`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2024-00352
`U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 6
`
`III. NOTE ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’174 PATENT ............................................................. 7
`
`A. Overview of the ’174 Patent ................................................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................10
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`“panel” ................................................................................................ 11
`
`B.
`
`“at least one” ...................................................................................... 11
`
`VII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................11
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....12
`
`A.
`
`Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds for Challenge ................. 12
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Woods. ................................................................................................ 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Woods ................................................................. 13
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 60
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 64
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 67
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 69
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 72
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 75
`
`10. Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 77
`
`11. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 78
`
`12. Claims 11-14 ............................................................................ 80
`
`C. Ground 2: Claims 6, 8, and 14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Woods in view of Istvan. ............................................. 80
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Summary of Istvan ................................................................... 80
`
`Reasons to Combine Woods and Istvan .................................. 81
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 85
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 87
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 89
`
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Woods in view of Machida. ............................................................... 90
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Summary of Machida ............................................................... 90
`
`Reasons to Combine Woods and Machida .............................. 92
`
`Claims 1-14 .............................................................................. 95
`
`E.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 6, 8, and 14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Woods in view of Machida and Istvan. ....................... 98
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 14................................................................... 98
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE .................98
`
`A. Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is not appropriate ........ 98
`
`B. Discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate .... 99
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................99
`
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................100
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ....................................................................... 100
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................. 100
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ...................... 100
`
`XII. CLAIM APPENDIX ....................................................................................102
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ....................................................................107
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................108
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex.1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 to Sirpal et al.
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. 9,247,174
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Lippman
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0262938 to Woods et al.
`(“Woods”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0060750 to Istvan et al.
`(“Istvan”)
`
`“CurioView: TV Recommendations Related to Content Being
`Viewed,” Hideki Sumiyoshi, IEEE International Symposium on
`Broadband Multimedia System and Broadcasting 2010
`(“CurioView”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0047920 to Machida et al.
`(“Machida”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0219395 to Moshiri et al.
`(“Moshiri”)
`
`Ex.1010
`
`WO2013133915 to Cherry et al. (“Cherry”)
`
`Ex.1011
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0054794 to Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests
`
`that the Board review and cancel as unpatentable under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) claims 1-14 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174
`
`(“’174 patent,” Ex.1001).
`
`The ’174 patent relates to basic, known television user interface concepts.
`
`For example, the ’174 patent describes and claims an “application panel interface”
`
`that presents different panels (a “first content panel” and a “second content panel”)
`
`based on a directional input.
`
`As shown below and confirmed in the Declaration of Dr. Lippman
`
`(Ex.1003), the concept switching panels as a user navigates a user interface was
`
`already known and would have been obvious to a POSITA. See generally Ex.1003.
`
`The references presented in this Petition render obvious the Challenged Claims,
`
`which should be canceled for unpatentability.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’174 Patent is eligible for IPR, and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`III. NOTE
`
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers. Emphasis in quoted
`
`material has been added.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’174 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’174 Patent
`
`The ’174 patent is directed to an “intelligent television and methods for
`
`displaying content.” Ex.1001, abstract. The ’174 patent describes an “application
`
`panel interface” that includes a “first content panel” to display a first type of
`
`information. In response to directional inputs from a user, the “application panel
`
`interface” displays a “second content panel” that displays a different type of
`
`information. For example, when the “info” item in a navigation bar is highlighted
`
`by an indicator, as shown in the annotated figure below, the application panel
`
`presents a “first content panel” that displays information about the program in the
`
`content area.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`content view area
`
`application panel
`
`navigation bar first content
`panel
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 20C (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶29.
`
`
`
`Then, when the user moves the indicator to the “recommended” item in the
`
`navigation bar, the application panel displays a “second content panel” that
`
`displays recommended programs as shown in the annotated figure below.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`content view area
`
`application panel
`
`navigation bar
`
`second content
`panel
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 21A (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶29.
`
`
`
`However, the concept of presenting the user with an application panel and
`
`navigating a menu bar with directional inputs such that the information in a content
`
`panel within the application panel changes was not new as of the time the ’174
`
`patent was filed. Indeed, the Woods reference—described in detail below—shows
`
`that these claimed concepts were already known. Ex.1003, ¶¶25-30.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’174 patent was filed on August 16, 2013. It claims priority to a series
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`of provisional applications, the earliest of which was filed on August 17, 2012.
