Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comcast, Ex-1202
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. 8,046,801 Filing Date: August 26, 2004 Issue Date: October 25, 2011
Title: INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM GUIDE WITH REMOTE ACCESS
________________
Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
________________
DECLARATION OF DR. GARY TJADEN
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
Declaration in Support of Petition 3 of 3
i Comcast, Ex-1202
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ....................... 1
III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................................................................. 6
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES ............................ 6
V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART .............................................................................................. 10
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 11
A. “Guide” / “Electronic Program Guide” ............................................................. 11
B. “Local Guide” .................................................................................................... 14
C. “Remote Guide” ................................................................................................ 15
D. “User equipment” / “Television equipment” ..................................................... 15
E. “Program Guide Information” ........................................................................... 17
F. Preambles of Claims of the ’801 Patent ............................................................ 17
VII. THE ’801 PATENT .................................................................................... 18
A. Priority Date of the ’801 Patent ......................................................................... 18
B. Relevant Background of the ’801 Patent ........................................................... 24
C. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 25
D. Prosecution History ........................................................................................... 26
E. Limitation Correspondence of All Claims of the ’801 Patent ........................... 30
VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................... 44
A. WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 – Blake (Ex-1222) ....................................... 44
B. U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 – Killian (Ex-1208) .................................................... 47
C. U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,121 – Young (Ex-1223)..................................................... 48
IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’801 PATENT ....... 50
X. BLAKE IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-54 ........ 50
A. Independent Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 61
ii Comcast, Ex-1202
B. Dependent Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem. .............................................104
C. Dependent Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device ........................................................................................105
D. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein a web site is accessible to the user from a computing device of the user. ................................................106
E. Dependent Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet. ..........................................107
F. Claims 5 and 7-54 ............................................................................................108
XI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................110
1 Comcast, Ex-1202
I, Dr. Gary S. Tjaden, declare that I have personal knowledge of the facts set
forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would do so
competently.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner,
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, for the above-referenced inter partes
review proceeding.
2. I reside in St. Simons Island, Georgia.
3. I have been asked to provide a declaration regarding electronic
program guides and related technologies as well as the relevant industry. I have
also been asked to render opinions regarding certain matters pertaining to U.S.
Patent No. 8,046,801 (Ex-1201, “the ’801 Patent”) and the unpatentability grounds
set forth in the Petition for this proceeding.
4. I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $475 per hour
for my work on this matter. My compensation is in no way dependent upon my
opinions or testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.
II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
5. A description of my professional background and qualifications is
provided below. An additional account of my work experience and qualifications
2 Comcast, Ex-1202
is included in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Exhibit-1203 to the
Petition.
6. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering
(B.S.E.E.), which I received from the University of Utah in 1966. I received a
Master of Science degree in electrical engineering (M.S.E.E.) in 1969 from
Northwestern University. In 1973, I received a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
degree in computer science from the Johns Hopkins University.
7. I am currently the Founder and President of COCOMO ID, LLC, a
developer of technology for mobilized speech-audio publishing, a position I have
held since 1996. In this capacity, I have developed multiple computer software
applications. These include applications for automating the editing of textual
information (e.g., news articles) so it will be correctly spoken by speech synthesis
software, web server applications providing for end-user selection and automated
downloading of speech-edited textual information to mobile remote devices, and
applications running on mobile remote devices (such as Personal Digital Assistants
(PDAs) and cellphones) that speak the textual information organized according to
end-user preferences.
8. I have over thirty-five years of experience working with
telecommunication systems and information technology services, with a significant
portion of that experience in the fields of interactive program guides, set-top boxes,
3 Comcast, Ex-1202
and techniques for delivering content or program guide data over a cable system or
the Internet. I have held various design, leadership, and executive positions in, for
example, technology research, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and
product management at leading companies, such as the Center for Enterprise
Systems at the Georgia Institute of Technology, NYNEX Corporation,
Burroughs/Unisys, Cox Cable Communications, and Bell Telephone Laboratories.
9. From 1993 through 2004, I was a Principal Research Engineer and
Director of the Center for Enterprise Systems at the Georgia Institute of
Technology. While at the Georgia Institute of Technology, my responsibilities
included obtaining funding of the research performed by the Center, and using the
research to help commercial enterprises to use information technology to support
business strategy and operations.
10. Before coming to the Georgia Institute of Technology, I held
numerous executive positions with NYNEX Corporation (1987-92), a regional
telecommunication service provider, and with Burroughs/Unisys (1984-87), a
manufacturer of computer systems and provider of information technology
services. Of particular relevance to the technology underlying the ’801 Patent and
the prior art about which I render the opinions below, I worked with/on the
development and implementation of computer systems comprised of multiple
4 Comcast, Ex-1202
computers and computer-controlled devices interoperating over local and wide-
area communication networks at NYNEX/Burroughs.
11. I was Senior Vice President of Engineering and Technology for Cox
Cable Communications from 1979 to 1984, where I was involved in various
company activities and ventures, including supervising development and
implementation of the company’s interactive cable-based videotext system known
as INDAX. Of particular relevance to the technology underlying the ’801 Patent
and the prior art about which I render the opinions below, I established a research
organization and led the research, development and implementation of a new
technology for efficiently providing two-way data communication over cable
television networks, and the development and implementation of head-end
computer servers and end-user set-top boxes providing new cable system services
such as interactive program guides and remote shopping while at Cox Cable
Communications.
12. Prior to joining Cox, I held research and development posts with
Sperry Corporation in both the Sperry Research Center located in Sudbury,
Massachusetts (1975-76) and the Univac Division located in Bluebell,
Pennsylvania (1976-79) and with the Bell Telephone Laboratories Electronic
Switching Systems Division located in Naperville, Illinois (1966-70 and 1972-75).
5 Comcast, Ex-1202
13. I am a named inventor of eight issued U.S. patents, and thus I am
familiar with the prosecution of patent applications before the United States Patent
& Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and have a general understanding of the novelty
and non-obviousness requirements for patentability.
14. I have held professional affiliations that are particularly relevant to my
analyses of the issues presented in this inter partes review. Specifically, I was a
member of the National Science Foundation Committee on the National
Telecommunications Network, representing the Cable Television (CATV)
industry, in 1983. And, I served as the two term Chairman of the CATV Trade
Association Engineering Committee from 1982-84.
15. There are two technical publications listed in my curriculum vitae of
particular relevance to my background with respect to the issues about which I
opine below. The first is: “The INDAX Two-Way CATV Network For Videotex
Services,” VideoTex – Key To The Information Revolution, (Northwood Hills,
Middlesex, UK), June, 1982, pp. 465-475, coauthor. And the second is: “INDAX:
An Operational Interactive Cable Television and Home Information System”,
Proceedings of COMPCON Spring ’82, February 1982, pp. 356-359, coauthor.
16. I believe that my extensive industry experience (including experience
with interactive program guides, set-top boxes, and techniques for delivering
content or program guide data over a cable system, local-area networks, and the
6 Comcast, Ex-1202
Internet) and educational background qualify me as an expert in the relevant field
of electronic program guides. I am knowledgeable of the relevant skill set that
would have been possessed by a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention of the ’801 Patent, which I have been instructed is 1998-
1999 for purposes of this proceeding.
III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
17. In formulating my opinion, I reviewed and considered U.S. Patent No.
8,046,801 to Michael D. Ellis (Ex-1201, “the ’801 Patent”), as to which I am
offering my opinion regarding the validity of certain claims, as discussed herein. I
have also reviewed and considered the Petition and each of its accompanying
exhibits, including the file history of the ’801 Patent.
18. In preparing this declaration I have reviewed the following references
relied on in the petition upon which the challenge is based:
WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 to Blake (Ex-1222)
U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,121 to Young (Ex-1223)
U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 to Killian (Ex-1208)
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES
19. Although I am not an attorney, I have a general understanding of the
applicable legal standards pertaining to the patentability issues presented in this
proceeding. I understand that the Petitioner is challenging the patentability of the
claims of the ’801 Patent based on the following grounds:
7 Comcast, Ex-1202
Claims 1-54 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1 based
on Blake in view of Killian.
20. I understand that, in this inter partes review, Petitioner has the burden
of proving that each challenged claim is unpatentable by a preponderance of the
evidence.
21. I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if, at the time of the
invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teachings of the prior art to yield the patent claim. It is my understanding that
this determination is made after weighing the following factors: (1) level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the
differences between the prior art as a whole and the claim at issue; and (4) as
appropriate, secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
22. It is my understanding that the prior art and claimed invention should
be viewed through the knowledge and understanding of a person of ordinary skill
in the art – one should not use his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding
whether a claim is obvious. I further understand that a claim may be rendered
obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the claimed
invention as a predictable variation of a known product. I further understand that
a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant 1 Citations herein to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8 Comcast, Ex-1202
prior art at the time of the claimed invention, which comprises any prior art that
was reasonably pertinent to the particular problems the inventor faced.
23. It is my understanding that an obviousness evaluation can be made
on a single reference or a combination of several prior art references. It is my
understanding that an obviousness analysis involving two or more references
generally requires a motive that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant field to combine aspects of those references in the way the claimed
new invention does. It is my understanding that the prior art references
themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other
times the link may be common sense. I further understand that obviousness
analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often
drives innovation, and that is sufficient motivation to combine references.
24. It is my understanding that a particular combination may be proven
obvious merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For
example, common sense is a good reason for a person of ordinary skill to
pursue known options when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
25. I further understand that a proper obviousness analysis focuses on
what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just the
patentee. Accordingly, it is my understanding that any need or problem known in
9 Comcast, Ex-1202
the field at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
for combining the limitations in the manner claimed.
26. It is my understanding that at least the following rationales may
support a finding of obviousness: (1) combining prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results; (2) simple substitution of one known
element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) use of a known technique to
improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (4) applying a
known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement
to yield predictable results; (5) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (6) a
predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of endeavor if a person
of ordinary skill would be able to implement the variation; (7) there existed a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims at the time of the claimed invention; (8) known work in one field
may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (9) 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.
10 Comcast, Ex-1202
V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART
27. I understand that obviousness is determined from the vantage point of
a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention
(“POSA”). The ’801 Patent states that the invention “relates to interactive
television program guide video systems,” and I agree that this represents the
relevant field of art. (See Ex-1201, 1:16-17). I understand that a POSA is one who
is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in
the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity.
28. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’801 Patent at
the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent would have a bachelor’s degree
in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar
discipline, and two years of experience with interactive program guides, set-top
boxes, mobile computer devices, and techniques for delivering content or program
guides over communication networks, such as a cable system, a local-area
network, and the Internet. In the alternative, a person of ordinary skill in the art of
the ’801 Patent could have equivalent experience either in industry or research,
such as designing, developing, evaluating, testing, or implementing the
aforementioned technologies. I worked in the relevant field with such persons at,
and leading up to, the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent, and thus, I
am familiar with the knowledge that such persons had at the time (i.e., 1997-1999).
11 Comcast, Ex-1202
29. All of my statements in this declaration regarding what a POSA
would have known, understood, appreciated, been motivated to do, etc. refer to a
person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the earliest claimed priority date of
the ’801 Patent – i.e., July 17, 1998 (although, as I establish in Section VII.A
below, the ’801 Patent is not entitled to claim a priority date prior to July 16,
1999).
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
30. I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope
of the claims of the ’801 Patent. I understand that claims subject to inter partes
review are given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
of the patent in which it appears.” Therefore, in my analyses given below I have
assumed that all claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as
would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of
the priority date.
31. With this understanding, I construe several claim terms here: guide,
electronic program guide, local guide, remote guide, user equipment, television
equipment, and program guide information. Each of these is addressed below in
turn.
A. “Guide” / “Electronic Program Guide”
32. The terms “guide” and “electronic program guide” would be
understood by a POSA to refer to software that is operative at least in part to
12 Comcast, Ex-1202
generate a display of television program listings. I note that the claims further
recite the “guide” as allowing a user to make selections from the displayed
television program listings, though these limitations are not inherent to the term
“guide” itself. An example of a “typical” program guide is provided in which
“various groups of television program listings are displayed in predefined or user-
defined categories” and “[l]istings are typically displayed in a grid or table.” (Ex-
1201, 1:30-33). The ’801 Patent describes at least two different types of “guides”:
“interactive television program guides” (“IPGs”) and “on-line program guides.”
The term “interactive television program guide” is defined by function:
“Interactive television program guides allow the user to navigate through television
program listings using a remote control.” (Ex-1201, 1:28-30). By contrast, “on-
line program guides” are described that “allow users to view program listings using
a web-browser,” but “do not allow the user to set in-home reminders for
programming, to adjust parental control settings, or to select programs for
recording on the user’s videocassette recorder.” (Ex-1201, 1:43-50). Because the
’801 Patent describes at least two different types of program guides but only claims
the generic term “guide,” one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
term “guide” as used in the ’801 Patent includes, but is not limited to, interactive
television program guides.
13 Comcast, Ex-1202
33. The term “electronic program guide” does not appear in the ’801
Patent specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this term to
also refer to software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of
television program listings. And, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that interactive television program guides are a type of “electronic program
guide.”
34. To any extent the terms “guide” or “electronic program guide” may
be construed as limited to interactive television program guides, I note that whether
or not a program guide is “interactive” is determined based on, for example,
whether it offers interactive features allowing a user to navigate through television
program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software (such as
selecting a program for recording). (See, e.g., Ex-1201, 1:28-33). Thus, a
reference may disclose an interactive television program guide despite describing
the guide as an “electronic program guide.”
