EXHIBIT 1005
`EXHIBIT 1005
`
`Ex. 1005 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 1 of 81
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 1 of 81
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited
`TTE Technology, Inc. (d/b/a TCL North America)
`TTE Corporation
`TCL Moka International Limited
`TCL Moka Manufacturing S.A. de C.V.
`TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd.
`Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A. de C.V.
`TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd
`Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd.
`TCL Optoelectronics Technology (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.
`TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
`TCL Technology Group Corporation (f/k/a TCL Corp.),
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`Case No. IPR2023-00240
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`________________________
`DECLARATION OF DAVID B. LETT
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,982,803
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 2 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................10
`I.
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................11
`II.
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ............................................................15
`IV. VIDEO/AUDIO PROCESSING OVERVIEW .............................................22
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ...............................................................28
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’803 PATENT ..........................................................30
`A.
`Specification .......................................................................................34
`B.
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................39
`C.
`Prosecution History ...........................................................................39
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................41
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................41
`A.
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0117858 – Boudreau et. al. (Ex. 1003) ............41
`IX. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-18 OF THE ’803 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 IN VIEW OF
`BOUDREAU ET AL. ....................................................................................56
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 .........................................................................57
`a)
`Limitation 1[pre]: “An audio and video synchronizing
`apparatus comprising” ..............................................................57
`Limitation 1[a]: “a video signal processing unit processing a
`video signal that is provided to a display device of video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................57
`Limitation 1[b]: “an audio signal processing unit processing
`an audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the
`video processing equipment, the audio signal synchronized
`with the video signal;” ..............................................................58
`i
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 3 of 81
`
`

`

`i)
`
`j)
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`Limitation 1[c]: “a switching unit selecting paths for the
`video signal that is input to the video signal processing unit
`and the audio signal that is input to the audio signal
`processing unit, and selecting at least an audio signal for
`output to an external device that is not part of the video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................60
`Limitation 1[d]: “an outputting unit outputting the selected
`at least an audio signal to the external device; and” .................60
`Limitation 1[e]: “an output selecting unit controlling the
`switching unit according to a kind of the external device,
`wherein the switching unit is controlled to select a first
`audio signal that bypasses the audio signal that is input to
`the audio signal processing unit as the at least an audio
`signal for output to the external device or to select a second
`audio signal output from the audio signal processing unit as
`the at least an audio signal for output to the outputting unit.” ..61
`Claim 2: “The apparatus according to claim 1, further
`comprising a detector detecting the kind of the external device
`connected to the outputting unit.” .......................................................65
`Claim 3: " The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the
`kind of the external device connected to the outputting unit is
`either an audio/video device or an audio device." ..............................65
`Claim 4: “The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the
`switching unit is controlled to select the second audio signal
`when it is determined that the external device connected to the
`outputting unit is the audio.” ...............................................................66
`Claim 5: “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the kind
`of the external device connected to the outputting unit is
`determined according to whether the external device is
`connected to a video output port or an audio output port.”.................66
`Independent Claim 6 .........................................................................67
`
`d)
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 4 of 81
`
`

`

`a)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`b)
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`Limitation 1[pre]: “An audio and video synchronizing
`apparatus comprising” ..............................................................67
`Limitation 6[a]: “a video signal processing unit processing a
`video signal that is provided to a display device of video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................67
`Limitation 6[b]: “an audio signal processing unit processing
`an audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the
`video processing equipment, the audio signal synchronized
`with the video signal; and” .......................................................67
`Limitation 6[c]: “an output selecting unit selecting an audio
`signal that is output to an external device that is not part of
`the video processing equipment,” .............................................67
`Limitation Claim 6[d]: “wherein the output selecting unit
`selects a first audio signal that bypasses the audio signal
`that is input to the audio signal processing unit as the audio
`signal that is output to the external device or selects a
`second audio signal output from the audio signal processing
`unit as the audio signal that is output to the external
`device.”......................................................................................67
`Independent Claim 7 .........................................................................68
`a)
`Limitation 7[pre]: “An audio and video synchronizing
`apparatus comprising:” .............................................................68
`Limitation 7[a], “a video signal processing unit processing a
`video signal that is provided to a display device of video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................68
`Limitation 7[b], “an audio signal processing unit outputting
`an audio signal that is synchronized with the video signal;
`and” 68
`Limitation 7[c], “an audio output selecting unit selecting an
`audio signal that is output to an external device that is not
`part of the video processing equipment,” .................................68
`
`G.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 5 of 81
`
`

