IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,578,363
`Filing Date: Sep. 11, 2015
`Issue Date: Feb. 21, 2017
`Title: CONTENT ACCESS
`________________
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2019-00289
`________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`Petition 6 of 6
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`IV. 
`
`Page
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............ 1 
`A. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related
`Matters ................................................................................................... 1 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service
`Information ............................................................................................ 2 
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW ........................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Payment of Fees .................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 4 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ363 PATENT ............................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Brief Description ................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ....................... 7 
`A. 
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based ................................................................................ 7 
`How Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill
`in the Art ................................................................................................ 8 
`1. 
`How Claims Are to Be Construed .............................................. 8 
`2. 
`Claim Constructions .................................................................... 8 
`a.  “channels” ............................................................................. 8 
`b.  “standard definition” (SD) .................................................... 8 
`c.  “high definition” ................................................................... 9 
`d.  “responsive to the second media source becoming
`available” .............................................................................. 9 
`e.  “automatically” ................................................................... 10 
`f.  “access[] the media content” .............................................. 10 
`g.  “a processor configured to” ................................................ 11 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`i
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ............................................................. 12 
`3. 
`How the Claims Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge ...................................... 13 
`D. 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`Calderwood ......................................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`Harrar ................................................................................................... 17 
`VI.  SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 20 
`VII.  TRIAL SHOULD BE INSTITUTED ............................................................ 21 
`A.  Grounds In This Petition Were Never Considered During
`Prosecution .......................................................................................... 21 
`Grounds In This Petition Are Not Redundant of Other Grounds
`In Other Petitions ................................................................................. 21 
`VIII.  SPECIFIC GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................ 22 
`1. 
`Claims 1 and 11 ......................................................................... 27 
`a.  Element 1[a] ........................................................................ 27 
`b.  Element 1[b] ....................................................................... 28 
`c.  Element 1[c] ........................................................................ 30 
`d.  Element 1[d] ....................................................................... 32 
`e.  Element 1[e] ........................................................................ 35 
`f.  Element 1[f] ........................................................................ 39 
`g.  Elements 11[a]-11[g] .......................................................... 43 
`Claims 2 and 12 ......................................................................... 50 
`2. 
`Claims 3 and 13 ......................................................................... 51 
`3. 
`Claims 4 and 14 ......................................................................... 54 
`4. 
`Claims 5 and 15 ......................................................................... 56 
`5. 
`Claims 6 and 16 ......................................................................... 59 
`6. 
`Claims 7 and 17 ......................................................................... 60 
`7. 
`Claims 8 and 18 ......................................................................... 62 
`8. 
`Claims 9 and 19 ......................................................................... 66 
`9. 
`10.  Claims 10 and 20....................................................................... 70 
`ii
`
`

`

`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71 
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) .................................................. 72 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 73 
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................ A-1 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1501:
`Ex. 1502:
`
`Ex. 1503:
`
`Ex. 1504:
`
`Ex. 1505:
`
`Ex. 1506:
`
`Ex. 1507:
`
`Ex. 1508:
`
`Ex. 1509:
`
`Ex. 1510:
`
`Ex. 1511:
`Ex. 1512:
`Ex. 1513:
`
`Ex. 1514:
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,578,363 (“the ’363 patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`9,578,363
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`9,160,971
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`8,234,668
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement in U.S.
`District Court for Central District of California Western
`Division
`Verified Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`1930, As Amended – ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`(“ITC Complaint”)
`Joint Claim Construction Chart – ITC Investigation No. 337-
`TA-1103
`Complainants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief – ITC
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`Expert Claim Construction Report of Michael Shamos – ITC
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger in Support of Petition
`For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,578,363
`reserved
`reserved
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0301749 A1 to
`Harrar et al. (“Harrar”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0101370 to
`Calderwood (“Calderwood”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`reserved
`reserved
`reserved
`reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 8,087,058 to Cohen (“Cohen”)
`reserved
`
`Ex. 1515:
`Ex. 1516:
`Ex. 1517:
`Ex. 1518:
`Ex. 1519:
`Ex. 1520:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related
`Matters
`The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Comcast Corporation, (ii)
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (iii) Comcast Cable Communications
`
`Management, LLC, (iv) Comcast Business Communications, LLC, (v) Comcast
`
`Holdings Corporation, (vi) Comcast Shared Services, LLC, (vii) Comcast of Santa
`
`Maria, LLC, (viii) Comcast of Lompoc, LLC, (ix) Comcast Financial Agency
`
`Corporation, and (x) Comcast STB Software I, LLC. These entities are referenced
`
`below as “Comcast entity #” or as “Comcast entities #-#,” where “#” is one of (i)
`
`through (x).
