Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00455
`
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00455
`
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Background ...................................................................................................... 2
`A. Overview of Technology. ....................................................................... 2
`B. Prosecution History of the ’486 Patent. .................................................. 6
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (POSITA). .................................... 9
`III. Claim Construction ........................................................................................11
`A.
`“data that functions to identify a controllable function” ......................12
`IV. The Cited Ground does not Render any Claims Unpatentable .....................15
`A. Overview of References Cited by Petitioner ........................................16
`B. Chardon in view of HDMI v. 1.3a does not render obvious Claims
`1-9 of the ’486 Patent. ..........................................................................22
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................39
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`BMW of North America, LLC v. Carrum Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2019-00902, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 18, 2019) .............................................. 39
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`2003) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01692, Paper No. 45 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2018) ........................................ 38
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`Declaration of Katherine G. Rubschlager in support of motion for
`admission pro hac vice
`Biography of Katherine G. Rubschlager submitted in support of
`motion for admission pro hac vice
`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
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Don Turnbull
`EX2004
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Samuel Hardie Russ
`EX2005
`EX2006 U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2007/0229465 to Sakai
`
`
`EX2003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`Patent Owner Universal Electronics Inc. (“UEI”) respectfully submits this
`
`Response to the Board’s decision to institute Roku, Inc’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,325,486 (“the ’486
`
`Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner’s request for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-9 of the ’486 Patent
`
`alleges a single ground of unpatentability based on two references from which
`
`Petitioner misinterprets cherry-picked disclosures and suggests that the claims of the
`
`’486 Patent would have been obvious despite contrary teachings of the Petitioner’s
`
`chosen references.
`
`The ’486 Patent claims a method for configuring a user interface on a display
`
`device that is connected to a source device via an HDMI connection. The claims
`
`require that the source device send, to the display device with the user interface,
`
`“data that functions to identify a controllable function of the controllable appliance.”
`
`This data is then used by the display device to add particular icons. But neither of
`
`Petitioner’s references disclose or suggest that any data is sent between the devices
`
`that “functions to identify a controllable function of the controllable appliance.”
`
`The only data that is shared between devices in the cited references is data that
`
`identifies a device or data that identifies a status of a device, neither of which is ever
`
`used to add an icon that is representative of the controllable function. Indeed, the
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`only data that Petitioner points to in the references is sent after a command has
`
`already been selected, and thus this data does not “identify a controllable function
`
`of the controllable appliance” that is then used to establish an icon.
`
`Although the Board instituted review on the single ground of the Petition, the
`
`Board emphasized in multiple places that the decision to institute review was based
`
`in part on the higher weight afforded to the testimony of Petitioner’s expert over
`
`UEI’s attorney argument (e.g., Paper 7, at 27, 30, 33). In this Response, UEI submits
`
`additional evidence, including the declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull (Ex. 2003; Dr.
`
`Turnbull’s curriculum vitae is attached at Ex. 2004), deposition testimony of Dr.
`
`Russ (Ex. 2005), and a copy of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2007/0229465 to Sakai (Ex.
`
`2006) that was cited during prosecution of the ’486 patent to show that each of the
`
`references in the instituted ground fails to disclose, either alone or in combination,
`
`every element of the challenged claims.
`
`II. Background
`
`A. Overview of Technology.
`
`The invention of the ’486 Patent, entitled “System and Method for Optimized
`
`Appliance Control,” is directed to “enhanced methods for appliance control via use
`
`of a controlling device, such as a remote control, smart phone, tablet computer, etc.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:1 and Ex. 2003, at 44. The ’486 patent’s “invention comprises a
`
`modular hardware and software solution, hereafter referred to as a Universal Control
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`Engine (UCE), which is adapted to provide device control access across a variety of
`
`available control methodologies and communication media.” Ex. 1001, at 2:7-18 and
`
`Ex. 2003, at 46. To this end, the ’486 Patent discloses the configuration of a user
`
`interface presented by a home theatre device for controlling a controllable appliance.
