decoding device/entity may be powered on and the display device/entity may be
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`poweredoff”), [0242], [0246], [0247], FIG. 6.
`
`164. Relan further discloses:
`
`The electronic device may appearto be turnedoff, because the
`
`display device/entity may not be displaying ... any multimedia-
`
`program information. The display circuitry may be powered
`
`off, wherein the electronic device may be adapted to reduce
`
`power consumption.
`
`EX1010, [0242].
`
`165. Fig. 6 of Relan confirms that the display is powered off in the
`
`“HIBERNATEstate/mode”and a “STAND-BYstate/mode”:
`
`64
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 73 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 73 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`poweredoff”), [0242], [0246], [0247], FIG. 6.
`
`164. Relan further discloses:
`
`The electronic device may appearto be turnedoff, because the
`
`display device/entity may not be displaying ... any multimedia-
`
`program information. The display circuitry may be powered
`
`off, wherein the electronic device may be adapted to reduce
`
`power consumption.
`
`EX1010, [0242].
`
`165. Fig. 6 of Relan confirms that the display is powered off in the
`
`“HIBERNATEstate/mode”and a “STAND-BYstate/mode”:
`
`64
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 73 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 73 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`EX1010 at FIG.6 (annotated).
`
`166.
`
`In addition, as discussed for Limitation 1A, Relan’s “power control
`
`processor” is connected to a “power supply,”
`
`99
`
`66
`
`“evaluat[es] the power usage,” and
`
`“ensur[es| that power is not being wasted when the electronic devices are idle or
`
`when an end-useris not present.” EX1010, [0137], [0222], [0223], [0276], FIG. 5A.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have understood that the “power control processor” controls
`
`“entering at least one of a plurality of power-saving modes”(i.e., “the waiting
`
`condition ... is controlled by thefirst controller...”). Id.
`
`167. Accordingly, Tichelaar’s “DuC 90” (“first controller’) (alone or
`
`combined with Relan) discloses the correspondingstructure $1.3. Tichelaar’s “first
`
`controller” is a sub-CPU (“DuC 90”) configured to:
`
`(a) when the “waiting
`
`condition” (“standby mode”) “in which an imageis not displayed after stopping a
`
`supply of the electric powerto the display portion”is in a “first waiting condition”
`
`(Tichelaar’s “low-power standby”/Relan’s “HIBERNATE”) or “second waiting
`
`condition”
`
`(Tichelaar’s
`
`“active
`
`standby’/Relan’s
`
`“STAND-BY”), determine
`
`whetherto place the “waiting condition”into a “first” or “second waiting condition”
`
`(when “screen 85” (“display”) is off, “DuwC 90” determines whether to place the
`
`“audiovisual device” in “active standby” or “low-power standby” or “active
`
`standby’); and (b) place the “waiting condition” into a “first” or “second waiting
`
`condition” according to the determination (the “DuC”initiates the determined “low-
`
`65
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 74 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 74 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`powerstandby”or “active standby”). EX1008, [0045—47]; EX1010, [0137], [0222—
`
`23], [0276], FIG. 5A. Any differences between Tichelaar’s disclosure and the
`
`structure disclosed in the ’507 Patent are insignificant. Further, Tichelaar discloses
`
`performing F1.3 in substantially the same way with substantially the sameresult.
`
`9,
`
`[Limitation 1H] “thefirst controller is controlled to be set in
`operation via supply ofthe electric powerfrom the electronic
`powersource unit thereto, underthefirst or second waiting
`condition”
`
`168. Tichelaar discloses Limitation 1H.
`
`169.
`
`In Tichelaar’s “low-power”or “active” standby modes(“first or second
`
`waiting condition”), Tichelaar’s “DuC 90” (“first controller’) is responsible for
`
`“check[ing]” for valid remote control commandsduring the “standby” modes(“set
`
`in operation ... under the first or second waiting condition’). EX1008, [0005],
`
`[0036], [0046], [0041], [0042].
