COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ROVI GUIDES, INC.
Transcript of COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ROVI GUIDES, INC.
Comcast, Ex-1002
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. 8,006,263 Filing Date: October 7, 2005 Issue Date: August 23, 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 1 of 3
i Comcast, Ex-1002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............. 1
III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 6
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES .................... 7
V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART ........................................................................................ 10
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 12
VII. THE ’263 PATENT ..................................................................................... 20
VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 39
IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’263 PATENT ....................................................................................................................... 44
ii Comcast, Ex-1002
X. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, AND 17-18 ...................................... 45
XI. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, AND 19 ....................................................................................................................... 98
XII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KAWAMURA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, AND 17-18 ............................................................................................101
XIII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN IN VIEW OF KAWAMURA AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, AND 19 ......................................................................................139
iii Comcast, Ex-1002
XIV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................142
1 Comcast, Ex-1002
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. 8,006,263 (Ex-1001, “the ’263 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-1002
is included in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1003 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-1002
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 ’263 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-1002
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 ’263 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-1002
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-1002
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 ’263 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.
8,006,263 to Michael D. Ellis (Ex-1001, “the ’263 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 ’263 Patent.
18. In preparing this declaration I have reviewed the following references
relied on in the petition upon which the challenge is based:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 to Humpleman (Ex-1006)
U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499, hereinafter “Humpleman Provisional”
(Ex-1007)
U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 to Killian (Ex-1008)
U.S. Pat. No. 5,805,763 to Lawler (Ex-1009)
Jap. Pub. No. H10-155131 to Kondo (Ex-1011 [Japanese original] and
Ex-1012 [English translation])
7 Comcast, Ex-1002
Jap. Pub. No. H9-102827 to Kawamura (Ex-1013 [Japanese original] and
Ex-1014 [English translation])
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 ’263 Patent based on the following grounds:
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Humpleman in view of Killian.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Humpleman in view of Killian and Lawler.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Kondo in view of Killian, Kawamura, and Lawler.
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
8 Comcast, Ex-1002
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
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
9 Comcast, Ex-1002
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
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
10 Comcast, Ex-1002
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.
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 ’263 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-1001, 1:19-22). I understand that a person of ordinary
skill in the art 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.
11 Comcast, Ex-1002
28. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’263 Patent at
the time of the alleged invention of the ’263 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 ’263 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 ’263 Patent, and thus, I
am familiar with the knowledge that such persons had at the time (i.e., 1997-1999).
29. All of my statements in this declaration regarding what a person of
ordinary skill in the art 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 ’263 Patent – i.e., July 17, 1998 (although, as I
establish in Section VII.A below, the ’263 Patent is not entitled to claim a priority
date prior to July 16, 1999).
12 Comcast, Ex-1002
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
30. I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope
of the claims of the ’263 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:
interactive television program guide, mobile device, user television equipment, and
user profile. Each of these is addressed below in turn.
A. Local and Remote Interactive Television Program Guides
32. The term “interactive television program guide” would be understood
by a POSA to refer to control software that is operative at least in part to generate a
display of television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the
television program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.
This understanding is consistent with the term’s usage in the ’263 Patent, which
discloses the term by function: “Interactive television program guides allow the
user to navigate through television program listings using a remote control.” (Ex-
1001, 1:31-33). An example of a “typical” program guide is provided in which
13 Comcast, Ex-1002
“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-
1001, 1:33-36). This usage would inform a POSA that an interactive television
program guide at least provides functionality to allow a user to navigate television
program listings. Furthermore, as described in the ’263 Patent, such interactive
television program guides are “typically implemented on set-top boxes . . .
connected to the user's television.” (Ex-1001, 1:37-40). A POSA would further
understand that an interactive television program guide provides users the
capability to make selections and to control functions of the program guide
software.
33. I note in particular that interactive program guides are a type of
“electronic program guide” (EPG). 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). Thus, a reference may disclose the claimed “interactive television
program guide” despite describing the guide as an “electronic program guide.”
34. The ’263 Patent distinguishes between “interactive television program
guide equipment” and an “interactive television program guide,” which is
implemented on interactive television program guide equipment. (See e.g., Ex-
14 Comcast, Ex-1002
1001, claim 1). A POSA would understand this distinction to mean that the
“interactive television program guide” is control software that is implemented on
interactive television program guide equipment, such as a set-top box. (See, e.g.,
Ex-1001, 1:37-38 (“Interactive television program guides are typically
implemented on set-top boxes located in the homes of users.”)).
35. The term “local interactive television program guide” would be
understood by a POSA to refer to an interactive television program guide that
generates a display of television program listings for use at the user premises. (Ex-
1001, 1:31-33, 1:37-40, 12:23-29, 21:24-29). It is my understanding that the
Patent Owner has asserted claims of the ’263 Patent in U.S. International Trade
Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001, styled In the Matter of Certain
Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (“ITC
Investigation”). It is further my understanding that the 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-1045, 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
15 Comcast, Ex-1002
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.
(Ex-1046, 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 interactive television program 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
’263 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.
36. The term “remote interactive television program guide” would be
understood by a POSA to refer to an interactive television program guide that
generates a display of television program listings for use on a remote access
device, such as a mobile device. (Ex-1001, 11:16-33, 9:43-49).
16 Comcast, Ex-1002
B. Mobile Device
37. The term “mobile device” would be understood by a POSA to refer to
any portable computer-based device, for example a notebook computer, as
contrasted with stationary devices such as servers and desktop computers. The
term “mobile device” finds no clear definition in the ’263 Patent, and is in fact not
recited in the ’263 Patent specification. However, the ’263 Patent specification
does recite a “remote program guide access device” and provides several
examples: “As shown in FIG. 5, remote program guide access device 24 may be
any suitable personal computer (PC), portable computer (e.g., a notebook
computer), palmtop computer, handheld personal computer (H/PC), display
remote, touch-screen remote, automobile PC, personal digital assistant (PDA), or
other suitable computer based device.” (Ex-1001, 9:43-49).
38. The ’263 Patent specification does not identify any of these devices
particularly as “mobile devices.” A POSA would recognize, however, that some of
the devices identified as a “remote program guide access device” are also “mobile
devices,” while some would be understood as non-mobile. For example, a
“portable computer (e.g., a notebook computer), palmtop computer, handheld
personal computer (H/PC), display remote, touch-screen remote, automobile PC,
[or] personal digital assistant (PDA)” would be understood by a POSA to be
mobile. A POSA would understand that “other suitable computer based device[s]”
17 Comcast, Ex-1002
may include both portable and non-portable devices, and would consider suitable
computer-based portable devices to fall within the term mobile device as used in
the ’263 Patent. Therefore, a POSA would understand “mobile device” to refer to
any portable computer-based device.
C. User Television Equipment
39. The term “user television equipment” would be understood by a
POSA 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. An example of
user television equipment is provided in FIG. 3 of the ’263 Patent. (Ex-1001, 3:51-
53 (“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-1001, Fig. 3;
see also 7:27-8:62).
40. However, the ’263 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-1001, Fig. 4, 8:63-9:41.). As such, a POSA
18 Comcast, Ex-1002
would understand 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 television equipment” also includes a display device. A
POSA would also understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user
television equipment” in view of the ’263 Patent Specification includes multiple
devices communicatively coupled together, such as a STB and a VCR. (See Ex-
1001, Figs. 3 and 4, 7:27-40, 8:63-9:7).
D. User Profile
41. The term “user profile” would be understood by a POSA to include
any data indicating a user preference. The ’263 Patent specification uses “User
Profiles”, “User Preference Profiles”, and “Preference Profiles” interchangeably.
(See, e.g., Ex-1001, 17:37-47, 23:60-24:26). As such, a POSA would recognize
these terms to be interchangeable within the context of the ’263 Patent. The ’263
Patent specification provides some examples of what “user preference profiles” are
used for. For example, “[u]ser preference profiles may also be used to limit the
amount of data provided to remote program guide access device” by “data filtering
… according to the user profiles when transferring data to remote program guide
access device 24.” (Ex-1001, 17:37-43). Specifically, “[o]nly data for those
19 Comcast, Ex-1002
programs or channels that are of interest to the user may be transferred if desired.”
(Ex-1001, 17:43-45.)
42. Based on this usage, a POSA would understand a “user profile” to
include, at least, information indicating “programs or channels that are of interest
to the user.” (Id.). However, user profile information is not limited to favorites.
For example, user profiles are described as also having “favorite channels, themes,
indicate likes or dislikes, etc.” (Ex-1001, 24:4-7). Therefore, a POSA would
understand that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a “user profile” includes
any data indicating a user preference.
E. Preambles of Claims of the ’263 Patent
43. 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. I further
understand that the preamble of a claim may also act as a necessary component of
the claimed invention when limitations of a dependent claim rely upon and derive
antecedent basis from the preamble. Based on this understanding, in my analyses
given below I have assumed that the preamble of all independent claims of the
’263 Patent is not to be treated as limiting the scope of the claims.
20 Comcast, Ex-1002
VII. THE ’263 PATENT
A. Priority Date of the ’263 Patent
44. I understand that U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 11/246,392 (“the ’392
Application”), which eventually became the ’263 Patent, was filed on October 7,
2005. It is further my understanding that the ’392 Application was the third 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 Ex-1004 - U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093,292 (“the ’292 Provisional”); and Ex-
1005 - U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/097,527 (“the ’527 Provisional”)).
45. 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 ’263 Patent, nor does either
provisional provide an enabling disclosure as would be required for a POSA to
make and use the claims of the ’263 Patent. I have identified two primary features
recited in the claims of the ’263 Patent that do not find support in the provisional
applications, indicated in the diagram below which reproduces claim 1 of the ’263
Patent:
21 Comcast, Ex-1002
46. First, neither provisional application provides a written description for
a system wherein the remote access interactive television program guide “transmits
a communication identifying the television program corresponding to the selected
program listing from the remote access interactive television program guide to the
local interactive television program guide [for recording by the local interactive
22 Comcast, Ex-1002
television program guide] over the Internet communications path” as recited in
claim 1 and the other independent claims of the ’263 Patent. No such
communication from a “remote access interactive television program guide to the
local interactive television program guide” is disclosed.
47. 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
viewer may be given the option of choosing among those locations,” without
further support. (See Ex-1004 at p. 2). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain
a written description of a system wherein the remote access interactive television
program guide “transmits a communication identifying the television program
corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive
television program guide to the local interactive television program guide [for
recording by the local interactive television program guide] over the Internet
communications path,” much less provide such written description as would be
required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.
48. 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,
23 Comcast, Ex-1002
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-1005 at p. 3).
49. 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 access interactive television program guide” and “to the local
interactive television program guide” for recording by the local guide. Thus, the
’527 Provisional does not contain a written description of a system wherein the
remote access interactive television program guide “transmits a communication
identifying the television program corresponding to the selected program listing
from the remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive
television program guide [for recording by the local interactive television program
guide] over the Internet communications path,” much less provide such written
description as would be required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.
24 Comcast, Ex-1002
50. Second, neither provisional application provides a written description
for “a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program
guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is
generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote
program guide access device” as recited in claim 1 and the other independent
claims of the ’263 Patent. The ’292 Provisional states that a guide “may make…
available” “a profile or favorite channels” for multiple locations. (Ex-1004 at 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 based on the profile or favorite
channels. (See id.). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain a written
description of “a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the
remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of
program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote
from the remote program guide access device,” much less provide such written
description as would be required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.
51. 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-1005 at p. 3). However, there is no recitation of how that
information would be used to display “a plurality of program listings” on a remote
25 Comcast, Ex-1002
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.
52. 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. (Id.). 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. (Id.). Thus, the ’527 Provisional does not
contain a written description of “a display of a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the
plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a
location remote from the remote program guide access device,” much less provide
such written description as would be required for a POSA to make and use such a
limitation.
53. Additionally, the ’292 Provisional fails to provide a written
description for “wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile
device.” The ’292 Provisional fails to provide any disclosure of “a mobile device,”
26 Comcast, Ex-1002
much less a remote access program guide operating on a mobile device. (Ex-1004
at p. 2). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain a written description of
“wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device,” much less
provide such written description as would be required for a POSA to make and use
such a limitation.
54. 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
’263 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 ’263 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 ’263 Patent.
55. I understand that the ’392 Application was filed as 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. I understand that the ’392 Application claims
priority to the ’344 Application by way of U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 10/927,814. It
27 Comcast, Ex-1002
is my opinion that the alleged invention claimed in the ’263 Patent was at best first
described in the specification of the ’344 Application on July 16, 1999, the filing
date of the ’344 Application.
B. Relevant Background of the ’263 Patent
56. In the years before July 16, 1999, the date to which the ’263 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.
57. 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 ’263 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.
58. 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 priority date of the ’263 Patent. On-line program
28 Comcast, Ex-1002
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-1001, 1:46-53). These program guides would allow
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-1001 at 1:46-53, 2:4-7). 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-1006, 20:42-51).
59. 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-1008, 1:20-41, 2:1-13).
C. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention
60. The alleged invention of the ’263 Patent relates to remotely accessible
IPGs that are able to schedule recordings on local hardware by communicating
with local IPG software. (See Ex-1001, 1:19-22, 2:23-28). The claims of the ’263
Patent recite systems and methods “for selecting television programs over a remote
access link comprising an Internet communications path for recording.” (Ex-
1001, claim 1). The system includes “local interactive television program guide
equipment on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented.”
29 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Id.). The system also includes a “remote program guide access device located
outside of the user’s home on which a remote access interactive television program
guide is implemented,” which is recited as being a “mobile device.” (Id.). The
remote guide is recited as operating to “generate a display of a plurality of
program listings for display on the remote program guide access device, wherein
the display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile
stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device.” (Id.).
The remote guide “receives a selection of a program listing” for recording by the
local guide, and “transmits a communication identifying the television program
corresponding to the selected program listing” to the local guide. (Id.). The local
guide “receives the communication and records the television program… using the
local interactive television program guide equipment.” (Id.).
61. 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 user profile information stored at a
location other than the remote guide device. (See, e.g., Ex-1001 at claim 1).
30 Comcast, Ex-1002
62. Based on my review of the file history of the ’263 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 systems including guide-to-guide
communication were well-known at the time of the alleged invention. I note that
no evidence was submitted during prosecution regarding secondary considerations
of non-obviousness.
63. The ’263 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-1001, Abstract). Therefore, in my
opinion, it is a reasonable and accurate statement to conclude: the general area of
technology of the ’263 Patent is that of interactive program guides, and remote or
local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
64. In the analyses I make below I will use multiple prior art references to
show that the claims of the ’263 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 ’263 Patent, and thus a POSA of the time would have found it
31 Comcast, Ex-1002
obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art references in order to arrive at the
claims of the ’263 Patent.
