UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,510,040
`
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW LIPPMAN,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 1 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 5
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`The ’040 Patent .............................................................................................. 11
`
`A. Overview of the ’040 Patent ................................................................ 11
`
`B.
`
`File History of the ’040 Patent ............................................................ 15
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`“at least one” ....................................................................................... 16
`
`VII.
`
`Identification of how the Claims are Unpatentable ....................................... 18
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 21 are obvious over Kim in view of
`Lee-1 and Choi. ................................................................................... 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Kim ..................................................................... 19
`
`Summary of Lee-1 ................................................................... 23
`
`Summary of Choi ..................................................................... 24
`
`Reasons to Combine Kim and Lee-1 ....................................... 25
`
`Reasons to Combine Choi and Kim ........................................ 26
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 28
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 91
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 97
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 98
`
`10.
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................... 114
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 2 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 118
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 121
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. 122
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................. 123
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. 123
`
`Claim 21 ................................................................................. 124
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2-3, 6, 12-13, 16, and 22 are obvious over Kim in
`view of Lee-1, Choi, and Lee-2......................................................... 128
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Lee-2 ................................................................. 128
`
`Reasons to Combine Kim and Lee-2 ..................................... 132
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................... 133
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................... 141
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................... 142
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 153
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. 154
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. 154
`
`Claim 22 ................................................................................. 155
`
`VIII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 156
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 3 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`
`
`I, Andrew Lippman, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of LG Electronics, Inc. in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,510,040 (“the ’040
`
`patent”) to Selim et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`6, 11-16, and 21-22 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’040 patent are unpatentable
`
`as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my
`
`opinion that all of the elements of the Challenged Claims would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`a.
`b.
`
`Ex.1002;
`c.
`d.
`
`
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ’040 patent, Ex.1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’040 patent (“’040 File History”),
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0054794 to Kim et al. (“Kim”), Ex.1005;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,008,190 to Lee et al. (“Lee-1”), Ex.1006;
`
`4
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 4 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`e.
`f.
`g.
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0057764 to Choi et al. (“Choi”), Ex.1007;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,398,339 to Lee et al. (“Lee-2”), Ex.1010; and
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0176415, Ex.1011.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered: the
`
`documents listed above; the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness; and my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the
`
`field of televisions as described below, and any additional authoritative documents
`
`as cited in the body of this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`7. My qualifications and professional experience are described in my
`
`Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1004. The following is
`
`a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`8.
`
`I earned my undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT
`
`in 1971. I earned a Master of Science degree in Computer Graphics from MIT in
`
`1978. I earned a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the École Polytechnique
`
`Fédérale de Lausanne (Switzerland) in 1995. My thesis was on scalable video, a
`
`technique for representing visual data in a fluid and variable networking and
`
`processing environment, similar to what we call streaming today.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Massachusetts
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 5 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and Associate Director of the MIT Media
`
`Laboratory, an approximately $80 million per year research and teaching facility at
`
`MIT, which I helped establish in the early 1980s.
`
`10. At MIT, I have supervised over 50 Masters and Ph.D. theses in the
`
`Media Arts and Sciences program and have taught courses such as Digital Video
`
`and MIT’s freshman physics seminar. Through the course of my career, I have
`
`directed and served as principal investigator of research projects supported by the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office of Naval
`
`Research (ONR), The National Science Foundation (NSF), and over 50 industrial
`
`companies. I have never precisely calculated my net research volume, but it is in
`
`excess of $50 million.
`
`11.
`
`I am named as an inventor on six patents in the area of video and
`
`digital processing and have served on the advisory boards for technology
`
`companies in fields ranging from video conferencing to music analysis. I have
`
`authored or coauthored over 65 published papers in the fields of interactivity,
`
`communications, video coding, and television. I served on the editorial board of
`
`the Image Communication Journal between 1989 and 2003. I have served as an
`
`expert witness in patent cases since 2001, addressing diverse features of interactive
`
`television, electronic program guides, and user interaction.