35. The ’801 Patent distinguishes between the “user equipment” / “remote
device” and the “local guide” / “remote guide” implemented thereon. (See, e.g.,
Ex-1201, claim 1). A POSA would understand this distinction to mean that the
“guide” is control software that is implemented on user equipment or the remote
device, such as a set-top box or PC. (See, e.g., Ex-1201, 1:34-35 (“Interactive
14 Comcast, Ex-1202
television program guides are typically implemented on set-top boxes located in
the homes of users.”)).
B. “Local Guide”
36. The term “local guide” would be understood by a POSA to refer to a
guide that generates a display of television program listings for use at the user
premises. (Ex-1201, 1:28-30, 1:34-37, 15:9-15, 24:4-15). It is my understanding
that the Patent Owner has asserted claims of the ’801 Patent in U.S. International
Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1201, styled In the Matter of Certain
Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (“ITC
Investigation”). It is further my understanding that Patent Owner argued that the
local interactive television program guide could be implemented on equipment that
includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the user’s home. In particular, the
Patent Owner presented arguments that the claimed local guide limitations could
be met by software implemented in part on equipment located outside the user
premises. (Ex-1245, p. 56, 218:21-220:13 (discussing the local guide in the
context of Petitioner’s system, and arguing that the data server providing guide
information was part of the local guide)). Similarly, during a discussion of the
prior art, the Patent Owner presented argument that a remotely located server that
provides program guide information would be part of the equipment on which the
local guide is implemented, under the Patent Owner’s interpretation of this term.
15 Comcast, Ex-1202
(Ex-1246, p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2 (discussing Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435, and
agreeing that under Patent Owner’s construction the local guide is implemented on
a local computer and an external broadcast station)). That is, under Patent Owner’s
interpretation of “local guide,” as evidenced by the argument portions I have cited,
the local guide may be implemented at least in part on a server or other device
outside the user’s home. I have been informed that Petitioner is requesting that the
Board adopt this broad interpretation for purposes of this proceeding only, despite
certain statements made during prosecution of the ’801 Patent and related patents.
In my analysis below, I present my conclusions under this broad interpretation as
well as under a narrower interpretation in which the local guide is only
implemented on equipment located within the user’s home.
C. “Remote Guide”
37. The term “remote guide” would be understood by a POSA to refer to
a guide that generates a display of television program listings for use on a remote
access device, such as a mobile device. (Ex-1201, 14:4-21, 12:31-37).
D. “User equipment” / “Television equipment”
38. The terms “user equipment” and “television equipment” would be
understood by a POSA to be interchangeable and to at least include various typical
components of a home television system, such as a set-top box, remote control,
secondary storage device, and a television, or any of these alone or coupled
together with other such devices. I note that the ’801 Patent specification generally
16 Comcast, Ex-1202
uses the term “user television equipment,” which is of the same scope as either
“user equipment” or “television equipment” for validity purposes. An example of
“user equipment” or “television equipment” is provided in Fig. 3 of the ’801
Patent. (Ex-1201, 5:41-43 (“Fig. 3 is an illustrative schematic block diagram of
the user television equipment of Fig. 2 in accordance with the principles of the
present invention.”)). In this example, user television equipment includes “set-top
box” 28, “remote control” 40, “secondary storage device” 32, and “television” 36.
(Ex-1201, Fig. 3; see also 10:15-12:7).
39. However, the ’801 Patent makes clear that this is not the only example
of user television equipment. Fig. 4 illustrates “[a] more generalized embodiment
of user television equipment” including a “user interface 46,” “display device 45,”
“control circuitry 42,” “digital storage device 49,” “secondary storage device 47,”
and “communications device 51.” (Ex-1201, Fig. 4, 11:51-12:29). As such, a
POSA would have understood that user television equipment is not confined to
only the example illustrated in Fig. 3, but also includes any combination of devices
that would have the functional elements of Fig. 4. Thus, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “user equipment” or “television equipment” also includes a
display device. A POSA would also have understood that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “user equipment” and “television equipment” in view of the ’801
17 Comcast, Ex-1202
Patent specification includes multiple devices communicatively coupled together,
such as a STB and a VCR. (See Ex-1201, Figs. 3 and 4, 10:15-28, 12:8-29).
E. “Program Guide Information”
40. “Program guide information” is described in the ’801 Patent as
broadly including “reminder information, listings information, recording
information, message information, status information, parental control settings,
audio and video, status or polling information, user information, favorites settings,
or any other information necessary for remotely providing program guide
functionality.” (Ex-1201, 15:33-41; see also 15:42-16:5, 16:55-17:9, 21:1-10,
24:62-25:7). Thus, a POSA would recognize that “program guide information”
under a broadest reasonable definition includes at least those specific items
enumerated in the ’801 Patent.
F. Preambles of Claims of the ’801 Patent
41. It is my understanding that preamble language that merely states the
purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the
scope of the claim. However, I further understand that when limitations in the
body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then
the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention. Based
on this understanding, in my analyses given below, I have assumed that the
preamble of each independent claim of the ’801 Patent is not to be treated as
limiting the scope of the claims.
18 Comcast, Ex-1202
VII. THE ’801 PATENT
A. Priority Date of the ’801 Patent
42. I understand that U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 10/927,814 (“the ’814
Application”), which eventually became the ’801 Patent, was filed on August 26,
2004.
43. I understand that the ’814 Application was the second in a chain of
applications claiming priority to two provisional applications filed in 1998 that
briefly described features related to networked electronic program guides. (See
U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093, 292, Ex-1204 (“the ’292 Provisional”); U.S. Prov.
App. No. 60/097, 527, Ex-1205 (“the ’527 Provisional”)). After reviewing the
claims of the ’801 Patent and the two provisional applications, it is my opinion that
neither provisional included sufficient disclosure to fully support or enable the
lengthy claims that issued in the ’801 Patent.
44. I have reviewed both the ’292 Provisional and the ’527 Provisional.
In my opinion, neither provisional provides a full written description that could
support the lengthy claims that issued in the ’801 Patent, nor does either
provisional provide an enabling disclosure as would be required for a POSA to
make and use the claims of the ’801 Patent. I have identified two primary features
recited in the claims of the ’801 Patent that do not find support in the provisional
applications, indicated in the diagram below which reproduces claim 1 of the ’801
Patent:
19 Comcast, Ex-1202
45. First, neither provisional application provides a written description of
“transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide
identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the
Internet” as recited in claim 1 and the other independent claims of the ’801 Patent.
No such communication from a “remote guide” and “to the local guide” is
disclosed.
46. There is no discussion of transmitting a selection of a program
between guides in the ’292 Provisional. Regarding transmitting an instruction to
record, the ’292 Provisional states only that “[i]f a household has only one VCR,
there will only be one location that will make all recordings, regardless of which
station the recordings are set from. If there are multiple VCRs in the home, the
20 Comcast, Ex-1202
viewer may be given the option of choosing among those locations,” without
further support. (See Ex-1204, p. 2). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain a
written description of “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the
local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing
via the Internet,” much less provide such written description as would be required
for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.
47. There is a similar lack of support for this feature in the ’527
Provisional. The ’527 Provisional states that:
A viewer may also set reminders, schedule recordings, or purchase
pay programs from a remote computer. These scheduled events
would be transmitted to the television viewing station, where they
would be acted upon at the appropriate time. A viewer might request
that a program be recorded on a VCR in the home, a digital storage
medium in the home (such as recordable DVD) or on a remote server.
These requests might also be made via a touch-tone phone. (Ex-1205,
p. 3).
48. The ’527 Provisional does not discuss identification of a user selection
being sent by a remote guide to a local guide for the local guide to commence a
recording. At best, the relevant section of the ’527 Provisional only states that a
remote computer may schedule a recording via transmission to a television viewing
station. (Id.). However, there is no discussion of transmitting a program selection
from a “remote guide” and “to the local guide” for recording by the local guide.
21 Comcast, Ex-1202
Thus, the ’527 Provisional does not contain a written description of “transmitting,
with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program
corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet,” much less provide
such written description as would be required for a POSA to make and use such a
limitation.
49. Second, neither provisional application provides a written description
for “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a
display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide
information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the
Internet,” as recited in claim 1 and the other independent claims of the ’801 Patent.
The ’292 Provisional states that a guide “may make . . . available” “a profile or
favorite channels” for multiple locations. (Ex-1204, p. 2). However, there is no
recitation of a lineup of “program listings” based on the profile or favorite
channels at all, much less a description of a display on a remote device comprising
a plurality of program listings. (See id.). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not
contain a written description of “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a
user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide
based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on
22 Comcast, Ex-1202
user equipment via the Internet,” much less provide such written description as
would be required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.
50. The ’527 Provisional similarly fails. The ’527 Provisional states that
“user profiles, channel lineups, and parental control options might be retrieved
from the guide . . . .” (Ex-1205, p. 3). However, there is no recitation of how that
information would be used to display “a plurality of program listings” on a remote
device. In fact, there is no recitation of the information being displayed on a
remote device, at all. (Id.). Thus, there is no sufficient written description of
generating program listings based on program guide information as would be
required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.
51. Further, though the ’527 Provisional recites “a guide running in a car
might allow the user to ask verbally for a list of upcoming programs meeting a user
profile loaded from the television,” this description specifically recites verbal
information. (Ex-1205, p. 3). The guide allows “the user to ask verbally,” and
“the user hears the program of interest.” (Id.). While a user profile loaded from
the television is involved in the result, there is no recitation of any display of a
guide based on the user profile in the ’527 Provisional. (Ex-1205, pp. 3-4). Thus,
the ’527 Provisional does not contain a written description of “generating, with a
remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a
plurality of program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the display
23 Comcast, Ex-1202
is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received
from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,” much less
provide such written description as would be required for a POSA to make and use
such a limitation.
52. Therefore, a POSA would be unable to make or use the system
conforming to the limitations of claim 1 based on the limited disclosures provided
by the ’292 Provisional and the ’527 Provisional. Because the other claims of the
’801 Patent recite similar features to claim 1, the provisional applications would
similarly fail to provide a POSA with sufficient written description as would be
required for a POSA to make and use such limitations as they recite. Thus, after
reviewing the claims of the ’801 Patent and the two provisional applications, it is
my opinion that neither provisional included sufficient disclosure to fully support
or enable the lengthy claims that issued in the ’801 Patent.
53. I understand that the ’814 Application was filed as a continuation of
an abandoned application (U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 09/354,344 – “the ’344
Application”) directed to selecting programs over a remote access link for
recording. The ’344 Application expanded substantially on the bare concepts of
the two provisional applications. It is my opinion that the alleged invention
claimed in the ’801 Patent was at best first disclosed in the specification of the
’344 Application on July 16, 1999, the filing date of the ’344 Application.
24 Comcast, Ex-1202
B. Relevant Background of the ’801 Patent
54. In the years before July 16, 1999, the date to which the ’801 Patent is
at best entitled to claim priority, the number of channels available on cable and
satellite television systems was beginning to increase dramatically, calling into
question the workability of traditional paper guides.
55. Solutions to this problem that had appeared in the marketplace were
electronic program guides (EPGs – then dedicated television channels where
program listings would scroll passively) and interactive program guides (IPGs -
where users could scroll, search, and select the listings through button pushes on
the remote control). By the time the applications to which the ’801 Patent claims
priority were filed, both of these solutions were well known to those of ordinary
skill in the art. Additionally, as interactive program guides became ubiquitous, use
of the terms began to overlap. In the technical literature, authors frequently used
EPG to refer to a television program guide offering interactive features.
56. While interactive program guides were originally implemented on set-
top boxes, communicating via the cable company’s connection to the home, that
was beginning to change by the claimed priority date of the ’801 Patent. On-line
program guides were also being implemented that would allow users to access
interactive program guides from other devices, and from anywhere with an Internet
connection. (See, e.g., Ex-1201, 1:43-50). These program guides would allow
25 Comcast, Ex-1202
users to use personal computers on the Internet to browse to an on-line program
guide where the user could scroll and search through program listings. (See, e.g.,
Ex-1201, 1:43-44, 2:1-4). And, some of these online interactive program guides
gave users the ability to use the online program guides to remotely schedule
recordings of programs on their home equipment. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:1-2,
18:1-16).
57. Another known solution to the problem of the large number of
channels was to generate the program listings based on user profiles or favorite
channel lists in order to limit the number of programs or channels displayed to
those the user would find most appealing. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 1:20-41, 2:1-13).
C. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention
58. The alleged invention of the ’801 Patent relates to remotely accessible
guides that are able to schedule recordings on local hardware by communicating
with local guide software. (See Ex-1201, 1:16-19, 2:20-25). The claims of the
’801 Patent recite systems and methods “enabling a user to perform recordings.”
(Ex-1201, claim 1). The system includes “a remote guide accessible by a user of a
remote device.” (Id.). The system also includes “a local guide implemented on
user equipment.” (Id.). The remote guide is recited as “generating . . . a display
comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide
26 Comcast, Ex-1202
information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the
Internet.” (Id.). The remote guide receives “a user selection of a program listing
from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a
program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local
guide,” and transmits “a communication to the local guide identifying the program
corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet.” (Id.). The local
guide “receiv[es] the communication” and schedules “the program corresponding
to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.” (Id.).
59. In other words, the claims are generally directed to systems and
methods having a local guide on local guide equipment in communication via the
Internet with a remote guide on a remote guide device. The remote guide sends a
communication to the local guide over the Internet identifying a user-selected
program and instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program.
The remote guide is generated based on program guide information received from
the local guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1201 at claim 1).