D. Limitation Correspondence of All Claims of the ’263 Patent
65. The ’263 Patent includes 19 claims, of which 6 are independent.
After reviewing the independent claims of the ’263 Patent, it is my opinion that the
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, 8, 11, 14, and 17 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 (1, 8, 14) and the method
claims (5, 11, 17), 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 invalidity. Additionally, it is my
opinion that dependent claims 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 are of the same scope as claim 2,
and that dependent claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are of the same scope as claim 3.
The features of claim 4 are not repeated.
66. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 5 can be found in claim 1:
32 Comcast, Ex-1002
Although claim 5 does not explicitly require “user television equipment located
within a user’s home,” claim element 5(b) requires “the local interactive television
program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a
display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a display
device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion,
33 Comcast, Ex-1002
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.
67. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 8 can be found in claim 1:
Although claim 8 does not explicitly require “user television equipment located
within a user’s home,” claim element 8(c) requires “the local interactive television
program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a
34 Comcast, Ex-1002
display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a display
device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion
claims 1 and 8 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be
considered insubstantial to a POSA, for purposes of prior art analysis.
68. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 11 can be found in claim 1:
35 Comcast, Ex-1002
Although claim 11 does not explicitly require “user television equipment located
within a user’s home,” claim element 11(b) requires “the local interactive
television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for
display on a display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a
display device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my
opinion claims 1 and 11 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that
would be considered insubstantial to a POSA, for purposes of prior art analysis.
69. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 14 can be found in claim 1:
36 Comcast, Ex-1002
Although claim 14 does not explicitly require “user television equipment located
within a user’s home,” claim elements 14(a) and 14(b) require “a local interactive
television program guide implemented on… local interactive television program
guide equipment [] located within a user's home… wherein the local interactive
television program guide: generates a display of one or more program listings for
display on a display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a
37 Comcast, Ex-1002
display device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my
opinion claims 1 and 14 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that
would be considered insubstantial to a POSA, for purposes of prior art analysis.
70. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each
limitation of claim 17 can be found in claim 1:
Although claim 17 does not explicitly require “user television equipment located
within a user’s home,” claim element 17(a) requires “the local interactive
38 Comcast, Ex-1002
television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for
display on a display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a
display device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my
opinion claims 1 and 17 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. The table below summarizes the results of the above analysis. To
understand how to interpret the table contents, note, for example, that claim
element 5(a) is shown as corresponding to both claim elements 1(b) and 1(c). This
means that a portion of claim element 5(a) matches the entire claim element 1(b),
while another portion of claim element 5(a) matches the entire claim element 1(c).
And, the table shows that the requirements of both claim elements 5(d) and 5(e) are
met by the entire claim element 1(f). The overall result is that all of the
requirements of claims 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 are met by one or more elements of
claim 1. Any differences in scope are either insubstantial or would lead to claim 1
being narrower in scope than the other independent claims. Furthermore, all
requirements of claims 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 are met by claim 2, and all requirements
of claims 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19 are met by claim 3.
Claim 1 Claim 5 Claim 8 Claim 11 Claim14 Claim 17 1(a) 5(b) 8(c) 11(b) 14(a)14(b) 17(a) 1(b) 5(a) 8(a), 8(b) 11(a) 14(c) 17(b) 1(c) 5(a) 8(a), 8(b) 11(a) 14(c) 17(b)
39 Comcast, Ex-1002
1(d) 5(b) 8(c) 11(b) 14(c) 17(b) 1(e) 5(c) 8(d) 11(c) 14(c) 17(b) 1(f) 5(d), 5(e) 8(e) 11(d) 14(d) 17(c) 2 6 9 12 15 18 3 7 10 13 16 19
72. As a result of this analysis, it is my opinion that it is only necessary to
show obviousness of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 3 to also show
obviousness of claims 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 and their respective dependent claims.
That is, a POSA would understand that claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 require the
same features and would conclude that claims 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 would be
obvious if claim 1 were found obvious. Similarly, a POSA would understand that
claims 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 require the same limitations as claim 2 and that claims
7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 require the same limitations as claim 3, and would conclude
that these claims would be obvious if claims 2 and 3 were found obvious.
VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
A. U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 – Humpleman (Ex-1006) and U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499 – Humpleman Provisional (Ex-1007)
73. Humpleman was filed June 24, 1998, and issued January 30, 2001.
Accordingly, it is my understanding that Humpleman is available as prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
74. Humpleman is generally directed to “a browser based home network
[that] uses Internet technology to control and command home devices that are
connected to a home network.” (Ex-1006, 4:5-7). In the Humpleman system, each
40 Comcast, Ex-1002
home device contains “one or more Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) pages
that provide for the commanding and controlling of the home device.” (Ex-1006,
4:12-15). Then, using browser technology, “the home network employs Internet
standards to render the HTML pages in order to provide users with a plurality of
graphical user interfaces (“GUIs”) for commanding and controlling each [of the]
home devices.” (Ex-1006, 4:15-19).
75. I understand that Humpleman claimed the benefit of priority of
Humpleman Provisional, which was filed September 22, 1997, and also
incorporated that document by reference. (See Ex-1006, 1:7-13). I have reviewed
Humpleman Provisional, and it is my opinion that the disclosure of Humpleman
Provisional fully discloses every element of at least claim 1 of Humpleman, as
evidenced in the chart below:
#
Humpleman [Ex-1006] Claim Text
Humpleman Provisional [Ex-1007]
[1.P.i] A method for generating a program guide for a home network,
“Here additional html files are available to represent the programs audio and video material available for the server device to source.” (Ex-1007, p. 10). (See also Ex-1007, p. 2; p. 3, Fig. 1; p. 11, Fig. 8; p. 12, Fig. 9; p. B-5)
[1.P.ii] wherein the program guide identifies multi-media material that is associated with a first home device connected to the home network,
“Here additional html files are available to represent the programs audio and video material available for the server device to source.” (Ex-1007, p. 10).
41 Comcast, Ex-1002
#
Humpleman [Ex-1006] Claim Text
Humpleman Provisional [Ex-1007]
the method comprising the steps of:
[1.A] identifying multi-media material associated with the first home device;
“One of the more innovative pieces to this self-populating tree is that it has the ability to begin categorizing and indexing available (and unavailable) media for the home.” (Ex-1007, p. 25-26). (See also Ex-1007, p. 21, Fig. 13; p. 22).
[1.B] generating an HTML page based on the identified multi-media material associated with the first home device;
“Here additional html files are available to represent the programs audio and video material available for the server device to source.” (Ex-1007, p. 10). (See also Ex-1007, p. 11, Fig. 8).
[1.C] storing the HTML page in an accessible area on the first home device; and
“The device is represented by an 'html' (hyper text markup language) file kept in a accessible directory of the device.” (Ex-1007, p. 2).
[1.D] providing a means for retrieving the HTML page of the first home device without user input.
“The DTV browser accesses, using http protocol, the devices html file and renders it to create the devices GUI and present it to the user.” (Ex-1007, p. 2). (See also Ex-1007, p. B-5).
Humpleman prominently recites in its first paragraph that Humpleman Provisional
is incorporated by reference. (Ex-1006, 1:7-13). It is my opinion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that Humpleman Provisional, as
incorporated by reference, provides further details as to the features of
Humpleman’s disclosed system. Upon seeing the incorporation by reference of
Humpleman Provisional, one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to Humpleman
42 Comcast, Ex-1002
Provisional as a part of the document and would rely on it as teaching various
implementation details and other features of the system.
76. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Humpleman is the
same as that of the ’263 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-1008)
77. 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).
78. 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-1008, 6:26-31).
79. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Killian is the same as
that of the ’263 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. 5,805,763 – Lawler (Ex-1009)
80. Lawler was filed May 5, 1995, and issued on September 8, 1998.
Accordingly, it is my understanding that Lawler is available as prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (e).
43 Comcast, Ex-1002
81. Lawler teaches a program recording system which, in some
embodiments, utilizes a central recording device at a head end to record programs
for multiple users. (See, e.g., Ex-1009, 2:24-29 and 13:26-37).
82. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Lawler is the same as
that of the ’263 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or
local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
D. Jap. Pub. No. H10-155131 – Kondo (Ex-1011 [Japanese Original]
and Ex-1012 [English translation])
83. Kondo published June 9, 1998, in the Japanese language (Ex-1011),
and I have reviewed a certified translation of Kondo in the English language (Ex-
1012). Accordingly, it is my understanding that Kondo is available as prior art
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (b).
84. Kondo is directed to a system allowing users to schedule recordings
on their local equipment over the Internet using a program guide displayed by a
remote access terminal. (Ex-1012, [0012]-[0013]). In particular, Kondo discloses a
communication terminal TA1 that schedules recordings via the Internet at a video
recorder VTR attached to a reception terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, [0010]-[0011];
FIG. 1).
85. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Kondo is the same as
that of the ’263 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or
44 Comcast, Ex-1002
local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
E. Jap. Pub. No. H9-102827 – Kawamura (Ex-1013 [Japanese
original] and Ex-1014 [English translation])
86. Kawamura published April 15, 1997, in the Japanese language (Ex-
1013), and I have reviewed a certified translation of Kawamura in the English
language (Ex-1014). Accordingly, it is my understanding that Kawamura is
available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
87. Kawamura is directed to a system allowing users away from home to
set recordings on their local hardware. (Ex-1014, [0023], [0001]). Kawamura
teaches that a user on a mobile terminal may access and display a remote guide to
select programs for recording by local hardware. (Ex-1014, [0021]; [0023]; FIG.
7).
88. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Kawamura is the
same as that of the ’263 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and
remote or local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.
IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’263 PATENT
89. It is my opinion that claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 of
the ’263 Patent are rendered obvious by Humpleman in view of Killian.
90. It is my opinion that claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19 of the ’263 Patent
are rendered obvious by Humpleman in view of Killian and in further view of
Lawler.
45 Comcast, Ex-1002
91. It is my opinion that claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 of
the ’263 Patent are rendered obvious by Kondo in view of Killian and in further
view of Kawamura.
92. It is my opinion that claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 of the ’263 Patent
are rendered obvious by Kondo in view of Killian in view of Kawamura and in
further view of Lawler.
X. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, AND 17-18
93. 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 Humpleman (Ex-1006) and Killian (Ex-1008) in
a manner that renders obvious claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18.
94. As set forth above, the claims of the ’263 Patent relate to “a local
interactive television program guide” on local guide equipment in communication
via the Internet with a “remote access interactive television program guide” on a
mobile device. The remote guide receives user input selecting a program for
recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to the local guide over
the Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program using
the local guide equipment. The remote guide is generated based on user profile
information stored at a location other than the mobile device.
46 Comcast, Ex-1002
95. Similarly, Humpleman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 (Ex-1006), discloses
a system where a user uses a remote guide HTML page and selects a program for
recording in order to schedule a recording on local equipment by way of a local
guide. (Ex-1006, 20:31-51). As I explained above, Humpleman is generally
directed to an improved home network wherein controlled devices make HTML
control pages available for access by other browser-enabled devices elsewhere in
the network or located externally over the Internet. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 1:16-18,
2:31-47, 20:32-51). In particular, Humpleman discloses a digital satellite services
interface device (referred to in Humpleman as a DSS-NIU and hereinafter as a
“DSS,” which is typically called a set-top box) that provides a conventional EPG
which is displayed on a television to which the digital satellite services interface
device is connected (i.e. as a local guide) but also contains Humpleman software
that generates an HTML page with a remote version of that guide for remote use
by other devices on the network (i.e., a remote guide). (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 22:21-
59). The HTML guide may be accessed by any suitable browser-equipped device,
including an external device located remotely from the home network via the
Internet. (Ex-1006, 5:55-67, 20:32-51). Humpleman discloses as one example that
a user at work (away from home) can access the HTML program guide for his
home DSS using his work PC over the Internet, and that the user may be able to
schedule a recording remotely. (See Ex-1006, 20:32-51). Humpleman further
47 Comcast, Ex-1002
explains that the system may generate an HTML program guide having a subset of
program information based on user preferences, such as by removing certain
channels disfavored by the user. (Ex-1006, 22:30-46).
96. Humpleman claims priority to and incorporates by reference
Humpleman Provisional, U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499 (Ex-1007). (Ex-1006,
1:7-13). It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Humpleman Provisional, as incorporated by reference, provides further details as
to the features of Humpleman’s disclosed system. Upon seeing the incorporation
by reference of Humpleman Provisional, one of ordinary skill in the art would turn
to Humpleman Provisional as a part of the document and would rely on it as
teaching various implementation details and other features of the system.
97. Humpleman Provisional provides additional detail regarding the
operation of the devices in Humpleman’s system, as well as the interactions
therebetween. In particular, Humpleman Provisional provides illustrative diagrams
of the software structures involved:
48 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Ex-1007 at p. 21, Fig. 13 (annotated to show local guide software and EPG data in
purple, remote guide files in orange, control software for the local recording
equipment in blue, and referencing the remote guide equipment in red)).
Humpleman Provisional further discloses that the DSS interface receives
identification of the program to be recorded, then passes this information on to the
VCR: “The One Touch Record (OTR) program is triggered by the server observing
a 'record_program' set in the dss GUI. The OTR accesses the dvcr GUI, transfers
information from the dss GUI to the dvcr GUI, and returns the dvcr form to set it to
49 Comcast, Ex-1002
record, see figure 10.” (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶4). A remote device sends a message to
the DSS control application (i.e. “the local . . . television program guide”) over the
Internet in response to the user making a selection in a displayed HTML program
guide (i.e. “the remote access interactive television program guide”), instructing
the DSS control application to control DVCR hardware to record the selected
program. (Id.).
98. As I will demonstrate further below, a POSA would understand
Humpleman to disclose a local guide on local guide equipment in communication
via the Internet with a “remote access interactive television program guide” on a
mobile device, as required in the claims of the ’263 Patent. Humpleman allows
users to navigate program listings and select a program to control local hardware to
record the program using its remotely displayed HTML guide. For example,
Humpleman’s HTML pages “allow[] users to command and control the home
devices that are connected to the home network,” specifically, for example, to
“program[] a DBSS, and record[] a television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:5-14).
Humpleman discloses the generation of an HTML program guide as part of its
control page system. (Ex-1006, 22:30-59). Humpleman Provisional explains how
a recording is scheduled through the DSS (rather than the DVCR): “One touch
record takes place at the dss GUI where a selection is made for a future
recording. Somehow the information must be transfered to the dvcr automatically.
50 Comcast, Ex-1002
This is done by the dss server accessing the dvcr GUI automatically and filling in
the record information and returning it back to the dvcr.” (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶2
(errors in original, emphasis added)). And Humpleman teaches that the HTML
program guide is useable to select programs. (See Ex-1007, p. 6, ¶6 (“selecting
program material”); p. 10, sec. 3.4 (“Program selection”)). Humpleman further
discloses that its remote guide sends a communication to the local guide over the
Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program using the
local guide equipment. (See Ex-1006, 20:32-51). Further, Humpleman discloses
that the remote guide is generated based on “user profile” information stored at the
local guide. (Ex-1006, 22:30-46).