`
`The ’363 patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (viii) in Rovi
`
`Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-00253 (“CDCA litigation”). (Ex. 1505.)
`
`The earliest date of service on any of the Comcast entities named in the CDCA
`
`litigation was January 10, 2018.
`
`The ’363 patent was asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (vi) in U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1103, styled In the
`
`Matter of Certain Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and Software
`
`Components (“ITC investigation”). (Ex. 1506.) However, Rovi subsequently
`
`moved to terminate the portions of the ITC Investigation relating to the ’363
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`patent, but not before filing its claim construction contentions. (See generally Ex.
`
`1507 and Ex. 1508.)
`
`The ’363 patent is also the subject of concurrently-filed related petitions for
`
`inter partes review that assert different grounds of unpatentability.
`
`According to the Office’s records from the PAIR system, the ’363 patent is a
`
`continuation of application no. 13/477,511 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,160,971), which is
`
`a continuation of application no. 12/343,235 (now U.S. Patent 8,234,668).
`
`According to the PAIR system, there are no pending applications claiming priority
`
`to the ’363 patent.
`
`No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition or
`
`otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s
`
`participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service
`Information
`Petitioner designates counsel listed below and consents to electronic service.
`
`A power of attorney for counsel is being filed with this Petition.
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Frederic M. Meeker
`Reg. No. 35,282
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Bradley C. Wright
`
`Additional Back-Up Counsel
`
`Chunhsi Andy Mu
`Reg. No. 58,216
`amu@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Craig W. Kronenthal
`Reg. No. 58,541
`ckronenthal@bannerwitcoff.com
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Reg. No. 38,061
`bwright@bannerwitcoff.com
`Banner and Witcoff, LTD
`1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`
`Christopher L. McKee
`Reg. No. 32,384
`cmckee@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John R. Hutchins
`Reg. No. 43,686
`jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Blair A. Silver
`Reg. No. 68,003
`bsilver@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Banner and Witcoff, LTD
`1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at the addresses shown above.
`
`Petitioners further consent to electronic service by email at the following address:
`
`ComcastIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com.
`
`II.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A.
`Payment of Fees
`The undersigned authorizes the charge of any necessary fees to Deposit
`
`Account No. 19-0733.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’363 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging claims 1-20 on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ363 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’363 patent includes several disparate concepts related to accessing
`
`content. Hence, it is generically entitled “Content Access.”
`
`One concept involves an access module 130 of a client 104, which may be a
`
`set-top box (Ex. 1501, 10:29-51, 1:25-28, 4:17-23; Ex. 1510, ¶¶38-41),
`
`determining (i) whether a high-definition (HD) channel has content matching a
`
`standard-definition (SD) channel and (ii) whether the client is capable of
`
`displaying HD content. (Ex. 1501, 1:36-43, 10:29-51, FIG. 6; Ex. 1510, ¶¶42-44.)
`
`If it is determined that there is matching content and the client is capable of
`
`displaying HD content, the client accesses HD content on the HD channel and
`
`restricts access to the corresponding SD channel. (Ex. 1501, 1:39-43, 10:52-55.)
`
`This may be done by redirecting a request for SD content to provide the matching
`
`HD content. (Ex. 1501, 10:60-11:2; Ex. 1510, ¶¶45-46.) This may also be done
`
`by including only the HD channel in an electronic program guide (EPG). (Ex.
`
`1501, 11:3-15; Ex. 1510, ¶¶45-46.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`A specific use of this concept involves “dynamically select[ing] a stream on
`
`a case-by-case basis.” (Ex. 1501, 8:24-27.) For instance, “a house may support
`
`two high-definition streams and two additional standard definition streams at any
`
`one time.” (Ex. 1501, 8:30-32; Ex. 1510, ¶¶47-51.) Upon receiving a request for
`
`content that is available in HD and SD, the access module 130 may determine that
`
`both HD streams are in use. (Ex. 1501, 8:32-38.) In that case, the access module
`
`may tune to the SD version. (Ex. 1501, 8:38-39.) Then, “when the HD stream
`
`becomes available, the access module 130 may automatically tune to that stream.”
`
`(Ex. 1501, 8:41-43.)
`
`
`
`The aforementioned use is the subject of the claims of the ’363 patent. (Ex.