D. Prosecution History
60. Based on my review of the file history of the ’814 Application (which
became the ’801 Patent), it is my understanding that the applicant repeatedly
argued that the primary distinction between the prior art and the alleged invention
lay in the two-guide nature of the claims. However, many remote access IPG
27 Comcast, Ex-1202
systems including guide-to-guide communication were well-known at the time of
the alleged invention. For example, IPGs and associated functionality were
commonly implemented on DSS and other STB hardware at the time of the alleged
invention of the ’801 Patent, as admitted in the specification of the ’801 Patent
itself. (See, e.g., Ex-1202, 1:20-27). I note that no evidence was submitted during
prosecution regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
61. In particular, I note that the Blake reference relied on herein was cited
during prosecution of the ’814 Application. As explained below, during
prosecution of the ’814 Application, the applicant relied on a narrow interpretation
of the claimed invention wherein the communication of user program selections
were sent from the remote device to a local guide implemented on equipment in
the user’s home.
62. For example, in response to an office action rejecting the claims over
Blake, the applicant argued that Blake’s system only includes one guide,
maintaining that Blake “does not show or suggest a remote guide that transmits a
communication to a second guide (on user equipment) to schedule and perform a
recording of a program selected at the remote guide . . . .” (Ex-1233, p. 18-19
(emphasis added)). The applicant also argued in a prior response that “the Blake
system uses central processing system 334 to schedule recordings of programs
selected by the user using a single schedule guide” and control the recording
28 Comcast, Ex-1202
device to perform the recording, as a result “there is only one guide with which the
recording is performed remotely, and not two guides in communication to perform
the remote recording.” (Ex-1232, p. 9).
63. To overcome the examiner objections in view of Blake, the applicant
mischaracterized Blake’s system as only having one guide. However, as explained
further herein (see Section X, infra), Blake’s system indeed included two guides in
communication as recited in the claims of the ’801 Patent.
64. To overcome rejections based on Blake’s disclosure of two guides in
communication, the applicant emphasized during prosecution that the claimed
communication of user-selected program listings from the remote guide to the local
guide was not met by Blake’s communication of user selection information from
input device 332 to central processing system 334. For example, during
prosecution, the applicant submitted a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Dr.
George T. Ligler (“the Ligler Declaration”) arguing that the claimed
communication of program listings from a remote guide to the local guide was not
met by Blake since both embodiments (i.e., the “the Page 17 Embodiments” and
“the Page 18 Embodiments”) required transmitting the user selections from the
remote guide to a central processing system 334. (See Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 21, 24, 41).
65. Consequently, to distinguish over Blake during prosecution, the
applicant advanced a narrow interpretation of the claimed local interactive
29 Comcast, Ex-1202
television program guide, wherein the local guide is implemented solely on
hardware within the user’s home. However, I understand that in the ITC
Investigation Patent Owner relied on a much broader interpretation of the claimed
limitations, arguing that the local interactive television program guide could be
implemented on equipment that includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the
user’s home. (See Ex-1245, p. 56, 218:21-220:13, p. 58, 226:14-227:14
(discussing the local guide in the context of Petitioner’s system, and arguing that
the data server providing guide information or guide functionality, including
recording commands, was part of the local guide)).
66. This interpretation is broader than the narrower constructions that
were advanced during prosecution and argued in the Ligler Declaration. In fact,
under Patent Owner’s more expansive interpretation of the claimed local guide,
many of the admissions made by the applicant during prosecution regarding Blake
resemble what Patent Owner now contends would infringe the alleged inventions
of the ’801 Patent. For example, to distinguish over Blake, the applicant argued
during prosecution that the claimed communication of program listings was not
met by Blake because input device 332 communicated user program selections to
the central processing system and not a local guide implemented on local
equipment. (See Ex-1233, p. 18-19; Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 21, 24, 33, 35, 41). However,
Patent Owner now contends that a recording request made on Blake’s input device
30 Comcast, Ex-1202
332 is communicated to the local guide because the request is communicated to
central processing system 334 and then to VCR 32. (See Ex-1246, p. 48, 1137:23-
1138:15).
67. The ’801 Patent recites the following in the abstract:
An interactive television program guide with remote access is
provided. The interactive television program guide is implemented on
interactive television program guide equipment. A remote program
guide access device is connected to the interactive television program
guide equipment by a remote access link to provide a user with remote
access to program guide functions. (Ex-1201, Abstract).
Therefore, in my opinion, it is a reasonable and accurate statement to conclude: the
general area of technology of the ’801 Patent is that of interactive program guides,
and remote or local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
68. In the analyses I make below I will use multiple prior art references to
show that the claims of the ’801 Patent would have been obvious to a POSA. For
each prior art reference, I will show that its general field of technology is the same
as that of the ’801 Patent, and thus a POSA of the time would have found it
obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art references in order to arrive at the
claims of the ’801 Patent.
E. Limitation Correspondence of All Claims of the ’801 Patent
69. The ’801 Patent includes 54 claims, of which 12 are independent.
After reviewing the independent claims of the ’801 Patent, it is my opinion that the
31 Comcast, Ex-1202
requirements of each of the independent claims are the same for purposes of
determining whether every limitation is disclosed in the prior art. That is, claims 1,
5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 are all either of the same scope or have
minor variations in wording that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA, for
purposes of prior art analysis. I have reviewed both the system claims (10, 15, 28,
33, 46, 51) and the method claims (1, 5, 19, 23, 37, 41), and they each recite the
same devices performing the same steps. Therefore, it is my opinion that the
nature of a claim as “a system” or “a method” is insubstantial for purposes of prior
art analysis. Additionally, it is my opinion that dependent claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25,
30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 are of the same scope with claim 2, that dependent
claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 are of the same scope with claim
3, that dependent claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 are of the
same scope with claim 4, and that dependent claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47 are of
the same scope with claim 6.
70. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 5 can be found in claim 1:
32 Comcast, Ex-1202
Although claim 5 does not explicitly require that “user equipment is located at a
user site,” claim element 5(b) requires that “the local guide generates a display of
one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site.” As
noted in Section VI.D, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user equipment”
includes “a display device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in
language, in my opinion claims 1 and 5 are either of the same scope or have minor
variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior
art analysis.
71. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 10 can be found in claim 1:
33 Comcast, Ex-1202
Claim 10 is a system claim, but recites the same devices performing the same steps
as claim 1. Although claim 10 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim
element 10(b) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these
terms are interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and
“user equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis.
Although claim 10 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is
remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most,
render claim 10 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations
in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 10 are either of the same scope or have
minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA, for purposes of
prior art analysis.
34 Comcast, Ex-1202
72. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 15 can be found in claim 1:
Claim 15 is a system claim, but recites the same devices performing the same steps
as claim 1. Although claim 15 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim
element 15(b) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these
terms are interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and
“user equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis.
Although claim 15 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is
remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most,
render claim 15 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations
in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 15 are either of the same scope or have
35 Comcast, Ex-1202
minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of
prior art analysis.
73. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 19 can be found in claim 1:
Although claim 19 does not explicitly require “receiving the communication with
the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim
19 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations in language,
in my opinion claims 1 and 19 are either of the same scope or have minor
variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior
art analysis.
74. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 23 can be found in claim 1:
36 Comcast, Ex-1202
Although claim 23 does not explicitly require “receiving the communication with
the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim
23 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations in language,
in my opinion claims 1 and 23 are either of the same scope or have minor
variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior
art analysis.
75. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 28 can be found in claim 1:
37 Comcast, Ex-1202
Although claim 28 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim element
28(c) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these terms are
interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and “user
equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis. Although
claim 28 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is remote to the
remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim
28 broader than claim 1. Although claim 28 does not explicitly require “receiving
the communication with the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference
would, at most, render claim 28 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are
minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 28 are either of the same
scope or have minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA
for purposes of prior art analysis.
38 Comcast, Ex-1202
76. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 33 can be found in claim 1:
Although claim 33 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim element
33(c) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these terms are
interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and “user
equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis. Although
claim 33 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is remote to the
remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim
33 broader than claim 1. Although claim 33 does not explicitly require “receiving
the communication with the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference
would, at most, render claim 33 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are
minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 33 are either of the same
39 Comcast, Ex-1202
scope or have minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA
for purposes of prior art analysis.
77. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 37 can be found in claim 1:
Although claim 37 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is
remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most,
render claim 37 broader than claim 1. Claim 37 requires “the user selected
program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide” which
is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim 1’s “user
selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to come from
the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote
device” in order for a user to see the program listing he is selecting. Therefore,
40 Comcast, Ex-1202
while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 37 are
either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be considered
insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.
78. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 41 can be found in claim 1:
Although claim 41 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is
remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most,
render claim 41 broader than claim 1. Claim 41 requires “the user selected
program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide” which
is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim 1’s “user
selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to come from
the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote
41 Comcast, Ex-1202
device” in order for a user to see the program listing he is selecting. Therefore,
while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 41 are
either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be considered
insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.
79. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 46 can be found in claim 1:
Claim 46 is a system claim, but recites the same devices performing the same steps
as claim 1. Although claim 46 does not explicitly require “wherein the user
equipment is remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference
would, at most, render claim 46 broader than claim 1. Claim 46 requires that “the
user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote
guide” which is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim
42 Comcast, Ex-1202
1’s “user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to
come from the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on
the remote device” in order for a user to see the program listing they are selecting.
Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1
and 46 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be
considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.
80. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 51 can be found in claim 1:
Claim 51 is a system claim, but recites the same devices performing the same steps
as claim 1. Although claim 51 does not explicitly require “wherein the user
equipment is remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference
would, at most, render claim 51 broader than claim 1. Claim 51 requires “the user
43 Comcast, Ex-1202
selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote
guide” which is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim
1’s “user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to
come from the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on
the remote device” in order for a user to see the program listing he is selecting.
Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1
and 51 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be
considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.
81. The dependent claims of each independent claim generally correspond
to one another. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and relates to accessing the remote
device over a modem. The limitations of claim 2 are recited using the same or
similar language in dependent claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52,
and are of the same scope. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and relates to scheduling a
recording from an electronic program guide (e.g., the “remote guide”) running on
the remote device. The limitations of claim 3 are recited using the same or similar
language in dependent claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53, and are
of the same scope. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and relates to a user having access
to a website through a computer. The limitations of claim 4 are recited using the
same or similar language in dependent claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50,
and 54 are of the same scope. And claim 6 depends on claim 5 and relates to
44 Comcast, Ex-1202
accessing the remote device over the Internet. The limitations of claim 6 are
recited using the same or similar language in dependent claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and
47, and are of the same scope.
82. As a result of this analysis, it is my opinion that it is only necessary to
show obviousness of all requirements of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, and
6 to also show obviousness of claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51
and their respective dependent claims. That is, a POSA would understand that
claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 require the same limitations
and would conclude that claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 were
obvious if claim 1 were found obvious. Similarly, a POSA would understand that
claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 require the same limitations as
claim 2; that claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 require the same
limitations as claim 3; that claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54
require the same limitations as claim 4; and that claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47
require the same limitations as claim 6, and would conclude that these claims
would be obvious if claims 2, 3, 4, and 6 were found obvious.
VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
A. WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 – Blake (Ex-1222)
83. Blake was published on March 12, 1998. Accordingly, it is my
understanding that Blake is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
45 Comcast, Ex-1202
84. Blake is generally directed to “a system for providing media schedule
information, and more particularly to a television schedule system with enhanced
recording capability.” (Ex-1222, 1:17-19). Peripheral devices (e.g.,
television/guide equipment) located within a user’s home, for example a PC,
PCTV, or set-top box 38, receive broadcast data streams from a distribution center
and include software applications that utilize television schedule information in the
data stream to generate an interactive electronic program guide. (See, e.g., Ex-
1222, 4:10-14, 4:24-26, 4:28-30, 5:1-6, 6:7-10). The local guide displays
television schedule information, allows a user to make program selections, and
controls a recording device located in the user’s home (e.g., VCR 32 of Fig. 1) to
record selected programs. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 15:3-7, 16:12-33; Figs. 1, 12, and
13). The system architecture of Blake is illustrated in Fig. 1:
46 Comcast, Ex-1202
(Ex-1222, Fig. 1 (annotated to illustrate the various receiving locations (e.g., user
premises) in red and “peripheral devices” such as VCRs 32 and 36 in blue, TVs 30
and 34 in purple, and set-top box 38 in orange)).
85. Blake’s television system “enhances the recording capability of the
[local] schedule guide,” for example a schedule guide as disclosed in Young
(incorporated by reference in Blake), “by allowing the user to schedule recordings
from a remote location.” (Ex-1222, 17:1-2 (emphasis added); see also 1:20-2:5).
In particular, Blake discloses that “a user who is away from home may record a
program remotely by using input device 332,” which allows a user to select
47 Comcast, Ex-1202
programs to record according to theme and control recording equipment located in
the user premises (e.g., recording device 336, VCRs 32) to record the selected
program. (Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 17:8-15, 17:19-21, 18:1-16, Figs. 1 and 13). Program
selections made on input device 332 (e.g., program recording requests) are
communicated to and stored at processing system 334 which then activates the
local recording device to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 17:8-18, 18:5-16,
18:18-29). Blake further teaches performing theme-based selections via “a web
site which is connected to processing system 334 to enter the user’s selection.”
(Ex-1222, 18:19-23).
86. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Blake is the same as
that of the ’801 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or
local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
B. U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 – Killian (Ex-1208)
87. Killian was filed on October 3, 1997, and issued December 19, 2000.
Accordingly, it is my understanding that Killian is available as prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
88. Killian is directed to using Internet technology to provide a program
guide applet or application that allows viewers to select, schedule, and record
viewing opportunities according to viewer profiles and program listing information
retrieved from a database. (See Ex-1208, 6:26-31).