`

`e)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`Limitation 7[d], “wherein the audio output selecting unit
`selects an audio signal that bypasses the audio signal that is
`input to the audio signal processing unit or selects an audio
`signal output from the audio signal processing unit that is
`synchronized with the video signal as the audio signal that
`is output to the external device.”...............................................69
`Independent Claim 8 .........................................................................69
`a)
`Limitation 8[pre]: “An audio and video synchronizing
`apparatus comprising:” .............................................................69
`Limitation 8[a]: “a video signal processing unit processing a
`video signal that is provided to a display device of video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................69
`Limitation 8[b]: “an audio signal processing unit processing
`an audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the
`video processing equipment, the audio signal synchronized
`with the video signal;” ..............................................................69
`Limitation 8[c], “an outputting unit outputting at least an
`audio signal to an external device that is not part of the
`video processing equipment; and” ............................................70
`Limitation 8[d]: “an output selecting unit controlling the
`outputting unit according to a kind of the external device,
`wherein the output selecting unit controls the outputting
`unit to select a first audio signal that bypasses the audio
`signal that is input to the audio signal processing unit as the
`at lease an audio signal output to the external device or to
`select a second audio signal output from the audio signal
`processing unit as the at least an audio signal output to the
`external device.” ........................................................................70
`Independent Claim 9 .........................................................................70
`a)
`Limitation 9[pre], “An audio and video synchronizing
`apparatus comprising:” .............................................................70
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`iv
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 6 of 81
`
`

`

`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`b)
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`Limitation 9[a]: “a video signal processing unit processing a
`video signal that is provided to a display device of video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................70
`Limitation 9[b]: “an audio signal processing unit processing
`an audio signal that is provided to an audio device of the
`video processing equipment, the audio signal synchronized
`with the video signal;” ..............................................................71
`Limitation 9[c], “an outputting unit outputting at least an
`audio signal to an external device that is not part of the
`video processing equipment;” ...................................................71
`Limitation 9[d]: “a detecting unit detecting a kind of the
`external device;” .......................................................................71
`Limitation 9[e]: “an output selecting unit controlling the
`outputting unit according to the detected kind of the
`external device, wherein the output selecting unit controls
`the outputting unit to select a first audio signal that bypasses
`the audio signal that is input to the audio signal processing
`unit as the at least an audio signal output to the external
`device or to select a second audio signal output from the
`audio signal processing unit as the at least an audio signal
`output to the external device.” ..................................................71
`Independent Claim 10 .......................................................................72
`a)
`Limitation 10[pre]: “A method of controlling audio and
`video output comprising:” .........................................................72
`Limitation 10[a]: “determining a kind of an external device
`that is not part of the video processing equipment and is
`connected to an output port of video processing
`equipment;” ...............................................................................72
`Limitation 10[b]: “selecting an audio signal according to a
`result of the determination and outputting the selected audio
`signal to the external device,” ...................................................72
`
`J.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 7 of 81
`
`

`

`d)
`
`L.
`
`N.
`
`K.
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`Limitation 10[c]: “wherein the selected audio signal is
`either a first audio signal that bypasses an audio signal that
`is input to an audio signal processing unit that synchronizes
`the audio signal with a video signal that is provided to a
`display device of the video processing equipment or a
`second audio signal output from the audio signal processing
`unit.” 72
`Claim 11: “The method according to claim 10, determining the
`kind of the external device comprises determining whether the
`external device connected to the output port is an audio device.” ......73
`Claim 12: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the
`second audio signal is an audio signal that is provided to a
`speaker of the video processing equipment and synchronized
`with the video signal.” .........................................................................73
`M. Claim 13: “The method according to claim 10, wherein
`selecting the audio signal and outputting the selected audio
`signal to the external device is performed automatically
`according to a result of the determination.” ........................................73
`Claim 14: “The method according to claim 10, wherein
`selecting the audio signal and outputting the selected audio
`signal to the external device is performed according to a user's
`output mode setting.” ..........................................................................74
`Claim 15: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the
`audio signal that is synchronized with the video signal is
`delayed according to a video signal processing path.” .......................74
`Independent Claim 16 .......................................................................75
`a)
`Limitation 16[pre]: “A method of controlling audio and
`video output comprising:” .........................................................75
`Limitation 16[a]: “selecting an output mode of video
`processing equipment;” .............................................................76
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`b)
`
`vi
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 8 of 81
`
`

