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 IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER ROKU INC.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Roku EX1052
`Roku v. UEI
`IPR2021-00455
`
`
`_____________________
`
`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 IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER ROKU INC.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Roku EX1052
`Roku v. UEI
`IPR2021-00455
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 1
`II.
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED............................................................... 4
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................... 5
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ................................................................ 6
`B.
`Claim Construction ..................................................................... 8
`C.
`Obviousness ............................................................................. 10
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................... 11
`A.
`Technology Overview ............................................................... 12
`B.
`HDMI and CEC........................................................................ 18
`C.
`Detecting and displaying controllable functions via a user interface
`on a home theater device were generally well known. .................... 22
`THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ........................................................... 24
`A.
`Overview of Chardon (EX1005) ................................................. 24
`B.
`Overview of the HDMI Specification (EX1010) ........................... 30
`C. Motivation to Combine Chardon and HDMI Specification ............. 45
`VII. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.............................. 48
`
`VI.
`
`- i -
`
`
`
` 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.” This is my second declaration in this proceeding.
`
`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.
`
`Paper/Exhibit
`No.
`14
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`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. Patent No. 9,019,435 to Barnett et al. (“Barnett”)
`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”)
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`Paper/Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1021
`
`1024
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1036
`
`2003
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0249890 to Chardon et al.
`(“Chardon II”)
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Don Turnbull (IPR2019-01615)
`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”)
`Declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull in Support of Patent Owner
`Universal Electronics Inc.’s Response to Decision to Institute
`Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 10,325,486
`
`
`
`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.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`I understand that a patent claim defines the metes and bounds of an
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`In determining the patentability of a claim, I understand that the first
`
`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
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`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
`
`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
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`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,
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`I understand from Patent Owner’s Patent Owner Response that the
`
`Patent Owner has asked the Board to narrowly construe the term “data that
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`functions to identify a controllable function” such that “the data itself identifies
`
`functionalities that are executed by the controllable appliance from which the data
`
`is received.” POR, 12 (emphasis added). I disagree with Patent Owner’s attempt to
`
`narrow the claim language in this way.
`
`22.
`
`In my view, the ’486 patent specification takes a broad view of “data
`
`that functions to identify a controllable function” of a controllable appliance. One
`
`apparent instantiation of that “data” is what the ’486 patent refers to as “icon
`
`information.” See e.g., EX1001, 14:30-54. The ’486 patent specification explains
`
`that icon information “may be used in connection with information stored on the
`
`smart device, stored in the internet cloud and/or at a remote server to automatically
`
`add an icon to the user interface of the smart device….” EX1001, 14:46-54
`
`(emphasis added). Thus “icon information” itself is not required to fully inform the
`
`home theater device as to which icon (and thus which controllable function) should
`
`be automatically added to the UI. Rather, it can work “in connection with” a wide
`
`variety of other data to identify a controllable function of the controllable
`
`appliance and thus facilitate the automatic addition of icons to the user interface.
`
`23. Further the ’486 patent indicated that other information beyond “icon
`
`information” also arrives at the home theater device. For example, the ’486 patent
`
`explains that step 1508 collects and sends “information related to interface
`
`connection types, e.g., WI-FI, HDMI input/output, for use in creation of supported
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`macros.” EX1001, 14:30-35. The ’486 patent also explains that “transferred
`
`information and/or metadata” received at the home theater device “may comprise
`
`complete command data values, appliance input/output data and current status,
`
`formatting information, pointers to command data values and formatting
`
`information already stored in the memories 502 and/or 802/804 of the UCE ….”
`
`EX1001, 15:45-51 (emphasis added). The breadth of the ’486 patent specification
`
`is clear with respect to data received at the home theater device that “functions to
`
`identify” a controllable function of the controllable appliance. And pertinent to this
`
`supplemental declaration, it can receive from the controllable appliance data such
`
`as “appliance input/output data” as well as the “current status” of the appliance.
`
`C. Obviousness
`I have been informed by Roku’s counsel that a patent claim is
`24.
`
`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).
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`I understand that if a POSA would have arrived at a claimed invention
`
`25.
`
`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
`26. 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.
`
`27. 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
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`A. Technology Overview
`It was well known in the early 2000s to enable remote-control devices
`28.