48 Comcast, Ex-1202
89. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Killian is the same as
that of the ’801 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or
local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
C. U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,121 – Young (Ex-1223)
90. Young was filed May 6, 1986, and issued on November 10, 1987.
Accordingly, it is my understanding that Young is available as prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (e). Blake incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No.
4,706,121 to Young (Ex-1223)2, and prominently recites in its fourth paragraph that
Young is incorporated by reference therein. (Ex-1222, 1:32-2:5).
91. As discussed above in Section VIII.A, Blake’s system enhances the
recording capability of local IPGs including known systems for providing
television schedule information to users. (Ex-1222, 1:20-2:5, 17:1-2). Blake
describes the IPG disclosed in Young as an example of a known interactive
television schedule system. (Ex-1222, 1:17-22). Blake notes that Young’s
interactive television schedule system receives and displays broadcast television
schedule information on a user’s television screen. (Ex-1222, 1:20-24). In
particular, Young discloses an electronic system for controlling a television to
2 Unless expressly stated herein, citations to columns 1 through 12 of Young are
not referencing the Reexamination Certificate issued under 35 U.S.C. 307.
49 Comcast, Ex-1202
present program listings on a television schedule guide based on schedule
information received in broadcast form, and for enabling a user to program a VCR
or other recording device for automatic unattended recordings based on programs
selected by a user via the television schedule guide. (Ex-1223, 1:11-24, 7:5-11,
7:17-21, 7:60-8:3, 21:48-64, Figs. 2 and 3).
92. Additionally, Blake notes that Young’s system allows a user to make
program selections, control the schedule information presented on the screen, and
control a television receiver to automatically record a selected program on a VCR
or other recording device. (See Ex-1222, 1:24-31). In particular, Young discloses
that a user may use a remote control device (e.g., remote controller 1010) to
navigate a cursor through program listings displayed on the television schedule
guide (e.g., “Master Guide”, “Program Guide”), to select television programs to
view, and to schedule program recordings on a local recording device. (See, e.g.,
Ex-1223, 9:7-15, 9:28-31, 9:48-54, 10:13-18, 10:45-47, 11:26-28, 11:51-53, 11:62-
65, 12:13-23).
93. It is my opinion that a POSA would have understood that Young, as
incorporated by reference in Blake, provides further details as to the features of
Blake’s disclosed local television schedule system, such as the features described
above. Upon seeing the incorporation by reference of Young, a POSA would turn
to Young as a part of the Blake reference and would rely on it as teaching various
50 Comcast, Ex-1202
implementation details and other features of Blake’s television schedule system, in
particular the well-known IPG features disclosed in Young.
IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’801 PATENT
94. It is my opinion that claims 1-54 of the ’801 Patent are rendered
obvious by Blake in view of Killian.
X. BLAKE IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-54
95. For reasons that I will address in more detail below, it is my firm
belief and opinion that, at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the
relevant art would have combined Blake (Ex-1222) and Killian (Ex-1208) in a
manner that renders obvious claims 1-54.
96. As explained above, the claims relate to “a local guide” on user
equipment communicating via the Internet with a “remote guide” on a remote
device. The remote guide receives a user selection of a program listing for
recording by the local guide, and transmits a communication to the local guide via
the Internet instructing the local guide to record the program using the user
equipment. The remote guide display is generated based on program guide
information received from the local guide. (Ex-1201, claim 1).
97. Similarly, Blake, WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 (Ex-1222),
discloses a computer/television system that improves the recording capability of
the local interactive television program guide by allowing a user to view television
schedule information and remotely schedule recording requests via a remote input
51 Comcast, Ex-1202
device. (Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 17:8-15, 18:1-16). As explained above, Blake is
directed to an interactive television schedule system with enhanced recording
capability wherein peripheral devices (e.g., television/guide equipment), located
within a user’s home, implement a local interactive television schedule guide that
may incorporate the IPG features and functionality of known systems, such as the
IPG system disclosed in Young. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 1:20-31, 5:1-6, 17:1-2).
98. In particular, Blake discloses a television/computer system that
includes television/guide equipment located in a user’s home that receive broadcast
data streams from a distribution center or service provider (Ex-1222, 4:10-14,
4:20-26), and include software applications that “utilize [television] schedule
information provided in the data stream to generate a [local] schedule guide” for
displaying on a television or monitor. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 5:1-6, 6:7-10 (“The
processor, executing software stored in memory, generates interactive electronic
program guide images, as well as images of received programs. The guide can be
used to interact with and control programs displayed in the [display screen].”)).
User input for Blake’s local interactive television program guide “is provided via a
remote control, mouse or keyboard, for example” (see Ex-1222, 6:19-20, 8:7-11,
14:26-28), thus allowing the local guide to “receive[] commands and respond[] by
presenting the requested display screen and/or by performing the function
52 Comcast, Ex-1202
requested by the command,” such as recording a program. (See Ex-1222, 15:3-7,
15:23-25).
99. The local schedule guide disclosed in Blake meets the broadest
interpretation of a “local guide” because it generates a display of television
program listings, allows a user to navigate through the listings, make program
selections, and control a recording device located at the user premises to record a
selected program. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 16:12-33, Fig. 12). An example display of
program listings generated by the interactive local guide disclosed in Blake is
illustrated in Fig. 12:
(Ex-1222, Fig. 12).
100. Blake’s system also allows a user who is away from home to access a
guide remotely and schedule recordings on their home equipment. (Ex-1222, 17:1-
53 Comcast, Ex-1202
5; see also 18:1-16). This is accomplished using the architecture illustrated in Fig.
13:
(Ex-1222, Fig. 13). Blake discloses an input device 332 that allows a user to
remotely schedule program recordings on local recording equipment. (See, e.g.,
Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 17:8-15, 17:19-21, Fig. 13; see also 18:1-16). Input device 332
may comprise “any device capable of transmitting data from a remote location,”
for example, an office PC, laptop computer, or cellular phone (each “remote
devices”). (Ex-1222, 17:5-8).
101. Specifically, Blake teaches that a user may designate a program to
record, for example, by directly entering program information using input device
332 or by selecting a program to record according to themes. (See, e.g., Ex-1222,
17:8-11, 17:15-16, 18:1-2, 18:20-23). Input device 332 communicates the user
selection information to processing system 334 which stores the information and,
at the appropriate time, activates a recording device in the user’s home to record
54 Comcast, Ex-1202
the selected program. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16). Blake discloses that the local
recording device is a VCR, such as VCR 32 of Fig. 1 (see Ex-1222, 4:24-32), “but
may be any device with video and\or audio recording capabilities.” (Ex-1222,
17:19-21).
102. Thus, in Blake, a remote user on a user input device, such as a laptop,
selects a program from a theme guide. The selected program is communicated to a
central processing system which controls local hardware to record the program. As
noted above in Section VI.B, the broadest reasonable construction of the term local
guide is an interactive television program guide, implemented on equipment that
includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the user’s home, and that generates a
display of television program listings for use at the user premises. Both the central
processing system and the peripheral devices in the user’s home, as disclosed in
Blake, control recording equipment in the user’s home to schedule a recording of a
program selected by the user.
103. As I will explain further below, a POSA would have understood that
Blake discloses the claimed “local guide” on user equipment in communication via
the Internet with the “remote guide” on a remote device, as required by the claims
of the ’801 Patent. The guides are displayed by local and external devices,
respectively, and would allow users to select programs for recording on their local
peripheral device over the Internet. In particular, Blake’s peripheral devices (e.g.,
55 Comcast, Ex-1202
television/guide equipment) processes television schedule information to generate
a local schedule guide (“local guide”) that displays program listings to the user on
a television screen or monitor. (Ex-1222, 5:1-6, 16:8-9). The user may interact
with the local guide to navigate the on-screen program listings and to schedule a
recording of a selected program on a local recording device. (Ex-1222, 16:17-19,
18:26-32). Additionally, Blake discloses that remote input device 332 presents
(via an interface) a list of television program listings by theme, for example
“basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be played.”
(See Ex-1222, 18:8-10). Blake’s remotely displayed user interface allows the user
to filter/navigate theme categories and program listings, select presented program
listings, and control a local recording device to record the selected program(s).
(See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:8-16).
104. A POSA would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that to
display a listing of selectable theme selections and program listings (Ex-1222,
18:2-10), input device 332 would necessarily provide a user interface (e.g., a
remote guide) to allow the user to select desired programs and initiate a record
request, as is done on the local device. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 15:3-7, 16:20-25).
Blake discloses that television schedule information may be customized and/or
adapted to the user by utilizing a user interface to create a special line-up of
channels. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 16:20-22). The presentation of program listings and
56 Comcast, Ex-1202
available theme selections, as displayed by the user interface on input device 332,
meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “remote guide” because it
encompasses control software that generates a display of television program
listings for use on input device 332, and further allows a user to navigate through
the program listings, make program selections, and control functions of the
software (e.g., scheduling a recording on a home recording device). (See, e.g., Ex-
1222, 18:1-16; see also Sec. VI.C, supra). In response to the user
designating/providing program criteria, processing system 334 (part of the “local
guide”) will communicate the corresponding/matching television schedule
information (“program guide information”) to input device 332 for display to the
user (as a “remote guide”). (Ex-1222, 18:5-12).
105. The system described in Blake closely mirrors that claimed in the
’801 Patent. To any extent the claims are read narrowly to require an “interactive”
program guide on the remote device or to require that program guide information
be received from a local guide wholly implemented in the user’s home, and to any
extent these narrow limitations may not be expressly described in Blake, such
limitations would have been obvious to a POSA. IPGs and associated functionality
were widely-known and commonly implemented on DSS and other STB hardware
at the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent, as admitted in the
specification of the ’801 Patent itself. (Ex-1201, 1:24-33). A POSA would have
57 Comcast, Ex-1202
had ample reason to use the interactive features of known program guides to
display program listings at Blake’s input device 332 given that the remote input
device would require a useful user interface allowing users to make program
selections and initiate record requests, as is taught by Young (see, e.g., Ex-1223,
10:13-18, 10:44-62, 12:13-24), and Blake’s own local guide embodiments. (Ex-
1222, Figs. 1 and 12).
106. A POSA would have recognized that Blake’s “input device 332” and
the “personal computer” or “PCTV 90” are similar in that they are personal
computers, display listings of current or future television programs, enable a user
to navigate through themes/listings and select programs to record, and control
audio/visual equipment to schedule program recordings. As such, it would have
been obvious to implement the conventional and expected interactive features of
Blake’s local television schedule guide on input device 332 to, for example,
receive and display television schedule information (e.g., program listings), to
allow the user to navigate through the displayed program listings, and control a
recording device to record the selected program. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 5:3-6, 16:12-
33, Fig. 12). Furthermore, Young (which Blake incorporates by reference) teaches
conventional displays of IPG interfaces. A POSA would have understood, based
on the incorporation by reference, that Young provides further detail as to Blake’s
system. Young’s program guide, referred to as an “EPG,” provides interactive
58 Comcast, Ex-1202
features by generating displays of programming information and receiving user
input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select programs, filter
program listings based on user preferences, and control functions of the VCR.
(See, e.g., Ex-1223, 11:6-24, 11:51-57, 12:13-19). Using these known interactive
guide features to implement the remote interface would provide predictable
benefits, such as allowing a user to visually select a program for recording on the
mobile device using a typical guide user interface.
107. To any extent Blake’s remote user interface arguably may not be
expressly described as an IPG, a POSA would recognize that the features of
Young’s known IPG could be used to improve Blake’s input device 332. A POSA
would find it obvious to incorporate the interactive features of Young’s IPG into
the user interface of Blake’s input device 332 to achieve the predictable result of
providing users with expected and typical user interfaces to view and navigate
displayed program schedule information. This would be using the known IPG
features of Blake and/or Young to improve the closely related program selection
interface on Blake’s remote input device 332 to obtain the predictable results I
describe above, including providing users with expected and typical user interfaces
to view and navigate displayed program schedule information. This would also be
a simple substitution of the IPG interface of Blake or Young for the theme list on
Blake’s remote input device 332, obtaining these same predictable results.
59 Comcast, Ex-1202
108. To any extent that the claims are narrowly read to require that the
local guide be wholly implemented on hardware in the user’s home, excluding
processing system 334 from the local guide (contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion
in the ITC Investigation), it would have been obvious to modify Blake’s system to
retrieve “program guide information” from local hardware. For example, Killian
teaches IPGs that use a profile module to customize a program guide based on user
preferences stored as user profile data. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 9:10-25,10:55-60,
8:57-9:9). Killian’s user profiles are stored in a profile database that may be stored
locally to the STB or remotely accessible over the Internet. (Ex-1208, 9:10-25,
11:20-21). Killian teaches that program guides may be advantageously customized
based on user profile information stored locally or remotely, and that program
guide displays are constructed based on the user profile information. (Ex-1208,
7:49-61, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). Killian’s user profile data is a type of “program
guide information” because it is “user information.” (See Sec. VI.E, supra).
109. The general area of technology of Killian is also the same as Blake;
namely, that of interactive electronic program guides (IPGs), and remote or local
access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment. (See e.g., Ex-1208,
1:7-9, Abstract). A POSA would have known to combine the teachings of Blake
and Killian to arrive at the elements claimed in the ’801 Patent.