99. As detailed further below, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Humpleman to render obvious the claimed local interactive television
program guide. To any extent Humpleman may not expressly describe additional
details regarding interactive selection and control features of its locally
implemented program guide on a DSS, it is my opinion that implementation of an
interactive program guide as the control software on the DSS would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 ’263 Patent, as admitted in the specification of
the ’263 Patent itself. (Ex-1001, 1:27-38). Similarly, to any extent the remote
51 Comcast, Ex-1002
HTML guide may not be expressly described as receiving user selections for
recording, using an IPG to implement Humpleman’s disclosed features of allowing
a remote user at work to schedule recordings on his work PC would have also been
obvious. Further, to any extent Humpleman may fail to describe particular details
of the exemplary user profile embodiments described in the ’263 Patent related to
favorites lists, building a filtered guide based on a user profile stored on the STB or
in an Internet database would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
based on conventional listing filtering techniques. Further evidence regarding
functionality of interactive television program guides, including an IPG operating
on a conventional DSS and a program guide with filtering, is described in Killian.
100. Killian, U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 (Ex-1008), is directed to a system
providing an interactive television program guide implemented using the familiar
JAVA stack and utilizing Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to
coordinate system functionality. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, 2:1-24, 3:7-37). A JAVA
program guide application is locally installed on a JAVA-enabled television
receiver (such as a receiver for a direct broadcast satellite system (DBSS), or a
“regular satellite broadcast system” which a POSA would understand to refer to a
DSS) (hereinafter “receiver”). (Ex-1008, 3:7-18, 3:50-58). This locally installed
program guide application (i.e., the claimed “local interactive television program
guide”) generates displays of programming information and receives user input for
52 Comcast, Ex-1002
navigating through program listings, selecting programs for recording, and
controlling functions of the receiver and platform. (See Ex-1008 passim, e.g., Ex-
1008 at Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-47, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-
11:13, 13:12-21, and 15:53-16:7). Using control APIs, the locally installed
program guide can control local recording hardware in order to record selected
programs. (See, e.g., Ex-1008 at 15:5-28). Furthermore, the EPG displays
generated by the guide software may be based on user profiles stored in a user
profile database on the Internet or stored local to the receiver. (See, e.g., Ex-1008,
9:10-25; 10:61-66). Killian expressly notes that its guide software modules can be
distributed in order to operate on external processing platforms. (See Ex-1008,
15:53-16:7).
101. The general area of technology of Killian is also the same as that of
Humpleman; namely, that of interactive program guides (IPGs), and remote or
local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment. Therefore, a
POSA would have known to combine the teachings of Humpleman and Killian to
arrive at the elements claimed in the ’263 Patent.
102. As I explain further below with reference to specific claim recitations,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate
interactive features in Humpleman’s local guide, such as the interactive program
guide features described in Killian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
53 Comcast, Ex-1002
been motivated to use Killian’s interactive television program guide features in
Humpleman’s system for many reasons, including many of the exemplary
rationales that I understand may support a finding of obviousness as noted
above in Section IV.
103. First, Humpleman provides an express teaching that its extensible
HTML home control system is configured to be interoperable with existing and
conventional hardware, including vendor-supplied control applications. (See Ex-
1006 at 6:55-64, 19:46-55, 22:47-59). Humpleman further discloses that the DSS
displays its own EPG (i.e., a local guide) separately from the generated HTML
program guide (i.e., a remote guide). (See Ex-1006 at 22:29-59). One of ordinary
skill in the art would understand Humpleman’s discussion of interoperability to
teach that the techniques described there in were designed to work with an existing
program guide installed on the user’s local equipment. That is, Humpleman’s
system is designed to be layered on top of existing hardware and software
installations in an extensible manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the remote access techniques of Humpleman were intended to
interface with a pre-existing local interactive television program guide, such as
where one of the devices on the user’s home network was a STB/DSS loaded with
the interactive program guide of Killian. This combination would be done for the
purpose of interoperability with existing STBs having installed thereon Killian’s
54 Comcast, Ex-1002
program guide software, allowing them to be integrated in and controlled by
Humpleman’s network of remote devices. This would obtain the known benefits
of interoperability, namely allowing users to continue utilizing already installed
hardware and providing control over a broader range of devices.
104. Second, Killian also provides an express teaching that the EPG
software modules (which implement the control APIs used in its JAVA platform)
could be integral to the functionality of devices other than the receiver on which
the local program guide is implemented. (Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). The system of
Humpleman was designed to use well known web/HTML technology, which
included both JAVA programs and code to control devices, and JAVA scripts
inserted into HTML web pages. (Ex-1006, 7:16-23, 19:34-45). One of ordinary
skill in the art would readily recognize that the generic HTML control messages of
Humpleman could be implemented using Killian’s modules implementing the
JAVA control APIs of Killian. Seeking to implement Humpleman’s control
software using JAVA code, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
use Killian’s modules implementing the control APIs based on Killian’s express
teaching that its modules could be integral to the functionality of other devices
(e.g. Humpleman’s remote access device). This would provide the predictable
result of allowing existing STBs having installed thereon Killian’s guide software
to be integrated in and controlled by Humpleman’s network of remote devices.
55 Comcast, Ex-1002
105. Third, in my opinion combining Killian with Humpleman would be
nothing more than using known techniques to improve similar devices, obtaining a
predictable result. As I explained above, Humpleman’s DSS displays its own EPG
(i.e., a local guide) separately from the generated HTML page comprising a remote
program guide (i.e., a remote guide). (Ex-1006, 22:30-59). Further, to any extent
Humpleman’s local guide arguably may not be expressly described as
"interactive," a POSA would recognize that Humpleman’s local guide could be
improved by using the features of Killian's known IPG. This would achieve the
predictable result of creating a local guide with interactive features as in Killian,
where the local guide is able to communicate with a remote guide in order to
schedule recordings. This would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses,
namely “allowing viewers to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their
viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23). Furthermore, the known techniques
of displaying local guides and filtering based on stored user profiles would be used
by one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the similar DSS device of
Humpleman in the same way as these features improved the STBs in Killian. One
of ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious to incorporate the known local
program guide of Killian in the DSS EPG control software in Humpleman to
achieve the predictable result of providing users with expected and typical user
interfaces to view and navigate scheduled programs. Similarly, to any extent
56 Comcast, Ex-1002
Humpleman may not expressly describe using the remote guide page to allow the
user to program his DVCR remotely (such as from work), it would have been
obvious to use interactive guide features in the remote guide to obtain the benefits
of an interactive remote guide.
106. Fourth, this would also be a simple substitution of one known element
for another, closely related element that would produce predictable results. A
POSA would recognize that Killian's known IPG could be installed on
Humpleman’s DSS as a simple substitution for the generically recited EPG. This
would achieve the predictable result of a local interactive television program guide
having the conventional and expected interactive features disclosed in Killian, and
would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses, namely “allowing viewers
to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their viewing opportunities.”
(Ex-1008, 1:20-23).
107. In the following sections, I explain how each limitation of claims 1-2,
4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 is disclosed in Humpleman and Killian, as would
have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
A. Independent Claim 1
108. Independent claim 1 requires “a local interactive television program
guide” on local guide equipment in communication via the internet with a “remote
access interactive television program guide” on a mobile device. The claim
57 Comcast, Ex-1002
requires that the remote guide receive user input selecting a program for recording
by the local guide, and sends a communication to the local guide over the Internet
instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program using the local
guide equipment. The claim further requires that the remote guide is generated
based on user profile information stored at a location other than the mobile device.
109. Below, I explain how each limitation of independent claim 1 is
disclosed in Humpleman and Killian, as would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art.
“A system for selecting television programs over a remote access link comprising an Internet communications path for recording”
110. Humpleman discloses a home network including an “Electronic
Programming Guide (EPG)” that “displays a list of available programs” on a DSS.
(Ex-1006, 22:33-35). Data underlying this EPG can be used to create an HTML
program guide for use by other devices to control operations on the DSS. (Ex-
1006, 22:38-39). Humpleman also discloses that “connecting the home network to
the Internet can provide the advantage of being able to control home devices from
outside the home.” (Ex-1006, 20:33-35). Humpleman Provisional makes clear:
“Moreover the system is compatible with the Internet protocols so may be
controlled from a computer outside the home running a browser just as well as the
home DTV.” (Ex-1007, p. 3, ¶3). These two features of Humpleman’s disclosure
58 Comcast, Ex-1002
work together: “[f]or example, if a user is required to work late and is therefore
unable to watch the Monday night football game, the user can program a DVCR
connected to their home network via the Internet, in order to record the particular
event.” (Ex-1006, 20:47-51).
111. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses a system for
selecting television programs (i.e., the HTML program guide described at Ex-
1006, 22:38-39) over a remote access link comprising an Internet communications
path (i.e., the Internet connection described at Ex-1006, 20:32-35) for recording
(i.e., the example provided of recording football at Ex-1006, 20:42-51).
“a local interactive television program guide equipment on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the local interactive television program guide equipment includes user television equipment located within a user’s home and the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user's home”
112. Humpleman 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 Humpleman, the combination of Humpleman in view of
Killian renders this claim 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 Humpleman and Killian.
59 Comcast, Ex-1002
a) “a local interactive television program guide
equipment on which a local interactive television program
guide is implemented”
113. Humpleman discloses that one example of a home device is a digital
satellite services (DSS) device: “[f]or example, the term home device includes but
is not limited to such electronic devices as security systems, theatre equipment
(e.g., TVs, VCRs, stereo equipment, and direct broadcast satellite services or
(DBSS), also known as digital satellite services (DSS)).” (Ex-1006, 1:25-30).
When Humpleman uses the terms DBSS or DSS to refer to a home device, it is the
set-top box (STB) that receives and uses the information that is broadcast by the
satellite services to which Humpleman is referring. Humpleman recognizes that
each home device, such as a DSS/STB, provides its own control interface in
addition to a home network control interface: “[t]he control application of a home
device further enables the respective vendors to provide their own control
scenarios for their devices.” (Ex-1006, 19:49-52).
114. This vendor-supplied control scenario is distinct from the control
methods over a home network as described in Humpleman. An example of such a
device-provided control is an Electronic Program Guide (EPG) provided by digital
satellite service (DSS): “[m]ost digital satellite services provide programming
information through an Electronic Programming Guide (EPG).” (Ex-1006, 22:32-
34). Thus, the EPG displayed by the DSS is a separate user interface from the
60 Comcast, Ex-1002
HTML program guide generated for remote access, as evidenced by Humpleman’s
separate discussion of the display of the DSS EPG and the generation of the
HTML program guide. (See Ex-1006, 22:30-59; see also Ex-1007,p. 10, ¶2).
115. I understand the term “interactive television program guide” to refer
to control software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of
television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the television
program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.” (See
Section VI.A, supra). The local EPG described by Humpleman is described as
being displayed by the DSS. However, to any extent Humpleman may not disclose
additional details regarding the interactive features supported by the local EPG,
such as allowing a user to navigate through television program listings, make
selections, and control functions of the software (the "interactive" in “interactive
television program guide”), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to implement an interactive program guide having conventional and
expected IPG functionality on the DSS. As acknowledged in the ’263 Patent itself,
interactive program guides having the features I described above were widely
implemented on typical STBs of the time of the alleged invention of the ’263
Patent. (Ex-1001,1:27-38). One such typical IPG and associated software is
described in Killian.
61 Comcast, Ex-1002
116. Killian discloses a program guide application locally installed on a
receiver that 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. (See Ex-1008 at Fig. 5, 3:20-33,
4:7-13, 4:20-47, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5--56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-21, and
15:53-16:7). That is, Killian discloses an “interactive television program guide.”
Killian discloses “[a]n electronic programming guide (EPG) JAVA applet or
application running on platform 12 periodically accesses database 48 using link 14
and server 46 to receive program listing information 6 that allows the EPG applet
or application to provide television-related functionalities to viewers associated
with receiver 10 and television 40.” (Ex-1008, 4:7-12; see also 3:7-27, 8:36-56).
The program guide disclosed by Killian is software-based (e.g., “JAVA”) and
implemented on computing hardware (i.e., “one or more processors”). (Ex-1008,
3:7-27, 6:32-57, 8:36-56).
117. Killian discloses an “EPG applet 70” that includes functionality to
“record[] a television program that is scheduled for broadcast on some unspecified
date in the future.” (Ex-1008, 8:8-11.) This EPG, which includes program listings
corresponding to multiple channels over a range of time slots, is illustrated in FIG.
5:
62 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Ex-1008, FIG. 5, 10:66-11:13; see also 15:53-16:7, 8:49-56). This display is, for
example, output to a television via a super video (S-video) output with RCA jack
cable support or any other suitable video output. (Ex-1008, 4:39-44).
118. Therefore, Killian discloses a local interactive television program
guide equipment (e.g., the “JAVA-enabled television system” disclosed at 3:7-18)
on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented (i.e., “an
electronic programming guide (EPG) JAVA applet or application running on
platform 12” disclosed at 4:7-8).
119. As I explained above, a POSA would readily implement
Humpleman’s local guide using the conventional interactive television program
63 Comcast, Ex-1002
guide features of Killian to provide users with expected and typical television
control functionality through a local IPG. This would be a use of known
techniques (Killian’s interactive features) to improve a similar device
(Humpleman’s local guide on the DSS), obtaining a predictable result (providing
interactive features on a local guide). Humpleman’s DSS displays its own EPG
(i.e., a local guide) separately from the generated HTML program guide (i.e., a
remote guide). (Ex-1006, 22:30-59). To any extent Humpleman’s local guide
arguably may not be expressly described as "interactive," a POSA would recognize
that the features of Killian's known IPG could be used to improve Humpleman’s
local guide. This would achieve the predictable result of a local guide having
interactive features and able to communicate with a remote guide, and would
provide the same benefits that Killian discloses, namely “allowing viewers to more
intelligently select, schedule, and record their viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008,
1:20-23).
120. Furthermore, using Killian’s local IPG in Humpleman’s system would
be a simple substitution of one known element for another, closely related element
that would obtain predictable results. Killian’s program guide is the type of
program guide software that Humpleman discloses as “[t]he control application of
a home device [that] further enables the respective vendors to provide their own
control scenarios for their devices.” (Ex-1006, 19:49-52). Killian discloses its
64 Comcast, Ex-1002
program guide in connection with a “direct broadcast satellite system,” (Ex-1008,
3:55) similar to Humpleman’s disclosure of a digital satellite system providing an
EPG (Ex-1006, 22:32-34). In light of these similarities, a POSA would be
motivated to look to Killian’s program guide as one example of a “control
application of a home device” provided by a satellite television vendor “to provide
their own control scenarios for their devices.” (Ex-1006, 19:50-52). Doing so
would be a simple substitution of one known element (Killian’s program guide) for
another (the local EPG described by Humpleman) to obtain predictable results (a
satellite set-top box with an IPG).