`
`12.
`
`I have worked generally on video interaction systems since the 1970s.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 6 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`In the early 1970s, I developed font representations that permitted high quality
`
`display of text on standard broadcast television receivers. In 1978, I directed a
`
`DARPA-funded project called the “Movie-Map” that used computing and optical
`
`video and image storage to create an “experiential map” that featured “surrogate
`
`travel,” the ability to recreate the visual experience of traveling through a real
`
`place, a city. This is similar to Google’s Street-View and mapping systems.
`
`13.
`
`In the 1980s, I was principal investigator of Office of Naval Research
`
`funded programs in video and graphics computer systems for interactive learning
`
`dedicated to maintenance and repair. I also developed networked video
`
`communications systems that included scripting languages for specifying
`
`audiovisual content and representing it on various monitoring terminals.
`
`14.
`
`In 1991, I created the “Media Bank” program at MIT, the purpose of
`
`which was to allow a diverse set of networked devices to access appropriate forms
`
`of content for which they had the bandwidth and processing power to display. This
`
`entailed maintaining state information about terminal devices at a server and using
`
`that to determine the best representation of the audiovisual material to deliver to
`
`them. In addition, it included and developed cryptographic distribution methods
`
`that ensured secure delivery of information on the network. Related to this work, I
`
`also supervised Masters theses on networked distribution of video and coding
`
`specifically for diverse uses on the Internet. My colleagues and I created
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 7 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`
`
`demonstrations of interactive television systems for news that combined the
`
`evening newscast with additional data from print sources so the viewer could learn
`
`more about the story than was available in the live broadcast.
`
`15. Also in 1991, I created the Television of Tomorrow program at MIT.
`
`This program addressed the digital representation and delivery of video at diverse
`
`scales and through diverse networks. This program built on work on scalable
`
`representations of images that were standards-independent and interactive.
`
`16.
`
`In 1993, I was invited to be a member of Robert Kahn’s “Cross
`
`Industry Working Group” the goal of which was to develop the ideas for a
`
`National Information Infrastructure. At DARPA, Kahn had initiated the research to
`
`develop the Arpanet and the Internet. Throughout this period, my students and I
`
`worked on distributed interactive systems for consumer use (television, electronic
`
`newspapers, learning) including the basic technology of the network and the client-
`
`server interactions.
`
`17.
`
`I was a member of the Motion Picture Experts Groups, an ISO
`
`standards committee effort that defined the standards for common distribution of
`
`“MP3” music and storage and distribution of “MPEG Video.” I co-wrote the paper
`
`defining the requirements for the MPEG-2 standard with Okubo and McCann in
`
`1995. MPEG standards remain the predominant encoding for distribution of digital
`
`video to this day. I was also the principal investigator on industry-funded programs
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 8 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`addressing digital motion pictures — the “Movies of the Future” program at MIT,
`
`
`
`and high definition television, “Television of Tomorrow.” At MIT, I created the
`
`“Digital Life” consortium, the purpose of which was to explore and develop ideas
`
`relevant to an Internet-connected society.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the
`
`’040 patent, as of its earliest possible filing date of August 17, 2012, would have
`
`been someone knowledgeable about and familiar with the television display
`
`technology that is pertinent to the ’040 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 work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 9 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the priority
`
`date of the ’040 patent. Unless otherwise stated, when I provide my understanding
`
`and analysis below, it is consistent with the level of a POSITA prior to the priority
`
`date of the ’040 patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`21.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’040 patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’040 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’040 patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I am
`
`applying August 17, 2012 as the earliest possible priority date of the ’040 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 10 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. THE ’040 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’040 Patent
`
`25. The ’040 patent is directed to “methods and systems of displaying
`
`content on a television.” ’040 patent, abstract. The ’040 patent states that “[t]here
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 11 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`is a need for an Intelligent TV with intuitive user interfaces and with seamless user
`
`
`
`interaction capability.” ’040 patent, 2:30-31. The purported solution to this need is
`
`a user interface that provides a panel listing several content sources represented by
`
`icons and text from which a user may select. With reference to Figure 15C,
`
`reproduced below, “[t]he global panel 1404 may include one or more sources
`
`represented by icons and text, or shortcuts, 1504A-E.” Ex.1001, 30:27-28. “[E]ach
`
`icon and text 1504A-E may be associated with one or more sources of content.”
