COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ROVI GUIDES, INC. · Comcast, Ex-1202 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,

Comcast, Ex-1202

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

_______________

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner

v.

ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date: August 26, 2004 Issue Date: October 25, 2011

Title: INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM GUIDE WITH REMOTE ACCESS

________________

Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned

________________

DECLARATION OF DR. GARY TJADEN

IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.

Declaration in Support of Petition 3 of 3

i Comcast, Ex-1202

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ....................... 1

III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................................................................. 6

IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES ............................ 6

V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART .............................................................................................. 10

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 11

A. “Guide” / “Electronic Program Guide” ............................................................. 11

B. “Local Guide” .................................................................................................... 14

C. “Remote Guide” ................................................................................................ 15

D. “User equipment” / “Television equipment” ..................................................... 15

E. “Program Guide Information” ........................................................................... 17

F. Preambles of Claims of the ’801 Patent ............................................................ 17

VII. THE ’801 PATENT .................................................................................... 18

A. Priority Date of the ’801 Patent ......................................................................... 18

B. Relevant Background of the ’801 Patent ........................................................... 24

C. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 25

D. Prosecution History ........................................................................................... 26

E. Limitation Correspondence of All Claims of the ’801 Patent ........................... 30

VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................... 44

A. WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 – Blake (Ex-1222) ....................................... 44

B. U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 – Killian (Ex-1208) .................................................... 47

C. U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,121 – Young (Ex-1223)..................................................... 48

IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’801 PATENT ....... 50

X. BLAKE IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-54 ........ 50

A. Independent Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 61

ii Comcast, Ex-1202

B. Dependent Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem. .............................................104

C. Dependent Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device ........................................................................................105

D. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein a web site is accessible to the user from a computing device of the user. ................................................106

E. Dependent Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet. ..........................................107

F. Claims 5 and 7-54 ............................................................................................108

XI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................110

1 Comcast, Ex-1202

I, Dr. Gary S. Tjaden, declare that I have personal knowledge of the facts set

forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would do so

competently.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner,

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, for the above-referenced inter partes

review proceeding.

2. I reside in St. Simons Island, Georgia.

3. I have been asked to provide a declaration regarding electronic

program guides and related technologies as well as the relevant industry. I have

also been asked to render opinions regarding certain matters pertaining to U.S.

Patent No. 8,046,801 (Ex-1201, “the ’801 Patent”) and the unpatentability grounds

set forth in the Petition for this proceeding.

4. I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $475 per hour

for my work on this matter. My compensation is in no way dependent upon my

opinions or testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.

II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

5. A description of my professional background and qualifications is

provided below. An additional account of my work experience and qualifications

2 Comcast, Ex-1202

is included in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Exhibit-1203 to the

Petition.

6. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering

(B.S.E.E.), which I received from the University of Utah in 1966. I received a

Master of Science degree in electrical engineering (M.S.E.E.) in 1969 from

Northwestern University. In 1973, I received a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

degree in computer science from the Johns Hopkins University.

7. I am currently the Founder and President of COCOMO ID, LLC, a

developer of technology for mobilized speech-audio publishing, a position I have

held since 1996. In this capacity, I have developed multiple computer software

applications. These include applications for automating the editing of textual

information (e.g., news articles) so it will be correctly spoken by speech synthesis

software, web server applications providing for end-user selection and automated

downloading of speech-edited textual information to mobile remote devices, and

applications running on mobile remote devices (such as Personal Digital Assistants

(PDAs) and cellphones) that speak the textual information organized according to

end-user preferences.

8. I have over thirty-five years of experience working with

telecommunication systems and information technology services, with a significant

portion of that experience in the fields of interactive program guides, set-top boxes,

3 Comcast, Ex-1202

and techniques for delivering content or program guide data over a cable system or

the Internet. I have held various design, leadership, and executive positions in, for

example, technology research, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and

product management at leading companies, such as the Center for Enterprise

Systems at the Georgia Institute of Technology, NYNEX Corporation,

Burroughs/Unisys, Cox Cable Communications, and Bell Telephone Laboratories.