60 Comcast, Ex-1202
110. It would have been obvious to a POSA to implement Killian’s filtered
guides using user profiles stored at the local device in Blake’s remote access guide
system. Blake’s input device 332 provides a “remote theme guide” that allows the
user to filter program listings according to themes, tracks the user’s selections, and
stores that information at processing system 334, not the remote input device. (Ex-
1222, 18:1-10, 18:12-14). Killian teaches that program guides may be customized
based on user profile information stored locally or remotely. (Ex-1208, 9:10-25,
11:20-21). A POSA would have recognized that Killian’s user profiles could be
used to store information about user preferences in Blake and that at least some of
the user profile information would be stored on local hardware and shared with the
remote device, allowing the system to better track a user’s preferences and
generate more effective user interfaces. This would be nothing more than using
known techniques (Killian’s user preference filtering based on locally stored user
profiles) to improve a similar device (Blake’s remote guide) to obtain predictable
results. This would also improve the user experience through better tracking of
user preferences and better identification of desired/undesired content. This would
be done for the purpose of customizing the remote access guide (i.e., the “remote
theme guide”), providing the advantages discussed in Killian. For example,
applying Killian’s known teachings regarding program guide filtering based on
locally stored information would provide the benefit of a customized guide,
61 Comcast, Ex-1202
allowing the user to more quickly identify a desired program in the program
listings. As discussed below, Killian also teaches interactive guide features and a
POSA would similarly look to Killian’s known IPG to improve Blake’s similar
remote guide in the same way. (Ex-1208, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-
11:13).
111. In the following sections, I explain how each limitation of claims 1-54
is disclosed in Blake and Killian, as would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art.
A. Independent Claim 1
112. As explained above, the claims relate to “a local guide” on user
equipment communicating via the Internet with a “remote guide” on a remote
device. The remote guide receives a user selection of a program listing for
recording by the local guide, and transmits a communication to the local guide via
the Internet instructing the local guide to record the program using the user
equipment. The remote guide display is generated based on program guide
information received from the local guide. (Ex-1201, claim 1). Below, I explain
how each limitation of independent claim 1 is rendered obvious in view of Blake
and Killian, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
“A method of enabling a user to perform recordings”
113. Blake discloses an interactive program guide with enhanced recording
capability that provides remote access to recording equipment located within the
62 Comcast, Ex-1202
user premises, allowing the user to schedule recordings while away from home
using input device 332. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 2:8-11, 17:1-5). Specifically, a user
designates a particular program to record using input device 332, for example by
filtering through program listings according to theme and then selecting the desired
program(s). (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:1-10). After the selection(s) has been made,
processing system 334 stores the program selection(s). (Ex-1222, 17:10-13, 18:12-
14). “At the appropriate time, a recording device 336 at the user’s home will be
activated to record the [selected] program.” (See Ex-1222, 17:13-15, 18:14-16).
114. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake discloses “a method of enabling
a user to perform recordings” (e.g., “The present invention enhances the recording
capability of the schedule guide by allowing the user to schedule recordings from a
remote location.”). (Ex-1222, 17:1-2).
“generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet, wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;”
115. Blake discloses all of this claim element as would be understood by a
POSA. However, to the extent that there are some details that are not explicitly
disclosed by Blake, the combination of Blake in view of Killian renders this claim
63 Comcast, Ex-1202
element obvious. Below, I have broken the above limitation into discrete segments
for purposes of illustrating how each portion of this limitation is disclosed in Blake
and Killian.
a) “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user
of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of
program listings for display on the remote device”
116. As explained above, Blake’s system enhances the recording capability
of a local program guide by allowing a user to schedule recordings away from
home using a remote access device (i.e., input device 332). (See, e.g., Ex-1222,
17:1-5). Blake further discloses that a user may use input device 332 to initiate a
record request by selecting a program to record from a list of available programs
presented on input device 332. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:1-16). The user’s program
selection is communicated to processing system 334 in order to, at the appropriate
time, activate a recording device in the user’s home to record the selected program.
(See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:8-15, 18:1-16, Fig. 13). It is my understanding that, in the
ITC Investigation, Patent Owner admitted that Blake’s input device 332 is a
“remote device” that allows a user who is away from home to schedule program
recordings on local television equipment, such as VCR 32. (Ex-1246, pp. 46 and
48, 1132:18-23, 1137:15-22).
117. Blake further discloses that a user may select a television program to
record according to themes. (Ex-1222, 18:1-2, 18:20-23). In particular, Blake
64 Comcast, Ex-1202
discloses that the user may be presented, via a user interface on input device 332,
with several themes to select from when choosing a program to record, such as
“sports, movies, science fiction, sit-coms and the like.” (Ex-1222, 18:2-7). In
response to the user designating/providing program criteria, processing system 334
will communicate the corresponding/matching television schedule information to
input device 332 for display to the user. (Ex-1222, 18:5-12; see also Ex-1234, ¶31
(admission by applicant in Ligler Declaration that Blake’s input device 332
“provides the interface to the user for remotely scheduling recording of a
program”)). Blake describes a particular example of selecting a basketball game to
record (i.e., Chicago Bulls v. LA Lakers) via the user interface presented on input
device 332 wherein:
[T]he user may first choose to select program by themes. The user
may then select sports when presented with a list of theme
selections, and further select basketball. The user may be presented
with a list of basketball games which are currently being played or
are scheduled to be played, and the user may then choose the Bulls v.
Lakers game.
(Ex-1222, 18:5-10 (emphasis added)). For purposes of this analysis, I will adopt
the convention that the various listings of themes (e.g., sports, movies, science
fiction, etc.), theme selections (e.g., basketball), and program listings (e.g., the “list
of basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be
65 Comcast, Ex-1202
played”), as rendered and displayed by the user interface presented on input device
332, will be referred to as a “remote theme guide.” (Ex-1222, 18:2-10). As noted
above, the user may filter through available television schedule information
provided on the remotely displayed user interface when finding a program to
record, which “is particularly helpful when the user is not quite sure of the title of
the program.” (Id.).
118. The remote input device (i.e., input device 332) allows a user to select
a program to record according to themes by presenting, via a “remote theme
guide,” a list of selectable themes (e.g., sports) and theme selections (e.g.,
basketball) for the user to choose from. (Ex-1222, 18:1-8; see also 17:22-24
(describing “user interface” of input device 332)). It is my opinion that the
presentation of the remote theme guide by Blake’s input device 332 meets the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “remote guide” because, as discussed above,
it is software that generates a display of television program listings for use on the
remote input device. It also is an “interactive” guide because it further allows a
user to navigate through the program themes/listings, make theme/program
selections, and control functions of the software (e.g., scheduling a recording on a
local recording device). (Ex-1222, 18:1-16, 17:13-19, 17:22-24). It is my further
understanding that Patent Owner previously admitted in the ITC Investigation that
the remote input device providing enhanced recording capabilities allowing the
66 Comcast, Ex-1202
user to remotely schedule programs, as described in the Fig. 13 embodiment of
Blake, implemented “an interactive program guide.” (Ex-1246, p. 47, 1135:13-19).
119. A POSA would have understood that Blake’s input device 332
necessarily provides a user interface (i.e., the remote theme guide) allowing the
user to select a program for recording from the available theme selections and
program listings on the remote input device (a display of television program
listings that allows a user to control functions of the software). (Ex-1222, 18:1-
26). Additionally, the POSA would have further understood that Blake’s input
device 332 necessarily receives television schedule information to generate the
remote theme guide allowing the user to view and navigate through displayed
program listings. (Ex-1222, 18:1-16, 5:1-3). Because Blake teaches that
television/guide equipment includes software to generate program guides using
television schedule information and to initiate recording requests via the local
guide (Ex-1222, 5:2-3, 6:5-9, 16:20-25), a POSA would have understood that
Blake’s input device 332 would similarly use software to implement the remote
theme guide to display television schedule information on input device 332 and
allow a user to schedule program recordings on home recording equipment via the
remote theme guide.
120. However, to the extent that Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails
to expressly disclose additional details as to the implementation of a remote guide
67 Comcast, Ex-1202
on input device 332, implementing IPG functionality in the user interface of
Blake’s remote input device would have been obvious to a POSA. As discussed
above, interactive electronic program guides, such as Young’s IPG and Blake’s
own local IPG, were well known and commonly implemented prior to the time of
the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent. (See Sec. VII.B, supra). Blake discloses
generating, by the television/guide equipment located within a user’s home, a local
IPG based on television schedule information received from distribution center 10.
(See, e.g., Ex-1222, 4:10-16, 5:1-3, 6:5-9). Specifically, the local program guide
implemented in part on Blake’s television/guide equipment displays “the television
schedule information . . . in a grid-like display on the television screen.” (Ex-1222,
16:12-14). “[V]arious channels are provided on the Y-axis of the grid guide, and
various times are provided on the X-axis of the grid guide.” (Ex-1222, 16:14-16).
An example display of program listings generated by the interactive local guide
disclosed in Blake is illustrated in Fig. 12:
68 Comcast, Ex-1202
(Ex-1222, Fig. 12). As shown in Fig. 12 above, the local IPG presents television
schedule information in a grid-like display, and Blake discloses that the user, via
the local guide interface, can scroll through the television schedule information
provided in the local guide to access additional programs/channels. (See Ex-1222,
16:12-19). The display in Figure 12 of Blake would be displayed on a display
device, such as a television set or computer monitor, at the user’s home. (Ex-1222,
4:28-30, 15:29-30, 16:12-13). Notably, the applicant admitted in the Ligler
Declaration that Blake’s system incorporates a local television schedule guide
implemented on equipment within the user’s home, such as the television schedule
guide disclosed by Young. (See Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 33, 41). Furthermore, during a
discussion of the Blake reference in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner admitted
that Blake discloses an interactive program guide and that IPGs were known well
69 Comcast, Ex-1202
before the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent. (Ex-1246, pp. 44-46,
1123:23-1124:6, 1124:19-22, 1128:8-14, 1128:22-1129:7).
121. A POSA would have been motivated to look elsewhere in the Blake
disclosure to determine how to configure input device 332 to display and/or
implement IPG functionality. When doing so, the POSA would have recognized
that both “input device 332” and the “personal computer” (e.g., peripheral device
within the user premises) are similar in that they are personal computers, display
listings of current or future television programs, enable a user to navigate through
themes/listings and select programs to record, and control audio/visual equipment
to schedule program recordings. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:1-16). As such, it would
have been obvious to implement the conventional and expected interactive features
of Blake’s local television schedule guide on input device 332 to, for example,
receive and display television schedule information (e.g., program listings), to
allow the user to navigate through the displayed program listings, create a
customized line-up of program listings, make selections, and control a recording
device to record a selected program. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 5:3-6, 16:12-33, Fig. 12).
122. Furthermore, Young (which Blake incorporates by reference) teaches
conventional displays of IPG interfaces. Young, as I explained above in Section
VIII.C, discloses a system for presenting an electronic program guide that displays
program schedules and controls the recording of selected programs. (See, e.g., Ex-
70 Comcast, Ex-1202
1223, 1:14-24, 10:13-15). Young’s program guide, referred to as an “EPG,”
provides interactive features by generating displays of programming information
and receiving user input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select
programs, filter program listings based on user preferences, and control functions
of the VCR. (See, e.g., Ex-1223, 11:6-24, 11:51-57, 12:13-19). Young also
discloses that the interactive program guide system may be implemented on a
personal computer such that the PC receives program schedule information and
controls, as peripheral devices, the receiver implementing the program guide as
well as the VCR. (See, e.g., Ex-1223, 21:67-22:10). As I explained above,
Blake’s input device 332 displays its own user interface (i.e., remote theme guide)
for viewing/selecting program listings to record and initiating record requests.
(Ex-1222, 18:1-16; see also 17:22-24).
123. To any extent Blake’s remote user interface arguably may not be
expressly described as an IPG, a POSA would recognize that the features of
Young’s known IPG could be used to improve Blake’s input device 332. This
would achieve the predictable result of a remote input device that implements and
displays an IPG for scheduling program recordings, and would provide the same
benefits that Young discloses, such as receiving and displaying television schedule
information in a guide format, customizing the IPG according to user criteria (e.g.,
program theme, user-defined time periods), and scheduling program recordings on
71 Comcast, Ex-1202
television equipment within the user’s home. (Ex-1223, 10:13-15, 11:26-28,
11:51-57, 12:13-24). Furthermore, a POSA would also find it obvious to
incorporate the interactive features of Young’s IPG into the user interface of
Blake’s input device 332 to achieve the predictable result of providing users with
expected and typical user interfaces to view and navigate displayed program
schedule information. Accordingly, it also would have been obvious to a POSA to
use known techniques of providing an IPG, as disclosed in Young, to improve the
comparable remote input device of Blake in the same way.
124. Similarly, Killian teaches conventional displays of interactive
program guide interfaces. As discussed above, Killian’s system provides an IPG
that is locally installed on a television receiver and implemented using APIs to
coordinate system functionality. (Ex-1208, 2:1-24, 3:7-37, 3:50-58). Killian
discloses that the IPG generates displays of programming information and receives
user input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select programs for
recording, and control functions of the receiver and platform. (See, e.g., Ex-1208,
Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-21,
and 15:53-16:7). Killian provides an express teaching that the IPG software
modules could be integral to the functionality of devices other than the receiver on
which the local program guide is implemented. (Ex-1208, 15:53-16:7).
72 Comcast, Ex-1202
125. To any extent Blake may not expressly describe the remote theme
guide as “interactive,” a POSA would recognize that the features of Killian's
known IPG could be used to improve Blake’s remote recording feature in the
remote theme guide. The user interface presented on Blake’s input device 332
allows a user to navigate and select themes by category and subcategory to filter
and display program listings according to themes. (Ex-1222, 18:1-10). The user
may select a desired program listing via the user interface to initiate a recording
request that controls local recording equipment to record the selected program.
(Ex-1222, 18:8-16). A POSA would readily recognize that the remote user
interface of Blake could be improved to incorporate the interactive guide features
disclosed in Killian. This would be a use of Killian’s known interactive features to
improve a similar device (e.g., Blake’s input device 332). This would achieve the
predictable result of a remote guide having interactive features and able to receive
a user selection of a program for recording, and would provide the same benefits
that Killian discloses, namely “allowing viewers to more intelligently select,
schedule, and record their viewing opportunities. . . ” (Ex-1208, 1:20-23). Killian
also provides an express teaching that its IPG modules could be integral to the
functionality of other devices (e.g., Blake’s input device 332). (Ex-1208, 15:53-
16:7).
