Scientific-Atlanta
`Inc., (2002) (“Scientific-Atlanta Remote Control User Guide”)
`User Interface – Infrared Learner (Remote Control), Application
`Note AN2092, Cypress Semiconductor, Document No. 001-41063,
`(November 11, 2002) (“Cypress”)
`VCR CommanderTM Service User’s Guide, Scientific-Atlanta Inc.
`(2000) (“VCR Commander”)
`Connecting the Explorer 8300HDTM Digital Video Recorder
`Manual, Scientific-Atlantic Inc. (2005) (“8300 DVR Manual”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1024
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1036
`
`
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`I have also relied upon various legal principles (as explained to me by
`12.
`
`Roku’s counsel) in formulating my opinions. My understanding of these principles
`
`are summarized below.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a patent claim defines the metes and bounds of an
`
`alleged invention. I further understand that a claimed invention must be new,
`
`useful, and non-obvious over the prior art for it to be patentable. I understand that,
`
`in this proceeding, Roku has the burden of proving that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable over the prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand
`
`that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is
`
`more likely true than it is not.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`In determining the patentability of a claim, I understand that the first
`
`14.
`
`step is to construe the claim from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) to determine its meaning and scope. Once construed, I
`
`understand that the claim is to be considered against the prior art from the
`
`perspective of a POSA as further summarized below.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`I understand that a claim must be analyzed from the perspective of a
`15.
`
`POSA at the time the claimed invention was allegedly invented by the patentee.
`
`Roku’s counsel has asked me to consider the time period shortly before October
`
`28, 2011, which is the earliest priority date of the ’486 patent, as the potential date
`
`of invention of the claims of the ’486 patent.
`
`16.
`
`In ascertaining the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art of a
`
`patent, I understand that several factors should be considered including: (1) the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field of the
`
`patent.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that a POSA is a person who is presumed to be
`
`aware of the pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a
`
`person of ordinary creativity. Accordingly, a POSA with respect to the subject
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`matter of the ’486 patent would have had general knowledge of remote control
`
`devices, consumer electronic devices, and various related technologies as of
`
`October 28, 2011.
`
`18. The patent’s earliest possible priority date based on the face of the
`
`’486 patent is October 28, 2011. However, I have been informed that the actual
`
`earliest priority date of the ’486 patent, based on the claims, is May 22, 2013. This
`
`is because the claims are directed to the embodiment described in Figure 15, which
`
`I understand was first added to the priority chain for the ’486 patent in an
`
`application filed on May 22, 2013. My opinion with respect to the level of skill in
`
`the art is not dependent on which date is used.
`
`19. Based on my experience and my understanding of the legal principles
`
`summarized here, I believe that a POSA with respect to the subject matter of the
`
`’486 patent, at the time of invention, would have had general knowledge of home
`
`theater systems, control of devices within the home theater systems, and remote
`
`control devices. Further, a POSA would have had: (1) at least a bachelor’s degree
`
`in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent coursework, and (2)
`
`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. Well before either October 28,
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`2011, or May 22, 2013, my level of skill in the art was at least that of a POSA, as
`
`discussed above.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I have been informed by Roku’s counsel that in this proceeding, the
`20.
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) interprets the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent, such as the ’486 patent, under the same standards used in a
`
`United States District Court. This includes interpreting the claims through the lens
`
`of a POSA in view of the entire patent. Accordingly, in formulating my opinions, I
`
`have reviewed the claims of the ’486 patent as I perceive a POSA would have
`
`understood them at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’486 patent,
`
`after reading the entire ’486 patent specification.
`
`C. Obviousness
`I have been informed by Roku’s counsel that a patent claim is
`21.
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`
`such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a POSA at
`
`the time the claimed invention was allegedly invented by the patentee. Thus in
`
`assessing whether a claim is obvious, I understand that I am to consider: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`invention; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
`
`(4) any objective evidence of non-obviousness (if any).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`I understand that if a POSA would have arrived at a claimed invention
`
`22.