9. From 1993 through 2004, I was a Principal Research Engineer and

Director of the Center for Enterprise Systems at the Georgia Institute of

Technology. While at the Georgia Institute of Technology, my responsibilities

included obtaining funding of the research performed by the Center, and using the

research to help commercial enterprises to use information technology to support

business strategy and operations.

10. Before coming to the Georgia Institute of Technology, I held

numerous executive positions with NYNEX Corporation (1987-92), a regional

telecommunication service provider, and with Burroughs/Unisys (1984-87), a

manufacturer of computer systems and provider of information technology

services. Of particular relevance to the technology underlying the ’801 Patent and

the prior art about which I render the opinions below, I worked with/on the

development and implementation of computer systems comprised of multiple

4 Comcast, Ex-1202

computers and computer-controlled devices interoperating over local and wide-

area communication networks at NYNEX/Burroughs.

11. I was Senior Vice President of Engineering and Technology for Cox

Cable Communications from 1979 to 1984, where I was involved in various

company activities and ventures, including supervising development and

implementation of the company’s interactive cable-based videotext system known

as INDAX. Of particular relevance to the technology underlying the ’801 Patent

and the prior art about which I render the opinions below, I established a research

organization and led the research, development and implementation of a new

technology for efficiently providing two-way data communication over cable

television networks, and the development and implementation of head-end

computer servers and end-user set-top boxes providing new cable system services

such as interactive program guides and remote shopping while at Cox Cable

Communications.

12. Prior to joining Cox, I held research and development posts with

Sperry Corporation in both the Sperry Research Center located in Sudbury,

Massachusetts (1975-76) and the Univac Division located in Bluebell,

Pennsylvania (1976-79) and with the Bell Telephone Laboratories Electronic

Switching Systems Division located in Naperville, Illinois (1966-70 and 1972-75).

5 Comcast, Ex-1202

13. I am a named inventor of eight issued U.S. patents, and thus I am

familiar with the prosecution of patent applications before the United States Patent

& Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and have a general understanding of the novelty

and non-obviousness requirements for patentability.

14. I have held professional affiliations that are particularly relevant to my

analyses of the issues presented in this inter partes review. Specifically, I was a

member of the National Science Foundation Committee on the National

Telecommunications Network, representing the Cable Television (CATV)

industry, in 1983. And, I served as the two term Chairman of the CATV Trade

Association Engineering Committee from 1982-84.

15. There are two technical publications listed in my curriculum vitae of

particular relevance to my background with respect to the issues about which I

opine below. The first is: “The INDAX Two-Way CATV Network For Videotex

Services,” VideoTex – Key To The Information Revolution, (Northwood Hills,

Middlesex, UK), June, 1982, pp. 465-475, coauthor. And the second is: “INDAX:

An Operational Interactive Cable Television and Home Information System”,

Proceedings of COMPCON Spring ’82, February 1982, pp. 356-359, coauthor.

16. I believe that my extensive industry experience (including experience

with interactive program guides, set-top boxes, and techniques for delivering

content or program guide data over a cable system, local-area networks, and the

6 Comcast, Ex-1202

Internet) and educational background qualify me as an expert in the relevant field

of electronic program guides. I am knowledgeable of the relevant skill set that

would have been possessed by a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at

the time of the invention of the ’801 Patent, which I have been instructed is 1998-

1999 for purposes of this proceeding.

III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED

17. In formulating my opinion, I reviewed and considered U.S. Patent No.

8,046,801 to Michael D. Ellis (Ex-1201, “the ’801 Patent”), as to which I am

offering my opinion regarding the validity of certain claims, as discussed herein. I

have also reviewed and considered the Petition and each of its accompanying

exhibits, including the file history of the ’801 Patent.

18. In preparing this declaration I have reviewed the following references

relied on in the petition upon which the challenge is based:

WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 to Blake (Ex-1222)

U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,121 to Young (Ex-1223)

U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 to Killian (Ex-1208)

IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES

19. Although I am not an attorney, I have a general understanding of the

applicable legal standards pertaining to the patentability issues presented in this

proceeding. I understand that the Petitioner is challenging the patentability of the

claims of the ’801 Patent based on the following grounds:

7 Comcast, Ex-1202

Claims 1-54 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1 based

on Blake in view of Killian.