`
`In response to a rejection, the Applicant added claim limitations related to
`
`the “application panel interface.” Ex.1002, 188-93, 216-27. The Office then
`
`allowed the case. Ex.1002, 106-09. However, for the reasons explained below, the
`
`concept of an “application panel interface” as well as the other claim limitations of
`
`the ’174 patent were not new as of the time of filing. Ex.1003, ¶¶31-33.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in August of 2012 would
`
`have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the interactive media guide
`
`arts that are pertinent to the ’174 patent. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or Computer Engineering,
`
`or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the
`
`field of television systems and networking, human-computer interaction, or related
`
`technologies. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶¶18-20.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms in IPR are construed according to their “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” to those of skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner submits that, for the purposes
`
`of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`express construction. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner further notes that some claim
`
`terms are provided with explicit definitions in the specification, as outlined below.
`
`The prior art teaches the claim limitations regardless of whether they include the
`
`specific definitions below.
`
`A.
`
`“panel”
`
`Claims, 1-4 and 8-12 each recite the phrase “panel.” The phrasing of
`
`“panel” includes “a user interface displayed in at least a portion of the display.”
`
`Ex.1001, 7:36-44; Ex.1003, ¶¶37-39.
`
`B.
`
`“at least one”
`
`Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 each recite the phrase “at least one.” The phrasing of
`
`“at least one of A, B, and C” includes “A alone, B alone, C alone, A and B
`
`together, A and C together, B and C together, or A, B and C together.” Ex.1001,
`
`4:60-67; Ex.1003, ¶¶40-42.
`
`VII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review and
`
`cancel the Challenged Claims in view of the analysis below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds for Challenge1
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1-14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Woods
`
`6, 8, and 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Woods and Istvan
`
`1-14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Woods and Machida
`
`6, 8, and 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Woods, Machida, and Istvan
`
`#1
`
`#2
`
`#3
`
`#4
`
`
`
`Woods was published on October 14, 2010. Istvan was published on May
`
`23, 2002. Machida was published on March 1, 2007. Woods, Istvan, and Machida
`
`are all prior art under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 For the combination presented herein, Petitioner relies on the teachings, and not
`
`on a physical incorporation of elements. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Woods.
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Woods
`
`Like the ’174 patent, Woods relates to “systems and methods for navigating
`
`a media guidance application with multiple perspective views.” Ex.1005, [0003].
`
`Woods describes an interface that allows a user to navigate a menu bar to change
`
`the type of information being displayed about the content currently showing on the
`
`television. See e.g. Ex.1005, Fig. 10.
`
`For example, when an indicator highlights an item in a menu bar 1010, the
`
`options region 1020 displays a first list of options and items (“first content panel”)
`
`related to the “cast” as shown below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`panels
`
`media region
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`“Media region 1030 may
`provide a display of…
`the currently tuned
`television program”
`Ex.1005, [0174]
`
`menu bar
`
`a “list of options and items” for “CAST”
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶49.
`
`
`
`Then, when the user moves the indicator to a different item such as the
`
`“detailed description” item, the interface displays different options and items
`
`(“second content panel”), as shown below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`panels
`
`media region
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`“In particular, to bring
`the ‘detailed description’
`function into focus, the
`user may press an up
`arrow key three times...
`the list of options or items
`displayed in function
`options region 1020 may
`change to display options
`or items corresponding to
`‘detailed description’
`function indicator.”
`Ex.1005, [0176]
`
`“Media region 1030 may
`provide a display of…
`the currently tuned
`television program”
`Ex.1005, [0174]
`
`menu bar
`
`a “list of options and items” for “DETAILED DESCRIPTION”
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10 (modified/annotated); Ex.1003, ¶50.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Woods describes an interactive television guide that provides
`
`regions 1010/1020 to display information about the program currently being
`
`displayed (in media region 1030). The user may use directional inputs to navigate a
`
`menu bar 1010 to change the type of options and items displayed in the options
`
`region 1020. The following analysis explains in detail how Woods renders obvious
`
`each element of the Challenged Claims. Ex.1003, ¶¶43-51.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] A method for displaying content on a television, comprising:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`First, Woods discloses user equipment 300 which may be, for example, a
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`television set (“television”).
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`“User equipment device 300 of FIG. 3 can be implemented in system 400
`
`of FIG. 4 as user television equipment 402.” Ex.1005, [0056]; see also [0057],
`
`[0058].
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`“television”
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 4 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶54.