`
`1510, ¶¶47-48.) Each independent claim requires accessing content from a second
`
`media source in response to that source “becoming available.” The only
`
`description in the ’363 patent of automatically accessing content when a source
`
`(e.g., a stream) “becomes available” is excerpted immediately above. (Ex. 1510,
`
`¶48.) While the claims do not expressly recite a step of determining that the
`
`recited second media source is unavailable, it is implied that the second media
`
`source is unavailable at the time of the claimed “accessing the media content in the
`
`first format from the first media source,” by the fact that the step of “automatically
`
`accessing the media content from the second media source instead of the first
`
`media source” occurs “responsive to the second media source becoming available.”
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`The other non-claimed concepts include a second concept involving client
`
`104 providing an option 502 to form an electronic program guide (EPG) 138 that
`
`shows only primetime content (Ex. 1501, 3:1-13, 9:65-10:5, 11:61-12:26, FIG. 5),
`
`and a third concept involving an EPG with a mode causing client 104 to
`
`automatically record a television series when one program in the series is selected
`
`for recording (Ex. 1501, 1:44-50, 3:36-51, 9:42-64, 11:16-60, FIGs. 4, 7).
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The first application (now U.S. Patent 8,234,668, “grandparent application”)
`
`in the ’363 patent’s family was filed on December 23, 2008. The claims therein
`
`were eventually allowed after an amendment specifying that access to HD content
`
`is provided by including a representation of an HD channel in an EPG and that
`
`access to SD content is restricted by not including a representation of an SD
`
`channel in the EPG. (Ex. 1504, 205-216, 218-219, 233-240.)
`
`The second application (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,160,971, “parent application”)
`
`in the ’363 patent’s family was filed with three very different claim sets directed to
`
`three different concepts. After the first rejection, the applicant amended a
`
`dependent claim (claim 6) to include the limitation “responsive to the accessibility
`
`of a particular source changing, automatically tuning to the particular source when
`
`it becomes available.” (Ex. 1503, 149.) The examiner only objected to this
`
`dependent claim (Ex. 1503, 163) and the applicant subsequently incorporated it
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`into independent claim 1 to get the parent application allowed (Ex. 1503, 185-194,
`
`202-204).
`
`Rovi purchased this patent family from Microsoft in 2014. (Ex. 1503, 223.)
`
`Rovi filed the continuation application that became the ’363 patent on September
`
`11, 2015. Prosecution consisted only of a double patenting rejection for all claims
`
`based on the grandparent, even though the grandparent was directed to a different
`
`use. (Ex. 1502, 55-56 (double patenting rejection), 90 (rejected claim 21); Ex.
`
`1504, 206 (grandparent claim 1).) Rovi filed a terminal disclaimer and the ’363
`
`patent issued. (Ex. 1502, 41-43, 22, 1.) The examiner’s statement of reasons for
`
`allowance merely recites claim 21, which became claim 1 of the ʼ363 patent. (Ex.
`
`1502, 22-23.) Based on the prosecution history, it is apparent that the examiner
`
`forewent a substantive review of the claims and issued an allowance because the
`
`grandparent had been issued.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner requests review of the following claims on the following ground:
`
`Ground Claims Challenged
`1
`1-20
`
`References
`Basis
`Pre-AIA §103(a) Calderwood, Harrar
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`B. How Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in
`the Art
`1. How Claims Are to Be Construed
`The ’363 patent will expire December 23, 2028. An unexpired claim “shall
`
`be given its broadest reasonable construction [(BRI)] in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For purposes of this
`
`proceeding only, Petitioner provides several claim constructions below. All other
`
`terms are to be given their broadest reasonable plain and ordinary meanings.1
`
`2.
`
`Claim Constructions
`a.
`“channels”
`
`This term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. In the related
`
`ITC investigation, the parties agreed “channels” should be construed as “television
`
`channels.” (Ex. 1507, 13; Ex. 1508, 68-69.) This is consistent with the ʼ363
`
`patent’s use of the term. (Ex. 1501, 1:18-21.)
`
`b.
`
`“standard definition” (SD)
`
`This term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. In the related
`
`ITC investigation, the parties agreed this term should be construed as “not high
`
`
`1 In the event the BRI standard is replaced with the standard in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for this proceeding, the claim
`
`constructions would be the same and the prior art would still meet the claims.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`definition.” (Ex. 1507, 13; Ex. 1508, 69.) This is consistent with the ’363 patent’s
`
`use of the term. (Ex. 1501, 1:24 (“standard[] definition versus high definition”).)