`
`170. For this purpose, “SMPS 70 standby supply” supplies power to a
`
`separate “standby power supply domain” that
`
`is specifically designated for
`
`“DuC 90” (“supply of the electric power from the electronic power source unit
`
`thereto”). EX1008, [0050], [0059]. Although Tichelaar’s disclosures focus on “low
`
`powerstandby,” a POSITA would have understood Tichelaar to disclose, or at least
`
`render obvious, supplying “DuC 90”with “standby” powerin “active standby.” See
`
`EX1008, ABSTRACT (not limiting “standby” to “low-power” standby), [0047],
`
`[0050], [0057], FIG. 4, [0036], [0044], [0046]. “DuC 90” wouldstill be responsible
`
`66
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 75 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 75 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`for checking for valid remote control signals in that mode. Jd. Indeed, the primary
`
`purpose of “DuC 90”is to delegate this task from the “main micro-controller 88.”
`
`See EX1008, ABSTRACT,[0036], [0059].
`
`171. Fig. 4 support this understanding because it shows “infrared remote
`
`control receiver front-end 144” providing the remote control signal directly to
`
`“Duc [140].” See EX1008at Fig. 4.
`
`172. Relan also discloses Limitation 1H. In “HIBERNATEstate/mode”or
`
`“STAND-BYstate/mode”(i.e., the “first or second waiting condition”), Relan’s
`
`“power control processor”(i.e., the “first controller”) “is controlled to be set in
`
`operation via supply of the electric power from” an “internal power supply
`
`apparatus” and “power distributor” (i.e., an “electronic power source unit’’), as
`
`claimed. EX1010, [0222].
`
`173.
`
`In “HIBERNATEstate/mode”(i.e., a “first waiting condition’’), “all of
`
`the circuits, except the ‘wakeup-related’ circuits may be switchedoff...” EX1010,
`
`[0109], [0247], [0248]. Such “wakeup-related”circuits include the “powercontrol
`
`processor”(i.e., the “first controller’), which is tasked with “evaluating the power
`
`usage and ensuring that poweris not being wasted whenthe electronic devices are
`
`idle...” See EX1010, [0137], [0222], [0223], [0276], FIG. 5A.
`
`174. Similarly, “[i]n the STAND-BYstate/mode,all functions related to the
`
`electronic device may be accessible, except for the display/broadcast functions...”
`
`67
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 76 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 76 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`EX1008, [0246], [0073], [0108], [0242], [0243]. The “power control processor”is
`
`not a “display/broadcast function,” and thus, would not be powered off in “STAND-
`
`BYstate/mode.” See EX1010, [0137], [0222], [0223]. To be sure, the power control
`
`processor’s task of “evaluating power usage” includes evaluating power consumed
`
`during the “STAND-BYstate/mode.” See id. Thus, the “power control processor”
`
`is also powered-on in this mode. Jd.
`
`10.
`
`[Limitation 1I] “the electric power suppliedfrom the power
`source unit is controlled, so as to supply the electric powerto
`the remote control signalreceiving portion, as well as, not to
`supply the electric powerto the secondcontroller including
`the decoder, underthefirst waiting condition, and”
`
`175. Tichelaar discloses or at least renders obvious Limitation 11.
`
`176. As discussed for Limitation 1F, “DuC 90” controls voltage supplied
`
`from SMPS 70, including to “resources” (“the electric power supplied from the
`
`power source unit is controlled’). EX1008 at Claim 1, [0043], [0052], [0058],
`
`[0059], [0061], [0063].
`
`177. As discussed for Limitations 1F and 1H, “infrared remote control
`
`receiver front-end 42” provides “received remote control signals” to “DwC 90” in
`
`both standby modes. EX1008, [0036]. Accordingly, in both “low-power” and
`
`“active standby,” power is supplied from SMPS70 to the “infrared remote control
`
`receiver front-end 144”resource (“the electricpower suppliedfrom thepower source
`
`68
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 77 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 77 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`unit is controlled, so as to supply the electric power to the remote control signal
`
`receivingportion ... underthefirst waiting condition”). EX1008, [0036], [0059].
`
`178. As discussed for Limitations 1F and 1H,
`
`in both standby modes,
`
`“infrared remote control receiver front-end 144” provides “received remote control
`
`signals” to “DuC 90.” EX1008, [0036]. If power was not supplied to the “infrared
`
`remote control receiver front-end 144” in these mode, it would be unable to provide
`
`the signals to the controller. Jd.
`
`179.
`
`In addition, during the “low-powerstandby,” poweris not supplied to
`
`the “main micro-controller 88,” including the decoding functionality (“not to supply
`
`the electric power to the second controller including the decoder, under thefirst
`
`waiting condition’).