`
`
`
`Second, Woods describes “methods” for navigating a media guidance
`
`application, such as an interactive television guide, to “display[] content” on the
`
`television set. See Ex.1005, abstract. Through the television equipment, the user
`
`may “access media content and the media guidance application (and its display
`
`screens described below).” Ex.1005, [0048]. One example of a television display
`
`screen for displaying content is shown below at Figure 10.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`“displaying content on a television”
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶55.
`
`
`
`Woods’ “media guidance application” may be “a television program guide”
`
`for displaying “media content.” Ex.1005, [0034].
`
`Thus, Woods’ disclosure of a method for displaying media content on user
`
`television equipment 300 renders this limitation obvious. Ex.1003, ¶¶52-57.
`
`[1.1] receiving a first input via an input device associated with the television;
`
`First, as discussed at the preamble [1.0], Woods discloses user television
`
`equipment 300 (“the television”).
`
`Second, Woods teaches “an input device” because Woods discloses that
`
`television equipment 300 includes “a user input device.” Ex.1005, [0037]. In the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`context of Figure 3, Woods’ user input device corresponds to “user input
`
`interface 310” that is associated with the user television equipment 300.
`
`“input device”
`
`“television”
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶59.
`
`
`
`Woods discloses that a “user may control the control circuitry 304 using user
`
`input interface 310.” Ex.1005, [0053]. The input interface 310 may receive
`
`commands “through any input means such as a remote controller ... or other
`
`suitable means.” Ex.1005, [0274]. The ’174 patent similarly discloses the “user
`
`providing an input via a remote control or other input device.” Ex.1005, [0053];
`
`Ex.1001, 43:51-53. While Woods describes other input means, this Petition uses
`
`the example in which Woods’ input device is a remote control, with the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`understanding that any other of Woods’ exemplary input means also apply to the
`
`analysis below and correspond to the claimed “input device.” Accordingly, Woods’
`
`user input interface 310 (e.g., a remote control) that is associated with the user
`
`television equipment 300 teaches “an input device associated with the television,”
`
`as claimed.
`
`Second, Woods teaches “receiving a first input” through the input interface
`
`310 because Woods discloses receiving input commands to select a program listing
`
`via the user input interface 310. See Ex.1005, [0053], [0037]. In one example,
`
`“[t]he user may navigate within portions of the media guidance objects to select a
`
`desired program listing corresponding to a media asset. For example, the user
`
`may navigate up/down within program source information region 950 to select a
`
`desired program source.” Ex.1005, [0156]. For example, “the user may first have
`
`selected a program listing corresponding to the media asset ‘Heroes.’” Ex.1005,
`
`[0184].
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`user presses button to select program listing (“first input”)
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 9 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶65.
`
`
`
`The program listing selected from screen 900 corresponds to either a
`
`broadcast program or an on-demand program. Woods discloses that “[i]n some
`
`embodiments, all the program listings displayed in the second perspective view
`
`correspond to media assets that are broadcast during a particular time interval.”
`
`Ex.1005, [0160]. Woods further discloses that “[i]n some implementations, some
`
`of the program listings displayed in the second or third perspective views may
`
`correspond to video-on-demand media assets or previously recorded media
`
`assets.” Ex.1005, [0161].
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`
`Woods provides examples of how a user may select a program listing (e.g.,
`
`broadcast, video-on-demand, or recorded media) via the user input interface 310
`
`(e.g., pressing a button on a remote control). See, e.g., Ex.1005, [0036] (“A user
`
`may indicate a desire to access media information by selecting a selectable option
`
`provided in a display screen (e.g., a menu option, a listings option, an icon, a
`
`hyperlink, etc.) or pressing a dedicated button (e.g., a GUIDE button) on a remote
`
`control or other user input interface or device.”), [0099], [0097]. It would have thus
`
`been obvious to a POSITA for the user to select a program listing (e.g., broadcast
`
`or video-on-demand) from screen 900 by pressing a button on a remote control (of
`
`user input interface 310). Ex.1003, ¶67.
`
`Thus, Woods’ disclosure of receiving a user’s input command to select a
`
`program listing via the user input interface 310 (e.g., by pressing a button on a
`
`remote control), renders this limitation obvious. Ex.1003, ¶¶58-68.
`
`[1.2] in response to the first input, displaying, via the television, an application
`panel interface;
`
`First, as discussed at [1.1], Woods discloses receiving a user’s input
`
`command to select a program listing (“first input”).