121. This combination would be further motivated based on express
teachings in both Humpleman and Killian. (Ex-1006, 6:55-64, 19:46-55, 22:47-59;
Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). Humpleman explains that its HTML home control system
is configured to be interoperable with existing and conventional hardware,
including vendor-supplied control applications. (See Ex-1006, 6:55-64, 19:46-55,
22:47-59). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a STB/DSS
loaded with Killian’s JAVA program guide could and would be utilized in
Humpleman, because Humpleman was designed to layer in on top of existing
hardware and software installations.
122. And Killian contemplates that the modules implementing its control
APIs and available on its devices could be integral to the functioning of external
65 Comcast, Ex-1002
devices other than the receiver. (See Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). One of ordinary skill
in the art would readily recognize that Humpleman’s generic HTML control
messages could be implemented using Killian’s modules implementing the control
APIs. This would be done for interoperability with existing STBs having installed
thereon Killian’s EPG software, allowing them to be integrated in and controlled
by Humpleman’s network of local and remote home devices.
123. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian
discloses a local interactive television program guide equipment on which a local
interactive television program guide is implemented (i.e., the local, vendor-
provided program guide of Humpleman’s DSS, improved with the typical
interactive features of Killian).
b) “wherein the local interactive television program
guide equipment includes user television equipment located
within a user’s home”
124. In Humpleman, the local interactive television program guide
equipment that implements the DSS EPG includes a DSS unit, or a Digital Satellite
Service Network Interface Unit (DSS-NIU). (See Ex-1006, 5:39-62; see also,
22:30-46; 22:47-59; Ex-1007 at, p. 10, ¶2). Humpleman discloses a home network
including “DSS-NIU 104” that is “connected to the home network.” (Ex-1006,
6:31-34). This home network disclosed by Humpleman also includes “DTV 102,
DVCR 110, DVD 108, … and security system 120” as other home devices on the
66 Comcast, Ex-1002
home network. (Id.). Because I understand the term “user television equipment”
to 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, Humpleman’s disclosure of a
home network including these devices communicatively coupled by the home
network constitutes “user television equipment.” (See Section VI.C, supra).
Additionally, Humpleman describes that these devices are “found in the home.”
(Ex-1006, 1:21-31).
125. As such, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses “wherein the
local interactive television program guide equipment includes user television
equipment located within a user’s home” (i.e., the DSS and other devices
connected to the home network such as the DVCR).
c) “the local interactive television program guide
generates a display of one or more program listings for
display on a display device at the user's home”
126. The program guide displayed by the DSS in Humpleman “displays a
list of available programs and the specific time in which the programs can be
viewed through the service.” (Ex-1006, 22:34-36). A POSA would understand
that this display would be displayed on a display device, such as a television set or
monitor, at the user’s home. As such, Humpleman discloses “the local interactive
television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for
67 Comcast, Ex-1002
display on a display device at the user’s home” (i.e., the local guide generated by
the DSS). I have already explained above in Section X.A.2.a how the combination
of Humpleman and Killian discloses that the local guide would be an “interactive
television program guide”.
127. It is my opinion that Humpleman discloses that the local guide
generates a display of one or more program listings. Killian’s locally installed
program guide also “generates a display of one or more program listings for
display on a display device at the user’s home.” For example, Killian discloses an
“EPG applet 70” that includes functionality to “record[] a television program that
is scheduled for broadcast on some unspecified date in the future.” (Ex-1008, 8:8-
11.) This EPG is illustrated in FIG. 5:
68 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Ex-1008, FIG. 5, 10:66-11:13, see also 8:49-56, 15:53-16:7). This display is, for
example, output to a television via a super video (S-video) output with RCA jack
cable support or any other suitable video output. (Ex-1008, 4:39-44).
128. As I have already explained above in Section X.A.2.a, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Killian’s interactive
program guide into Humpleman’s system to obtain the interoperability benefits
described in Humpleman, to obtain the improved usability of Killian’s interactive
program guide, and to obtain the predictable results of providing users with an
interactive user interface to control their television system.
69 Comcast, Ex-1002
129. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian
discloses “the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one
or more program listings for display on a display device at the user's home.”
“a remote program guide access device located outside of the user's home on which a remote access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device”
130. Humpleman discloses “an interface between the home network 1100
and the Internet” by which “a user can remotely control home devices connected to
the home network 1100.” (Ex-1006, 20:43-47). This Internet connection can be
used, in an example, “[i]f a user is required to work late and is therefore unable to
watch the Monday night football game, the user can program a DVCR connected
to their home network via the Internet, in order to record the particular event.”
(Ex-1006, 20:47-51). Humpleman Provisional makes clear: “Moreover the system
is compatible with the Internet protocols so may be controlled from a computer
outside the home running a browser just as well as the home DTV.” (Ex-1007 at
p. 3, ¶3). Humpleman discloses that “home devices having a display capability
may be used to provide the human interface” to control devices on the home
network, such as a “personal computer.” (Ex-1006, 5:62-65). A POSA would
recognize that in the example provided of controlling a DVCR to record a football
game, a device such as a personal computer would be necessary to interface with
70 Comcast, Ex-1002
and control the home network, and such a device would be located outside of the
home because the user is at work and not home.
131. As I explained above, Humpleman discloses a local EPG on a DSS
that “displays a list of available programs and the specific time in which the
programs can be viewed through the service.” (Ex-1006, 22:34-36). The EPG
information underlying this local EPG is used by the system to generate HTML
program guide pages to allow other (remote) devices to control the DSS. (Ex-1006,
22:38-39). Humpleman explains that “[t]he home network uses the EPG
information to build a home network HTML program guide” that can be viewed
remotely. (Id.; see also Ex-1007 at 21, Figure 13). “Like the EPGs, the HTML
program guide is periodically updated to reflect the currently available programs.”
(Ex-1006, 22:55-57). One use of this HTML program guide page, for example, is
to allow a user who is away from home to use a remote device to program a
scheduled recording for a particular event (e.g., the Monday night football game).
(Ex-1006, 20:47-51).
132. A POSA would understand the remote access HTML program guide
page of Humpleman, as rendered by a browser, to be an “interactive television
program guide.” (See Section VI.A, supra). Humpleman’s HTML pages “allow[]
users to command and control the home devices that are connected to the home
network,” specifically, for example, to “program[] a DBSS, and record[] a
71 Comcast, Ex-1002
television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:5-13). Humpleman discloses the generation of
an HTML program guide as part of its control page system. (Ex-1006, 22:30-59).
Humpleman Provisional explains how a recording is scheduled through the DSS
(rather than the DVCR): “One touch record takes place at the dss GUI where a
selection is made for a future recording. Somehow the information must be
transfered to the dvcr automatically. This is done by the dss server accessing the
dvcr GUI automatically and filling in the record information and returning it back
to the dvcr.” (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶2 (errors in original, emphasis added)). And
Humpleman teaches that the HTML program guide is useable to select programs.
(See Ex-1007, p. 6, ¶6 (“selecting program material”); p. 10, sec. 3.4 (“Program
selection”)). In order to allow users to remotely schedule recordings for particular
events, the HTML program guide pages as disclosed in Humpleman would allow
the user to navigate through the television program listings, make a selection of the
particular event, and control the devices on the home network to cause the
recording of the selected event. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 22:30-46).
133. Therefore, Humpleman discloses “a remote program guide access
device” (i.e., the work computer used to control the DVCR) “located outside of the
user's home” (i.e., the user is at work, not home) on which a remote access
interactive television program guide is implemented (i.e., the home network
HTML program guide as disclosed by Humpleman).
72 Comcast, Ex-1002
134. Additionally, to any extent the remote HTML guide may not be
expressly described as receiving user selections for recording, using an IPG to
implement Humpleman’s disclosed features of allowing a remote user at work to
schedule recordings on his work PC would have been an obvious way to
implement the remote recording selections described in Humpleman. (Ex-1006,
20:40-52). As explained above, Humpleman provides significant discussions
regarding the use of interactivity in allowing a user to “select” a program. (See
Ex-1006, 22:30-59, 20:42-51, 23:42-46, 14:5-14; Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶2; p. 6, ¶6; p.
10, sec. 3.4). A POSA would have understood the many advantages associated
with providing an IPG user interface to allow users to select a program for
recording, as it was widely recognized that IPGs provided a user-friendly
alternative to more primitive recording scheduling methods (such as entry of
channel, date, time, and length). Further evidence of these advantages and IPG
features is shown in Killian.
135. As I explained above in Section X.A.2, Killian discloses a program
guide application locally installed on a receiver that 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. (See e.g., Ex-1008 at Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-47, 5:11-29, 7:8-
16, 7:49-61, 8:5--56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-21, and 15:53-16:7). That is, Killian
73 Comcast, Ex-1002
discloses an “interactive television program guide.” Killian’s guide includes
functionality to “record[] a television program that is scheduled for broadcast on
some unspecified date in the future.” (Ex-1008, 8:8-11.) Killian describes several
advantages offered by its guide, including “allowing viewers to more intelligently
select, schedule, and record their viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23).
136. Similarly to the local guide discussed above, a POSA would readily
implement Killian’s conventional interactive television program guide features on
Humpleman’s remote guide in order to provide users with the television control
functionality they would expect on a local IPG. This would be a use of known
techniques (Killian’s interactive features) to improve a similar device
(Humpleman’s remote HTML guide on the work PC) and obtain a predictable
result (providing interactive features on the remote guide). To any extent
Humpleman may not expressly describe using the HTML guide to implement the
selection of a program for remote recording, a POSA would recognize that the
features of Killian's known IPG could be used to improve Humpleman’s remote
recording feature in the remote guide. 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-1008, 1:20-23).
74 Comcast, Ex-1002
137. As discussed above, Humpleman discloses controlling home devices
“[u]sing [] browser technology” and “Internet standards to render the HTML pages
in order to provide users with a plurality of graphical user interfaces ("GUIs") for
commanding and controlling [] home devices.” (Ex-1006, 4:15-19). Examples of
such a device are a DTV or a “personal computer” as both “provide[] the human
interface for the home network 100 by employing browser technology to allow
users to control and command the home devices over the home network.” (Ex-
1006, 5:55-67). A POSA would recognize that there are many such devices that
employ “browser technology” and Internet standards to interface with the home
network. (Ex-1006 at 7:25-35). Some of these devices are “mobile devices” under
the proper construction as discussed above. (See Section VI.B, supra). For
example, Humpleman discloses that one type of controlling device may be a
“laptop computer.” (See Ex-1006, 1:21-36). A POSA would understand that such
a laptop computer may be used as a client device both inside the home and outside
the home, such as in the example of a work PC or other remote device accessing
the home network via the Internet. (Ex-1006, 20:42-52). Because a laptop
computer is a “mobile device” under the proper construction, Humpleman also
discloses wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device.
138. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses “a remote
program guide access device located outside of the user's home on which a remote
75 Comcast, Ex-1002
access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the remote
program guide access device is a mobile device.”
“wherein the remote access interactive television program guide: generates a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device”
139. As I explained above, a POSA would understand Humpleman’s
remote access HTML program guide page, as rendered by a browser, to be an
“interactive television program guide.” In Humpleman’s system, the HTML files
(such as the HTML program guide) are rendered by a client “[u]sing a browser
based home device” such that “a user can display the available material on a
particular home device by rendering the particular home device's HTML program
guide file.” (Ex-1006, 23:7-10). In order to allow users to remotely schedule
recordings for particular events, the HTML program guide pages would be
processed by suitable browser software and rendered for display to a user. (See,
e.g., Ex-1006, 22:30-46; see also Ex-1007 at 21, Figure 13). “Like the EPGs, the
HTML program guide is periodically updated to reflect the currently available
programs.” (Ex-1006, 22:55-57). Humpleman Provisional provides an illustration
of the data flows:
76 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Ex-1007, p. 4, Fig. 2, annotated to illustrate the transfer of the program guide data
in blue, generating the display of the remote guide in green, and displaying the
remote guide in red). Humpleman Provisional explains that the DTV (or other
client device) renders HTML control pages (e.g., the HTML program guide on the
DSS) provided by the controlled devices (e.g., the DSS), and receives user input in
the form of user button clicks and form filling. (Ex-1007, p.2, ¶6). While Figure 2
shows a DTV as the display device, I have shown in the above discussion that the
display device can also be a remotely located laptop PC. Therefore, Humpleman
discloses “wherein the remote access interactive television program guide
generates a display of a plurality of program listings” (i.e., currently available
programs) “for display on the remote program guide access device” (i.e., HTML
program guide that can be accessed remotely by a remote program guide access
device).
77 Comcast, Ex-1002
140. The HTML program guide disclosed by Humpleman can be
customized “to view only a particular set of the available information.” (Ex-1006,
22:57-59). In Humpleman, “users can customize the particular programming
information that is displayed.” (Ex-1006, 22:41-46). “For example, if a user
would prefer not to display the schedule for a particular channel, e.g., because of
its programming contents, the user may request that channel be removed from the
HTML program guide.” (Id.). Humpleman Provisional provides an illustration:
(Ex-1007 , Figure 5; annotation highlighting “Favorite Program Channels” in red).
141. This customization of programming information is an example of a
“user profile” because it is information indicating programs or channels that are of
interest to the user. (See Section VI.D, supra). Therefore, Humpleman discloses
“wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated” (i.e.,
customizing the HTML program guide) “based on a user profile” (i.e., the data
used to customize programming information that is displayed).
78 Comcast, Ex-1002
142. Humpleman also discloses that the user profile is “stored at a location
remote from the remote program guide access device.” The system generates
HTML control pages, such as a customized HTML program guide, and stores the
HTML page in memory on the DSS (local device). (See Ex-1006, 2:31-39). A
customized HTML program guide stored at the DSS may be served up to clients in
the network. (Id.). Humpleman further discloses that user customization and
preferences may be implemented using macros. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 20:58-21:3;
see also Ex-1007, at p. 10, ¶¶3-4). These macros are described as being saved
locally to the controlled device (e.g., DSS). (Id.). One of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that both the locally saved customized HTML program guide
and the locally saved macros meet the claimed “user profiles” because both are
data indicating a user preference. (See Section VI.D, supra). Additionally, the
locally saved customized HTML program guide and the locally saved macros are
used in generating the display of the remote guide and would be stored in the
memory of the DSS, which is remote from the work PC (i.e., “stored at a location
remote from the remote program guide access device”).