`
`180.
`
`In low power standby mode, “only the DuC 90 and a small part of the
`
`DOP83 is powered by SMPS 70 standby supply ... whereasthe rest of the SoC 82
`
`is not powered.” See EX1008, [0050], [0036], [0044], [0046]. Thus, the “main
`
`micro-controller 88” and “decoder” functionality are in the part of the SoC 82 that
`
`is powered off. See EX1008, [0005], [0047], [0049].
`
`181. Similarly, Relan discloses Limitation 1I.
`
`In Relan’s “HIBERNATE
`
`state/mode”(“first waiting condition”), poweris supplied from the “internal power
`
`supply apparatus 516A” and “power distributor 562A”(“power source unit’) to the
`
`“wakeup-related’ circuits” (“remote control signal receiving portion’) and not to
`
`69
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 78 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 78 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`“all” other circuits, including “processor 561” (“secondcontroller’) and “decoding-
`
`related electronic andelectrical circuits” (“decoder”). EX1010, [0221—23], [0248].
`
`182. During the “HIBERNATEstate/mode,” power is supplied to the
`
`““wakeup-related’ circuits.” See EX1010, [0065]. A POSITA would have foundit
`
`obvious that such
`
`ce
`
`“‘wakeup-related’ circuits” could include a remote control
`
`receiver. A POSITA would have been familiar with standard television re-mote
`
`controllers that conventionally provide a “power” button. See EX1010, [0026],
`
`[0049], [0066]. And Relan discloses that in “HIBERNATEstate/mode,” “some
`
`minimal amount of circuitry of the electronic device may re-main on and
`
`operational” and that the electronic device can “emerge from the HI-BERNATE
`
`state/mode” by being “switched on or powered on.” See Relan, [0247]. Such
`
`circuitry would not
`
`require significant power or
`
`re-sources, and a user
`
`conventionally would have expected to be able to “wakeup” a television from a
`
`“HIBERNATEstate/mode”by pressing the “power on” button of a remote control.
`
`Id. The absence of such functionality would have been inconvenientfor a user. Jd.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that certain circuitry would need to
`
`remain operational to receive a “switched on or powered on” command andthat that
`
`circuitry could include “remote control signal receiving” circuitry to receive the
`
`command from a remote control device.
`
`/d.
`
`70
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 79 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 79 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`183. During the “HIBERNATEstate/mode,” power is not supplied to
`
`“processor 561,” including the decoder.
`
`Relan explicitly discloses, “in HI-
`
`BERNATEstate/mode ...
`
`the decoding device/entity may[] be switched off.”
`
`EX1010, [0247], [0073], [0074], [0108], [0109], [0235], [0236], [0242], [0246],
`
`[0247]. In addition, “processor 561” would also be powered off because it controls
`
`decoding and because Relandiscloses that only “some minimal amountofcircuitry
`
`of the electronic device may remain on” during the “HIBERNATEstate/mode,” such
`
`as “quick restore memory consuming only a small amount of power to maintain the
`
`end-user’s last settings and/or preferences.” See EX1010, [0170], [0217], [0218],
`
`[0232], [0236], [0247]. A POSITA would have understood that supplying power to
`
`“processor 561” in not required to maintain a user’s settings in memory, nor does
`
`Relan describe “processor 561”as being used for that purpose. See EX1010, [0170],
`
`[0217], [0218], [0232], [0236], [0247]. Thus,it at least would have been obviousto
`
`a POSTIA that “processor 561” is not powered during the “HIBERNATE
`
`state/mode.” Id.
`
`11.
`
`[Limitation 1J] “the electric power suppliedfrom the power
`source unit is controlled so as to supply the electric power to
`the remote control signalreceiving portion and the second
`controller including the decoder, under the second waiting
`condition”
`
`184. Tichelaar discloses, or renders obvious, Limitation 1J.
`
`71
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 80 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 80 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`185. Again, “DuC 90” controls voltage supplied from SMPS 70 (“the
`
`electric power suppliedfrom the power source unit is controlled”). See Limitation
`
`IF.
`
`186.
`
`In addition, as discussed above,in Tichelaar’s “active standby,” power
`
`is supplied from SMPS 70 to the “remote control receiver front-end 144” (“supply
`
`the electric power to the remote control signal receivingportion ... under the second
`
`waiting condition’). EX1008, [0036], [0059].