`
`Second, Woods discloses that in response to the user selecting a program
`
`listing (“in response to the first input”), the television displays to the user display
`
`screen 1000 with functions menu bar 1010 and function options region 1020 that
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`together teach an “application panel interface.” Ex.1005, [0170]; see also Ex.1005,
`
`[0036] (“A user may indicate a desire to access media information by selecting a
`
`selectable option provided in a display screen…In response to the user's
`
`indication, the media guidance application may provide a display screen with
`
`media information….”).
`
`As shown below in Fig. 10, in response to the user selecting the program
`
`listing corresponding to “Heroes,” (see Ex.1005, [0184]), the television displays
`
`screen 1000 with functions menu bar 1010 and function options region 1020,
`
`which together correspond to “an application panel interface.”
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`“application panel interface”
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶71.
`
`
`
`Functions menu bar 1010 may display of list of indicators of functions
`
`associated with the media asset corresponding to the program listing selected from
`
`screen 900 (FIG. 9) or a media asset selected in accordance with other
`
`embodiments of the invention.” Ex.1005, [0171]. “Function options region 1020
`
`may display a list of options or items relating to the indicator of the function in
`
`focus in functions menu bar 1010.” Ex.1005, [0175].
`
`As noted in the Claim Construction Section, the ’174 patent states that the
`
`term “panel” includes “a user interface displayed in at least a portion of the
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`display.” Ex.1001, 7:36-37. Woods’ regions 1010 and 1020 similarly display a user
`
`interface in a portion of the screen as shown in Figure 10 and therefore correspond
`
`to a “panel.” Regions 1010 and 1020 are a user “interface” because they provide
`
`the user with the ability to interact with the media guidance application through
`
`directional controls, as will be described in further detail below. Moreover,
`
`Woods’ regions 1010 and 1020 are analogous to the description of the “application
`
`panel interface” in the ’174 patent. As explained above in the Overview of the
`
`’174 Patent, the “application panel interface” includes a navigation bar 1604 and
`
`content area 1608, which is analogous to Woods menu bar 1010 and options region
`
`1020 as shown below.
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`“application panel interface”
`
`navigation bar
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`“application panel interface”
`
`content area
`
`menu bar
`
`
`options region
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 16A
`(partial, annotated); Ex.1003, ¶72.
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10
`(partial, annotated); Ex.1003, ¶72.
`
`
`
`Whether the menu bar is horizontal or vertical is an obvious difference.
`
`Ex.1005, [0173] (“menu bar 1010 may be displayed horizontally on the screen
`
`(instead of vertically as shown”). Ex.1003, ¶73.
`
` Thus, Woods discloses that in response to the user’s input command to
`
`select a program listing (e.g., with a remote control), displaying, via the television,
`
`a functions menu bar 1010 and a function options region 1020 corresponding to the
`
`selected program listing, which renders this limitation obvious. Ex.1003, ¶¶69-74.
`
`[1.3] determining content currently being shown on the television;
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`
`
`First, as discussed at the preamble [1.0], Woods discloses user television
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`equipment 300 (“the television”).
`
`Second, Woods teaches “determining content currently being shown”
`
`because Woods discloses that the processing circuitry 306 of the user television
`
`equipment 300 highlights or brings to focus the program guide listing
`
`corresponding to the content currently tuned and displayed on the television.
`
`“When the user first enters screen 900, processing circuitry 306 may highlight or
`
`bring into focus ... the currently tuned program or program being currently
`
`accessed.” Woods further discloses that “The currently tuned or accessed
`
`program may also be displayed behind the program schedule information.”
`
`Ex.1005, [0155]. To do this, the “program schedule information displayed in
`
`screen 900 may be partially transparent such that both the program schedule
`
`information and the currently tuned to or accessed program can be seen
`
`simultaneously.” Id.
`
`Accordingly, Woods’ processing circuity 306 “determine[es] the content
`
`currently being shown on the television” because it highlights or focuses that
`
`content within the program guide of Fig. 9.
`
`Woods’ Figure 9 (although not illustrated as partially transparent) also
`
`indicates that the television has determined that at time 2:20PM the user is “NOW
`
`WATCHING: SHOWTIME DEXTER- THE DAMAGE A MAN CAN DO.”
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`Woods discloses that “[P]rogram schedule information displayed in screen 900
`
`may be partially transparent such that both the program schedule information and
`
`the currently tuned to or accessed program can be seen simultaneously” Ex.1005,
`
`[0155].
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 9 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶78.