`

`c)
`
`d)
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`Limitation 16[b]: “selecting an audio signal according to the
`selected output mode for output to an external audio device
`that is not part of the video processing equipment;” ................77
`Limitation 16[c], “outputting the selected audio signal to
`the external audio device, wherein the selected audio signal
`is either a first audio signal that bypasses an audio signal
`that is input to an audio device of the video processing
`equipment that synchronizes the audio signal with a video
`signal that is provided to a display device of the video
`processing equipment or a second audio signal output from
`the audio device.” ......................................................................77
`Claim 17: “The method according to claim 16, further wherein
`the second audio signal is an audio signal that is provided to a
`speaker of the video processing equipment and synchronized
`with the video signal.” .........................................................................78
`Claim 18: “The method according to claim 16, wherein the
`audio signal that is synchronized with the video signal is
`delayed according to a video signal processing path.” .......................78
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................78
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`X.
`
`vii
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 9 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803 (“the ’803 Patent”)
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0117858 (Boudreau et. al.)
`
`Jack, “Video Demystified, A Handbook for the Digital
`Engineer,” Elsevier Inc. (2005)
`
`Declaration of David B. Lett in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review
`
`Curriculum Vitae of David B. Lett
`
`FINTIV Stipulation
`
`Docket Control Order
`
`Average Time to Trial
`
`LGE v. TCL - Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`Infringement Contentions
`
`Non Final Office Action filed September 3, 2009
`
`Amendment filed October 13, 2009
`
`Non Final Office Action filed January 6, 2010
`
`Amendment filed April 5, 2010
`
`Final Office Action filed July 12, 2010
`
`Amendment filed October 11, 2010
`
`Non Final Office Action filed November 15, 2010
`
`viii
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 10 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1019
`
`Amendment filed March 15, 2011
`
`ix
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 11 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`
`I, David B. Lett, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is David B. Lett, and I have been retained on behalf of TCL
`
`Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited, TCL
`
`Electronics Holdings Ltd., TTE Corporation, TTE Technology Inc., TCL Overseas
`
`Marketing Limited, Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A. de C.V., TTE Technology Inc.,
`
`TCL Overseas Marketing Limited, Manufacturas Avanzadas, TCL King Electrical
`
`Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd., TCL
`
`Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., and TCL Optoelectronics Technology
`
`(Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “TCL companies”) to offer technical
`
`opinions relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803 (the “’803 patent”) and prior art
`
`references relating to its subject matter. My experience with audio and video
`
`technologies provides me with an understanding of the subject matter described
`
`and claimed in the ’803 patent.
`
`2. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education, experience,
`
`and expertise in the fields relating to the ’803 patent. Any figures that appear
`
`within this document have been prepared with the assistance of Counsel and reflect
`
`my understanding of the ’803 patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 12 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`3. I have no financial interest in the party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or the
`
`content of my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4. I am a technical consultant and product development industry veteran
`
`with expertise in electronics, software, hardware, video, audio, and data
`
`communications, having led product development organizations in cable, satellite,
`
`consumer electronics, asset tracking, remote tank logistics, and alarm industries.
`
`My current curriculum vitae is attached as Ex. 1006 and some highlights follow.
`
`5. I earned my B.S. in Electrical Engineering (1982) with high honors from
`
`the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee. I also attended the Georgia
`
`Institute of Technology from 1986 to 1987, completing 40% of the required degree
`
`hours for the M.S. Electrical Engineering program,
`
`6. From 1982 to 1985, I worked at Scientific Atlanta as an Electrical
`
`Engineer designing video, audio, and data communications equipment for the cable
`
`television industry. I designed software and hardware including addressable data
`
`transmitters, video sync suppression scramblers, transaction format converters, and
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 13 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`data channel monitors for addressable Cable Television systems and Set Top