`
`187.
`
`In “active standby’—similar to “low-power standby’—the “the TV
`
`should be powered up ... (for example, TV on-key pressed),” if a remote control
`
`command is valid. EX1008, ABSTRACT, [0036], [0059]. For this to happen,
`
`“infrared remote control receiver front-end 144” must be powered on. Jd. At the
`
`very least this would have been obvious to a POSITA. Jd. Indeed, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that “active standby” includes the functionality of “low-power
`
`standby,” including receiving remote control signals, and some “additional tasks.”
`
`See EX1008, [0005], [0045], [0047], [0054].
`
`188. Further, a POSITA would have understood Tichelaar to disclose, or
`
`render obvious, that in “active standby,” power is supplied to the “main micro-
`
`controller 88” and decoder functionality (“supply the electric power to the remote
`
`control signal receiving portion and the second controller including the decoder,
`
`under the second waiting condition”). For example, Tichelaar discloses that, in
`
`72
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 81 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 81 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`“active standby,” the SoC 82 performs “additional tasks,” which would have
`
`required the “main micro-controller 88” and “decoding” functionality to be supplied
`
`with power. See EX1008, [0005], [0045], [0047], [0054]. One such “additional task”
`
`is “software downloads,” which requires the main micro-controller 88’s “resources
`
`for doing loads andstores of code.” EX1008, [0012], [0047], [0049], [0063].
`
`In
`
`contrast, “DuC 90” has only a “minimal set of local re-sources,” inadequate for
`
`performing “software downloads.” EX1008, [0035]. Other such “additional task”
`
`are
`
`“MPEG transport
`
`stream (TS) monitoring,”
`
`“demultiplexing,”
`
`and
`
`“descrambling,” which require the decoding functionality, in addition to the “main
`
`micro-controller 88,” as discussed in Limitation 1B above. EX1008, [0047]; see
`
`EX1017, 1:18-19. Thus, poweris supplied to these componentsin “active standby.”
`
`Id.
`
`189. Similarly, Relan discloses Limitation 1J.
`
`In Relan’s “STAND-BY
`
`state/mode,” the “internal power supply apparatus 516A” and “power distributor
`
`562A” supply powerto”
`
`99 66
`
`“all functions related to the electronic device..., except for
`
`the display/broadcast functions”! (“supply the electric power to the remote control
`
`signal receiving portion and the second controller including the decoder’’).
`
`| The “broadcast” function here refers to audio output from the electronic device.
`
`See EX1010, [0032], [0054].
`
`73
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 82 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 82 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`EX1010, [0246]. During the “STAND-BY state/mode,” power is supplied to the
`
`remote control receiver because “all functions” are accessible, “except for the
`
`display/broadcast functions,” and as discussed above, a user would have expected to
`
`be able to power up a television from a “STAND-BYstate/mode”by pressing a
`
`button on the remote control. See EX1010, [0113] (“The electronic device may...
`
`evaluate the commands, determine appropriate power-saving states/modes to
`
`efficiently perform the commands, enable/disable and initiate the determined
`
`appropriate power-saving states/modes...”), [0024]. Such powered-on functions
`
`include the “processor 561” (“second controller’), “decoding-related electronic and
`
`electrical circuits” (“decoder”), and “wakeup-related’ circuits” (“remote control
`
`signal receiving portion’’).
`
`190.
`
`In Relan’s STAND-BYstate/mode, “Processor 561”is supplied with
`
`power to perform video processing tasks.
`
`/d. Relan discloses that, in STAND-BY
`
`state/mode, an end-user can record a multimedia-program—requiring processing,
`
`decoding and saving the program. EX1010, [0258]. “Processor 561”is involved in
`
`this process. See EX1010, [0170], [0217], [0218], [0232], [0236], [0247]. For
`
`example, “processor 561 ... convey[s] the multimedia-program transmission to [an]
`
`audio/video decoder.” EX1010, [0111], [0218], [0232], [0243].
`
`191.
`
`In addition, Relan explicitly discloses that power is supplied to the
`
`“decoder” in STAND-BYstate/mode:
`
`74
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 83 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 83 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`[I]n the STAND-BY state/mode, the display device/entity may
`
`be powered off and the decoding device/entity may remain
`
`poweredon....
`
`[T]he decoding circuitry may be powered on, wherein the
`
`electronic device may be receiving, decoding, and storing
`
`multimedia-program information for later playback.