`
`Id. at Abstract. More specifically, the presented user interface includes icons
`
`representative of controllable functions that were identified by data received from
`
`the controllable appliance, such that a user can be confident that icons included in
`
`the presented user interface reflect controllable functions of the controllable
`
`appliance that are actually executable by the controllable appliance. In addition to
`
`the general functionality of these graphical user interfaces, the ’486 patent describes
`
`various setup methods and applications, for example, “to perform initial
`
`configuration of a UCE device” (Id. at 7:53-54), to “establish the desired appliance
`
`configurations for a series of possible activities (Id. at 10:22-24), and “[t]o setup the
`
`user interface of the smart device to support such macro command functionality”
`
`(Id. at 14:11-13). Ex. 2003, at 47. This is accomplished by first receiving data from
`
`a controllable appliance that functions to identify a controllable function of the
`
`controllable appliance. Ex. 1001, at 14:30-39. An icon is then automatically added
`
`to the user interface that is representative of the controllable function on the
`
`controllable appliance. Id. at Abstract.; see also Ex. 2003, at 42-43.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that Figure 15 of the ’486 Patent provides
`
`an overview of the procedure used to implement the above-described functionality.
`
`Figure 15 “illustrates an exemplary series of steps which may be performed by a
`
`smart device to setup command control macros” (Id. at 3:36-38; Ex. 2003, at 48):
`
`Id. at FIG. 15.
`
`The process of Figure 15 is described in the ’486 patent as beginning after the
`
`user has been instructed to power-on all of the devices within the home theater
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`system. The connected UCE proceeds to determine the identity of connected devices
`
`via one of multiple methodologies for discovering connected devices. Ex. 2003, at
`
`49-51. The process of Figure 15 is specifically designed to provide backwards
`
`compatibility with devices that may not be capable of sharing detailed information
`
`about the device identity and/or relevant controllable functions of the device, and
`
`therefore Figure 15 is illustrated as a branched procedure, with one branch
`
`discussing a highly automated setup process for determining controllable functions
`
`of certain connected appliances and for populating icons within user interfaces
`
`relevant to those connected appliances, and another branch discussing a backwards
`
`compatible setup process for setting up procedures for inferring controllable
`
`functions of older connected appliances and for retrieving user interfaces relevant to
`
`those older devices. Id. The claims of the ’486 patent focus on the former.
`
`In the description of Figure 15, the ’486 Patent explains that “at step 1508 the
`
`setup app may also determine if the appliances has any associated icon information”
`
`and that if an icon is available “[a]n icon corresponding to the icon information may
`
`then be automatically added to the user interface of the smart device whereupon an
`
`activation of the added icon may be used to provide access to command and control
`
`functionalities associated with the corresponding controllable device.” Id. at 14:30-
`
`44. The icons that can be added to a user interface using the icon information
`
`received from the controllable appliance include icons that may function as “soft
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`keys which may be selected to cause the performance of a further action” such as to
`
`“cause transmission of commands.” Id. at 14:55-60.
`
`To ensure that commands determined to be relevant to the controllable
`
`appliance (whether this determination uses data received from the controllable
`
`appliance or data received from an external source according to backwards
`
`compatibility methodologies) are actually executable by the controllable appliance,
`
`those commands are tested at step 1528 using one or more different available
`
`feedback loops whereby the user provides responses to indicate whether the
`
`commands were executed, or the smart device monitors HDMI interface state
`
`changes. Ex. 1001, at 15:55-60 and Ex. 2003, at 52.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’486 Patent.
`
`The application that ultimately issued as the ’486 Patent was filed on October
`
`20, 2017. Ex. 1002, at 0002 and Ex. 2003, at 45. During prosecution, the claims of
`
`the ’486 Patent were amended to emphasize that the data, which “functions to
`
`identify a controllable function of the controllable appliance,” is received from the
`
`controllable appliance itself and that data received from the controllable appliance
`
`is used for adding an icon representative of the controllable function of the
`
`controllable appliance that was identified by the data received from the controllable
`
`appliance. Ex. 1002, at 0238-0244.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`These amendments were made, in part, to distinguish the disclosure of the
`
`Sakai reference cited by the Examiner. Id. at 0242; Ex. 2003, at 55-57 (Dr. Turnbull
`
`reviewed the prosecution history of the ’486 patent with an understanding of the
`
`relevance of anticipation and obviousness-type rejections, as reflected at Ex. 2003,
`
`at 26-29). Sakai discloses certain data being received by a remote control from a
`
`server—not the controllable device, as required by the claims of the ’486 patent. Id.