73 Comcast, Ex-1202
126. Therefore, Blake at least renders obvious “generating, with a remote
guide” (e.g., Blake’s remote theme guide, improved with interactive features as
taught by Blake, Young, and/or Killian) “accessible by a user of a remote device”
(e.g., input device 332), “a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device.”
b) “wherein the display is generated by the remote guide
based on program guide information received from a local
guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet”
127. As explained above, Blake’s discloses a computer/television system
including receiving locations (e.g., a user home) having television/guide equipment
on which a local guide is implemented. (Ex-1222, 4:28-32, 5:2-6). Specifically,
local peripheral devices, such as TVs, VCRs, set-top boxes, PCs, PCTVs (i.e., user
equipment), receive broadcast data streams from a distribution center and include
software that utilizes television schedule information in the data streams to
generate a local guide. (See Ex-1222, 4:10-14, 4:24-32, 5:1-6, 6:1-10). The
configuration of these components is illustrated in Fig. 1:
74 Comcast, Ex-1202
(Ex-1222, Fig. 1). In fact, it is my understanding that, in the ITC Investigation,
Patent Owner admitted that Blake discloses a local IPG implemented on local
interactive program guide equipment (i.e., an IPG implemented on television/guide
equipment located within location 22). (See, e.g., Ex-1246, pp. 44-46, 1123:23-
1124:6, 1124:19-22, 1128:8-14, 1128:22-1129:7). I explain the operation of
Blake’s local guide further below in Section X.A.2.d.
128. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “local guide,” the
local guide may be implemented at least in part on a server or other device outside
the user’s home. (See Sec. VI.B, supra). As I previously noted in Section VII.D,
75 Comcast, Ex-1202
Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the claims in the ITC Investigation is
broader than the arguments that were advanced by the applicant during
prosecution, namely that the local guide was/is implemented solely on hardware
within the user’s home (i.e., user equipment). (See, e.g., Ex-1233, pp. 18-19
(Blake “does not show or suggest a remote guide that transmits a communication
to a second guide (on user equipment) to schedule and perform a recording of a
program selected at the remote guide . . .”)). In fact, in discussing the local guide
in the context of Petitioner’s system, Patent Owner argued that a data server,
located away from the user premises, providing guide information or guide
functionality, including recording commands, was part of the local guide. (Ex-
1245, p. 56, 218:21-220:13, p. 58, 226:14-227:14). Accordingly, under this
expansive interpretation, the local guide would not be limited to an implementation
on television/guide equipment (e.g., peripheral devices) in the user home. Thus,
the local guide equipment and local guide could include hardware and software of
a central data server, such as software that is implemented on central processing
system 334 to activate the recording of a program on a local recording device.
129. As explained above in Section X.A.2.a, a POSA would have
understood that Blake’s input device 332 necessarily provides a “remote guide”
allowing the user to view television schedule information and initiate recording
requests. (Ex-1222, 18:1-26). Blake discloses that the input device 332 receives
76 Comcast, Ex-1202
television schedule information from processing system 334 to present the user
with program listings, such as a list of scheduled basketball games. (Ex-1222,
18:5-12). Referring back to the “Chicago Bulls v. LA Lakers” example disclosed
in Blake, the user is presented via input device 332 with a list of theme categories
to select from and indicates his/her preference to record a sporting event by
selecting the “sports” category. (Ex-1222, 18:2-8). A POSA would have
understood that a user, when provided with several theme categories, such as
“sports, movies, science fiction, sit-coms,” and who then selects one of those
choices, is clearly expressing a preference for the theme category that he/she
selected. (See Ex-1222, 18:2-3). Blake discloses that a user’s theme/program
selections are stored at processing system 334 (Ex-1222, 18:12-14), not input
device 332. It is my understanding that, in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner
admitted that a user’s selections are stored at processing system 334. (See Ex-
1246, p. 47, 1134:18-22). Accordingly, because the user’s theme selections are
stored at processing system 334, the amount of television schedule information that
needs to be sent to input device 332 when generating further displays on the theme
guide interface would be reduced. Again, Patent Owner has admitted this fact.
(Ex-1246, p. 47, 1134:23-1135:6). Because I understand the term “program guide
information” to include various types of information, such as listing information,
recording information, and any other information necessary for remotely providing
77 Comcast, Ex-1202
program guide functionality, the program listing information (e.g., “a list of
basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be
played . . .” (Ex-1222, 18:8-10)) provided from processing system 334 for
presentation on Blake’s remote device constitutes “program guide information.”
(See Sec. VI.E, supra). Under Patent Owner’s expansive interpretation of the local
guide, Blake’s input device receiving television schedule information from
processing system 334 to present program listings to the user would satisfy the
requirement of “wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on
program guide information received from a local guide.”
130. Even under a narrower interpretation, where the local guide is
implemented solely on equipment within the user’s home, excluding processing
system 334 from the local guide (contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion in the ITC
Investigation), the requirement of Blake’s remote theme guide obtaining the
“program guide information” from the local guide is still disclosed by Blake.
Blake discloses that the program guide images and program database may be
generated “locally,” where “the system for creating the electronic programming
guide must receive television schedule information and process the received
information to create a database.” (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 6:18-19, 6:24-26).
Alternatively, the program guide images and database may be generated
“remotely” and the program guide is transmitted to the device
78 Comcast, Ex-1202
implementing/displaying the program guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 6:18-19, 7:13-
15). As such, in the event program guide information is stored locally to central
processing system 334 or peripheral devices in the user’s home, the POSA would
have understood that Blake’s input device 332 would receive the locally stored
television schedule information (i.e., program guide information) from the local
guide to generate the display of theme selections and program listings in the
remote guide. (Ex-1222, 18:1-16, 5:1-3; Sec. X.A.2.a, supra). Further, modifying
Blake’s system to generate the remote guide displays based on user preference
information (another type of “program guide information”) stored at local
hardware, away from the remote device, would have been obvious in view of
Killian.
131. Killian teaches IPGs that use a profile module to customize a program
guide based on user preferences stored as user profile data. (See, e.g., Ex-1208,
9:10-25, 10:55-60, 8:57-9:9). Killian’s user profiles are stored in a profile database
that may be stored locally to the STB or remotely accessible over the Internet.
(Ex-1208, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). User profiles may be used to filter channels and
specific content from program listings during generation of program guide
displays. (Ex-1208, 7:49-61, 1:20-41). Killian discloses: “[t]oolkit 58 also
includes an electronic programming guide (EPG) API 60 that contains classes
for . . . constructing electronic scheduling displays according to viewer profiles
79 Comcast, Ex-1202
and selected program listing information . . . .” (Ex-1208, 7:49-61, (emphasis
added)). Therefore, Killian teaches that program guides may be advantageously
customized based on user profile information stored locally or remotely, and that
program guide displays are constructed based on the user profile information. (Ex-
1208, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). Killian’s user profile data is a type of “program guide
information” because it is “user information.” (See Sec. VI.E, supra).
132. It would have been obvious to a POSA to implement Killian’s filtered
guides using user profiles stored at the local device in Blake’s remote access guide
system. Blake’s input device 332 provides a “remote theme guide” that allows the
user to filter program listings according to themes, tracks the user’s selections, and
stores that information at processing system 334, not the remote input device. (Ex-
1222, 18:1-10, 18:12-14). Killian teaches that program guides may be customized
based on user profile information stored locally or remotely. (Ex-1208, 9:10-25,
11:20-21). A POSA would have recognized that Killian’s user profiles could be
used to store information about user preferences in Blake and that at least some of
the user profile information would be stored on local hardware and shared with the
remote device, allowing the system to better track a user’s preferences and
generate more effective user interfaces. This would be nothing more than using
known techniques (Killian’s user preference filtering based on locally stored user
profiles) to improve a similar device (Blake’s remote guide) to obtain predictable
80 Comcast, Ex-1202
results. This would also improve the user experience through better tracking of
user preferences and better identification of desired/undesired content. This would
be done for the purpose of customizing the remote access guide (i.e., the “remote
theme guide”), providing the advantages discussed in Killian. For example,
applying Killian’s known teachings regarding program guide filtering based on
locally stored information would provide the benefit of a customized guide,
allowing the user to more quickly identify a desired program in the program
listings. As discussed below, Killian also teaches interactive guide features and a
POSA would similarly look to Killian’s known IPG to improve Blake’s similar
remote guide in the same way. (Ex-1208, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-
11:13).
133. Blake further discloses that input device 332 “may be any device
capable of transmitting data from a remote location,” such as a network-accessible
personal computer or laptop computer. (Ex-1222, 17:5-8, 18:18-29). For example,
using input device 332, “the user may access a web site which is connected to
processing system 334 to enter the user’s selection . . . by selecting the program
according to themes.” (Ex-1222, 18:18-23; see also 18:26-29 (discussing use of
email and telnet accounts to transmit recording requests)). Because Blake’s input
device 332 sends user program selections to processing system 334 by accessing a
website, as discussed above, and also receives television schedule information
81 Comcast, Ex-1202
(e.g., program listings) to display via the remote guide (see Sec. X.A.2.a), a POSA
would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that input device 332 is
capable of communicating with processing system 334 or other devices over “the
Internet.” A POSA would have further understood that the television schedule
information sent to input device 332 would also be remotely communicated over
“the Internet” as required by the claims. (See Ex-1222, 18:5-14, 18:18-20, 5:1-8).
134. To any extent Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails to expressly
disclose receiving the program guide information from the local guide “via the
Internet,” this would have been an obvious modification of Blake in light of
common network communication systems known to a POSA at the time of the
’801 Patent. It was well known at the time of the alleged inventions in the ’801
Patent that devices residing in remote locations may use the Internet to transmit
data. Although Blake may not explicitly disclose that television schedule
information is transmitted to input device 332 via an Internet communications
path, a POSA would have understood that a device capable of remotely
transmitting and receiving data, such as input device 332 (see, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:5-
8, 18:5-12; see also, 18:18-20, 18:26-29), would be used for Internet
communications, and furthermore that using Blake’s input device 332 to transmit
and receive information over an Internet communications path would be obvious to
try. In light of the entirety of Blake’s disclosure, utilizing an Internet
82 Comcast, Ex-1202
communications path for receiving television schedule information would have
been a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., Internet communications)
for another (i.e., generic communication) to obtain predictable results (i.e.,
receiving the television schedule information from the local guide).
135. As another example, Killian teaches that the receiver 10 is “coupled to
the Internet and associated sources of Internet information using a bidirectional
link 14” (Ex-1208, 3:18-20), which may be any “wireless or wireline
communications link suitable to couple [receiver 10] to the Internet.” (Ex-1208,
3:41-43). Killian discloses that receiver 10 implements an interactive program
guide that allows viewers to select, schedule, and record viewing opportunities
according to information received using link 14, such as program listing
information. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 8:49-52). Killian’s user profiles are stored in a
profile database that may be stored locally to the STB or remotely accessible over
the Internet (Ex-1208, 9:10-25; see also 11:20-21), and may be used to filter
channels and specific content from program listings during generation of program
guide displays. (Ex-1208, 7:49-61, 1:20-41). It would have been obvious to a
POSA to use Killian’s known techniques for transmitting information over an
Internet communications path within Blake’s system so that a user who is away
from home may use input device 332 to receive television schedule information
from a remote location (e.g., local equipment implementing the local guide). It
83 Comcast, Ex-1202
also would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s Internet communications
to retrieve other types of program guide information, such as Killian’s locally
stored user profiles, for use in generating the display of the remote guide.
Accordingly, communicating television schedule information from remote
locations using an Internet communication path enhances the recording ability of
the local guide by allowing the user to view program listings and schedule program
recordings when away from home and thus, providing the user with increased
access to and control over the television equipment within his/her home.
136. Therefore, Blake in view of Killian discloses “wherein the display is
generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet.”
c) “wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote
device” and “wherein the user equipment is located at a
user site”
137. Blake’s “TV system” includes various receiving locations (e.g., a user
home) that include peripheral devices (e.g., television/guide equipment)
implementing an interactive television program guide. (Ex-1222, 4:24-26, 5:2-3).
Specifically, Blake teaches that the user’s home may include television/guide
equipment, such as PCs, TVs PCTVs, set-top boxes, VCRs or “any recording
device capable of recording on a recordable medium,” that generate a local
schedule guide using television schedule information within broadcast data streams
84 Comcast, Ex-1202
received from a distribution center. (Ex-1222, 4:11-16, 4:24-32, 5:2-8). As I have
explained above, Blake’s television/guide equipment located within the user
premises constitutes “user equipment.” (See Sec. VI.D, supra). It is my further
understanding that, in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner conceded that Blake’s
peripheral devices located within the user’s home, such as a VCR, constitutes user
guide/television equipment. (Ex-1246, pp. 45-46, 1128:22-1129:7).
138. Blake’s system improves the recording capability of a local interactive
television program guide by allowing a user to schedule recordings from a remote
location using a remote device (i.e., input device 332). (Ex-1222, 17:1-5 (“a user
who is away from home may record a program remotely by using input device
332 . . .”)). Blake discloses that the local guide is implemented on user equipment
(e.g., peripheral devices) located at a user’s home (e.g., location 22 of Fig. 1). (Ex-
1222, 4:24-30, 5:1-3, Fig. 1). Notably, the Patent Owner conceded that Blake’s
input device 332 is remotely located from the user guide/television equipment.