`
`EX1010, [0242], [0243], [0246], [0108], [0235]
`
`192. Relan also discloses an example of the decoding functionality in
`
`STAND-BYstate/mode:
`
`[T]he electronic device may HIBERNATE,
`
`(i.e., enter the
`
`HIBER-NATEstate/mode), after receiving and storing/saving a
`
`plurality of end-user commands, for example, record, playback,
`
`etc. The electronic device may remain in the HIBERNATE
`
`state/mode until entering the STAND-BY state/mode,
`
`for
`
`example. Upon entering the STAND-BY state/mode,
`
`the
`
`electronic device may initiate recording of a first selected
`
`multimedia-program. The electronic device may remain in the
`
`STAND-BYstate/mode until completion of recording the first
`
`selected multimedia-program, wherein the electronic device may
`
`once again re-enter the HIBERNATEstate/mode until another
`
`selected program-related event is imminent.
`
`EX1010, [0111].
`
`79
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 84 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 84 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`193. Thus, “multimedia-program recording may be commenced... while the
`
`electronic device is in the STAND-BYstate/mode,” without powering the display.
`
`EX1010, [0111], [0246].
`
`194. Finally, a POSITA would have understood Relan to disclose that, in the
`
`“STAND-BY state/mode,” power
`
`is
`
`supplied to “wakeup-related’ circuits,”
`
`including the remote control receiver. Relan discloses that “all functions,”
`
`99 66
`
`“except
`
`for the display/broadcast functions,” are accessible. EX1010, [0246]. In addition,
`
`Relan discloses evaluating remote control commands while in various powersaving
`
`modes. See EX1010, [0113] (“evaluate the commands[to] ... disable ... power-
`
`saving states/modes...”), [0024].
`
`C.
`
`Claim 2
`
`195. Claim 2 is similar to Claim 1. For example, Claim 2 differs in thatit is
`
`directed to a “display apparatus”,
`
`recites “control circuit{[s]” rather
`
`than
`
`“controller[s],” and “control[ling| parts of the display portion” rather than
`
`“processing ofa received digital broadcasting signal via a decoder.”
`
`196. These differences are immaterial with respect to the prior art, which
`
`discloses them, or at the very least renders them obvious. For example, Tichelaar’s
`
`“micro-controllers” are included on an “integrated circuit (IC)” and are themselves
`
`circuits (“control circuit[s]|”). EX1008, [0001], [0019], [0020], [0022]; see also,
`
`76
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 85 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 85 of 146
`
`
`
`EX1001, 6:6-8. Similarly, Relan’s “processors”are circuits and are integrated into
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`circuits. See EX1010, [0073-74].
`
`197.
`
`In addition, the OS-based controllers were disclosed by the prior art,
`
`and known to POSITAs,“to controlparts ofthe displayportion.” See, e.g., EX1008,
`
`[0004]; EX1016; EX1011, [0005], [0010], [0011], [0013], [0032] (“undera control
`
`of CPU”), [0041-42]. For example, the “WindowsCE”controller, disclosed by
`
`Steinfatt, which is referenced by Tichelaar, controlled a display. Id.
`
`198. Thus, for the same reasons discussed for Claim 1, Tichelaar, in view of
`
`the knowledge of a POSITAand/or Relan, discloses or at least renders obvious every
`
`element of the Claim 2.'”
`
`1.
`
`[Preamble] “A display apparatus, comprising”
`
`199. See Preamble 1, supra.
`
`2.
`
`[Limitation 2A] “a receivingportion, which is configured to
`receive a digital broadcasting signal”
`
`200. See Preamble 1, supra.
`
`To the extent Patent Ownerargues there is a substantial difference between the
`
`“decoder” in Claims 1 and 2, a POSITA would have understood that decoder
`
`functionality conventionally could be handled by a controller and/or dedicated
`
`circuitry. See, e.g., EX1015, 3:60-21; EX1022, 2:24-26.
`
`77
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 86 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 86 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`3.
`
`[Limitation 2B] “a decoder, which is configured to decode the
`digital broadcasting signal received by the receivingportion”
`
`201.
`
`See Limitation 1B, supra, regarding the decoder.
`
`4.
`
`[Limitation 2C] “a display portion, which is configured to
`display an imageusing a signal decoded within the decoder”
`
`202.