143. Furthermore, Humpleman discloses its home network in terms of
servers and clients. Humpleman discloses “the server control program is able to
save the state which has been controlled by the GUI, such as setting up a timer
record action for example.” (Ex-1006, 8:34-49). Because the state is saved on the
79 Comcast, Ex-1002
server, “it is not necessary to provide the client with the ability to save a previously
controlled state.” (Id). Because of this, “the server does not rely on another
device, such as the client, for its operation.” (Id.). It is my opinion that a POSA
would recognize that the data used to “customize the particular programming
information that is displayed” of the HTML program guide is one type of “state”
that would therefore also need to be stored on the server (e.g. the DSS having the
EPG information), not the client. (Ex-1006, 22:14-46).
144. Therefore, Humpleman discloses “wherein the display of the plurality
of program listings is generated based on a user profile” (i.e., users can customize
the particular programming information that is displayed) “stored at a location
remote [i.e., at home] from the remote program guide access device” (i.e.,the
device used by the user at work).
145. I have explained above how Humpleman discloses the claimed “user
profile” 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 examples provided in the ’263 Patent specification,
building a filtered guide based on a user preference profile stored on a local STB or
Internet server would have been obvious to implement in Humpleman’s system
based on Killian.
80 Comcast, Ex-1002
146. In addition to the teachings described above regarding a local
interactive television program guide, Killian also discloses user profiles. For
example, Killian discloses “an electronic programming guide JAVA applet or
application that allows viewers to select, schedule, and record viewing
opportunities according to viewer profiles and program listing information 6
retrieved from database 48.” (Ex-1008, 6:28-31). Killian discloses a “profile
module” that collects preference information and “constructs, builds, or otherwise
generates corresponding viewer profiles 84 for storage in [a] profile database.”
(Ex-1008, 9:10-15). This profile database where the viewer profiles are stored
may reside at “one or more locations that are integral to or separate from receiver
10.” (Ex-1008, 9:22-25, see also 11:20-21).
147. Killian’s “viewer profiles” include “viewer preference information”
that include “rankings 88 corresponding to preference options,” for example,
“genre,” “actor,” “sports team,” and “keyword” options. (Ex-1008, 16:10-18).
Taken together, these options “provide an indication of the relative desirability to
the viewer of programming.” (Ex-1008, 16:23-24). Killian’s system uses these
profiles to “construct[] electronic scheduling displays according to viewer profiles
and selected program listing information.” (Ex-1008, 7:54-55).
148. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “user profile” includes
any data indicating a user preference. (See Section VI.D, supra.) Here, Killian’s
81 Comcast, Ex-1002
“viewer profiles” are “user profiles” because they include data indicating a user
preference, such as viewer preference information that provides an indication of
the relative desirability to the viewer of programming. (See Ex-1008, 16:10-25).
Furthermore, Killian’s viewer profiles are information stored on the local STB or
remote server and are described as being utilized to “construct[] electronic
scheduling displays according to viewer profiles and selected program listing
information.” (Ex-1008, 7:54-55). Therefore, Killian’s viewer profiles also meet
an (improperly) narrow construction of the term as limited to the example user
preference profile embodiment in the ’263 Patent specification.
149. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize
the profile-based customization of Killian to implement the customized HTML
program guides of Humpleman, which discloses generating customized HTML
program guides and storing them on a DSS. (See Ex-1006, 22:47-59, 2:31-39).
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. (See Ex-1008,
9:10-25, 11:20-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
Killian’s user profiles would be used to store information about user preferences in
Humpleman’s system, allowing the system to better track a user’s preferences and
generate more effective user interfaces. Doing so would be a simple substitution
82 Comcast, Ex-1002
of one known element (Killian’s viewer profiles and EPG customization) for
another (Humpleman’s HTML program guide customization) to obtain predictable
results (program guide customization). It would also have been no more than use
of a known technique (Killian’s viewer profiles) to improve a similar feature
(Humpleman’s customized HTML program guide) to obtain predictable results
(improving user experience through better tracking of user preferences and better
identification of desired/undesired content).
150. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian
discloses “wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:
generates a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote
program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program
listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the
remote program guide access device.”
“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings in the display, wherein the selection identifies a television program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local interactive television program guide”
151. As I have explained above, Humpleman’s HTML program guide
pages as accessed by a computer-based device outside the user’s home are a
“remote access interactive television program guide.” Humpleman’s program
guide can be operated on a device that “receives HTML files” where “The HTML
83 Comcast, Ex-1002
files enable the browser based [device] to graphically display control and
command information to a user for a particular home device.” (Ex-1006, 6:52-57).
Specifically, these HTML pages “allow[] users to command and control the home
devices that are connected to the home network,” specifically, for example, to
“record[] a television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:5-13). For example, Humpleman
illustrates a client device receiving a “BUTTON CLICK” input:
(Ex-1007, p. 4, Fig. 2). The client then relays a control signal back to the home
device being controlled. (Id.; see also Ex-1006, 7:4-24; Ex-1007, p. 3, Fig. 2; p. 2
¶6).
152. Returning to the example used above, “if a user is required to work
late and is therefore unable to watch the Monday night football game, the user can
program a DVCR connected to their home network via the Internet, in order to
record the particular event.” (Ex-1006, 20:42-51). Here, the user provides a
selection of, for example, “Monday night football” by making a “button ‘click’
84 Comcast, Ex-1002
selection” on a displayed HTML page, and the system sends appropriate
commands to set the recording. (Id.).
153. Humpleman Provisional further explains that the DSS interface
receives identification of the program, then passes this information to the VCR:
“The One Touch Record (OTR) program is triggered by the server observing a
'record_program' set in the dss GUI. The OTR accesses the dvcr GUI transfers
information from the dss GUI to the dvcr GUI and returns the dvcr form to set it to
record, see figure 10.” (Ex-1007, at p. 14, ¶4). A message is sent to the DSS
control application (i.e., the “local interactive television program guide”) by the
remote device over the Internet responsive to the user making a selection in a
remotely displayed HTML program guide (i.e., the “remote interactive television
program guide”), instructing it to control DVCR hardware to record the selected
program.
154. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses “wherein the
remote access interactive television program guide receives a selection of a
program listing [i.e., Monday night football] of the plurality of program listings in
the display [i.e., the HTML program guide], wherein the selection identifies a
television program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by
the local interactive television program guide” (i.e.,the remote user can program a
DVCR via the DSS to record the particular event).
85 Comcast, Ex-1002
155. 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. (See Ex-1008, 17:7-23; 17:44-51 (discussing syntax of record
command)).
“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] transmits a communication identifying the television program corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive television program guide over the Internet communications path”
156. As discussed above, Humpleman allows a user to schedule a
recording for a particular event on local equipment from a remote location via the
Internet. (Ex-1006, 20:42-51). Specifically, Humpleman discloses a home
network that “provides an interface which allows users to command and control
the home devices that are connected to the home network in order to . . . record[] a
television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:8-13.) A concrete example of this is that “a
user can remotely control home devices connected to the home network . . . in
order to record the particular event [such as Monday night football].” (Ex-1006,
20:46-51).
157. Humpleman Provisional makes clear that users can set recordings
through the DSS interface in an “automatic one touch record system” rather than
requiring the user to schedule a channel tune on the DSS and then further schedule
a record operation on the DVCR. (Ex-1007 at p. 14, ¶1). Specifically,
86 Comcast, Ex-1002
Humpleman Provisional discloses that control software on the DSS receives
identification of the program “by the server observing a 'record_program' set in the
[remote] [DSS] GUI,” and then “transfers information from the [DSS] GUI to the
[DVCR] GUI and. . . set[s] [the DVCR] to record. . . ” (Ex-1007 at p. 14, ¶4). A
POSA would understand that the disclosed One Touch Record feature and
associated communication between the client device and the DSS would be the
same regardless of whether the accessing client was local to the user’s home or
accessing the home network via the internet. Thus, in the example above, a
message is sent to the DSS control application (i.e., the “local interactive television
program guide”) by the remote device over the Internet (e.g., the user at work)
responsive to the user making a selection (e.g., Monday night football) in a
displayed HTML program guide (i.e., the “remote access interactive television
program guide”), instructing it to control DVCR hardware to record the selected
program (as detailed in Humpleman Provisional).
158. Control software on the DSS, and other home device servers, may be
aggregated and maintained in a vendor-supplied device application. (See Ex-1006,
19:46-55). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
control software on the DSS which receives the selection of the program is the
local guide application provided by the vendor. One of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the DSS operating software of Humpleman includes code to
87 Comcast, Ex-1002
implement the functionality described above, including code to implement the
local guide, the generation of the HTML program guide, and the one-touch
recording features. It is my opinion that the operating software of Humpleman,
when modified to include the interactive program guide features of Killian, is an
“interactive television program guide.” This is because it is control software
operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings and
allows a user to navigate through the television program listings, make selections,
and control functions of the software, even if it also performs other functions such
as generating an HTML program guide for use by remote devices. (See Sections
VI.A, X.A.2, supra).
159. Humpleman and Humpleman Provisional both explain how a DSS
would instruct a DVCR to record a particular program, such as Monday night
football. (Ex-1006, 14:8-13; Ex-1007 at p. 14, ¶4). Accordingly, Humpleman
discloses (with reference to the Monday night football example) “the remote
access interactive television program guide” (used by a user at work) “transmits a
communication identifying the television program” (Monday night football)
“corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive
television program guide” (the HTML program guide) “to the local interactive
television program guide” (the local guide running on the DSS) “over the Internet
communications path” (the home network being controllable via the Internet).
88 Comcast, Ex-1002
160. However, to any extent that Humpleman may not explicitly disclose
that the same application responsible for displaying the local guide receives the
communication identifying the selected program, a POSA would understand that
guide software should operate as a central manager of scheduled recordings,
coordinating selections from multiple sources. Although Humpleman does
describe that, in aggregate, it is the software on the DSS that generates a display of
the local guide and also schedules one-touch recordings, one of ordinary skill in
the art would implement these features in the same application based on Killian’s
teachings of a local IPG platform that operates to generate guide displays and also
control scheduled recordings.
161. 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-1008, 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-1008, 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-1008, 8:31-32). The
APIs are used to pass suitable information concerning the program and desired
listings. (See Ex-1008, 8:57-9:9). Program identifiers, such as titles or air
89 Comcast, Ex-1002
date/time, may be used to identify recordings and may be passed through the
system to identify a program to be recorded. (See Ex-1008, 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-1008,
17:18-22 (“EPG 70 is able to cause recorder to record any program using a
program identifier for the program, without information from the viewer regarding
the air date, start time, stop time, or channel. . . .”)).
162. 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 HTML program guide in Humpleman’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 (Humpleman’s recording control) to
achieve the predictable result of effectively scheduling recordings using the DSS,
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 on the DSS 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
90 Comcast, Ex-1002
reducing the likelihood of user error and would reduce the amount of information
the system must exchange between devices to schedule recordings.
163. Furthermore, as I explained above, Killian provides an express
teaching that the modules implementing the control APIs provided by its guide
platform could be integral to the functionality of devices other than the receiver on
which the local program guide is implemented. (Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). One of
ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the generic HTML control
messages of Humpleman could be implemented using the modules implementing
control APIs provided by the local guide of Killian based on this express
suggestion.
164. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian
discloses wherein the remote access interactive television program guide
“transmits a communication identifying the television program corresponding to
the selected program listing from the remote access interactive television program
guide to the local interactive television program guide over the Internet
communications path.”
“wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment.”
91 Comcast, Ex-1002
165. As discussed above, Humpleman discloses allowing a user to schedule
a recording for a particular event on local equipment from a remote location via the
Internet. (See Ex-1006, 20:42-51). Humpleman Provisional discloses that the DSS
interface receives identification of the program, then passes this information to the
VCR. (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶4). Thus, in the example provided above, Humpleman
discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide” (i.e., the DSS
EPG/control software) “receives the communication” (e.g., from a device used by
a user at work, over the Internet) “and records the television program” (e.g.,
Monday night football) “corresponding to the selected program listing” (i.e., via
the HTML program guide) “responsive to the communication using the local
interactive television program guide equipment” (the DVCR). (See Ex-1006,
20:42-51).
166. As I explained above, to any extent Humpleman may not expressly
describe the nature of the communication identifying the selected program listing,
a POSA would understand that Killian’s modules implementing recording APIs
and program identifiers could easily be utilized by a vendor-supplied control
application to effect the recording commands scheduled by the user in
Humpleman. Thus, as explained above, it would have been obvious to utilize
Killian’s program identifiers to identify the events selected for recording in
Humpleman, and to utilize Killian’s modules to control local recording hardware.
92 Comcast, Ex-1002
167. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian
discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the
communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected
program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive
television program guide equipment.”
168. For the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that a POSA would
have found claim 1 of the ’263 Patent obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian.
B. Dependent Claim 2: The system defined in claim 1 wherein the
local interactive television program guide records the television
program corresponding to the selected program listing on the user
television equipment.
169. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Humpleman in view of
Killian discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide” (the
DSS of Humpleman in view of the IPG of Killian) “receives the communication”
(from a device used by a user at work, over the Internet) “and records the
television program” (e.g., Monday night football) “corresponding to the selected
program listing” (via the HTML program guide) “responsive to the
communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment”
(the DSS and other connected devices such as DVCR). (See Section X.A, supra;
see also Ex-1006, 20:42-51).
93 Comcast, Ex-1002
170. Because the local interactive television program guide equipment of
Humpleman in view of Killian as applied in claim 1 is user television equipment,
Humpleman in view of Killian also renders obvious claim 2. Specifically, the DSS
and DVCR of Humpleman is “user television equipment.” As discussed above,
“user television equipment” includes two devices communicatively coupled
together. (See Section VI.C, supra). Humpleman discloses the “DSS-NIU” and
“DVCR” as interconnected components of a “home network” as illustrated in
FIG. 1:
171. (Ex-1006, FIG. 1.) Similarly, the ’263 Patent illustrates “user
television equipment” as including a set-top box and a secondary storage device in
FIG. 3:
94 Comcast, Ex-1002
172. (Ex-1001, FIG. 3., see also 7:27-8:62) Therefore, because at least the
DSS and DVCR of Humpleman is “user television equipment,” and because the
system of Humpleman records the program using the DVCR, Humpleman
discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide records the
television program corresponding to the selected program listing on the user
television equipment”.
173. Additionally, Humpleman discloses that its devices can be
implemented using a single physical package or housing, such as a combined
TV/VCR. (Ex-1006, 4:53-61). In such an embodiment, a single piece of user
television equipment (the combined TV/VCR) would implement the local guide
and perform the act of recording.
95 Comcast, Ex-1002
174. Accordingly, in my opinion, Humpleman in view of Killian renders
obvious claim 2 of the ’263 Patent.
C. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the local
interactive television program guide stores information indicating the
user who selected the program listing with the remote access
interactive television program guide.
175. As discussed above, Humpleman in view of Killian discloses every
limitation of claim 1. In my opinion, Humpleman in view of Killian also renders
obvious claim 4. Humpleman discloses that its system stores various information
about users who access the system. For example, Humpleman discloses “a
security mechanism is associated with the home network that is used to restrict
access to the home network to particular authorized users.” (Ex-1006, 20:54-56).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a security mechanism, such as
that described by Humpleman, would store information indicating the user who is
logged in as a necessary consequence of restricting access to particular authorized
users.
176. Similarly, Humpleman discloses storing user preferences of a first
user and different preferences of a second user. (Ex-1006, 20:58-21:9 (“For
example, a first user may have a particular preference as to the brightness, tint
and/or contrast of a particular DTV, while a second user has different
preferences.”)). Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
96 Comcast, Ex-1002
associating a first set of preferences with a first user and a second set of
preferences with a second user necessitates storing user identities.
177. However, to any extent Humpleman does not expressly describe
storing metadata with a recording indicating which user selected the program for
recording, a POSA would have also found this to be an obvious improvement in
view of techniques well known in the art, such as those taught by Killian.
178. Killian teaches maintaining individual profiles for multiple users, and
prompting users to identify themselves so that their user profile may be accessed
and updated. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25; 10:55-60; 8:57-9:9). A profile module builds
individual viewer profiles based on received preference information associated
with corresponding users. (Id). A control module coordinates communications
between other modules of the guide, such as the profile module and the schedule
module. (See Ex-1008, 8:57-9:9).
179. Through the guide, a user may request that the system set up a
recording by providing user input identifying the user and criteria for the
recording, such as a program title. (See Ex-1008, 17:29-42). Furthermore, the
system may identify a particular user in order to direct that a recording be
performed on a VCR associated with the particular user based on the identification
of the user for whom the program is to be recorded. (See Ex-1008, 15:43-49).
97 Comcast, Ex-1002
180. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to utilize the individualized user tracking of Killian in the remote access
guide system of Humpleman for the purpose of providing users with an
individualized experience and better results. Killian teaches that it is advantageous
to identify a user to whom the recording corresponds, so that the system may better
generate recommendations and provide access to desired content. (See Ex-1008,
9:10-25; 10:55-60; 8:57-9:9). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
to apply this known technique of Killian to improve the similar Humpleman
system to provide an improved user experience by updating individual user profiles
to better reflect the user’s preferences and to communicate that a particular
program corresponds to a user.
181. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian
renders obvious claim 4 of the ’263 Patent.
D. Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18
182. As established above in Section VII.D, independent claims 5, 8, 11,
14, and 17 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 1 for
purposes of prior art invalidity, and they stand or fall together.
183. As similarly established above in Section VII.D, dependent claims 6,
9, 12, 15, and 18 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim
2, and they stand or fall together.
98 Comcast, Ex-1002
184. Claims 1 and 2 have been demonstrated to be unpatentable as obvious
over Humpleman in view of Killian above. My analysis in Section VII.D
illustrates how the various recited limitations of claims 1 and 2 correspond to the
recited limitations of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18.
185. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and
17-18 are obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian for the same reasons as set
forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2.
XI. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW
OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, AND 19
186. Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 depend on claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and
17, respectively, and further recite that the selected program is recorded at a
television distribution facility. As explained above, it is my opinion that
Humpleman in view of Killian renders obvious every limitation of independent
claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17. In my opinion, Humpleman in view of Killian in
further view of Lawler renders obvious every limitation of claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16,
and 19.
A. Dependent Claim 3: wherein [the] local interactive television
program guide records the television program corresponding to the
selected program listing at a television distribution facility
99 Comcast, Ex-1002
187. As discussed above, Humpleman in view of Killian renders obvious
claim 2, which recites “wherein the local interactive television program guide
records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing on
the user television equipment.” The difference between claim 2 and claim 3 is that
claim 3 recites recording the television program listing “at a television distribution
facility.” Humpleman in view of Killian does not expressly teach recording at a
television distribution facility. However, recording at a television distribution
facility would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and further
would have been an obvious modification of the home control system taught by the
combination of Humpleman in view of Killian. For example, Lawler teaches
recording at a television distribution facility.
188. Lawler discloses “a system that allows the user of an interactive
viewing system to quickly and easily identify and select a desired program using
an interactive program guide and to designate the selected program for recording.”
(Ex-1009, 1:47-50). Lawler further discloses “a central head end in bidirectional
communication with one or more viewer stations.” (Ex-1009, 1:54-55). Lawler
teaches an arrangement of a central distribution facility “that supplies
programming over a network” to a plurality of viewer stations such as those “that
are typically located in the homes of system users or subscribers.” (Ex-1009, 3:31-
34). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that this arrangement
100 Comcast, Ex-1002
is typical of cable or satellite systems such as those described in Humpleman and
Killian.
189. Lawler discloses “a recording device is associated with the head end”
where “the head end controls the recording device to record the program.” (Ex-
1009, 13:26-38; see also 2:24-29). Thus, “[t]he recorded program is stored at the
head end” where “[u]sers could then access the head end, on demand, to retrieve
and view the recorded program.” (Ex-1009, 13:30-33). Recording and storing the
program at a central facility “would allow multiple users to access a single
recording of the program.” (Ex-1009, 13:33-35).
190. Substituting and/or supplementing the recording at local user
television equipment in the combination of Humpleman and Killian with the
centralized recording of Lawler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art. Lawler teaches both localized and centralized recording as
alternatives to each other that work similarly. However, Lawler further teaches
that, as a substitute to local recording, it may be advantageous to record programs
at a head end so that they may be made available to other subscribers and to
eliminate the need for a separate recorder. (See, e.g., Ex-1009, 13:26-38; see also
2:24-29). This would have been a simple substitution of one known recording
arrangement (i.e., centralized) for another known recording arrangement (i.e., at
the user television equipment) that would have yielded the predictable results
101 Comcast, Ex-1002
described in Lawler (i.e., recording programs with the advantages of centralized
recording - so that they may be made available to other subscribers and to
eliminate the need for a separate recorder).
191. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claim 3 of the ’263 Patent is
obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian and in further view of Lawler.
B. Dependent Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
192. Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 depend on claims 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17,
respectively, and each recites the same limitation as claim 3. As established above
in Section VII.D, these claims should stand or fall together.
193. Therefore, in my opinion and for the same reasons described above
with respect to claim 3, claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are also obvious over
Humpleman in view of Killian and Lawler.
XII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF
KAWAMURA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15,
AND 17-18
194. 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 Kondo (Ex-1012), Killian (Ex-1008), and
Kawamura (Ex-1014) in a manner that renders obvious claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12,
14-15, and 17-18.
102 Comcast, Ex-1002
195. As I have previously explained above, the claims of the ’263 Patent
relate to “a local interactive television program guide” on local guide equipment in
communication via the Internet with a “remote access interactive television
program guide” on a mobile device. The remote guide receives user input
selecting a program for recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to
the local guide over the Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording
of the program using the local guide equipment. The remote guide is generated
based on user profile information stored at a location other than the mobile device.
196. Similarly, Kondo, Jap. Pub. No. H10-155131 (Ex-1011 [Japanese
original]; Ex-1012 [English translation]), discloses a system where users can
schedule recordings on their local equipment over the Internet using a program
guide displayed by a remote access terminal. (Ex-1012, [0012], [0013]). In
particular, Kondo discloses that a user can schedule recordings at a first
communication terminal TA1 (“remote program guide access device”) which then
commands, via the Internet, a video recorder VTR attached to a second
communication terminal TA2 (“local interactive television program guide
equipment”). (Ex-1012, [0010], [0011], FIG. 1). Kondo further discloses that
both remote terminal TA1 and local terminal TA2 acquire broadcast program guide
data and allow users to select programs listed in the program guide for recording.
(Ex-1012, [0012]). When a user selects a program for recording from the program
103 Comcast, Ex-1002
guide on the remote terminal TA1, the remote terminal initiates a recording by
sending a recording request over the Internet (and via a server BSV) to local
terminal TA2 to schedule the recording on the local recording equipment (VTR).
(Ex-1012, [0013], [0014], FIG. 1). Kondo provides the following illustration:
(Ex-1012, FIG. 1 (annotated to illustrate the remote terminal in red, the local
terminal in blue, the local recorder in purple, the program guide data in orange, and
the Internet path in green)).
197. The system described in Kondo closely mirrors that claimed in the
’263 Patent. Implementation details required by the claims of the ’263 Patent, such
as the interactive nature of the displayed local guide and remote guide, and
filtering based on user preferences, would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Kondo describes that its program guide data is used to allow users
to select programs for recording. (Ex-1012, [0012]). IPGs and associated
functionality were widely-known and commonly implemented on DSS and other
104 Comcast, Ex-1002
STB hardware at the time of the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent, as admitted
in the specification of the ’263 Patent itself. (Ex-1001, 1:27-36). A POSA would
understand that IPGs were used to allow users to select programs from program
listings data. This is shown at least by Killian and Kawamura.
198. Killian, U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 (Ex-1008), as discussed above, is
directed to a system providing a software program guide implemented using the
familiar JAVA stack and utilizing control APIs to coordinate system functionality.
(Ex-1008, 2:1-24; 3:7-37). A JAVA program guide application locally installed on
a receiver (“local interactive television program guide”) generates displays of
programming information and receives user input that, for example, selects a
program for recording. (Ex-1008, 2:1-13, 4:20-47, 8:5-35, 8:36-56). The receiver
in Killian is described as a JAVA-enabled receiver, such as a receiver for a direct
broadcast satellite system (DBSS), or a “regular satellite broadcast system” which
a POSA would understand to refer to a DSS. (Ex-1008, 3:7-18, 3:50-58). The
program guide of Killian, referred to as an “EPG,” provides interactive features by
generating displays of programming information and receiving user input for
navigating through program listings, selecting programs, and controlling functions
of the receiver and platform. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-47,
5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-35, 8:36-56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-20, and 15:53-16:7).
Using control APIs, the locally installed program guide can control local recording
105 Comcast, Ex-1002
hardware in order to record selected programs. (Ex-1008, 15:5-28). Furthermore,
the “EPG” displays generated by the guide software may be based on user profiles
stored in a user profile database on the Internet or stored local to the receiver.
(See, e.g., Ex-1008, 9:10-25; 10:61-66). Killian expressly notes that its guide
software modules may be distributed in order to operate on external processing
platforms. (See Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7).
199. Kawamura, Jap. Pub. No. H9-102827 (Ex-1013 [Japanese original];
Ex-1014 [English translation]), like Kondo, is directed to a system that allows
users to set recordings on their local hardware while away from home. (Ex-1014,
[0023], [0001]). Kawamura teaches that a user can use a mobile terminal (“mobile
device”) to access a displayed remote guide (“remote access interactive television
program guide”) and select programs from the remote guide for recording by local
hardware. (Ex-1014, [0021], [0023], [0032], FIG. 7).
200. The general area of technology of Killian and Kawamura is also the
same as that of Kondo, namely that of program guides, and remote or local access
to and use of program guides to control end-user video equipment. Therefore, a
POSA would have known to combine the teachings of Kondo, Killian, and
Kawamura to arrive at the elements claimed in the ’263 Patent.
201. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kondo teaches
that both the remote terminal TA1 and the local terminal TA2 would be operative
106 Comcast, Ex-1002
to display the received program guide data in order to facilitate selection of a
program for recording. As I explain further below with reference to specific claim
recitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
implement the system of Kondo using both local and remote displays of guide
information having interactive features. IPGs were widely-known at the time of
the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent and one of ordinary skill in the art would
have readily incorporated interactive program guide features into the system of
Kondo. Killian illustrates well-known details that one of ordinary skill in the art
would readily utilize to provide a user of terminals TA1 and TA2 of Kondo with
interactive program guide features. Kawamura similarly illustrates additional well-
known details regarding display of a remote guide on a mobile device, such as the
remote terminal TA1 of Kondo.
202. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
Killian’s interactive television program guide features in Kondo’s system for many
reasons, including many of the exemplary rationales that I understand may
support a finding of obviousness as noted above in Section IV.
203. First, Killian provides an express teaching that the modules
implementing the control APIs used in its JAVA platform could be integral to the
functionality of devices other than the receiver on which the local program guide is
implemented. (Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). Seeking to implement Kondo’s scheduling
107 Comcast, Ex-1002
of selected programs for recording, one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to use Killian’s modules implementing the control APIs based on
Killian’s express teaching that its modules could be integral to the functionality of
other devices (e.g. allowing Kondo’s remote terminal to schedule a recording).
Killian discloses detailed techniques that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize could be used to implement the scheduling of recordings in Kondo. This
would provide the predictable result of causing the selected program to be
scheduled for recording on local hardware using Killian’s known control APIs.
204. Second, in my opinion combining Killian with Kondo would be
nothing more than using known techniques to improve similar devices, obtaining a
predictable result. Kondo’s local terminal retrieves program guide information and
uses this information to allow users to select a program. (Ex-1012, [0012]). As I
explained above, Kondo displays a program guide to allow the user to select a
recording. A POSA would recognize that the interactive features of Killian's
known IPG could be used to improve Kondo’s local terminal. This would achieve
the predictable result of facilitating the selection of a program for recording by the
local user by providing a user interface (which, in my opinion Kondo would
necessarily provide). Improving Kondo’s local guide with the interactive features
of Killian would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses, namely “allowing
viewers to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their viewing
108 Comcast, Ex-1002
opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23). Additionally, Killian teaches that user profile
data stored locally or remotely (such as on a device accessible over the Internet)
may advantageously be utilized to tailor program guide listings to the user’s
preferences. (Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:61-66). Killian’s known techniques of
displaying interactive local television program guides and filtering guide displays
based on stored user profiles would be used by one of ordinary skill in the art to
improve the similar devices of Kondo in the same way as these features improved
the STBs in Killian. This would obtain the predictable benefit of providing users
with better access to desired programming.
205. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to use Kawamura’s interactive television program guide features and mobile
device in Kondo’s system. A POSA would recognize that he could improve
Kondo’s system for remotely scheduling recordings by using Kawamura’s known
remote guide display and mobile device features. This would achieve the
predictable result of allowing users to schedule recordings “even when away from
home” using their mobile device, as disclosed in Kawamura. (Ex-1014, [0034]).
A. Independent Claim 1
206. As I explained previously, independent claim 1 requires “a local
interactive television program guide” on local guide equipment in communication
via the Internet with a “remote access interactive television program guide” on a
109 Comcast, Ex-1002
mobile device. The claim requires that the remote guide receives user input
selecting a program for recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to
the local guide over the Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording
of the program using the local guide equipment. The claim further requires that the
remote guide is generated based on user profile information stored at a location
other than the mobile device.