`
`Ex.1001, 30:30-32.
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 15C (annotated).
`
`
`26.
`
`In the above figure, the global panel 1404 includes icon and text
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 12 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`1504A “associated with Live TV application 452” representing a “live television
`
`
`
`source,” icon and text 1504B “associated with video on demand 456” representing
`
`a “video on demand source,” icon and text 1504C “associated with media center
`
`application 460” representing a “media center source,” icon and text 1504D
`
`“associated with application center application 464” representing an “applications
`
`source,” and icon and text 1504E “associated with one or more sources of content,
`
`either internal or external” representing an “electrical input associated with the
`
`television.” Ex.1001, 30:32-39.
`
`27. The global panel 1404 includes information related to content, such as
`
`“information related to a displayed image and/or content (e.g., title, date/time,
`
`audio/visual indicator, rating, and genre).” ’040 patent, 25:41-44; see also ’040
`
`patent, 27: 29-31 (“suitable information about the content (such as name, duration,
`
`and/or remaining viewing duration of content).”); Ex.1001, 30:57-64 (“for Live TV
`
`a program name and/or current program playing may be displayed; for on demand
`
`a name of the media and/or media that is currently on VOD may be displayed; for
`
`media center, a name of the media and/or media that is currently on, and/or names
`
`of videos or albums may be displayed; for application center, a name of the
`
`application and/or the application that is currently playing may be displayed; and
`
`for inputs, custom names may be displayed.”)
`
`28. The “global panel” may also highlight a source with an indicator upon
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 13 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`a user selection and/or indication. For example, the global panel 1404 may use an
`
`indicator 1512 comprising a box positioned around the icon and text 1504B to
`
`highlight a “video on demand source,” as shown in the figure above. The indicator
`
`1512 may also be “moved to a different source.” Ex.1001, 32:9-12. The ‘040
`
`patent additionally explains, instead of using a box, “other methods or
`
`configuration which provide for icon selection and/or identification may be used.”
`
`Ex.1001, 30:44-46. For example, ways to highlight may include adjusting color,
`
`shade, hue, or displayed size of the respective icon and text to make the icon and
`
`text visually different. See Ex.1001, 30:47-51.
`
`29. Representative independent claim 1 is shown below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 14 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`B.
`
`File History of the ’040 Patent
`
`30. The ’040 patent was filed on August 24, 2015. It claims priority to a
`
`series of provisional applications, the earliest of which was filed on August 17,
`
`2012.
`
`31.
`
`In a first Office Action dated January 14, 2016, the Examiner rejected
`
`the claims as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0097622 to
`
`Zigmond in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,152,236 to Wugofski. Ex. 1002, 127-136.
`
`The Applicant then amended all three independent claims, exemplified by the
`
`amended to independent claim 23 shown below:
`
`32. The Applicant then argued that Wugofski “provide[s] only two
`
`sources of content – a live television channel and a web source” and fails to show
`
`the claimed five sources. Ex. 1002, 120. The Examiner allowed the claims based
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 15 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`on this distinction. Ex. 1002, 84-86. The Applicant later submitted an Amendment
`
`
`
`After Allowance pursuant to 37 CFR §1.312 to clarify certain ambiguity in the
`
`claims. Ex. 1002, 33-43.