`
`Boxes.
`
`7. From 1983 to 1985, while working at Scientific Atlanta, I also worked as
`
`an Assistant Professor at Devry Institute of Technology, teaching courses in
`
`electronics and microprocessor hardware/software.
`
`8. From 1985 to 1990, I worked at Wegener Communications as a Senior
`
`Electrical Engineer, designing satellite communications equipment including
`
`forward error correction (FEC) coding systems, PSK modems, and analog control
`
`systems for RF modulators and PSK demodulators. I was promoted to the
`
`Hardware Engineering Manager, where I managed product development of video,
`
`audio, and data satellite receivers, modulators, graphics display systems, DSP-
`
`based audio compandors, FSK and PSK satellite modems, multiplexers, forward
`
`error correction (FEC) codecs, RF upconverters and downconverters, and baseband
`
`analog and digital processing components.
`
`9. In 1990, I returned to Scientific Atlanta, which was acquired by Cisco in
`
`2006. I worked as Engineering Manager running the set top box engineering group
`
`where I was promoted to Director and Vice President during my tenure until 2011.
`
`I led the design of many cable set top boxes and systems through the evolution of
`
`analog video, addressability, downloadable software, electronic program guides,
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 14 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`digital video, software applications, high-definition TV, DVR, DOCSIS, full
`
`spectrum tuners, and multiroom DVR. These systems implemented various
`
`technologies including multiple video/audio input/output interfaces and
`
`synchronization, DOCSIS 1/2/3 and hybrid gateways, 802.11, IPTV, DVR, cable
`
`modems, ADSL, VDSL, DVB-T/C/S, bootloaders, factory diagnostics, application
`
`frameworks, Nagra, DRMs, conditional access, secure microprocessors, device
`
`management, Android, Adobe Flash, Linux, DVD play/record, MPEG-4, MPEG-2,
`
`H.264, NTSC, PAL, DAVIC, MoCA, high-performance CPUs, cablecards,
`
`network processors, HDMI, 2D/3D graphics, multiple RF tuners, and full spectrum
`
`tuners.
`
`10. From 2011 to 2016, I worked for EchoStar Technologies, which served
`
`as the product development organization for sister company DISH Network. I
`
`served as Vice President of Engineering and was the Head of the Atlanta research
`
`and development center. I led the development of satellite set top boxes, consumer
`
`electronic equipment, and a home automation and security system. Technologies
`
`used included video/audio interfaces and synchronization, IoT, H.265, HEVC, 3D,
`
`Satellite, wireless, MoCA, transcoding, embedded C Linux applications, mobile
`
`applications (IOS and Android), SaaS, web applications (Javascript, HTML),
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 15 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`BSS/OSS, AWS cloud storage, 2-way video/audio streaming, authentication, and
`
`VoIP.
`
`11. In 2016, I started an independent consulting business in technology and
`
`intellectual property projects. I have consulted in various technology areas and
`
`industries including consumer electronics, cable, satellite, television, and
`
`cryptocurrency.
`
`12. From 2019 to 2022, I worked as Chief Technology Officer for Telular,
`
`an Ametek company. I was responsible for the development of Industrial IoT
`
`(IoT) recurring revenue solutions, combining wireless technologies, purpose-built
`
`hardware, and SaaS in the commercial telematics, security and home automation
`
`markets and sold under the SkyBitz and Telguard Brands.
`
`13. My record of professional service includes awards on products I
`
`designed and developed from several organizations in my field of expertise,
`
`including Best of Show, Technology Emmy, and Best of Innovations.
`
`14. I am a named inventor on 36 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications corresponding to the areas of my professional work. The patents and
`
`published applications involving video and audio technologies include:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,615,139 titled “Determining Device That Performs
`Processing of Output Pictures”
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 16 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,882,736 titled “Remote Sound Generation for a
`Home Automation System”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,549,567 titled “Media Content Sharing Over a
`Home Network”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,161,388 titled “Interactive discovery of display
`device characteristics”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,908,625 titled “Networked Multimedia System”
`
` U.S. Patent Nos. 7,861,272 and 7,849,486 titled “Networked
`subscriber television distribution”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,715,515 titled “Method and apparatus for
`downloading on-screen graphics and captions to a television terminal”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,592,551 titled “Method and apparatus for providing
`interactive electronic programming guide”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,539,822 titled “System and Method for Subscriber
`Interactivity in a Television System”
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,357,276 titled “Method of Providing Video On