20. I understand that, in this inter partes review, Petitioner has the burden

of proving that each challenged claim is unpatentable by a preponderance of the

evidence.

21. I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if, at the time of the

invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine

the teachings of the prior art to yield the patent claim. It is my understanding that

this determination is made after weighing the following factors: (1) level of

ordinary skill in the pertinent art; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the

differences between the prior art as a whole and the claim at issue; and (4) as

appropriate, secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

22. It is my understanding that the prior art and claimed invention should

be viewed through the knowledge and understanding of a person of ordinary skill

in the art – one should not use his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding

whether a claim is obvious. I further understand that a claim may be rendered

obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the claimed

invention as a predictable variation of a known product. I further understand that

a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant 1 Citations herein to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.

8 Comcast, Ex-1202

prior art at the time of the claimed invention, which comprises any prior art that

was reasonably pertinent to the particular problems the inventor faced.

23. It is my understanding that an obviousness evaluation can be made

on a single reference or a combination of several prior art references. It is my

understanding that an obviousness analysis involving two or more references

generally requires a motive that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in

the relevant field to combine aspects of those references in the way the claimed

new invention does. It is my understanding that the prior art references

themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other

times the link may be common sense. I further understand that obviousness

analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often

drives innovation, and that is sufficient motivation to combine references.

24. It is my understanding that a particular combination may be proven

obvious merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For

example, common sense is a good reason for a person of ordinary skill to

pursue known options when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a

problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

25. I further understand that a proper obviousness analysis focuses on

what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just the

patentee. Accordingly, it is my understanding that any need or problem known in

9 Comcast, Ex-1202

the field at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason

for combining the limitations in the manner claimed.

26. It is my understanding that at least the following rationales may

support a finding of obviousness: (1) combining prior art elements according to

known methods to yield predictable results; (2) simple substitution of one known

element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) use of a known technique to

improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (4) applying a

known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement

to yield predictable results; (5) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of

identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (6) a

predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of endeavor if a person

of ordinary skill would be able to implement the variation; (7) there existed a

known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the

patent’s claims at the time of the claimed invention; (8) known work in one field

may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based

on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been

predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (9) some teaching, suggestion,

or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to

modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive

at the claimed invention.

10 Comcast, Ex-1202

V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART

27. I understand that obviousness is determined from the vantage point of

a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention

(“POSA”). The ’801 Patent states that the invention “relates to interactive

television program guide video systems,” and I agree that this represents the

relevant field of art. (See Ex-1201, 1:16-17). I understand that a POSA is one who

is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in

the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity.

28. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’801 Patent at

the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent would have a bachelor’s degree

in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar

discipline, and two years of experience with interactive program guides, set-top

boxes, mobile computer devices, and techniques for delivering content or program

guides over communication networks, such as a cable system, a local-area

network, and the Internet. In the alternative, a person of ordinary skill in the art of

the ’801 Patent could have equivalent experience either in industry or research,

such as designing, developing, evaluating, testing, or implementing the

aforementioned technologies. I worked in the relevant field with such persons at,

and leading up to, the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent, and thus, I

am familiar with the knowledge that such persons had at the time (i.e., 1997-1999).

11 Comcast, Ex-1202

29. All of my statements in this declaration regarding what a POSA

would have known, understood, appreciated, been motivated to do, etc. refer to a

person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the earliest claimed priority date of

the ’801 Patent – i.e., July 17, 1998 (although, as I establish in Section VII.A

below, the ’801 Patent is not entitled to claim a priority date prior to July 16,

1999).

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

30. I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope

of the claims of the ’801 Patent. I understand that claims subject to inter partes

review are given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification

of the patent in which it appears.” Therefore, in my analyses given below I have

assumed that all claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as

would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of

the priority date.