207. Below, I explain how each limitation of independent claim 1 is
disclosed in Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura, as would have been understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art.
“A system for selecting television programs over a remote access link comprising an Internet communications path for recording, comprising:”
208. Kondo discloses a system that “connects a communication terminal of
the network to [a] server .… to provide the information related to broadcast
programs or provide a program recording scheduling service or the like from the
server to the communication terminal” (Ex-1012, Abstract). Kondo explains that
its system is intended to overcome the problem of scheduling recording of TV
broadcasts. (Id.). Under the conventional approach, as Kondo explains, a user
must look in a “magazine or newspaper” to find schedule information for broadcast
programs and manually enter information to record a program. (Id.). Kondo
discloses this conventional approach as “difficult” because if “the time of the
110 Comcast, Ex-1002
reserved program changes, [the conventional approach] it is not possible to change
the preset recording time.” (Id.). Further, this conventional approach is unable “to
perform scheduling of recording from a place away from home, such as a
workplace.” (Id.).
209. Against this backdrop, Kondo discloses a system where, “to schedule
video recording,” a user acquires a “broadcast program guide” using a
“communication terminal” connected to a “server” over a “network.” (Ex-1012,
[0012]; FIG. 1). Then, “[a]fter selecting the program, the user accesses the server
… to request scheduling of program recording.” (Id.).
210. As such, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses “a system for selecting
television programs over a remote access link comprising an Internet
communications path for recording.”
“a local interactive television program guide equipment on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the local interactive television program guide equipment includes user television equipment located within a user’s home and the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user’s home”
211. Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura discloses this claim element.
Each clause of this claim element is discussed in turn below. Below, I have broken
the above limitation into discrete segments for purposes of illustrating how each
portion of this limitation is disclosed in Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura.
111 Comcast, Ex-1002
a) “a local interactive television program guide
equipment on which a local interactive television program
guide is implemented”
212. Kondo discloses a system with two terminals, TA1 and TA2. (Ex-
1012, [0010]; FIG. 1). The first terminal, TA1, “is a general communication
terminal,” and the second terminal TA2 is similarly a communication terminal but
is connected to a video device such as a videotape recorder. (Ex-1012, [0010]-
[0011]). This configuration, showing the two terminals TA1 and TA2 is illustrated
in FIG. 1:
(Ex-1012, FIG. 1). For purposes of this analysis, I will adopt the convention that
terminal TA2, the one connected to the videotape recorder, will be referred to as
the “local terminal.”
213. Using this local terminal TA2, “to schedule video recording, a user
first uses the communication terminal TA1 or TA2 to access the server BSV via
the network INT to acquire a broadcast program guide or the information INF
112 Comcast, Ex-1002
related to the broadcast programs stored in the server BSV from the network and
select a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012, [0012]).
(Ex-1012, Fig. 1; annotated to illustrate local terminal TA2 in blue and program
guide data in orange).
214. I have interpreted the term “interactive television program guide” to
refer to control software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of
television program listings and that allows a user to navigate through the television
program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software. (See
Section VI.A, supra). A POSA would understand that Kondo necessarily displays
a user interface allowing the user to select the program for recording from the
broadcast program listings on the local terminal (e.g., a display of television
program listings that allows a user to control functions of the software). However,
to the extent Kondo may not expressly describe additional details as to the
113 Comcast, Ex-1002
implementation of this local program guide, such as it allowing a user to navigate
through the displayed program listings, implementation of IPG functionality in the
system of Kondo would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. IPGs
and associated functionality were implemented on typical STBs at the time of
invention, as admitted in the ’263 Patent. (Ex-1001, 1:27-36). Furthermore,
Killian teaches conventional displays of interactive local guide user interfaces.
215. Killian, as I explained above, discloses a receiver with a locally
installed program application built on top of a JAVA stack. (See Ex-1008, 8:36-
56; 3:7-27; 6:32-56). The local program displays program schedules and controls
the recording of selected programs. (See Ex-1008, 8:5-35; 7:49-61; 15:53-16:7).
The program guide of Killian, 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, and
control functions of the receiver. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-
47, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-35, 8:36-56, 10:61-11:13, 13:11-20, and 15:53-
16:7). That is, Killian discloses an “interactive television program guide.”
216. In my opinion, combining the prior art elements of Kondo’s program
guide with the interactive features of Killian’s program guide and Killian’s display
of a program guide would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and
would have yielded the predictable result of providing interactive local user
114 Comcast, Ex-1002
interfaces in the system of Kondo, similar to how Killian displays a program guide.
This would be nothing more than using a known improvement (Killian’s local
interactive television program guide) to improve a similar device (Kondo’s local
terminal TA2) to obtain a predictable result (providing users with an interactive
user interface to control the local terminal). Killian shows that at the time of the
’263 Patent, it was known that it was important to display program guide listings
and provide interactive features so that the user could select a program for
recording. Kondo discloses that users may select a program for recording, and one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would be accomplished via a
display of the retrieved broadcast program guide information. This would be done
at least for the purpose of providing the user with an expected and familiar user
interface, thereby improving user experience.
217. Thus, it is my opinion that Kondo in view of Killian discloses “a local
interactive television program guide equipment” (terminal TA2) “on which a local
interactive television program guide” (the broadcast program guide as accessed by
terminal TA2, incorporating the interactive features of Killian) “is implemented.”
b) “wherein the local interactive television program
guide equipment includes user television equipment located
within a user’s home”
218. As I explained above, Kondo teaches a local terminal TA2 located in
the user’s home and connected to a VTR. (Ex-1012, [0010]-[0011]). I have
115 Comcast, Ex-1002
interpreted “user television equipment” to include various typical components of a
home television system, such as a set-top box, remote control, secondary storage
device, and a television. (See Section VI.C, supra). As such, Kondo’s local
terminal TA2 and the connected “videotape recorder VTR” are both user television
equipment as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (alone or
coupled together).
219. Kondo discloses one communication terminal is “at a place away from
home,” in communication with a “video device at home.” (Ex-1012, [0015]).
Because Kondo discloses that the local terminal TA2 is connected to a video tape
recorder, a POSA would recognize that Kondo discloses where local terminal TA2
is “at home” while terminal TA1 is “away from home.” (Id.). This understanding
is further reinforced by Kondo’s description of a problem with conventional
systems is that they are unable to “perform scheduling of recording from a place
away from home, such as a workplace.” (Ex-1012, Abstract).
220. As such, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses wherein the local
interactive television program guide equipment includes user television equipment
located within a user’s home.
116 Comcast, Ex-1002
c) “the local interactive television program guide
generates a display of one or more program listings for
display on a display device at the user’s home”
221. As described above, Kondo discloses accessing a “broadcast program
guide” and “select[ing] a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012,
[0012]). Either terminal TA1 or TA2 can access this program guide. (Id.). A
POSA would recognize that a program guide would be displayed to a user in order
for a user to select a program from the program guide. I note that I have already
explained above in Section XII.A.2.a how the combination of Kondo and Killian
discloses that the local guide would be an interactive television program guide.
Therefore, Kondo in view of Killian discloses the local interactive television
program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on
a display device at the user’s home.
222. As described above, implementation of IPG functionality in the
system of Kondo would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Killian teaches conventional display of interactive local guide user interfaces.
223. In Killian, the local EPG displays program schedules and controls the
recording of selected programs. (See Ex-1008, 8:5-35, 7:49-61, 15:53-16:7).
Generated displays of the EPG may be combined with television signals and output
via conventional video outputs, such as S-video. (See Ex-1008, 4:20-38, 4:39-47).
117 Comcast, Ex-1002
224. As described above, in my opinion, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to display the local interactive television program guide
taught by the combination of Kondo and Killian. Kondo discloses that a user
selects a program for recording, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that this would be accomplished using a display of the program listings.
This is further shown in Killian, where the program guide is displayed to users to
provide improved selection of programs for recording. As I explained above, this
would be nothing more than using a known improvement (Killian’s IPG) to
improve a similar device (Kondo’s local terminal) to obtain predictable results
(facilitating user selection of the program through providing a user interface). This
would be done at least for the purpose of providing the user with an expected and
familiar user interface, thereby improving user experience.
225. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian discloses wherein
the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one or more
program listings for display on a display device at the user’s home.
“a remote program guide access device located outside of the user’s home on which a remote access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device”
226. As described above, Kondo discloses two terminals, TA1 and TA2.
One communication terminal is “at a place away from home,” in communication
with a “video device at home.” (Ex-1012, [0015]). Because Kondo discloses one
118 Comcast, Ex-1002
terminal, TA2, connected to a video tape recorder, a POSA would recognize that in
this disclosure Kondo discloses an embodiment where terminal TA2 is “at home”
while terminal TA1 is “away from home.” (Id.). I will refer to terminal TA1 as
the “remote terminal.” Kondo discloses that the remote terminal “TA1 is a general
communication terminal used to exchange information between the server
connected to the network INT and another communication terminal.” (Ex-1012,
[0010]). Kondo further discloses accessing a “broadcast program guide” and
“select[ing] a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012, [0012]). Either
terminal TA1 or TA2 can access this program guide. (Id.). The remote terminal
and program guide information are illustrated in FIG. 1:
(Ex-1012, Fig. 1; annotated to illustrate remote terminal TA1 in red and program
guide data in orange). A recording requested on remote terminal TA1 may be
119 Comcast, Ex-1002
transmitted to local terminal TA2 for recording on a video recorder connected to
local terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, [0013]-[0014]).
227. I understand the term “interactive television program guide” to refer
to control software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of
television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the television
program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.” (See
Section VI.A, supra). A POSA would understand that Kondo necessarily displays
a user interface allowing the user to select the program for recording from the
broadcast program listings on the remote terminal (a display of television program
listings that allows a user to control functions of the software). However, to the
extent Kondo may not expressly describe additional details as to the
implementation of this remote program guide, such as it allowing a user to
navigate through the displayed program listings, implementation of IPG
functionality in the system of Kondo would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. IPGs and associated functionality were implemented on typical
STBs at the time of invention, as admitted in the ’263 Patent. (Ex-1001, 1:27-36).
Furthermore, Kawamura teaches conventional display of interactive remote
program guide user interfaces.
228. Kawamura discloses a remote access guide system similar to that of
Kondo. (Ex-1014, Abstract; [0032]-[0033]). The remote access device is
120 Comcast, Ex-1002
described as being a mobile terminal that is generally portable. (Ex-1014, [0021],
[0023]-[0024], [0082] (describing other embodiments where the mobile terminal is
not portable)). The mobile terminal is described as being a “personal data mobile
terminal (PCS),” (Ex-1014, [0024]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand referred to a Personal Communications Service device – a term
sometimes used to refer to mobile phones. The mobile terminal is used to access
broadcast programing listings, display a remote program guide, and facilitate the
recording of a selected show by local hardware. (Ex-1014, [0027]; [0023]; see
also [0032]-[0033]). An example of this remote program guide is illustrated in
FIG. 7:
121 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Ex-1014, Fig. 7). The mobile terminal may display a remote program guide
comprising program listings corresponding to any broadcast channels that are
received. (Ex-1014, [0053]). If the user provides appropriate keyboard or stylus
input, the mobile terminal may scroll through the program listings displayed on the
screen. (Ex-1014, [0042]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
remote program guide of Kawamura to be an interactive program guide, as it is
operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings and
allows a user to navigate through the television program listings, make selections,
and control functions of the software. (See Section VI.A, supra).
229. As explained above, Kondo displays a program guide on remote
terminal TA1. Kawamura shows that it is important to provide interactivity so that
the user could select a program for recording. Kondo discloses that users may
select a program for recording, and a POSA would understand that this would be
accomplished through an interactive program guide. (Id.). While Kondo does not
explicitly state that the terminal TA1 is a mobile device, it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a mobile device as the
terminal. For example, Kondo discloses one terminal as “at a place away from
home,” in communication with a “video device at home.” (Ex-1012, [0015]). It
would be obvious to try to implement the terminal TA1 of Kondo on a mobile
device to facilitate travel to “a place away from home.” (Id.). And using a mobile
122 Comcast, Ex-1002
device as a program guide terminal would have been obvious given the teachings
of Kawamura.
230. As set forth above, this combination would have been nothing more
than using a known technique (an interactive television program guide on a mobile
device as taught by Kawamura) to improve a similar device (Kondo’s remote
terminal TA1) and a simple substitution of known elements to obtain predictable
results; namely, allowing users to schedule recordings “even when away from
home.” (Ex-1014, [0034]). It would have been obvious to implement Kondo’s
remote terminal TA1 using Kawamura’s mobile terminal, allowing a user the
flexibility to use the remote terminal to view program information away from
home and schedule recordings remotely. This would be a simple substitution,
using Kawamura’s mobile terminal as Kondo’s general communication terminal,
and would obtain predictable results. As exemplified in Kawamura, this would
allow users to schedule recordings of a desired program “even when away from
home” on their “personal data mobile terminal,” a well-known type of general
communication terminal, providing the benefits discussed in Kawamura. (Ex-1014
at [0034], [0024]).
231. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Kawamura discloses “a
remote program guide access device located outside of the user’s home on which a
123 Comcast, Ex-1002
remote access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the
remote program guide access device is a mobile device.”
232. Additional details regarding conventional interactive program guide
features are also provided by Killian, as discussed above. Killian’s disclosure
further establishes the obviousness of using an IPG to allow users to select the
program on remote terminal TA1.
“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] generates a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device”
233. Kondo in view of Kawamura discloses this claim element. Each
clause of this claim element is discussed in turn below. Below, I have broken the
above limitation into discrete segments for purposes of illustrating how each
portion of this limitation is disclosed in Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura.
a) “[wherein the remote access interactive television
program guide:] generates a display of a plurality of
program listings for display on the remote program guide
access device”
234. As explained above, Kondo discloses accessing a “broadcast program
guide” and “select[ing] a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012,
[0012]). Either terminal TA1 (i.e., the remote program guide access device) or
124 Comcast, Ex-1002
TA2 can access this program guide. (Id.). A POSA would recognize that the
remote terminal of Kondo would display a program guide in order for a user to
select a program from the program guide. Therefore, Kondo discloses wherein the
remote access interactive television program guide “generates a display of a
plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide access
device.”
235. However, to the extent Kondo may not expressly describe the display
of this remote interactive program guide, display of the remote interactive program
guide would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One example of
such a display of a remote interactive program guide is provided in Kawamura.
236. As discussed above, Kawamura discloses display of a remote program
guide by a mobile terminal, allowing a user to select a program for recording on
local equipment. (Ex-1014, [0027], [0032]-[0033]). An example of this remote
program guide is illustrated in FIG. 7:
125 Comcast, Ex-1002
(Ex-1014, Fig. 7). The mobile terminal may display a remote program guide
comprising program listings corresponding to any broadcast channels that are
received. (Ex-1014, [0053]). This guide may be narrowed based on user
preferences and/or memory limitations. (Ex-1014, [0053], [0062], [0042]-[0043]).