`
`See Limitation 1C, supra.
`
`5.
`
`[Limitation 2D] “an electric power source unit which is
`configured to supply predeterminedelectric power”
`
`203.
`
`See Limitation 1D, supra.
`
`6.
`
`[Limitation 2E] “a remote control signal receiving portion,
`which is configured to receive a remote control signalfor
`operating the display portion”
`
`204.
`
`See Limitation 1E, supra.
`
`7.
`
`[Limitation 2F] “a main control circuit, which is configured
`to be started up by a predetermined OSto controlparts ofthe
`display portion”
`
`205.
`
`See Limitation 1B, supra.
`
`8.
`
`[Limitation 2G] “a sub-control circuit, being smaller in
`consumptionofelectric power than the main controlcircuit,
`which is configured to control the electric power supplied
`from the electric power source unit, responsive to the remote
`control signalreceived by the remote control signal receiving
`portion”
`
`206.
`
`See Limitation 1F, supra.
`
`78
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 87 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 87 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`[Limitation 2H] “wherein a waiting condition ofthe display
`apparatus in which an imageis not displayed after stopping a
`supply ofthe electric powerto the display portion,is
`controlled by the sub-controlcircuit, so as to be placeable into
`either ofafirst waiting condition or a second waiting
`condition”
`
`207.
`
`See Limitation 1G, supra.
`
`10.
`
`[Limitation 2I] “the sub-control circuit is controlled to be set
`in operation via supply ofthe electric powerfrom the
`electronic power source unit thereto, underthefirst or second
`waiting condition”
`
`208.
`
`See Limitation 1H, supra.
`
`11.
`
`[Limitation 2J] “the electric power suppliedfrom the power
`source unit is controlled, so as to supply the electric powerto
`the remote control signalreceiving portion, as well as, not to
`supply the electric powerto the decoder and the main control
`circuit, underthefirst waiting condition”
`
`209.
`
`See Limitation 11, supra.
`
`12.
`
`[Limitation 2K] “the electric power suppliedfrom the power
`source unit is controlled so as to supply the electric power to
`the remote control signalreceiving portion, the decoder and
`the main controlcircuit, under the second waiting condition”
`
`210.
`
`See Limitation 1J, supra.
`
`79
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 88 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 88 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`D.
`
`Claim 8 “The display apparatus, as described in the [sic] claim 2,
`comprising: a timer, which is configured to detect a present time,
`wherein underthefirst waiting condition, the apparatusis shifted
`from thefirst waiting condition into the second waiting condition,
`whenthe presenttime detected by the timerlies within a
`predeterminedtime range, and under the second waiting condition,
`the apparatus is shiftedfrom the second waiting condition into the
`first waiting condition, when the present time does not lie within a
`predeterminedtime range”
`
`211. Tichelaar, in view of Relan and the knowledge of a POSITA renders
`
`obvious, claim 8.
`
`212. Relan expressly that the television apparatus includes a “real-time
`
`clock”to “determine a current correct local time/date” (“a timer, which is configured
`
`to detect a present time’). EX1010, [0120-21]. Relan further discloses, “the real-
`
`time clock may also support and be associated with the power-saving
`
`states/modesactive in the electronic device.” Jd. Tichelaar also discloses that the
`
`“audio/visual device” includes both a “timer” and a “real-time clock.” EX1008,e.g.,
`
`[0005], [0008-12].
`
`213. Relan discloses that the system can “autonomously/unilaterally” enter
`
`STAND-BYand HIBERNATEeither based on a detected period of inactivity and/or
`
`at specified dates/times according to a preset schedule.
`
`Jd., [0140-49], [0202],
`
`[0251-70], [280-85], Figs. 6-10.
`
`214.
`
`In one example, the user may schedule a time for the system to record
`
`a program whenthe user will not be home. See EX1010, [0251—70]. Whenthe “the
`
`80
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 89 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 89 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`real-time clock” (“timer”) determines that the scheduled recording time hasarrived
`
`(“when the present time detected by the timer lies within a predetermined time
`
`range”),
`
`the device transitions from HIBERNATE to STAND-BYso that the
`
`program can be recorded (“wherein underthefirst waiting condition, the apparatus
`
`is shifted from the first waiting condition into the second waiting condition’).