31. With this understanding, I construe several claim terms here: guide,

electronic program guide, local guide, remote guide, user equipment, television

equipment, and program guide information. Each of these is addressed below in

turn.

A. “Guide” / “Electronic Program Guide”

32. The terms “guide” and “electronic program guide” would be

understood by a POSA to refer to software that is operative at least in part to

12 Comcast, Ex-1202

generate a display of television program listings. I note that the claims further

recite the “guide” as allowing a user to make selections from the displayed

television program listings, though these limitations are not inherent to the term

“guide” itself. An example of a “typical” program guide is provided in which

“various groups of television program listings are displayed in predefined or user-

defined categories” and “[l]istings are typically displayed in a grid or table.” (Ex-

1201, 1:30-33). The ’801 Patent describes at least two different types of “guides”:

“interactive television program guides” (“IPGs”) and “on-line program guides.”

The term “interactive television program guide” is defined by function:

“Interactive television program guides allow the user to navigate through television

program listings using a remote control.” (Ex-1201, 1:28-30). By contrast, “on-

line program guides” are described that “allow users to view program listings using

a web-browser,” but “do not allow the user to set in-home reminders for

programming, to adjust parental control settings, or to select programs for

recording on the user’s videocassette recorder.” (Ex-1201, 1:43-50). Because the

’801 Patent describes at least two different types of program guides but only claims

the generic term “guide,” one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the

term “guide” as used in the ’801 Patent includes, but is not limited to, interactive

television program guides.

13 Comcast, Ex-1202

33. The term “electronic program guide” does not appear in the ’801

Patent specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this term to

also refer to software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of

television program listings. And, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand

that interactive television program guides are a type of “electronic program

guide.”

34. To any extent the terms “guide” or “electronic program guide” may

be construed as limited to interactive television program guides, I note that whether

or not a program guide is “interactive” is determined based on, for example,

whether it offers interactive features allowing a user to navigate through television

program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software (such as

selecting a program for recording). (See, e.g., Ex-1201, 1:28-33). Thus, a

reference may disclose an interactive television program guide despite describing

the guide as an “electronic program guide.”

35. The ’801 Patent distinguishes between the “user equipment” / “remote

device” and the “local guide” / “remote guide” implemented thereon. (See, e.g.,

Ex-1201, claim 1). A POSA would understand this distinction to mean that the

“guide” is control software that is implemented on user equipment or the remote

device, such as a set-top box or PC. (See, e.g., Ex-1201, 1:34-35 (“Interactive

14 Comcast, Ex-1202

television program guides are typically implemented on set-top boxes located in

the homes of users.”)).

B. “Local Guide”

36. The term “local guide” would be understood by a POSA to refer to a

guide that generates a display of television program listings for use at the user

premises. (Ex-1201, 1:28-30, 1:34-37, 15:9-15, 24:4-15). It is my understanding

that the Patent Owner has asserted claims of the ’801 Patent in U.S. International

Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1201, styled In the Matter of Certain

Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (“ITC

Investigation”). It is further my understanding that Patent Owner argued that the

local interactive television program guide could be implemented on equipment that

includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the user’s home. In particular, the

Patent Owner presented arguments that the claimed local guide limitations could

be met by software implemented in part on equipment located outside the user

premises. (Ex-1245, p. 56, 218:21-220:13 (discussing the local guide in the

context of Petitioner’s system, and arguing that the data server providing guide

information was part of the local guide)). Similarly, during a discussion of the

prior art, the Patent Owner presented argument that a remotely located server that

provides program guide information would be part of the equipment on which the

local guide is implemented, under the Patent Owner’s interpretation of this term.

15 Comcast, Ex-1202

(Ex-1246, p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2 (discussing Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435, and

agreeing that under Patent Owner’s construction the local guide is implemented on

a local computer and an external broadcast station)). That is, under Patent Owner’s

interpretation of “local guide,” as evidenced by the argument portions I have cited,

the local guide may be implemented at least in part on a server or other device

outside the user’s home. I have been informed that Petitioner is requesting that the

Board adopt this broad interpretation for purposes of this proceeding only, despite

certain statements made during prosecution of the ’801 Patent and related patents.