`
`to be programmable. UEI is one manufacturer that utilized this feature in many of
`
`its technologies preceding the priority date of the ’486 patent. This section repeats
`
`pertinent section of the Technology Overview that I supplied in my first
`
`declaration in this proceeding that accompanied the Petition.
`
`29. 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,
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`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.
`
`30. 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
`
`thousands of code sets used to operate the various types, brands, and models of
`
`electronic consumer devices sold in the world market today.
`
`31. 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.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`32. 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.
`
`33. 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.
`
`34. 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
`
`control developers can develop new models of remote controls that contain the
`
`manufacturer's microcontroller.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`EX1013, FIG. 14 (annotated).
`
`
`
`35. 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.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`36. 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.
`
`37. 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 in an entertainment
`
`topology. As Lee shows, such topology may include tuners, VCR players, set-top
`
`boxes, televisions, and the like.
`
`38. Such configuration of remote control devices wasn’t limited to Lee.
`
`For example, Mishra also taught this feature. In one example, as illustrated in
`
`annotated Figure 1 below, Mishra describes a scenario where “the appropriate
`
`signal information is sent to the RCU 18 the by system 12.” EX1009, Mishra, ¶34.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`EX1009, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`39. Mishra further explains that the RCU 18 may be “provided with
`
`protocols to control a given device[, e.g., device 16].” EX1009, ¶34.
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, at the time of the ’486 patent, the configuration of
`
`remote control devices was widely available. Also, the configuration through
`
`transmission of configuration messages (e.g., wireless signals) was also pervasive
`
`in the industry, as illustrated at least by Mishra and Lee.
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`B. HDMI and CEC
`41. The HDMI family of standards was adopted as early as December
`
`2002, and also contained (and contains) support for device-to-device discovery,
`
`communication, and control. These features are described throughout HDMI
`
`specification, including, for example, within HDMI’s Consumer Electronics
`
`Control protocol (“CEC protocol”). One example of the HDMI standard is Version
`
`1.3a, adopted in November 2006. EX1010, HMDI Version 1.3a, 0001. Like
`
`Chardon and any other manufacturer at the time, UEI also looked to the HDMI
`
`specification to implement the invention of the ’486 patent. EX1014, ’876
`
`Provisional Application, 2. HDMI’s Specification Version 1.3a (November 10,
`
`2006) is relied on and provides for transmitting digital television audiovisual
`
`signals from “DVD players, set-top boxes, and other audiovisual sources to
`
`television sets, projectors, and other . . . [multimedia outlet devices].” EX1010,
`
`0017. HDMI can also carry high-quality, multi-channel audio data and “carry all
`
`standard and high-definition consumer electronics video formats.” Id. Moreover,
`
`“HDMI can also carry control and status information in both directions” between
`
`devices. Id.
`
`42. A device that is compliant with the HDMI Specification “is
`
`interoperable with other compliant devices in an entertainment system topology
`
`through the configuration and implementation provided in the specification.” Id.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`EX1010, FIG. 3-1, 0024.
`
`
`
`43. Figure 3-1 illustrates an HDMI block diagram of an HDMI system
`
`topology that consists of sources (e.g., command transmitting devices) and sinks
`
`(e.g., command receiving devices). EX1010, 0128, 0024. The HDMI standard
`
`includes three communications channels: Transition Minimized Differential
`
`Signaling (TMDS), Display Data Chanel (DDC), and Consumer Electronics
`
`Control (CEC). Id.
`
`44. The TMDS channel is used to carry all audio and video data, as well
`
`as auxiliary data including AVI and Audio InfoFrames that describe the active
`
`audio and video streams. Id., 0128. The DDC channel is used by an HDMI source
`
`to determine the capabilities and characteristics of the sink by reading the sink’s
`
`identification (Extended Display Identification Data Standard (EDID)) data
`
`structure. Id. “HDMI [s]ources are expected to read the [s]ink’s []EDID and to
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`deliver only the audio and video formats that are supported by the [s]ink.” Id. The
`
`CEC channel is used for higher-level user functions such as automatic setup tasks
`
`or tasks associated with infrared remote control usage. Id.