`
`33. However, for the reasons explained below, a global panel including all
`
`five sources of content, as well as the other claim limitations of the ’040 patent,
`
`were well-known in the art.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’040
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under
`
`the so-called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set
`
`forth a special meaning for a term. I have also been informed that claim terms only
`
`need to be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the obviousness inquiry.
`
`35.
`
`I have reviewed the entirety of the ’040 patent, as well as its
`
`prosecution history. In my opinion, for purposes of applying the prior art presented
`
`herein to evaluate patentability, the claim terms do not require express
`
`construction. I have applied the so-called Phillips standard, which requires that
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 16 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`understood by a POSITA in light of the specification and prosecution history,
`
`
`
`unless the inventor has set forth a special meaning for a term.
`
`36.
`
`In fact, the ’040 patent provides explicit definitions for various terms
`
`and phrases, including various claim terms of the Challenged Claims. For example,
`
`from column 3, line 49 to column 10, line 37, the ’040 patent lists certain terms
`
`and provides explicit definitions and context for these terms, which include various
`
`claim terms of the Challenged Claims. My analysis of the prior art presented herein
`
`takes into account and is consistent with the definitions and context provided in the
`
`’040 patent for terms in the Challenged Claims. One example of a claim term
`
`definition is described below:
`
`A.
`
`“at least one”
`
`37. Claims 1, 6, 11, 21, 22 each recite the phrase “at least one.”
`
`38.
`
`I note that in the ’040 patent, the inventor provided a special meaning
`
`for the term “at least one.”
`
`Ex.1001, 3:49-56.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 17 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`39. Accordingly, in view of the express definition provided in the ’040
`
`
`
`patent, a claim limitation that recites a list of “at least one” items is met by
`
`teaching any item in that list alone or together with any other items in that same
`
`list.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`40.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’040 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references
`
`identified below teach the elements of the Challenged Claims of the ’040 patent.
`
`As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the prior art and
`
`any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I describe in detail
`
`below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any differences between the
`
`alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-element basis for each
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’040 patent.
`
`41. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA. I rely on various documents to
`
`show the background knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 21 are obvious over Kim in view
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 18 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`of Lee-1 and Choi.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Kim
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`42. The primary reference that I rely upon is U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2012/0054794 to Kim et al. (Ex.1005, “Kim”), which was filed on March 9, 2011,
`
`claims priority to Provisional application No. 61/379,369, filed on September 1,
`
`2010, and published on March 1, 2012.
`
`43. Like the ’040 patent, Kim relates to “[a] multifunctional display
`
`device and a method of controlling the same” for providing “an interactive content
`
`service.” Ex.1005, Abstract, [0037]. Kim describes controlling the content of an
`
`image display apparatus, such as a smart TV:
`
`The image display apparatus 100 may be, for example, a network TV,
`
`a smart TV, an HbbTV, or another appropriate multifunctional display
`
`device. The image display apparatus 100 may include, for example, a
`
`broadcast interface 101, a section filter 102, an Application Information
`
`Table (AIT) filter 103, an application data processor 104, a broadcast
`
`data processor 111, a media player 106, an IP processor 107, an Internet
`
`interface 108, and a runtime module 109. The image display apparatus
`
`100 may receive AIT data, real-time broadcast content, application
`
`data, and stream events through the broadcast interface 101. The
`
`realtime broadcast content may be referred to as a linear Audio/Video
`
`(A/V) content.
`
`Ex.1005, [0038].
`
`44. Kim describes a “controller 170 [that] may control the image display
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 19 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`apparatus 100 according to a user command received through the user input
`
`interface 150.” Ex.1005, [0090]. Kim further describes controlling the content of
`
`the image display apparatus 100 (smart TV) based on user input entered via a
`
`remote control (remote controller 200) that communicates wirelessly (e.g., via
`
`radiofrequency (RF) and infrared (IR)) with the controller 170:
`
`The user input interface 150 transmits a signal received from the user
`
`to the controller 170 or transmits a signal received from the controller
`
`170 to the user. For example, the user input interface 150 may receive
`
`various user input signals such as a power-on/off signal, a channel
`
`selection signal, and a screen setting signal from a remote controller
`
`200 or may transmit a signal received from the controller 170 to the
`
`remote controller 200, according to various communication schemes,
`
`for example, RF communication and IR communication.