237. As explained above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Kondo to disclose a display of the program guide on the remote
terminal TA1. This is further evidenced by Kawamura, as one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood it important to display program guide listings so that
the user could select a program for recording. Kondo discloses that users may
select a program for recording, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that this would be accomplished via a display of the retrieved broadcast
126 Comcast, Ex-1002
program guide information. (Ex-1014, [0053], [0062], [0042]-[0043]). This
would be done at least for the purpose of providing the user with an expected and
familiar user interface, thereby improving user experience. (Id.).
238. Additional details regarding conventional interactive program guide
features are also provided by Killian, as discussed above.
239. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Kawamura discloses
wherein the remote access interactive television program guide “generates a
display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide
access device.”
b) “wherein the display of the plurality of program
listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a
location remote from the remote program guide access
device”
240. To any extent that Kondo fails to expressly disclose “wherein the
display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile
stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device,” this
would have been an obvious modification of Kondo in light of common program
guide filtering systems known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example,
Killian teaches use of a profile module to customize a program guide based on user
preferences stored as user profile data. And Kawamura teaches using preference
information to sort and filter the program guide.
127 Comcast, Ex-1002
241. 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-1008, 9:10-
25; see also Ex-1008, 11:20-21). User profiles may be used to filter channels and
specific content from program listings during generation of program guide
displays. (Ex-1008, 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 and
selected program listing information . . . ” (Ex-1008, 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-1008,
9:10-25, 11:20-21).
242. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
implement Kondo’s remote access guide system using Killian’s profile-based
filtered guides. Kondo discloses that its terminals acquire a broadcast program
guide and track viewing data. (Ex-1012, [0012], [0027]). Killian discloses that
program guides may be customized based on user profile information stored on a
local device or obtained remotely. (Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). A POSA would
have recognized that the user profiles of Killian could be used to store the user
preference information disclosed by Kondo. A POSA would realize that this would
128 Comcast, Ex-1002
allow 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 customized program guides with user preference filtering) to improve a
similar device (Kondo’s remote guide on remote terminal TA1) to obtain
predictable results. This would also help improve the user experience by
improving tracking of user preferences and allowing for better identification of
desired/undesired content. This would be done for the purpose of customizing the
remote access 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.
243. Similarly, Kawamura teaches “register[ing] a desired genre, actor, or
the like” and then at “regular intervals or irregular intervals” the device “receives
the program listing or program information” and “a sound or image is output to
notify the user” when a matching desired genre or actor is found in a program
listing. (Ex-1014, [0062]). In this way, Kawamura teaches a program listing based
on a user profile (i.e., a desired genre, actor, or the like).
244. A POSA would have found it obvious that the user profiles of
Kawamura could be incorporated into the remote guide displayed on Kondo’s
129 Comcast, Ex-1002
remote terminal TA1. This would be nothing more than using known techniques
(Kawamura’s user profiles) to improve a similar device (Kondo’s remote guide) to
obtain predictable results. This would allow the user to more easily select and
schedule programs for recording.
245. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura
discloses “wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated
based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote program guide
access device.”
“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings in the display, wherein the selection identifies a television program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local interactive television program guide”
246. Kondo discloses a system where a user on a communication terminal
acquires a broadcast program guide from a server over the Internet to schedule a
recording. (Ex-1012, [0012], FIG. 1). The user then “select[s] a program to record
from this information.” (Id.). Then, “[a]fter selecting the program, the user
accesses the server . . . to request scheduling of program recording.” (Id.). Where
the selection is made on terminal TA1, that is, the remote terminal, a “recording
request is sent” by way of server BSV “to the videotape recorder VTR connected
to the terminal TA2 that can be connected to another video device.” (Ex-1012,
130 Comcast, Ex-1002
[0013]). “In this way, the videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2
can automatically record the scheduled program.” (Ex-1012, [0014]).
247. To any extent Kondo may not expressly teach that the selection is
made using an IPG, a POSA would find this obvious over the combination of
Kondo with Killian and/or Kawamura, as explained above in Sections XII.A.2-4.
248. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses “wherein the remote
access interactive television program guide receives a selection of a program
listing of the plurality of program listings in the display, wherein the selection
identifies a television program corresponding to the selected program listing for
recording by the local interactive television program guide.”
“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] transmits a communication identifying the television program corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive television program guide over the Internet communications path”
249. As discussed above, Kondo discloses making a selection on terminal
TA1, that is, the remote terminal, and then a “recording request is sent to the
videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2 that can be connected to
another video device.” (Ex-1012, [0013]). Here, terminal TA2 is the local
terminal. Further, step 2 of Kondo FIG. 1 is identified as “Program recording
scheduling request,” and is shown travelling from the remote terminal TA1 to the
131 Comcast, Ex-1002
server BSV before continuing to the local terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, Fig. 1, [0012]-
[0014]).
250. Under the broad construction argued by Patent Owner in the ITC
Investigation, the server BSV and local terminal TA2 may collectively be
considered as implementing the local guide. (See Sec. VI.A, supra). This is
because the server includes program guide information and provides it to local
terminal TA2 so that the local terminal can display the guide and receive user
selections. Thus, the remote guide sending the recording request to server BSV
would meet the claimed limitation under this broad construction. Kondo does not
expressly disclose a narrower construction of this term where the message is sent
by the remote guide to a local guide implemented wholly on local terminal TA2.
However, a POSA would have found it obvious to merely forward the recording
request received at server BSV to the local terminal TA2. This would provide the
132 Comcast, Ex-1002
expected result of allowing local terminal TA2 to control the VTR to record the
program and would minimize necessary processing on the server.
251. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses wherein the remote
access interactive television program guide transmits a communication identifying
the television program corresponding to the selected program listing from the
remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive
television program guide over the Internet communications path.
“wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment.”
252. As I explained above, Kondo discloses that a user on the remote
terminal TA1 acquires a broadcast program guide from a server over the Internet to
schedule a recording. (Ex-1012, [0012], FIG. 1). The user then “select[s] a
program to record from this information.” (Id.). Then, “[a]fter selecting the
program, the user accesses the server … to request scheduling of program
recording.” (Id.).
253. Where the selection is made on terminal TA1, that is, the remote
terminal, a “recording request is sent to the videotape recorder VTR connected to
the terminal TA2 that can be connected to another video device.” (Ex-1012,
[0013]). “In this way, the videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2
133 Comcast, Ex-1002
can automatically record the scheduled program.” (Ex-1012, [0014]). Step 3 of
Fig. 1 in Kondo is identified as “Recording schesule command,” which I
understand to include a typographical error for “schedule,” and is shown as
travelling from the server BSV to the local terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, Fig. 1).
254. As explained above, under the broad construction argued by Patent
Owner in the ITC, the communication received by server BSV is received by the
local guide. Under a narrower construction, this would have been obvious as also
explained above. Accordingly, in my opinion Kondo discloses “wherein the local
interactive television program guide receives the communication and records the
television program corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the
communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment.”
255. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would further
understand that Killian’s modules implementing the recording APIs and program
identifiers could easily be utilized to effect the recording commands scheduled by
134 Comcast, Ex-1002
the user in Kondo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
utilize the program identifiers of Killian to identify the particular events selected
for recording in the system of Kondo, and to utilize Killian’s APIs to control local
recording hardware, as already described above.
256. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo in view of Killian discloses
“wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the
communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected
program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive
television program guide equipment.”
257. For the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that a POSA would
have found claim 1 of the ’263 Patent to be obvious over Kondo in view of Killian
and Kawamura.
B. Dependent Claim 2: The system defined in claim 1 wherein the
local interactive television program guide records the television
program corresponding to the selected program listing on the user
television equipment.
258. As discussed above, Kondo in view of Killian and further in view of
Kawamura discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kondo in view of Killian and
Kawamura further discloses “wherein the local interactive television program
guide records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing
on the user television equipment.” For example, this is taught by Kondo which
135 Comcast, Ex-1002
discloses that a recording reservation is received at the local terminal TA2 for
recording on a connected videotape recorder. (Ex-1012, [0014]). Kondo states
that “[i]n this way, the videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2 can
automatically record the scheduled program.” (Id.).
259. I have interpreted “user television equipment” to include various
typical components of a home television system, such as a set-top box, remote
control, secondary storage device, and a television. (See Section VI.C, supra). As
such, Kondo’s teaching of a “videotape recorder VTR” is user television
equipment as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (alone or
coupled with local terminal TA2).
260. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses “wherein the local
interactive television program guide records the television program corresponding
to the selected program listing on the user television equipment.”
261. Accordingly, in my opinion Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura
renders obvious claim 2 of the ’263 Patent.
136 Comcast, Ex-1002
C. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the local
interactive television program guide stores information indicating the
user who selected the program listing with the remote access
interactive television program guide.
262. As discussed above, Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura renders
obvious claim 1. In my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian and further in view of
Kawamura further renders obvious claim 4.
263. For example, Kondo discloses storing various information about the
users of its system, such as “questionnaire/results,” “viewing rate information,”
and “questionnaire information.” (See, e.g., Ex-1012, [0016]-[0017]; [0027]). A
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such information would
necessarily be linked to a particular user.
264. However, to any extent Kondo does not expressly describe storing
information indicating which user selected a program for recording, storing this
type of information was well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Incorporating this type of stored information would have been an obvious
modification of Kondo in view of at least Killian.
265. Killian teaches maintaining individual profiles for multiple users, and
prompting users to identify themselves so that their user profile may be accessed
and updated. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:55-60, 8:57-9:9). A profile module builds
individual viewer profiles based on received preference information associated
137 Comcast, Ex-1002
with corresponding users. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:55-60). A control module
coordinates communications between other modules of the EPG, such as the
profile module and the schedule module. (See Ex-1008, 8:57-9:9). Through the
program guide, a user may request that the system set up a recording by providing
user input identifying the user and criteria for the recording, such as a program
title. (See Ex-1008, 17:30-42). Furthermore, the system may direct a recording to
be performed on a VCR associated with a particular user based on the
identification of the user for whom the program is to be recorded. (See Ex-1008,
15:43-52).
266. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to utilize Killian’s individualized user tracking in the remote access guide
system of Kondo for the purpose of providing users with an individualized
experience and better results. Killian teaches that it is advantageous to identify a
user corresponding to a given recording, so that the system may track user
behavior in order to generate better user recommendations and provide the user
with access to desired content. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:55-60, 8:57-9:9). One
of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the known user tracking
techniques of Killian to improve Kondo’s similar guide system in order to provide
an improved user experience by updating individual user profiles based on tracking
information to better reflect the user’s preferences and to communicate to a user
138 Comcast, Ex-1002
which particular program corresponds to that user. Furthermore, one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand Killian’s teachings of viewer profiles to be fully
compatible with Kawamura’s teachings as applied in the discussion of claim 1, in
my opinion.
267. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian discloses
“wherein the local interactive television program guide stores information
indicating the user who selected the program listing with the remote access
interactive television program guide.”
268. Accordingly, in my opinion Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura
renders obvious claim 4 of the ’263 Patent.
D. Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17- 18
269. As established above in Section VII.D, independent claims 5, 8, 11,
14, and 17 recite substantially identical features to those recited in claim 1 for
purposes of prior art invalidity, and should stand or fall together.
270. As similarly established above in Section VII.D, dependent claims 6,
9, 12, 15, and 18 recite substantially identical features to those recited in claim 2,
and should stand or fall together.
271. Claims 1 and 2 have been demonstrated to be unpatentable as obvious
over Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura above. My analysis in Section
139 Comcast, Ex-1002
VII.D illustrates how the various recited features of claims 1 and 2 correspond to
the recited features of claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18.
272. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and
17-18 are obvious over Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura for the same
reasons as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2.
XIII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN IN VIEW OF KAWAMURA AND IN
FURTHER VIEW OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13,
16, AND 19
273. Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 depend on claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and
17, respectively, and further recite that the selected program is recorded at a
television distribution facility. As explained above, it is my opinion that Kondo in
view of Killian and further in view of Kawamura renders obvious every limitation
of independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17. In my opinion, Kondo in view of
Killian in view of Kawamura and in further view of Lawler renders obvious claims
3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.
A. Dependent Claim 3: wherein [the] local interactive television
program guide records the television program corresponding to the
selected program listing at a television distribution facility
274. As discussed above, Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura renders
obvious claim 2, which recites “wherein the local interactive television program
guide records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing
140 Comcast, Ex-1002
on the user television equipment.” The difference between claim 2 and claim 3 is
that claim 3 recites recording the television program listing “at a television
distribution facility.” Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura does not expressly
teach recording at a television distribution facility. However, recording at a
television distribution facility would have been known to one of ordinary skill in
the art, and further would have been an obvious modification of the control system
taught by the combination of Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura. For example,
Lawler teaches recording at a television distribution facility.
275. Lawler discloses “a system that allows the user of an interactive
viewing system to quickly and easily identify and select a desired program using
an interactive program guide and to designate the selected program for recording.”
(Ex-1009, 1:47-50). Lawler further discloses “a central head end in bidirectional
communication with one or more viewer stations.” (Ex-1009, 1:54-55). Lawler
teaches an arrangement of a central distribution facility “that supplies
programming over a network” to a plurality of viewer stations such as “that are
typically located in the homes of system users or subscribers.” (Ex-1009, 3:31-34).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that this arrangement is
typical of cable or satellite systems such as those described in Kondo, Killian, and
Kawamura.
141 Comcast, Ex-1002
276. Lawler discloses “a recording device is associated with the head end”
where “the head end controls the recording device to record the program.” (See
Ex-1009, 13:26-38; see also 2:24-29). Thus, “[t]he recorded program is stored at
the head end” where “[u]sers could then access the head end, on demand, to
retrieve and view the recorded program.” (Ex-1009, 13:30-33). Recording and
storing the program at a central facility “would allow multiple users to access a
single recording of the program.” (Ex-1009, 13:33-35).
277. Substituting and/or supplementing the recording at television
equipment of Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura with the centralized
recording of Lawler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art. Lawler teaches both localized and centralized recording as alternatives to each
other that work similarly. However, Lawler further teaches that, as a substitute to
local recording, it may be advantageous to record programs at a head end so that
they may be made available to other subscribers and to eliminate the need for a
separate recorder. (Ex-1009, 13:26-37; see also 2:24-29). This would have been a
simple substitution of one known recording arrangement (i.e., centralized) for
another known recording arrangement (i.e., at the user television equipment) that
would have yielded the predictable results described in Lawler (i.e., recording
programs with the advantages of centralized recording - so that they may be made
available to other subscribers and to eliminate the need for a separate recorder).