`
`at 0242-0243, Ex. 2006, at 0055, and Ex. 2003, at 58. Sakai also discloses that
`
`various menus and functional buttons displayed on the graphical user interfaces are
`
`updated based on the “state” of the connected devices. e.g., Ex. 2006, at 0044, 0053,
`
`0063, 0069, and 0092, and Ex. 2003, at 58. While these “state” indications
`
`determined for individual devices included within the home theater system may be
`
`used to determine potentially-relevant icons to display, Sakai provides no indication
`
`that data that functions to identify a controllable function of a controllable device is
`
`ever provided from the controllable device itself. Consequently, Sakai provides no
`
`indication that icons can be added to a user interface to be representative of a
`
`controllable function that was identified by data received from the controllable
`
`function. Ex. 2003, at 57-58. Data identifying a “state” of a connected appliance
`
`does not itself function to identify a controllable function of the connected appliance,
`
`and Sakai does not disclose adding an icon to a user interface that is representative
`
`of a controllable function. Id.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`As Applicant explained during prosecution, the user interface in Sakai is not
`
`determined based on the receipt of data that identifies a controllable function, but is
`
`instead based upon “a state of a device within the system.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Patent Owner noted that “while the function buttons 130 that are caused to be
`
`displayed in the user interface may be used to control various individual functions,
`
`e.g., to control a navigation function (0059), to control a rewind function, a pause
`
`function, a fast forward function, etc.,” the Applicant distinguished Sakai because,
`
`“the controllable device, e.g., the TV, DVD player, radio/amplifier, does not
`
`function to provide to the server unit 330 data indicative of such controllable
`
`functions”. Id. at 0243 (emphasis in original).
`
`Applicant emphasized its argument regarding the “data” by then turning to the
`
`information that is sent in Sakai – the disclosed state of a device in the system:
`
`furthermore, the function buttons 130 are not used to transmit a command to
`
`control the state of the device within the system that was reported
`
`to/determined by the server unit 330, i.e., in Sakai the server unit 330 does not
`
`issue a command to at least the controllable appliance to control at least the
`
`state of the controllable appliance that may have been identified by data
`
`received from the controllable appliance. In short, it is respectfully submitted
`
`that the state data that is used in the system of Sakai is not, and would not be
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be, the claimed data indicative
`
`of a controllable function of a controllable appliance.
`
`Id. In other words, the claimed method requires the automatic addition of an icon
`
`that is representative of the controllable function that was identified by the data
`
`received from the controllable appliance. In Sakai, the received data was “the state
`
`of the device.” Ex. 2003, at 57-58. Therefore, in accordance with the claims of the
`
`’486 patent, the controllable function must be representative of that state, which was
`
`received from the controllable device. Since the state of a device disclosed in Sakai
`
`is different than the controllable functions described in Sakai, that limitation was not
`
`disclosed by Sakai. See id.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner agreed with Applicant regarding
`
`the patentability of the claims over the disclosure of Sakai. Id. at 0535. The
`
`application then issued as the ’486 patent with 9 claims, all of which have been
`
`challenged by the Petitioner. Paper 2, at 1; Ex. 2003, at 53 and 60.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (POSITA).
`
`The Board adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, which was proposed as:
`
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had general knowledge of home theater systems, control of
`
`devices within the home theater systems, and remote control devices,
`
`as well as (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`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.
`
`Paper 7, at 10-11 (citing Pet. (Paper 2) at 16-17).
`
`UEI’s proposal differed from the Petitioner’s definition of the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in terms of the level of experience specifically with home
`
`theater systems. UEI proposed the following definition of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art:
`
`[A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree that involved software design and development
`
`coursework, for example, electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer
`
`science, cognitive
`
`science,
`
`industrial engineering,
`
`information systems, information studies, or a similar degree, and at
`
`least one year of work experience in software programming,
`
`development, or design of consumer applications as of the priority date
`
`of the ’486 Patent. Additional education might substitute for some of
`
`the experience, and substantial experience might substitute for some of
`
`the educational background.