(Ex-1246, pp. 46, 1131:21-1132:23). Accordingly, Blake discloses local
equipment located at a user’s home and a remote device remotely operated by a
user, to schedule program recordings via the local guide. (Ex-1222, 17:1-2).
139. As such, Blake discloses “wherein the user equipment” (located at the
user’s home, e.g., the peripheral device(s), etc.) “is remote” (i.e., location away
from the user’s home) “to the remote device” (e.g., input device 332 used to
85 Comcast, Ex-1202
remotely record a program). And Blake discloses “wherein the user equipment is
located at a user site” (i.e., the peripheral devices and other equipment located
within the user’s home, such as VCR 32).
d) “wherein the local guide generates a display of one or
more program listings for display on a display device at the
user site”
140. As described above, Blake discloses generating, by the
television/guide equipment located within a user’s home, a local IPG based on
television schedule information received from distribution center 10. (See, e.g.,
Ex-1222, 5:1-3, 6:5-9). Blake also discloses that the “television system configured
to display an electronic program guide . . . includes an on-screen display controller
and other hardware . . .” to generate and display the program guide images. (Ex-
1222, 6:11-13, 15:29-30; see also 6:18-19). Additionally, it is my understanding
that, in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner admitted that Blake discloses a local
IPG implemented on local interactive program guide equipment (i.e., an IPG
implemented on television/guide equipment located within location 22). (See, e.g.,
Ex-1246, pp. 44-46, 1123:23-1124:6, 1124:19-22, 1128:8-14, 1128:22-1129:7).
141. It is my opinion that Blake discloses the television/guide equipment
within a user’s home that generates a “local guide” based on television schedule
information, and further that the local guide generates a display of one or more
program listings on a display device. Specifically, the local program guide
86 Comcast, Ex-1202
implemented in part on Blake’s television/guide equipment displays “the television
schedule information . . . in a grid-like display on the television screen.” (Ex-1222,
16:12-14). “[V]arious channels are provided on the Y-axis of the grid guide, and
various times are provided on the X-axis of the grid guide.” (Ex-1222, 16:14-16).
An example display of program listings generated by the interactive local guide
disclosed in Blake is illustrated in Fig. 12:
(Ex-1222, Fig. 12). The display in Figure 12 of Blake would be displayed on a
display device, such as a television set or computer monitor, at the user’s home.
(Ex-1222, 4:28-30, 16:12-13, 15:29-30). Additionally, as discussed above, a local
IPG generating a display of television schedule information on the user’s television
screen is taught by Young, which is incorporated by reference in Blake. (Ex-1222,
1:22-24; see also Ex-1223, 10:44-59, 11:26-28).
87 Comcast, Ex-1202
142. As discussed above, Blake’s interactive television program guide is
navigable by a user to, for example, scroll through and select a particular program
for recording. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 15:3-7, 15:23-25, 16:17-19, 16:23-25). As
such, Blake’s local television/guide equipment implements an interactive program
guide because it displays information on broadcast programs of the stations via a
display screen, allows the user to select a program, and can instruct other user
equipment (e.g., VCRs 32) to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 16:12-19,
16:22-25, 16:31-33). Notably, as discussed above in Section VII.D, the applicant
admitted in the Ligler Declaration that Blake’s system incorporates a local
television schedule guide implemented on equipment within the user’s home, such
as the television schedule guide disclosed by Young. (See, e.g., Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 33,
41).
143. Young, which is incorporated by reference in Blake, provides
additional details as to how Blake’s local guide operated. (Ex-1222, 1:20-2:5).
Young relates to an electronic system for processing program schedule information
to display a plurality of program listings, to facilitate user selection of programs
via a program guide interface displayed on the TV screen, and to provide the
automatic unattended recording of programs by making selections via the program
guide interface. (Ex-1223, 1:17-24, 11:26-29, 12:13-24). Young discloses
receiver and television control systems that display television schedule information
88 Comcast, Ex-1202
in a program guide, receive user program selections via the program guide, and
control a TV receiver and VCR to schedule recordings of programs selected by the
user. (Ex-1223, 7:33-42, 7:60-64, 7:66-8:5, 8:42-66, 11:26-28, 12:13-24). Young
discloses that program listings displayed in the program guide may be filtered by a
user according to program themes and sub-categories (Ex-1223, 12:13-16, 12:46-
60), and further discloses control software used to implement the IPG and
corresponding IPG functionalities. (Ex-1223, 6:12-13, Figs. 7-10, 13). Because
Young is incorporated by reference in Blake and referenced in explaining Blake’s
local television schedule system, a POSA would turn to Young as a part of Blake
and would rely on it as teaching various implementation details and other
interactive features of Blake’s local television schedule system. (Ex-1223, 1:11-
21, 3:3-7, 11:26-31, 12:13-19; see also Ex-1222, 1:20-2:5).
144. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake discloses “wherein the local
guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display
device at the user site.”
“receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide”
145. As I explained above in Section X.A.2.a, Blake’s “remote theme
guide” as presented by input device 332 at a location outside the user’s home is a
“remote guide,” as claimed in the ’801 Patent. Blake expressly discloses that a
89 Comcast, Ex-1202
user may make a series of theme selections, via the remote theme guide on input
device 332, to view program listings that have been filtered based on a selected
theme subcategory. For example, the user may be presented with “a list of
basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be played”
after selecting the “basketball” theme subcategory. (Ex-1222, 18:8-10). The user
may then select a program listing, via the remote theme guide, to identify a
particular program (i.e., the Bulls v. Lakers game) for recording by a recording
device at the user’s home (e.g., recording device 336, VCRs 32). (Ex-1222, 18:12-
16, 17:19-21).
146. Information indicating the user’s program selection (i.e., the Bulls v.
Lakers game) is communicated to processing system 334 to activate a recording
device at the user’s home, such as VCR 32, to record the game. (Ex-1222, 18:14-
16). A POSA would understand that the user program selection made at input
device 332 would necessarily indicate the program to be recorded. In fact,
regarding Blake, the applicant admitted in the Ligler Declaration that Blake
discloses that a user’s recording request, made on input device 332, is
communicated to processing system 334 and the selected program is recorded by
the local recording device. (Ex-1234, ¶¶25, 34, 36; see also Ex-1222, 17:1-2,
17:13-15, 17:29-30, 18:12-16, 18:23-26). Additionally, it is my understanding that
in the ITC Investigation Patent Owner also admitted that when a user makes a
90 Comcast, Ex-1202
program selection at input device 332 “ultimately, there’s a communication from
the input device 332 to a recording device in the user’s home . . . .” (Ex-1246, p.
47, 1136:12-22; see also p. 48, 1137:7-22 (admitting that the Blake “embodiment
of figure 13 can be used to record on the VCR 32 of figure 1”).
147. To any extent Patent Owner may argue that Blake does not expressly
teach that the program selection on input device 332 is made using an IPG, a
POSA would find this obvious as explained above in Sections X.A.2.a. As
discussed above, a POSA would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that
to display a listing of selectable themes to facilitate a user identifying a particular
program to record, input device 332 would provide a user interface (e.g., remote
theme guide) to allow the user to select desired themes and/or program listings,
and to initiate a record request, as is done on the local guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1222,
15:3-7, 16:17-25).
148. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake discloses “receiving, with the
remote guide” (e.g., the remote user can schedule a program recording on a local
recording device, such as VCR 32), “a user selection of a program listing” (e.g.,
Bulls v. Lakers game) “from the plurality of program listings” (e.g., “a list of
basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be played”)
“wherein the user selection identifies a program” (e.g., identification of Bulls V.
91 Comcast, Ex-1202
Lakers game) “corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the
local guide.” (See Ex-1222, 18:1-16).
149. I note that Young (incorporated by reference in Blake) similarly
discloses selection of an event for recording by a user, and details the use of
program identifiers to identify programs selected for recording. (See, e.g., Ex-
1223, 3:14-17, 3:21-24, 3:53-56, 4:36-44, 5:19-27, 5:37-43, 7:60-64, 9:16-23,
15:20-26, 21:48-64 (discussing searching of schedule information based on user
criteria to automate recordings of selected programs)). Killian similarly discloses
selection of an event for recording by a user, and details the use of program
identifiers to identify programs selected for recording. (Ex-1208, 17:7-23, 17:44-
51 (discussing syntax of record command)).
“transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet”
150. Blake discloses at least two ways in which a user may schedule a
program recording at a local recording device. First, a user may schedule the
recording of the program using the local television program guide. (See, e.g., Ex-
1222, 15:3-7, 15:23-25, 6:20-23). Specifically, an entry is made in a recording
queue identifying the user’s program recording request, and when “a time slot for
the time currently indicated by the clock indicates that a program is to be recorded
then the channel broadcasting the program is selected and the VCR is controlled
92 Comcast, Ex-1202
to record the program” by the local guide. (Ex-1222, 16:29-33 (emphasis
added); see also 14:26-32, 15:26-28). Accordingly, a POSA would have
understood from the disclosure of Blake that the local guide controls the recording
device, located in the user’s home, to record a selected program.
151. Second, Blake teaches that a remote input device may improve the
recording capability of the local program guide by allowing a user to remotely
initiate a recording request. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:1-2). Specifically, Blake
discloses that input device 332 allows users to view and select a program to record
on a local recording device according to themes. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 18:1-
10, 18:17-26). A concrete example of this is that “[a]fter the user has made his/her
selection(s), processing system 334 preferably confirms the user’s selection(s), and
stores the information [and] . . . [a]t the appropriate time(s), processing system 334
will activate recording device 336 at the user’s home to record the game(s) [such
as the Bulls v. Lakers game].” (Ex-1222, 18:12-16). Blake makes clear that a
desired program can be recorded on the local recording device (e.g., VCR 32) “in
response to the user selecting automatic, unattended recording via the user
interface.” (Ex-1222, 17:22-24). Specifically, Blake discloses that processing
system 334 receives information indicating a program selection made by the user
via the “remote theme guide” implemented on input device 332, stores the user’s
93 Comcast, Ex-1202
selection, and activates the local recording device at the appropriate time to record
the selected program. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 17:13-15).
152. Therefore, in view of Blake’s disclosure, a POSA would have
understood that input device 332 would instruct processing system 334 to control a
VCR, (for example, VCR 32 of Fig. 1), located at the user’s home (e.g., location
22) to record the selected program. (See Ex-1222, 4:28-32, Fig. 1). This is
accomplished through data sent from input device 332, which is communicably
connected to processing system 334, and then to home recording equipment. (See,
e.g., Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 17:10-19; see also Ex-1234, ¶¶25, 34, 36 (admission in
Ligler Declaration that user program selections made at Blake’s input device 332
are communicated to a local recording device to record the selected program)).
153. As noted above in Section X.A.2.b, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “local guide,” processing system 334 would also be considered a
part of Blake’s local guide. Here, Blake discloses that user program selections
made via input device 332 are communicated to processing system 334, which
stores the user’s selection information and activates a recording device at the user
premises at the appropriate time. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:16-19).
Because the local guide may be implemented at least in part on a server or other
device outside the user’s home, such as processing system 334 (see Ex-1245, p. 56,
218:21-220:13; see also Ex-1222, 2:32-3:13), a POSA would recognize that the
94 Comcast, Ex-1202
communication indicating a recording request (e.g., user program selections) is
transmitted from input device 332 to the local guide. Notably, Patent Owner
admitted in the ITC Investigation that “when a program is chosen for recording at
input device 332, that’s going to be communicated to central processing system
334 . . . [and then] to the local interactive program guide.” (Ex-1246, p. 48,
1138:5-15). Thus, in view of Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the claims, a
recording request sent from input device 332 to processing system 334 would
satisfy the requirement of “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication
to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program
listing via the Internet.”
154. Additionally, as I explained above in Section X.A.2.b, a POSA would
have understood and/or found it obvious that user program selection information
communicated from input device 332 to processing system 334 would be
transmitted via “the Internet” as required by the claims of the ’801 Patent. Sending
recording commands over the Internet would have been an obvious modification of
Blake in light of common network communication systems known to a POSA at
the time of the ’801 Patent. Input device 332 “may be any device capable of
transmitting data from a remote location.” (Ex-1222, 17:5-8). It was well known
at the time of the alleged inventions in the ’801 Patent that devices residing in
remote locations may use the Internet to transmit data. Although Blake may not
95 Comcast, Ex-1202
explicitly disclose that a user’s program selections are transmitted to processing
system 334 via an Internet communications path, a POSA would have understood
that a device capable of remotely transmitting data, such as input device 332 (see,
e.g., Ex-1222, 17:5-8; see also 18:18-20, 18:26-29), would be used for Internet
communications, and furthermore that using Blake’s input device 332 to transmit
information over an Internet communications path would be obvious to try. In
light of the entirety of Blake’s disclosure, utilizing an Internet communications
path for transmitting program recording commands would have been a simple
substitution of one known element (i.e., Internet communications) for another (i.e.,
generic communication) to obtain predictable results (i.e., communicating the same
television program selection to the processing system). As another example,
Killian teaches that the receiver 10 is “coupled to the Internet and associated
sources of Internet information using a bidirectional link 14” (Ex-1208, 3:18-20),
which may be any “wireless or wireline communications link suitable to couple
[receiver 10] to the Internet.” (Ex-1208, 3:38-43). Killian discloses that receiver
10 implements an interactive program guide that allows viewers to select,
schedule, and record viewing opportunities according to information received
using link 14, such as program listing information. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 8:49-52).
It would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s known techniques for
transmitting television schedule information over an Internet communications path
96 Comcast, Ex-1202
within Blake’s system so that a user who is away from home may use input device
332 to transmit user program selection information from a remote location to
processing system 334. Accordingly, transmitting user program selection
information from remote locations using an Internet communication path enhances
the recording ability of the local guide by allowing the user to schedule program
recordings when away from home and thus, providing the user with increased
access to and control over the television equipment within his/her home.