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that when a different program is being
`
`watched at a different time, display screen 900 would display differently. Ex.1003,
`
`¶79. For example, the information at the bottom of the screen would show different
`
`program information than what is illustrated in Fig. 9. To illustrate by example,
`
`Woods describes that the user is interested in the show “Heroes.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex.1005, [0184] (“In particular, the user may first have selected a program listing
`
`
`
`28
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`corresponding to the media asset ‘Heroes.’”). In the particular circumstance when
`
`the time is 4:00PM and the user is watching “Heroes,” the information at the
`
`bottom of the screen 900 would indicate, for example, that the user is “NOW
`
`WATCHING: NBC HEROES-VILLANS.”
`
`For reference, modified Figure 9, as shown below to illustrate the scenario
`
`where the program “Heroes,” is currently being watched at 4:00PM.
`
` NOW WATCHING: NBC HEROES-VILLANS
`
` 4:00 PM
`
` “content currently being shown on the television”
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 9 (modified/annotated); Ex.1003, ¶80.
`
`
`
`As noted above, “[w]hen the user first enters screen 900, processing
`
`circuitry 306 may highlight or bring into focus the program listings
`
`corresponding to the currently tuned program or program being currently
`
`
`
`29
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`accessed.” Ex.1005, [0155]. A POSITA would have recognized that in the
`
`circumstance where the user is watching the show Heroes, the processing circuitry
`
`306 would highlight or bring into focus the program listing corresponding to
`
`Heroes when the user enters screen 900. It would have been obvious for Woods’
`
`processing circuitry 306 to “determin[e]” what program is currently tuned and
`
`displayed so that corresponding information about the program may be displayed
`
`at the bottom of the screen and so that the program listing may be highlighted or
`
`brought into focus on screen 900. Ex.1003, ¶81.
`
`Additionally, Woods discloses that the user viewing screen 900 of Figure 9
`
`may select the highlighted program listing to access the interface of Figure 10,
`
`which includes region 1030 that also displays the currently tuned television
`
`program. Ex.1005, [0174] (“Media region 1030 may provide a display of ... the
`
`currently tuned television program”). Ex.1003, ¶82.
`
`Woods’ Figure 10, reproduced below has been modified and annotated to
`
`illustrate that instead of showing an advertisement, it displays the “currently tuned
`
`television program” in media region 1030.
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`“content currently being shown on the television”
`
`“Media region 1030 may
`provide a display of…
`the currently tuned
`television program”
`Ex.1005, [0174]
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 10 (modified/annotated); Ex.1003, ¶82.
`
`
`
`It would have thus been obvious to a POSITA for Woods’ processing
`
`circuitry 306 to “determin[e]” what program is currently watched (e.g.,
`
`simultaneously in Figure 9) so that it may be displayed in media region 1030.
`
`Indeed, Woods’ teaching is consistent with the ’174 patent’s determining teaching.
`
`Ex.1001, 9:50-54 (“The terms ‘determine,’ ‘calculate,’ and ‘compute,’ and
`
`variations thereof, as used herein, are used interchangeably and include any type
`
`of methodology, process, mathematical operation, or technique.”).
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that there were many types of
`
`methodologies to determine the content currently being displayed on the television.
`
`
`
`31
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`One such known methodology would be for the media guidance application to
`
`obtain metadata about the content currently being displayed. See Ex.1007, 2
`
`(“Metadata associated with the content that the viewer is watching is obtained
`
`from the metadata server (2)(3) by using the content ID and playback position
`
`information obtained from the display system (1)”).
`
`Thus, Woods teaches determining the program currently shown on the
`
`television so that it may highlight or bring into focus the program listing
`
`corresponding to the currently tuned program being displayed on the television,
`
`which renders this limitation obvious. Ex.1003, ¶¶75-85.
`
`[1.4.1] identifying at least one of a content source and content information
`
`As a threshold matter, the claim’s recitation of “at least one of” requires
`
`either a “content source” or a “content information” to be identified, but not
`
`necessarily both. See Ex.1001, 4:60-67. Nevertheless, Woods identifies both
`
`“content source” and “content information.”
`
`First, Woods teaches the claimed “content source” by disclosing a “media
`
`content source,” “program source,” and “broadcasters” or “providers” of the
`
`program currently tuned and displayed (shown) on the television. Ex.1005, [0065],
`
`[0036]. “Program source information region 950 may include text (e.g., source
`
`name), icons (e.g., source logo), or any other visual indicator that is unique to a
`
`particular program source that allows the user to associate the program source
`
`
`
`32
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00352 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 9,247,174
`
`
`information with the program source of the programs.” Ex.1005, [0153].
`
`“Information about the current