`
`c.
`
`“high definition”
`
`This term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. In the related
`
`ITC investigation, the parties agreed this term should be construed as “a resolution
`
`of 720p or better.” (Ex. 1507, 13; Ex. 1508, 69.) At the ʼ363 patent’s priority
`
`date, a resolution of 720p or greater would have been considered high definition.
`
`(Ex. 1510, ¶33.)
`
`d.
`
`“responsive to the second media source becoming
`available”
`
`This term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. If a
`
`construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed as “responsive to
`
`the second media source changing from unavailable to available,” wherein
`
`availability describes the media source being or not being accessible for
`
`consumption, such as playback or recording. (Ex. 1510, ¶34.) This is consistent
`
`with the ’363 patent’s description of an HD stream initially being unavailable and
`
`automatically tuning to an HD stream “when the HD stream becomes available.”
`
`(Ex. 1501, 8:28-43.)
`
`In the ITC investigation, Patent Owner construed this term to mean
`
`“determining that media content is available from a second media source.” (Ex.
`
`1509, 12.) Under Patent Owner’s construction, this term is merely a reference to
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`the “determining” in element 1[d]. (Ex. 1509, 13 (describing how the last step
`
`relates to step [c], which corresponds to element 1[d] in this IPR).) The prior art
`
`meets this term under Patent Owner’s ITC construction as well, because the prior
`
`art teaches automatically accessing HD content in response to the prior art
`
`teachings of element 1[d] as demonstrated in Section VIII.A.1 below.
`
`e.
`
`“automatically”
`
`This term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. If a
`
`construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed as “with no user
`
`intervention.”
`
` This
`
`is consistent with
`
`the ’363 patent’s description of
`
`automatically recording a television program “without further input from a user.”
`
`(Ex. 1501, 11:33-35.)
`
`f.
`
`“access[] the media content”
`
`This term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. If a
`
`construction is deemed necessary, it should be construed to include, but not be
`
`limited to, “tune[] to the selected media content” or “decode[] the selected media
`
`content.” This is consistent with the ’363 patent’s description that the access
`
`module 130 may initially “tune” to an SD stream and later “tune” to the HD stream
`
`when it becomes available. (Ex. 1501, 8:38-43.) Although the ʼ363 patent
`
`specification uses “tune,” under BRI it would have been understood that other
`
`terms like “decode” are encompassed by the claimed “access.” (Ex. 1510, ¶36.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, in the ʼ363 patent, having access to content is described as having the
`
`content, so as to be able to output the content for display. (Ex. 1501, 5:11-15,
`
`10:52-55; Ex. 1510, ¶36.)
`
`In the ITC investigation, Patent Owner construed this term to mean
`
`“transmit[ting] a request to receive the media content.” (Ex. 1509, 14.) This
`
`construction improperly seeks to import a limitation – “a request” – into the
`
`claims. This construction is also improper because it would run counter to the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “access[ing]” if the “request to receive the media
`
`content” failed or was denied. At any rate, the prior art teaches “access[ing] the
`
`media content” even under Patent Owner’s improper ITC construction. (See infra
`
`VIII.1.c and VIII.1.f.)
`
`g.
`
`“a processor configured to”
`
`This is a means-plus-function term. “[P]rocessor” is a nonce word. See,
`
`e.g., Ex Parte Lakkala, Appeal 2011-001526 (BPAI, March 13, 2013); Ex Parte
`
`Erol, Appeal 2011-001143 (BPAI, March 13, 2013). The functional elements of
`
`the means-plus-function construction correspond to the processes recited after the
`
`“configured to” phrase in claim 11. The corresponding structure for “processor” is
`
`box 128 in FIG. 1. The ʼ363 patent describes the term processor as not being
`
`limited to any particular components, but offers semiconductors and transistors
`
`(e.g., electronic integrated circuits) as potential components. (Ex. 1501, 5:44-50.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Additionally, the ʼ363 patent explains that a central processing unit (CPU) is one
`
`example of a processor. (Ex. 1501, 7:45-46.) Accordingly, the recited “processor”
`
`encompasses one or more components, such as a CPU, microcontroller, or
`
`equivalent, capable of executing instructions to perform an algorithm. To the
`
`extent an algorithm is disclosed, the algorithm is illustrated in FIGs. 6 and 9 and
`
`described at column 5, lines 44-57, column 8, lines 17-43, column 10, lines 29-51,
`
`and column 12, lines 27-57 of the ʼ363 patent.