155. I have explained above how Blake discloses the claimed “local guide”
limitations as they are construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, to any extent this claim term were to be construed as narrowly limited to
the local guide being solely implemented on a device inside the user’s home, the
requirement of transmitting a communication identifying the user’s program
selections from the remote guide to the local interactive television program guide
would be obvious to a POSA. In particular, Blake discloses that a user’s program
selections are communicated to processing system 334, which stores this
information and activates a recording device at the user premises. (Ex-1222,
18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:12-13, 17:16-19). Blake also teaches that the local guide
controls the local recording device (e.g., VCR 32) to record a selected program.
(Ex-1222, 16:29-33). In fact, Blake expressly states that “[t]he present invention
enhances the recording capability of the [local] guide [to control a local
97 Comcast, Ex-1202
recording device] by allowing the user to schedule recordings from a remote
location.” (Ex-1222, 17:1-2 (emphasis added)). A POSA would have found it
obvious that Blake’s local guide should serve as a central manager of scheduled
recordings on local hardware, and would coordinate selections from multiple
sources (e.g., made directly using the local guide or remotely using the remote
guide).
156. A POSA would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that
processing system 334 would communicate the user’s program selection
information, from the remote user interface to the local guide in order to control (or
activate) the local recording device to record the selected program. (Ex-1222,
17:1-2, 17:16-19, 16:31-33, 18:13-16). Because the forwarding of
communications in this manner was well known at the time of the ’801 Patent, the
POSA would have found it obvious to forward the recording request (e.g., user
selection information) received at processing system 334 to the local guide
implemented on local television/guide equipment. This would provide the
expected result of allowing the local guide to control the local recording device to
record the selected program and would reduce necessary processing on the
processing system. For example, Young (incorporated by reference in Blake)
similarly discloses selection of an event for recording by a user, and discloses the
98 Comcast, Ex-1202
conventional use of control signals to initiate a program recording at a VCR. (Ex-
1223, 8:42-53, 8:56-66, 9:12-35).
157. Additionally, Killian provides further evidence as to the obviousness
of the role of the local guide as a central manager of recordings scheduled on local
hardware. As explained above, Killian discloses a JAVA program guide operable
to control local hardware using a range of JAVA APIs, and in particular is
described as using APIs to control scheduled recordings on a local VCR. (See,
e.g., Ex-1208, 8:5-35, 8:57-9:9, 17:7-23, 17:44-51). The local program guide
application calls various API routines associated with the VCR to coordinate
scheduled recordings. (See Ex-1208, 8:5-35). Killian asserts that this modular API
architecture provides a “technical advantage” by allowing “virtually any
appropriate EPG applet” to control the local recorder. (Ex-1208, 8:31-32). The
APIs are used to pass suitable information concerning the program and desired
listings. (See Ex-1208, 8:57-9:9). Program identifiers, such as titles or air
date/time, may be used to identify recordings and may be passed through the
system to identify a program to be recorded. (See Ex-1208, 17:7-23). Killian’s
program identifiers facilitate the easy identification of programs selected for
recording in a manner that is less susceptible to user error than classic time, date,
channel, duration methods of identifying a scheduled recording. (See Ex-1208,
17:18-22 (“EPG 70 is able to cause recorder to record any program using a
99 Comcast, Ex-1202
program identifier for the program, without information from the viewer regarding
the air date, start time, stop time, or channel. . . .”)).
158. It would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s recording APIs
and program identifiers provided by the guide platform to effect the recording
commands received from a remote guide or central processing system in Blake’s
system, as it would be a use of a known technique (Killian’s specific program
guide API-based recording) for a closely related element (Blake’s recording
control) to achieve the predictable result of effectively scheduling recordings using
the local guide hardware (e.g., a STB), thereby avoiding the need for separate
communications with recording hardware by the remote device. This would also
achieve a predictable benefit of allowing the local guide to assess recording
schedule conflicts and assist the user in resolving any conflicts that would
otherwise arise if the remote guide were able to schedule recordings without going
through the local guide. Using Killian’s program identifiers would simplify the
process of scheduling a recording by reducing the likelihood of user error and
would reduce the amount of information the system must exchange between
devices to schedule recordings.
159. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Blake in view of Killian discloses
“transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide
100 Comcast, Ex-1202
identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the
Internet.”
“receiving the communication with the local guide”
160. As discussed above in Section X.A.4, Blake discloses allowing a user
to schedule a recording for a particular program on a local recording device from a
remote location by sending user program selections from a remote guide to
processing system 334 and then to the local recording device. (See Ex-1222, 17:1-
8, 18:12-16; see also Ex-1246, p. 48, 1137:23-1138:12). Blake discloses that
processing system 334 receives the user’s program selection(s) from the remote
theme guide presented on input device 332, stores this information, and activates
the recording device within the user premises to record the program selected by the
user. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:13-15). As discussed above in Section
X.A.4, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “local guide,” processing
system 334, which receives the user’s program selection from input device 332,
(Ex-1222, 18:8-14), would also be considered a part of Blake’s local guide. Thus,
in view of Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the claims, a recording request
received by processing system 334 from input device 332 would satisfy the
requirement of “receiving the communication with the local guide.”
161. As further discussed above in Section X.A.4, to any extent this claim
term were to be construed as narrowly limited to the local guide being solely
101 Comcast, Ex-1202
implemented on a device inside the user’s home, the requirement of receiving the
communication at the local guide and recording the television program
corresponding to the user’s program selections indicated in the communication
would have been obvious to a POSA. As explained above, user program selections
are communicated to Blake’s processing system 334, which stores this information
and activates a local recording device (e.g., VCR 32) to record the selected
program. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26; see also 17:12-13, 17:16-19). A POSA
would have understood that processing system 334 would communicate the
recording request, from input device 332 to the local guide to control the local
recording device to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 16:29-33). Further,
the POSA would have found it obvious to forward the recording request received
at processing system 334 to the local guide, thus providing the expected result of
allowing the local guide to control the local recording device to record the selected
program.
162. Therefore, Blake discloses “receiving the communication with the
local guide” (e.g., from input device 332 used by a user away from home, over the
Internet).
“responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.”
102 Comcast, Ex-1202
163. Blake discloses allowing a user to schedule a recording for a
particular program on a local recording device from a remote location by sending
user program selections from a remote guide to processing system 334 and then to
the local recording device. (Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 18:12-16; see also Ex-1246, p. 48,
1137:23-1138:12). As discussed above in Sections X.A.4-5, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “local guide,” Blake discloses that processing system
334 receives the user’s program selection(s) from the remote theme guide
presented on input device 332, stores this information, and activates the recording
device within the user premises to record the program selected by the user. (Ex-
1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:12-15). Blake discloses that the local recording
device may be a VCR or “any device with video and/or audio recording
capabilities.” (Ex-1222, 4:28-32, 17:19-21). Thus, in referring back to the Bulls v.
Lakers example, Blake discloses “responsive to the communication, scheduling,
with the local guide” (i.e., the local guide implemented at least in part on
processing system 334) “the program corresponding to the selected program
listing” (i.e., Bulls v. Lakers game selected by the user via the remote theme guide)
“for recording by the user equipment” (e.g., for recording by VCR 32 in the user’s
home).
164. I have explained above how Blake discloses the claimed “local guide”
limitations as they are construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
103 Comcast, Ex-1202
However, to any extent this claim term were to be construed as narrowly limited to
the local guide being implemented on a device inside the user’s home, the
requirement of receiving the communication at the local guide and recording the
television program corresponding to the user’s program selections indicated in the
communication would have been obvious to a POSA. In particular, as discussed
above in Sections X.A.4-5, it would have been obvious to a POSA to forward a
communication indicating a user’s program selections from processing system 334
to the local guide implemented on television/guide equipment within the user
premises, in order to “control” the local recording device to record the selected
program. (Ex-1222, 18:14-16; see also 14:26-32, 15:26-28, 16:29-33). Thus, in
the example provided above, Blake discloses responsive to the communication,
scheduling, with the local guide” (i.e., the local guide operating on television/guide
equipment within the user’s home) “the program corresponding to the selected
program listing” (i.e., Bulls v. Lakers game selected by the user via the remote
theme guide) “for recording by the user equipment” (e.g., for recording by VCR 32
in the user’s home). (See Ex-1222, 5:2-6, 17:1-5, 17:18-21, 18:1-16).
165. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake in discloses “responsive to the
communication, scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to
the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.”
104 Comcast, Ex-1202
166. For the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that a POSA would
have found claim 1 of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.
B. Dependent Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the user
equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem.
167. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Blake in view of Killian
teaches communication between a remote device and user equipment over the
Internet. (See Sec. X.A.2.b). For example, Blake’s input device 332 sends user
program selections to processing system 334 by accessing a website or by sending
recording requests via email. (Ex-1222, 18:18-29). Blake further discloses that
television/guide equipment in the user’s home may use a modem or cable modem
to receive program information. (Ex-1222, 5:21-22, Fig. 2). That is, the
television/guide equipment in the user’s home is accessible over modem.
168. As I explained above in Section X.A.4, Blake discloses or renders
obvious transmitting a recording command from the remote guide to the local
guide over the Internet. Modems were well known in the art as one way to use the
Internet at the time of the ’801 Patent. Because modems were a well-known means
of accessing resources over the Internet, and because the remote guide would send
a message to the local guide over the Internet causing the user equipment to record
a program, a POSA would have understood that the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over a modem.
105 Comcast, Ex-1202
169. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a POSA would have found claim 2
of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.
C. Dependent Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein scheduling
the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic
program guide running on the remote device
170. The “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on
the remote device” discussed with respect to claim 1 is an electronic program guide
as properly construed because it is control software that is operative at least in part
to generate a display of television program listings. It also allows the user to
navigate through the television program listings, make selections, and control
functions of the software. (See Sec. VI.A, supra).
171. Specifically, Blake discloses that input device 332 allows a user to
select a program to record according to themes by presenting, via a “remote theme
guide,” a list of selectable themes (e.g., sports) and theme selections (e.g.,
basketball) for the user to choose from. (Ex-1222, 18:1-8; see also 17:22-24
(describing “user interface” of input device 332)). As discussed above in Section
X.A.2.a, a POSA would have understood Blake’s “remote theme guide,” as
rendered by input device 332, is an electronic program guide as properly construed
because it is software that generates a display of television program listings for use
on the remote input device. (Ex-1222, 17:16-24, 18:1-16). Notably, Patent Owner
has admitted in the ITC Investigation that Blake’s remote input device
106 Comcast, Ex-1202
implemented “an interactive program guide.” (Ex-1246, p. 47, 1135:13-19).
However, to any extent that Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails to expressly
disclose additional details as to the implementation of a remote electronic program
guide on input device 332, as discussed above in Section X.A.2.a, implementing
IPG functionality in the user interface of Blake’s remote device would have been
obvious to a POSA. (See, e.g., Sec. X.A.2.a, supra).
172. Therefore, as discussed above, the recording scheduling originating
from the remote device is “scheduling the recording from an electronic program
guide running on the remote device.” (See Ex-1222, 17:1-2, 18:1-16).
173. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a POSA would have found claim 3
of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.
D. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein a web site is
accessible to the user from a computing device of the user.
174. This claim merely recites the existence of any website that is
accessible from a previously unrecited computing device of the user, and has no
relationship to the rest of the claim. At the time of the ’801 Patent, it was well
known that a user could access a web site from a computing device.
175. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Blake
discloses that input device 332 “may be any device capable of transmitting data
from a remote location,” and further that the user can use input device 332 to
107 Comcast, Ex-1202
“access a website which is connected to processing system 334 to enter the user’s
selection.” (Ex-1222, 17:5-9, 18:17-20; see Sec. X.A.2.b, supra).
176. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a POSA would have found claim 4
of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.
E. Dependent Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the user
equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.
177. As discussed above with respect to claim 2, this is taught by Blake,
which teaches that remote device (i.e., input device 332) sends a program
recording request to processing system 334, for example by accessing a website,
that stores the user selection information and activates a recording device in the
user’s home to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 18:1-20; see also 17:12-19;
Sec. X.D, supra). Further, as discussed above in Section X.A.4, a POSA would
have understood from the disclosure in Blake that input device 332 is capable of
communicating with processing system 334 or other devices over an Internet
communication path, as required by the claims of the ’801 Patent, to schedule a
program recording on a local recording device.
178. To any extent Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails to expressly
disclose “wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over the
Internet,” this would have been an obvious modification of Blake in light of
common network communication systems known to a POSA at the time of the
’801 Patent as explained above in Section X.A.4.
108 Comcast, Ex-1202
179. The user equipment would be “accessible” over the Internet because
the remote device could and would send control commands to the user equipment
over the Internet. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a POSA would have found
claim 6 of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.
F. Claims 5 and 7-54
180. As established above in Section VII.D, independent claims 5, 10, 15,
19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially identical limitations to those
in claim 1 for validity purposes, and they should stand or fall together.
181. Similarly, claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 recite
substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21,
26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 recite substantially identical limitations to those
recited in claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 recite
substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 4; claims 11, 24, 29, 42,
and 47 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 6; and
should respectively stand or fall together.
182. Claims 1-4 and 6 have been demonstrated to be unpatentable as
obvious over Blake in view of Killian above. My analysis in Section VII.D
illustrates how the various recited limitations of claims 1-4 and 6 correspond to the
recited limitations of claims 5 and 7-54.
109 Comcast, Ex-1202
183. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 5 and 7-54 are obvious over
Blake in view of Killian for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to
claims 1-4 and 6.