`
`EX1010, [0263-64]. When the program concludes (“when the present time does not
`
`lie within a predetermined time range’), the system then shifts the system back into
`
`the HIBERNATE(“the apparatus is shiftedfrom the second waiting condition into
`
`thefirst waiting condition’’). Id.
`
`E.
`
`Claim 9 “The display apparatus, as described in the [sic] claim 8,
`wherein the predetermined time range can be changed in
`accordance with a user’s instruction.”
`
`215. As discussed above, Tichelaar in view of Relan and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA renders obviousclaim 8.
`
`216. With respect to claim 9, Relan further expressly discloses that the
`
`parameters for the system to autonomously transition between HIBERNATEand
`
`STAND-BYare determined according to a user’s interaction (e.g., scheduling the
`
`device to record a program at a specific date/time) with the system (“wherein the
`
`predetermined time range can be changedin accordancewith a user's instruction’’).
`
`EX1010, [0140-49], [0202], [0251-70], [280-85], Figs. 6-10.
`
`81
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 90 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 90 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`F.
`
`Claim 10 “The display apparatus, as describedin the [sic] claim 2,
`comprising: a light emitting element which changes an emitting
`condition thereofdepending on whetherthe display apparatusis in
`thefirst waiting condition or the second waiting condition, and
`wherein the light emitting element makesthe display portion
`distinguishable whetherthe display apparatusis in thefirst waiting
`condition or the second waiting condition.”
`
`217. Tichelaar, in view of the knowledge of a POSITA,discloses, or renders
`
`obvious, Claim 10.
`
`218. Figure 3 of Tichelaar (annotated below) discloses that “DuC 90”
`
`(highlighted in yellow)
`
`includes “PORTS 116” (highlighted in green) which
`
`interfaces with ports 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, and 132:
`
`82
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 91 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 91 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`EX1008, [0057], [0058], FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`219. Tichelaar further discloses, “[a] first output 124 port is used to control
`
`a standby LED”(highlighted pink) (“a light emitting element’).
`
`Id. A POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious that “DuC 90” could control the “standby LED”to
`
`change its condition in the “low-powerstandby” and “active standby” (“changes an
`
`emitting condition thereofdepending on whether the display apparatus isin thefirst
`
`waiting condition or the second waiting condition, and wherein the light emitting
`
`element makesthe display portion distinguishable whether the display apparatus is
`
`in thefirst waiting condition or the second waiting condition”). For example, in the
`
`case of a single color LED, in “low-power standby,” the LED could be off and in
`
`“active standby”it could be illuminated.
`
`220.
`
`In addition, it would have been obviousto locate the “standby LED”in
`
`manner that “make the display portion distinguishable.” Placing LEDs in a
`
`television display apparatus (which is how the °507 Patent describes the LED
`
`placement (see EX1001, 10:59-11:9)) to indicate its power status, includingthe state
`
`of a “standby” mode, had long been known in the art. EX1018, [0028], [0059], FIG.
`
`1. For example, a POSITA would have been aware of Hamakadaet al., assigned to
`
`Sony Corporation, which discloses a television with three LEDs, including a “power
`
`LED 16A,” a “standby LED 16B,” and a “BS [(‘broadcast signal’)] power LED
`
`16C”, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below:
`
`83
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 92 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 92 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`Id.
`
`221. Thus, Tichelaar, in view of the knowledge of a POSITA, renders Claim
`
`10 obvious.
`
`G.
`
`Claim 13 “The display apparatus, as described in the |sic] claim 2,
`wherein when a power button ofthe display apparatusis turned ON
`underthefirst waiting condition or the second waiting condition,
`the sub-controlcircuit controls the electronic power source unit, so
`as to supply the electric powerto the receivingportion and the
`display portion, so as to operate the display apparatus in a normal
`manner”
`
`222. Tichelaar discloses Claim 13.
`
`84
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 93 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 93 of 146
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`223. Tichelaar discloses that
`
`in the “standby” modes (“first waiting
`
`condition or the second waiting condition”), “DwC 90” (“sub-control circuit’’)
`
`“validates autonomously a remote control command ...” and the “TV system is
`
`powered up only when a commandis valid, e.g. remote control channel, standby or
`
`poweron key pressed, keypad on keypressed etc” (“when a power button of the
`
`display apparatus is turned ON... supply the electric powerto the receivingportion
`
`and the display portion, so as to oper
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