`
`Paper 7, at 11 (citing Prelim. Resp. (Paper 6) at 8-9).
`
`Dr. Turnbull, who has reviewed the ’486 patent as well as additional
`
`documentation relevant to the present proceeding (see Ex. 2003, at 1-7, 20-23, 54),
`
`agreed with UEI’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however the
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`conclusions resulting from his analysis did not change when reviewing the cited
`
`references from the perspective of the level of ordinary skill in the art as proposed
`
`by the Petition and as adopted by the Board. Ex. 2003, at 31-41. Dr. Turnbull’s
`
`qualifications as an expert in software design and architecture render him
`
`particularly knowledgeable in the relevant art. See id. at 8-19.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`The claims are interpreted using the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the Phillips
`
`standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a POSITA when read in the context of the specification and
`
`prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. However, a claim term will not
`
`receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his or her own lexicographer
`
`and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term either in the specification
`
`or prosecution history. Id. at 1316. Similarly, if the intrinsic evidence reveals an
`
`intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor, the inventor has
`
`dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention is regarded as
`
`dispositive. See id.; Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003).
`
`In the decision instituting review of the claims of the ’486 patent, the Board
`
`indicated that UEI’s Preliminary Response “appears implicitly to apply a
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`construction of ‘controllable function’ that requires some specific type of control.”
`
`Paper 7, at 26. Although UEI does not believe that any terms of the ’486 patent
`
`require special claim construction, as the claim terms should all be construed in
`
`accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning, UEI provides a discussion of this
`
`claim term to address this issue raised by the Board.
`
`A.
`
`“data that functions to identify a controllable function”
`
`UEI proposes that this term can generally be understood by its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, such that the data itself identifies functionalities that are executed
`
`by the controllable appliance from which the data is received. See Ex. 2003, at 89.
`
`For example, the “data that functions to identify a controllable function”
`
`encompasses data that itself indicates that a controllable appliance is capable of
`
`ejecting a disk, data specifically indicating that the controllable appliance is capable
`
`of playing media, and/or the like. Id.
`
`This plain and ordinary interpretation of the term “data that functions to
`
`identify a controllable function” is consistent with the specification and prosecution
`
`history of the ’486 patent, which discusses “identifying information” (data
`
`identifying a controllable appliance) and “HDMI interface status” (data identifying
`
`a status of a controllable appliance) separately from controllable functions (e.g.,
`
`channel up, channel down, etc.) Ex. 2003, at 90 and Ex. 1001, at 14:35-59 (compare
`
`Ex. 1001 at 15:31-41; and 15:51-63).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`Claim 1 of the ’486 patent makes three things clear about this term. First, the
`
`data must be received from the controllable appliance. Second, the data is used to
`
`add an icon to the user interface. In particular, the icon must be representative of the
`
`controllable function of the controllable appliance that was identified by the data
`
`received from the controllable appliance. Third, selecting the icon sends a command
`
`to the controllable appliance to control the controllable function identified by the
`
`data. Ex. 2003, at 90. In order to satisfy all three requirements of the claim, the “data
`
`that functions to identify a controllable function” must itself identify functions that
`
`can be executed by the appliance so that icons representative of that controllable
`
`function can be added and later selected to control the appliance.
`
`As Dr. Turnbull explains in his declaration, the ’486 patent’s discussion of
`
`“icon information” and its use is entirely consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term “data that functions to identify a controllable function.” Id. at
`
`89-90. The ’486 patent states that the “icon information” can be provided to a smart
`
`device from a controllable appliance. Ex. 1001, at 14:35-37 and 14:46-59. The icon
`
`information described in the ’486 patent specification may be used to automatically
`
`add an icon to the user interface, and those icons can include icons that function as
`
`soft keys which may be selected to cause transmission of commands. Ex. 2003, at
`
`90.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`The Applicant amended the claims during prosecution of the ’486 patent to
`
`specify that the icon representative of the controllable function of the controllable
`
`device was identified by the data “received from the controllable appliance.” The
`
`Applicant also explained the “controllable function” limitation. These amendments
`
`and remarks were made to distinguish the disclosure of the cited Sakai reference,
`
`which discloses the use of certain state data being utilized to change the appearance
`
`of a user interface. Ex. 1002, at 0242-0243.