`
`In any event, if “processor configured to” is not a means-plus-function term,
`
`the prior art in Section VIII below meets the “processor” in the plain and ordinary
`
`sense of the term. Whether or not means-plus-function is invoked, the structure
`
`includes a processor and the art teaches a processor. (Ex. 1510, ¶37; Ex. 1509, 17-
`
`18.)
`
`3.
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`The ʼ363 patent relates to techniques for providing content access. (Ex.
`
`1501, Abstract, 1:36.) A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), in
`
`2008, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least two to three
`
`years of experience or familiarity with digital television signals and associated
`
`distribution networks (e.g., cable, satellite, and Internet delivery) and consumer
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`appliances (e.g., set top boxes, digital TVs, and monitors/displays). (Ex. 1510,
`
`¶28.)
`
`C. How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`A detailed explanation of how claims 1-20 of the ʼ363 patent are
`
`unpatentable appears below.
`
`D. Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge
`The evidence is identified in the list of Exhibits above, including the
`
`Declaration of Mr. Wechselberger (Ex. 1510), an expert in the field of multimedia
`
`content access with over thirty years of experience developing digital television
`
`and broadband communication systems at all levels, including head-end equipment
`
`(e.g., transmission systems) and appliances (e.g., STBs). (Ex. 1510, ¶¶5-20,
`
`Appendix A.)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
`A. Calderwood
`Calderwood (Ex. 1514) was published on May 3, 2007, and is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Calderwood relates to “[a] television set, set-top box, or the like, which finds
`
`a corresponding HD program when a user selects an SD program for viewing or
`
`recording, and which gives the user a visual prompt enabling him to select the HD
`
`program instead.” (Ex. 1514, Abstract; Ex. 1510, ¶53.) In its background section,
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Calderwood describes how prior art EPGs typically group HD channels into a
`
`range of channel numbers, such as 700-799, that are many pages removed from the
`
`corresponding SD channels. (Ex. 1514, ¶[0006].) Calderwood contends that “an
`
`improved and more intelligent television set which provides a more user-friendly
`
`and easily-used on-screen programming guide” is needed. (Ex. 1514, ¶[0007].)
`
`Calderwood’s FIG. 2 (below) illustrates a television set displaying an on-
`
`screen programming guide. (Ex. 1514, ¶[0016].) As shown in FIG. 2, the guide
`
`includes an overlay displaying program information for programs available on a
`
`variety of channels overlaying the video program that is selected in the first area.
`
`(Ex. 1514, ¶¶[0016], [0020], [0028], FIGs. 1-3; Ex. 1510, ¶¶54-55.) In the
`
`example of FIG. 2, the selected program is the “Cedar Mill Girls Soccer” program
`
`on channel 002 (which corresponds to the “ABC” network).
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Calderwood explains that “[t]he on-screen programming guide control
`
`software (or hardware) of the television set has identified that the currently viewed
`
`channel 002 is an SD channel and has a corresponding HD channel 711 ‘ABC-
`
`HD’.” (Ex. 1514, ¶[0018].) As shown in FIG. 2, the software has inserted the
`
`corresponding HD channel’s program information into the on-screen programming
`
`guide directly below the selected SD channel. (Id.)
`
`“FIG. 3 illustrates the on-screen programming guide as it appears after the
`
`user has ‘arrowed down’ to select channel 003. The software has hidden the
`
`channel 711 information and, instead, inserted into the on-screen programming
`
`guide information for channel 703, which the software has identified as
`
`corresponding to channel 003.” (Ex. 1514, ¶[0020]; Ex. 1510, ¶¶56-57.) With
`
`respect to FIG. 6, Calderwood provides further details on how this is done using
`
`EPG data. (Ex. 1510, ¶58; Ex. 1514, ¶¶[0027]-[0029].)
`
`Calderwood recognizes that “[h]aving the HD content automatically
`
`displayed in the on-screen programming guide gives the user an improved
`
`opportunity to watch the superior HD content, without having to remember to
`
`manually search the HD channel block to see if such content is available.” (Ex.
`
`1514, ¶[0021].) “With the HD channel information instantly available on screen,
`
`the user can simply select that channel for viewing or recording.” (Ex. 1514,
`
`¶[0022].) Calderwood also discloses an embodiment in which the guide, selected
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`SD program, and corresponding HD program (in a picture-in-picture (PIP)
`
`window) are automatically displayed at the same time. (Ex. 1514, ¶[0028], FIG. 6;
`
`Ex. 1510, ¶58.) When a user selects a new channel from the guide, the new
`
`channel is tuned to and the process, including determining whether the tuned to
`
`channel is an SD channel and finding a counterpart HD channel, repeats. (Ex.