`Demand with VCR Like Functions”
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2004/0068753 and
`2008/0072272 titled “Video Transmission Systems and Methods for a
`Home Network”
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133911 titled
`“Subscriber Network in a Satellite System”
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 17 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`15. I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, Petitioners’
`
`counsel has informed me about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my
`
`analysis and conclusions. My understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`16. I understand that in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, a patent is
`
`not presumed valid and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will evaluate the
`
`validity of the challenged claims under a preponderance of evidence standard. A
`
`preponderance standard is met when, considering the evidence presented, it is more
`
`likely than not a challenged claim is invalid.
`
`17. A patent claim is invalid if it is “anticipated” by prior art. For a claim to
`
`be invalid because it is anticipated, all of its requirements must have existed in a
`
`single device or method that predates the claimed invention or must have been
`
`described in a single publication or patent, either expressly, inherently, or
`
`implicitly, that predates the claimed invention.
`
`18. The description in a written prior art reference does not have to be in the
`
`same words as the claim, but all the requirements of the claim must be there, either
`
`stated, necessarily implied (i.e., inherent), or implied, so that someone of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, looking at that one reference, would have been able to make and use
`
`the claimed invention based on the reference.
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 18 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`19. A patent claim is also anticipated if more than one year before the filing
`
`date of the patent, the claimed invention was patented anywhere in the world or
`
`described in a printed publication anywhere in the world.
`
`20. A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
`
`This means that even if all the requirements of a claim cannot be found in a single
`
`prior art reference that would anticipate the claim or constitute a statutory bar to
`
`that claim, the claim is invalid if it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of the alleged invention. That is, the claim is obvious if
`
`the person of ordinary skill would adapt the reference to meet the claim by
`
`applying known concepts to achieve expected results.
`
`21. The determination of whether a claim is obvious should be based upon
`
`several factors, including:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art that someone would have had at
`
`the time of the claimed invention;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 19 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`22. In considering the question of obviousness, it is also appropriate to
`
`consider any objective indicia (or secondary considerations) of obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness that may be shown. These include:
`
` whether a product that practices the claimed invention has achieved
`
`commercial success, to the extent any such success is due to the
`
`merits of the claimed invention;
`
` whether a long-felt need existed in the prior art for the solution
`
`provided by the claimed invention;
`
` whether there were unsuccessful attempts by others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention;
`
` whether there was copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
` whether there were unexpected and/or superior results from the
`
`claimed invention;
`
` whether there was acceptance by others of the claimed invention as
`
`shown by praise from others in the field or from the licensing of the
`
`claimed invention; and
`
` whether there was independent invention of the claimed invention by
`
`others before or at about the same time the named inventor conceived
`
`of it.
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1005 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 20 of 81
`
`

`

`Declaration of David B. Lett
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`23. I further have been informed and understand that a “nexus” must exist
`
`between the claimed invention and the alleged commercial success. In other words,
`
`proof of commercial success of a product that practices the claimed invention is
`
`not enough; there must be evidence that the commercial success resulted, at least in
`
`meaningful part, from the claimed invention.
`
`24. I have been informed and understand a patent claim composed of several
`
`elements is not obvious merely because each of its elements was independently
`
`known in the prior art. In evaluating whether such a claim would have been
`
`obvious, it is relevant to consider if there would have been a reason that would
`
`have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements
`
`or concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention. For
`
`example, market forces or other design incentives may be what produced a change,