`
`In distinguishing Sakai, the Applicant clarified the scope of the claims and the
`
`“controllable function” limitation, explaining that “while the function buttons 130
`
`that are caused to be displayed in the user interface may be used to control various
`
`individual functions, e.g., to control a navigation function (0059), to control a rewind
`
`function, a pause function, a fast forward function, etc.,…the controllable device,
`
`e.g., the TV, DVD player, radio/amplifier, does not function to provide to the server
`
`unit 330 data indicative of such controllable functions.” Id. at 0243 (emphasis in
`
`original). The Applicant thereby drew a direct line between controllable functions
`
`and the data received from the controllable device. Ex. 2003, at 91.
`
`Applicant further emphasized this direct connection between the controllable
`
`function and the data received from the controllable appliance in addressing the
`
`“state” information disclosed in Sakai. Applicant pointed out that the disclosed
`
`“function buttons 130 are not used to transmit a command to control the state of the
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`device within the system that was reported to/determined by the server unit 330, i.e.,
`
`in Sakai the server unit 330 does not issue a command to at least the controllable
`
`appliance to control at least the state of the controllable appliance that may have
`
`been identified by data received from the controllable appliance.” Because the
`
`function buttons of Sakai were not described as controlling the state, which was the
`
`data that was received, the state data of Sakai could not qualify as the data that
`
`functions to identify a controllable feature of the controllable appliance, and the
`
`Examiner agreed. Ex. 2003, at 91-92.
`
`In conclusion, the term “data that functions to identify a controllable function
`
`of the controllable appliance” must be read in light of the claim itself, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. This claim should be construed consistent
`
`with its plain and ordinary meaning such that the data itself identifies a controllable
`
`function of the controllable appliance from which the data is received.
`
`IV. The Cited Ground does not Render any Claims Unpatentable
`
`The Board instituted review on a single ground: Chardon (Ex. 1005) in view
`
`of HDMI v. 1.3a (Ex. 1010).
`
`For the reasons discussed in detail below, including the declaration of Dr.
`
`Turnbull, none of the references in the single cited ground, whether considered alone
`
`or in combination, discloses or teaches each and every element of the challenged
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`claims. Moreover, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the
`
`references in the manner relied upon by the Petitioner.
`
`A. Overview of References Cited by Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Chardon and HDMI v. 1.3a (Paper 2,
`
`at 18). However, neither Chardon nor HDMI v. 1.3a, whether considered alone or in
`
`combination, discloses each and every element of the challenged claims. Moreover,
`
`a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Chardon and HDMI v. 1.3a
`
`in the manner relied upon by the Petitioner.
`
`1. Chardon (Ex. 1005).
`
`The Petitioner asserts that “‘the transmission and receipt of data identifying a
`
`controllable function is part and parcel of the interoperability of the HDMI
`
`medium/protocol,’” and that Chardon expressly relies on such features. Paper 2, at
`
`37 (citing Ex. 1003, at 146). This is an incorrect interpretation of the disclosure of
`
`Chardon.
`
`Chardon generally relates “to remote control devices and more specifically it
`
`relates to a remote control solution for devices, applications and content by
`
`combining a controller with an on-TV user interface that is adaptable to
`
`communicate with and control various devices and/or applications.” Ex. 1005, 1:17-
`
`23 and Ex. 2003, at 61. Chardon discloses a display device that can connect to
`
`playback devices via HDMI. Id. at 3:1-9. Chardon also discloses that a remote
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`control may be configured to communicate with a display device that provides an
`
`on-screen interface that includes icons (see e.g., Ex. 1005, at 7:16-20, 8:27-30, and
`
`FIG. 2). But at most Chardon confirms that certain commands have been executed,
`
`which is consistent with the disclosure of HDMI. Ex. 2003, at 62-64.