`
`when it was allegedly invented by the patentee by, for example, (a) combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b)
`
`applying a solution from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; (c) substituting a known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; or (d) using a known technique to improve similar
`
`devices (methods, or products) in the same way, the claimed invention would
`
`likely have been obvious to a POSA.
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`23. The challenged ’486 patent is directed to a “system and method for
`
`optimized appliance control.” EX1001, ’486 patent, Title. The purported invention
`
`is described in the context of a home theater environment where there exists a
`
`number of “appliances” like televisions, AV receivers, DVD players, set-top boxes
`
`(STBs), and the like. The ’486 patent describes using a controlling device, such as
`
`a remote control or a smart phone, to take 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.” Id., 1:66-2:6.
`
`24. To that end, the ’486 patent describes what it calls a “universal control
`
`engine” or “UCE.” The UCE is configured to control a plurality of appliances
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`within a logical topology of appliances, where the appliances may rely on a variety
`
`of available communication and control protocols. Among others, exemplary
`
`protocols include well-known infrared (“IR”) remote control protocols, as well as
`
`Consumer Electronic Control (“CEC”) protocols, which have long been available
`
`in High-Definition Multi-Media Interface (“HDMI”)-compliant devices. Id., 2:7-
`
`21.
`
`In-home entertainment system topography was well known.
`A.
`25. To set the stage for my opinions below, I provide some additional
`
`background knowledge of the state of the art existing before and around the time of
`
`invention of the ’486 patent. By 2011, home theater network systems were widely
`
`used to seamlessly integrate or bundle a combination of interconnected devices like
`
`televisions, digital video recorders, streaming media devices, and the like. In such
`
`systems, a centralized control device is typically deployed for ease of use, and may
`
`be configured to receive user instructions from one or more remote controlling
`
`devices and relay such instructions to one or more devices to be controlled (e.g.,
`
`DVRs, TVs, etc.). The following are examples of home theater network systems
`
`that include interconnected appliances to be controlled, one or more centralized
`
`control devices, and one or more remote control devices.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`
`EX1012, Stecyk, FIG. 1 (illustrating a device interconnect configuration for
`
`a home theater network).
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`EX1007, Park, FIG. 1 (illustrating a schematic of a home network system).
`
`
`
`EX1016, Chardon II, FIG. 1 (illustrating a schematic of a home
`
`entertainment system).
`
`B.
`
`Selecting remote-control commands: scanning, receiving, and
`dialog boxes were well known.
`26. The remote controls that Scientific-Atlanta shipped with its products
`
`were designed to use 56 kHz infrared frequencies to transmit to Scientific-Atlanta
`
`set-top boxes, and 38 kHz infrared frequencies otherwise. Like most remote
`
`controls provided by cable operators, they were designed to work with a variety of
`
`television sets. For example, the user manual for a Scientific-Atlanta remote
`
`control had codes that could be used to manually program the AT2400 remote
`
`control for different models of television sets.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`
`
`EX1026, Scientific-Atlanta Remote Control User Guide, 0002.
`
`27. This list of TV setup codes also shows a commonly known problem in
`
`the art: determining which set of infrared-control commands to use for a specific
`
`model of appliance. As a result, the same remote controls came with specific
`
`instructions on how to determine which set of remote-control commands to use to
`
`control a television set, in case a subscriber was not able to use the table shown
`
`above.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`
`
`EX1026, 0001.
`
`28. The process described in this document enabled a remote-control user
`
`to determine which code worked with the user’s television set. It undoubtedly
`
`required patience, as the remote came with about 80 different code sets.
`
`29. One way to combat this issue was the advent of a “learning remote.”
`
`In fact, Cypress Semiconductor published an application note in 2002 that
`
`described how to make one. The note explains that one can receive a signal from a
`
`handheld remote, decode it, and thereby learn the timing of a specific remote-
`
`control command. EX1027, Cypress Semiconductor, 1-4.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`EX1027, 2.