`
`1510, ¶58; Ex. 1514, ¶¶[0026]-[0029], FIG. 6.)
`
`Calderwood also illustrates an embodiment in FIG. 7 (below) in which a
`
`STB executes an SD-HD correlation program to perform the functions described
`
`above. (Ex. 1514, ¶¶[0030], [0044].)
`
`FIG. 7 shows that the STB is connected to receive video programs and/or
`
`electronic programming guide data from any of a variety of external sources. In
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`particular, FIG. 7 shows three different content providers, including a satellite
`
`provider, cable television provider, and internet television provider. (Ex. 1514,
`
`¶[0033]; Ex. 1510, ¶59.) Calderwood also discloses that the STB may correlate an
`
`SD program from one provider (e.g., a satellite provider) with an HD program
`
`from another provider (e.g., cable provider). (Ex. 1514, ¶[0034]; Ex. 1510, ¶60.)
`
`B. Harrar
`Harrar (Ex. 1513) published on December 4, 2008, and is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e). Harrar is assigned to Petitioner.
`
`Harrar relates to facilitating access to higher quality forms of content and
`
`provides a system that is widely applicable in a number of environments and for
`
`various services, including broadcast television and IPTV services. (Ex. 1513,
`
`Abstract, ¶¶[0013]-[0019], FIG. 1; Ex. 1510, ¶¶62-66.) In its background section,
`
`Harrar explains that “[t]he ability to access or otherwise support higher quality
`
`content may be dependent on capabilities of devices used to access the same.”
`
`(Ex. 1513, ¶[0004].) Harrar describes a problem in the art – that devices capable
`
`of processing both SD and HD television signals may select SD signals even when
`
`HD signals are available. (Ex. 1513, ¶¶[0006]-[0007]; Ex. 1510, ¶62.) This is
`
`problematic because customers desire higher-quality content. (Ex. 1513, ¶[0007].)
`
`Harrar’s solution automatically selects higher-quality content, if it’s available or
`
`supported, when lower-quality content is selected by the user. (Id.)
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 2 of Harrar (below) is a flow chart illustrating its method of accessing
`
`content. (Ex. 1513, ¶[0020].)
`
`
`
`At block 22, a media service provider broadcasts or otherwise distributes
`
`content. (Ex. 1513, ¶[0021].) This may include a cable headend delivering SD
`
`and HD television signals. (Ex. 1513, ¶[0021]; Ex. 1510, ¶67.) At block 24, a
`
`STB receives a user’s request for content (e.g., a channel change command issued
`
`using a remote control). (Ex. 1513, ¶[0022]; Ex. 1510, ¶68.) At block 36, the STB
`
`determines whether a higher-quality (e.g., HD) version of the requested content is
`
`available. (Ex. 1513, ¶¶[0024]-[0031]; Ex. 1510, ¶¶69-70.)
`
`If a higher-quality version is available (Yes at block 36), the STB may
`
`determine whether it can support the higher-quality version at block 56. (Ex. 1513,
`
`¶[0033].) If the STB supports the higher-quality version (Yes at block 56), the
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`STB accesses the higher-quality (e.g., HD) version instead of the lower-quality
`
`(e.g., SD) version of the requested content. (Ex. 1513, ¶[0034]; Ex. 1510, ¶¶71-
`
`72.)
`
`Harrar further describes an electronic programming guide that helps
`
`facilitate the selection of media content. (Ex. 1513, ¶[0023].) Harrar illustrates an
`
`example of such an EPG in FIGs. 3 and 4 (below). Notably, the user interface 30
`
`includes a smart selection window 38 indicating the availability of both SD and
`
`HD formats of a particular content item. (Ex. 1513, ¶¶[0025]-[0026].)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The ʼ363 patent claims only the unpatentable idea of automatically
`
`switching from a user-selected SD version of content to an HD version of the
`
`content if available and capable of being displayed. Calderwood teaches accessing
`
`a user-selected SD channel and locating a corresponding HD channel in order to
`
`insert a listing for the HD channel into an EPG immediately below a listing for the
`
`SD channel. Calderwood’s method and system provide a foundation upon which
`
`features of Harrar (e.g., determining capabilities and automatically tuning to HD
`
`instead of SD) would have been incorporated to arrive at the alleged invention.
`
`Various rationales support co