`
`Chardon discusses multiple types of graphical user interfaces, each having its
`
`own distinct purpose. First, Chardon discusses a “device selection bar 240” for
`
`“selecting various devices, including devices external to the display device 100. Ex.
`
`1005, at 8:50-53 and Ex. 2003, at 63. Chardon provides nothing more than a brief
`
`suggestion that some information is known about the device (although the source of
`
`that information is not discussed in Chardon) by stating that “in place of one or more
`
`devices, one or more icons may correspond to an input of the display or other device,
`
`for example, if the exact nature of the device is not known.” Ex. 1005, at 9:1-3 and
`
`Ex. 2003, at 65.
`
`Second, Chardon discusses a “control selection bar 340” that includes
`
`“various control icons specific to a selected device.” Ex. 1005, at 10:53-54. Chardon
`
`asserts that the control selection bar 340 can be populated with device-specific
`
`command options. See id. at 9:58-63 and Ex. 2003, at 66. Chardon provides more
`
`detail about how these device-specific commands are populated into the control
`
`selection bar 340 by stating as follows.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`As also shown in FIG. 3, a control selection bar 340 may include
`
`various control icons specific to a selected device, e.g. DVD player 120.
`
`Such icons may be based on predetermined criteria related to the type
`
`of device, and/or may include operations specifically determined for
`
`the device model, manufacturer, etc. For example, the display system
`
`may have pre-loaded commands for commonly used devices,
`
`and/or specific makes and models of devices, and/or may be
`
`configured to receive or access device command information as
`
`needed for detected or input devices. Such updates may be
`
`performed, for example, upon detecting an external device or based on
`
`a user adding an external device to be controlled. The display or other
`
`device may dynamically determine what commands are to be displayed,
`
`as described in more detail below.
`
`Ex. 1005, at 10:53-67 (emphasis added).
`
`Third, Chardon discusses an “activity selection bar 440” that presents “various
`
`predetermined and/or dynamic activity icons representing categories of activities.”
`
`Id. at 12:8-10. Chardon only states that the activity selection bar 440 is “configured
`
`to present various predetermined and/or dynamic activity icons representing
`
`categories of activities.” Id. at 12:8-10 and Ex. 2003, at 67. “These icons may be
`
`dynamically displayed according to, for example, specific devices and/or
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`applications that have been detected or input for control by the display device 100.”
`
`Ex. 1005, at 12:13-15. Chardon does not indicate that these icons are received from
`
`the external devices themselves, as these icons are not device-specific. Instead,
`
`selection of an “activity” icon (such as “Watch TV, “Watch Movie”, or “Listen to
`
`Music”) can result in the transmission of commands to one or more devices, so as to
`
`control settings of the device(s) associated with the activity. For example, “selecting
`
`a ‘Watch Movie’ icon may turn on a movie source device or application, such as a
`
`DVD player, adjust sound setting of the AVR and the like, dim home lighting, and
`
`adjust the brightness of the display device.” Id. at 12:30-33.
`
`Lastly, Chardon discusses an “application selection bar 540” that includes
`
`“various application initiation icons, such as, for example, web browsers, specific
`
`web sites, web streaming services, etc.” Id. at 12:57-60. Chardon does not provide
`
`any indication that these applications are executable by devices other than the
`
`display device itself. See id., at 12:51-13:4. Although these icons are described as
`
`being “tailored based on a type of content being viewed” (Id. at 13:26-28), Chardon
`
`does not describe that the functionalities of the applications are at all dependent on
`
`any device-specific functionalities. Ex. 2003, at 68.
`
`In summary, the icons described in Chardon are preloaded or updated through
`
`communication with a server system embodied as a web page or another “accessible
`
`support service” that is queried based on device identification data such as the type,
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00455
`U.S. Patent 10,325,486
`brand and/or model of the external device. Ex. 1005 at 10:53-67, 14:62-15:6; 15:17-
`
`44 and Ex. 2003, at 64.
`
`Chardon’s discussion regarding data that may be retrieved from an external
`
`device (e.g., a content source device), is limited to automatic receipt of data enabling
`
`t
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