`
`
`
`30. Considering the table of television manufacturers found in the
`
`Scientific-Atlanta remote-control documentation, it is clear to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that a menu-based system will also work. If a remote-control device has a
`
`display, it can query the user for manufacturers and models. For example, the
`
`“Mosaic” remote control manufactured by Universal Electronics was put on
`
`display at the 2000 Consumer Electronics Show and had such a menu. EX1024,
`
`International CES 2000 Report, 1-2.
`
`31.
`
`“To begin with the Mosaic will not feature computerized
`
`customization software, though a wealth of features right on the remote will aid
`
`users in configuring personal setups. Up to 15 devices may be configured, each
`
`with up to 38 keys. The built-in code database is the same one used with the ‘One
`
`For All’ line of remotes – the absolute best out there. Devices may also be
`
`configured by device code, brand list or via device search. Also available is a
`
`‘Home Theater’ mode that allows you to select various volume, transport keypad
`
`and menu functions and assemble them under one device.” Id., 1.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`“In addition to the built-in library, the Mosaic allows you to learn any
`
`32.
`
`number of buttons from a source remote. A total of 21 macro buttons with up to 32
`
`commands each may be configured.” Id. This device was also a learning remote
`
`control, as noted in the article. Id.
`
`33. As of October 28, 2011, it was quite common to use dialog boxes to
`
`support the effort needed to identify the correct remote-control commands and/or
`
`devices within an entertainment topography.
`
`34. For example, the installation process of the Scientific-Atlanta VCR
`
`Commander (i.e., an IR blaster that connected to the rear panel of a set-top box and
`
`that enabled the set-top box to control a VCR using infrared command codes)
`
`included specific user-interface steps using the set-top box’s native interactive
`
`program guide (IPG).
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`EX1028, VCR Commander, 10-12.
`
`
`
`35. So the ability either for a user to enter a code indicating a
`
`manufacturer or to scan for remote-control codes with the assistance of an
`
`interactive program guide (user interface, menus, etc.) was well understood in the
`
`art in the early 2000s.
`
`36. The VCR Commander user guide also demonstrates another, subtler
`
`capability. The set-top box is receiving infrared control codes for itself and is
`
`interpreting those codes to operate its own interactive programming guide.
`
`EX1028, 4. The guide is then programmed to turn on another device, such as a
`
`VCR, at a later time. To do so, the set-top is able to transmit remote-control codes
`
`in the correct format (e.g., 38 kHz) using a particular code set, chosen from a list of
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`possible code sets, for a completely different device. In other words, the set-top
`
`box is translating from its native remote-control format to that of another device.
`
`Again, this was a well-understood capability in the early 2000s.
`
`37.
`
`It was also known that devices may prompt users to enter
`
`manufacturer information when devices are set up. The Chardon reference cites to
`
`Logitech’s Harmony series of remote controls. Once such remote control is
`
`Logitech’s Harmony 900 remote control, which was on the market well before
`
`2011. For example, Exhibit 1029 and Exhibit 1030 are at least two examples of
`
`user reviews of the remote controls back in 2009 and 2010 respectively.
`
`38. According to the Logitech Harmony 900 manual, the remote control
`
`device included a display screen that would provide interactive prompts for a user,
`
`including selecting equipment and programming to watch. EX1011, Harmony 900
`
`User Guide, 8. Users could also add devices in the Harmony Remote Software
`
`during setup operations. Id., 14. To do so, the system would prompt a user to add
`
`the devices in the entertainment system and select the devices, manufacturer
`
`number, and model number from a prompted menu. Id.
`
`39. As such, it was well known at the time of invention for a user to be
`
`prompted to enter manufacturer information, such as model number, if this
`
`information was not already known to the system or the manufacturer was not
`
`registered or known.
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1011, 1, 8.