`
`45. HDMI provides for automatic detection of devices once they are
`
`connected via an HDMI cable. For example, HDMI uses a Hot Plug Detect
`
`protocol that detects when a device is connected or disconnected. Id. This
`
`automatic detection can be achieved by having a source read “the EDID . . . to
`
`determine the capabilities supported by the [s]ink.” Id., 0134. The “source”
`
`initiates the reading of EDID data from a sink using a hot plug detect (HPD)
`
`signal. Id., 0123. Irrespective of whether a “sink” device is ON or OFF, a “source”
`
`may query the “sink” using an HPD pin in the HDMI connector to discover and
`
`retrieve the “sink’s” information (e.g., EDID) from the sink to “discover the
`
`[s]ink’s configuration and/or capabilities.” Id., 0025, 0139.
`
`46. The HDMI provides for HPD detection and remote power capability.
`
`The HPD signals that an HDMI device is being attached to an HDMI port, and the
`
`standard mandates that the HDMI source supply power to the HDMI sink in order
`
`to query the newly attached device (id.); this is how a source can read a sink
`
`irrespective of whether the sink device is on or off. According to the standard, the
`
`source uses HPD to detect the attachment of a device, supplies power over the
`
`HDMI cable, and receives the EDID information. Id.
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`47. Moreover, HDMI also allows for a device to discover other devices
`
`within a system topology to register physical addresses of those devices and create
`
`an internal network topology listing. Id., 0139-140. For example, in HDMI,
`
`connected devices discover each other and each device builds a map of a connected
`
`device topology. Id.
`
`EX1010, FIG. 8-1, 0140.
`
`
`
`48. As illustrated in Figure 8-1, after discovering their own physical
`
`address, the CEC devices transmit their physical and logical addresses to all other
`
`devices, thus allowing any device to create a map of the network topology of an
`
`entertainment system. EX1010, FIG. 8-1, 0140. The logical addresses are used to
`
`determine the capabilities of devices attached to the network. EX1010, CEC-16-
`
`18.
`
`49. The CEC discovery may use the CEC channel where HDMI devices
`
`transmit a polling message to detect the presence or absence of a device within the
`
`system and to allocate logical addresses of connected devices. Id., 0191, 0211.
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`I will discuss HDMI’s device-to-device discovery, communication,
`
`50.
`
`and control aspects in greater detail below, and as it pertains to the issues raised in
`
`the Patent Owner Response, in the “Overview of HDMI Specification” (Section
`
`VI.A.2).
`
`C. Detecting and displaying controllable functions via a user interface
`on a home theater device were generally well known.
`51. As I have explained herein above, detecting device capabilities was
`
`well known in the art. For example, as I mentioned, certain protocols, such as
`
`HDMI, enable devices to learn the capabilities of other devices that are to be
`
`controlled through protocol features such as HPD and the like. Park describes a
`
`remote control device that can control every networked household appliance
`
`through an “intuitive and easy user interface.” EX1007, Abstract. Park also teaches
`
`that a user can “easily control any appliance, check a control result in response to a
`
`control request right away, and check or control the status of appliances through a
`
`regular monitoring function.” Id. As Park shows, this can maximize user mobility,
`
`convenience, and functionality. Id.
`
`52. Park explicitly illustrates this user interface in Figure 6:
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`EX1007, FIG. 6 (annotated).
`
`
`
`53. Discussing Figure 6, Park illustrates “a screen being displayed on a
`
`display unit of the remote controller,” where a “user would scroll through and then
`
`select a command, or icon, by pressing directional arrow keys.” EX1007, ¶¶22, 78.
`
`According to Park, the icons found in a room may be represented by different
`
`appliance shapes, and all the users need to do is touch a corresponding icon to
`
`control the represented appliance. Id., ¶¶79, 90. And, when a user selects an icon
`
`associated with a room, execution icons corresponding to executable commands
`
`available in the selected appliance are displayed to the user. Id., ¶¶127-129.
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
` Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`VI. THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of Chardon (EX1005)
`54. U.S. Patent No. 9,239,837 to Chardon et al. is applied as a primary
`
`reference in an obviousness ground describing the majority of the features of
`
`independent claim 1. In addition to repeating what I said about Chardon in my
`
`original declaration accompanying the Petition, I amplify here certain aspects of
`
`Chardon that are relevant to issues raised the Patent Owner Response.
`
`55. Chardon is directed to a “remote control system for connected
`
`devices.” EX1005, Title. Specifically, in the abstract, Chardon teaches that “[a]
`
`menu of options appears on a display of a display device” which can be navigated
`
`by a user “
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