`
`Ex.1005, [0086].
`
`For example, the user input interface 150 may provide the controller
`
`170 with user input signals or control signals received from local keys,
`
`such as inputs of a power key, a channel key, and a volume key, and
`
`setting values. Also, the user input interface 150 may transmit a control
`
`signal received from a sensor that senses a user gesture to the controller
`
`170 or transmit a signal received from the controller 170 to the sensor.
`
`The sensor may include a touch sensor, a voice sensor, a position
`
`sensor, a motion sensor, or another appropriate type of sensor.
`
`Ex.1005, [0087].
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 20 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`The remote controller 200 may transmit a user input to the user input
`
`interface 150. For transmission of user input, the remote controller 200
`
`may use various communication techniques such as Bluetooth, RF
`
`communication, IR communication, UWB, ZigBee, or another
`
`appropriate communication protocol.
`
`Ex.1005, [0112].
`
`45. Kim’s image display apparatus 100 (smart TV) displays “a Graphical
`
`User Interface (GUI) in the form of an OSD [On Screen Display].” Ex.1005,
`
`[0060]. A variety of information and content can be displayed on this OSD:
`
`The OSD generator 340 may generate an OSD signal autonomously or
`
`based on to user input. For example, the OSD generator 340 may
`
`generate signals by which a variety of information is displayed as
`
`images or text on the display 180, according to control signals received
`
`from the user input interface 150. The OSD signal may include various
`
`data such as a UI, a variety of menu screens, widgets, icons, etc. For
`
`example, the OSD generator 340 may generate a signal by which
`
`subtitles are displayed with a broadcast image or Electronic Program
`
`Guide (EPG)-based broadcasting information.
`
`Ex.1005, [0137].
`
`46. The remote control 200 can interact with the OSD by transmitting
`
`“various user input signals such as a power-on/off signal, a channel selection
`
`signal, and a screen setting signal from [the] remote controller 200” to a “user
`
`input interface 150.” Ex.1005, [0086]. For example, Kim explains that the “user
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 21 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`input interface 263 may receive various control signals such as a power on/off
`
`
`
`signal, an operation input signal, or a setting input signal through activation of a
`
`local key or the remote controller 200.” Ex.1005, [0122]. These local keys on
`
`Kim’s remote control can be used to control or change the information displayed
`
`on the OSD. Ex.1005, [0192] (describing a home key for displaying a home
`
`screen), [0193]-[0217] (describing using the remote control key to select and
`
`display various card objects that include or can access different types of content).
`
`47. For example, Kim’s remote control can be used to access, and cause
`
`to be displayed on the image display apparatus 100 (smart TV), a home screen with
`
`different types of content sources and corresponding content information. Ex.1005,
`
`[0094], [0192], Fig. 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`EX. 1003
`LG Electronics, Inc. / Page 22 of 156
`
`

`

`Dr. Lippman Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,510,040
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 19.
`
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Lee-1
`
`48. U.S. Patent No. 9,008,190 to Lee et al. (Ex.1006, “Lee-1”) was filed
`
`on January 4, 2010, and issued on April 14, 2015.
`
`49. Lee-1 provides additional details regarding the thumbnails described
`
`by Kim. Kim cites to and incorporates by reference “application Ser. No.
`
`127651,730,” which is filed herein as Ex.1006 (“Lee-1”). Ex.1005, [0106]. In
`
`particular Kim incorporates Lee-1’s “[e]xamples of thumbnails and methods of
`
`using the same.” Ex.1005, [0106]. Regarding methods of using thumbnails, Lee-1
`
`discloses that a “disp