`
`Programming Remote Control Devices
`It was well known in the early 2000s to enable remote-control devices
`
`C.
`40.
`
`to be programmable. UEI is one manufacturer that utilized this feature in many of
`
`its technologies preceding the priority date of the ’486 patent.
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`41. For example, it was well known in the early 2000s that manufacturers
`
`of consumer electronic devices, such as televisions, radio tuners, digital video disc
`
`players, video cassette recorders, set-top cable television boxes, set-top satellite
`
`boxes, etc., typically supply a remote control along with each consumer electronic
`
`device. As I have explained herein, the remote control can control the associated
`
`consumer electronic device by sending an operational signal with a key code to the
`
`consumer electronic device. Each such key code may correspond to a function of
`
`the selected consumer electronic device such as power on, volume down, play,
`
`stop, select, channel advance, channel back, etc. Thus, an electronic device is
`
`controlled by a code set of key codes. EX1013, Lee, 1:26-37.
`
`42. As further taught in Lee, for example, code sets can differ from each
`
`other not only by the bit patterns assigned to the key codes, but also by the timing,
`
`modulation, and framing protocols used to modulate the bit patterns onto
`
`operational signals. This property was also clear to a POSA, inasmuch as two
`
`popular code sets—NEC and Philips RC-5—differ in bit timing, modulation, etc.
`
`In order to avoid the situation where a signal containing a key code operates an
`
`electronic device that is not selected, manufacturers of consumer electronic devices
`
`may use different code sets for different devices. Although each model of an
`
`electronic device might not have a unique code set, there are nevertheless
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`thousands of code sets used to operate the various types, brands, and models of
`
`electronic consumer devices sold in the world market today.
`
`43. Microcontrollers in remote controls are typically supplied to remote
`
`control manufacturers preloaded with code sets that operate the various types,
`
`brands, and models of electronic devices that the remote control is to operate.
`
`Microcontroller and remote-control manufacturers therefore devote great effort and
`
`expense amassing a large and comprehensive databases of code sets. These code
`
`set databases are valuable to the microcontroller manufacturers. Microcontroller
`
`manufacturers therefore attempt to keep their code set databases proprietary.
`
`44. Not only does knowledge of code sets constitute a competitive
`
`advantage to a microcontroller manufacturer, but knowledge of code sets is also of
`
`value to remote-control manufacturers and providers of code set database services.
`
`45. As Lee explains, a microcontroller manufacturer may wish to allow its
`
`microcontrollers to be loaded with a code set after the remote control containing
`
`the microcontroller has been shipped. This can involve transmitting a newly
`
`available code set over a telephone cable or a cable TV line to a consumer. Using
`
`various programming aids, the consumer receives the transmitted code set and
`
`loads it into the remote-control microcontroller, e.g., a universal remote control.
`
`46. A microcontroller manufacturer may also wish to allow remote
`
`control developers to have access to a large number of code sets so that the remote
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`control developers can develop new models of remote controls that contain the
`
`manufacturer's microcontroller.
`
`EX1013, FIG. 14 (annotated).
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`47. Figure 14 of Lee illustrates this principle of configuring a remote
`
`control device. For example, system 110 sends a code set for a selected consumer
`
`electronic device to first remote control device 112 in a programming signal 150.
`
`48. Lee teaches that programming signal 150 (i.e., second data) is emitted
`
`by an IR LED 151 of remote control communicating circuit 111. Thus, the
`
`frequency of programming signal 150 falls within the infrared frequency band. IR
`
`photodetector 130 of first remote control device 112 (as shown in Figure 15)
`
`receives programming signal 150. First remote control device 112 stores the code
`
`set for the selected consumer electronic device in memory 123 and activates the
`
`code set for the selected device. First remote control device 112 can thereupon
`
`control the selected consumer electronic device.
`
`49. While this is but one example, it was well known at the time that such
`
`consumer devices may be configured by users and/or downloaded signals in order
`
`to configure a remote control device to control other devices