In my analysis below, I present my conclusions under this broad interpretation as

well as under a narrower interpretation in which the local guide is only

implemented on equipment located within the user’s home.

C. “Remote Guide”

37. The term “remote guide” would be understood by a POSA to refer to

a guide that generates a display of television program listings for use on a remote

access device, such as a mobile device. (Ex-1201, 14:4-21, 12:31-37).

D. “User equipment” / “Television equipment”

38. The terms “user equipment” and “television equipment” would be

understood by a POSA to be interchangeable and to at least include various typical

components of a home television system, such as a set-top box, remote control,

secondary storage device, and a television, or any of these alone or coupled

together with other such devices. I note that the ’801 Patent specification generally

16 Comcast, Ex-1202

uses the term “user television equipment,” which is of the same scope as either

“user equipment” or “television equipment” for validity purposes. An example of

“user equipment” or “television equipment” is provided in Fig. 3 of the ’801

Patent. (Ex-1201, 5:41-43 (“Fig. 3 is an illustrative schematic block diagram of

the user television equipment of Fig. 2 in accordance with the principles of the

present invention.”)). In this example, user television equipment includes “set-top

box” 28, “remote control” 40, “secondary storage device” 32, and “television” 36.

(Ex-1201, Fig. 3; see also 10:15-12:7).

39. However, the ’801 Patent makes clear that this is not the only example

of user television equipment. Fig. 4 illustrates “[a] more generalized embodiment

of user television equipment” including a “user interface 46,” “display device 45,”

“control circuitry 42,” “digital storage device 49,” “secondary storage device 47,”

and “communications device 51.” (Ex-1201, Fig. 4, 11:51-12:29). As such, a

POSA would have understood that user television equipment is not confined to

only the example illustrated in Fig. 3, but also includes any combination of devices

that would have the functional elements of Fig. 4. Thus, the broadest reasonable

interpretation of “user equipment” or “television equipment” also includes a

display device. A POSA would also have understood that the broadest reasonable

interpretation of “user equipment” and “television equipment” in view of the ’801

17 Comcast, Ex-1202

Patent specification includes multiple devices communicatively coupled together,

such as a STB and a VCR. (See Ex-1201, Figs. 3 and 4, 10:15-28, 12:8-29).

E. “Program Guide Information”

40. “Program guide information” is described in the ’801 Patent as

broadly including “reminder information, listings information, recording

information, message information, status information, parental control settings,

audio and video, status or polling information, user information, favorites settings,

or any other information necessary for remotely providing program guide

functionality.” (Ex-1201, 15:33-41; see also 15:42-16:5, 16:55-17:9, 21:1-10,

24:62-25:7). Thus, a POSA would recognize that “program guide information”

under a broadest reasonable definition includes at least those specific items

enumerated in the ’801 Patent.

F. Preambles of Claims of the ’801 Patent

41. It is my understanding that preamble language that merely states the

purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the

scope of the claim. However, I further understand that when limitations in the

body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then

the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention. Based

on this understanding, in my analyses given below, I have assumed that the

preamble of each independent claim of the ’801 Patent is not to be treated as

limiting the scope of the claims.

18 Comcast, Ex-1202

VII. THE ’801 PATENT

A. Priority Date of the ’801 Patent

42. I understand that U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 10/927,814 (“the ’814

Application”), which eventually became the ’801 Patent, was filed on August 26,

2004.

43. I understand that the ’814 Application was the second in a chain of

applications claiming priority to two provisional applications filed in 1998 that

briefly described features related to networked electronic program guides. (See

U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093, 292, Ex-1204 (“the ’292 Provisional”); U.S. Prov.

App. No. 60/097, 527, Ex-1205 (“the ’527 Provisional”)). After reviewing the

claims of the ’801 Patent and the two provisional applications, it is my opinion that

neither provisional included sufficient disclosure to fully support or enable the

lengthy claims that issued in the ’801 Patent.

44. I have reviewed both the ’292 Provisional and the ’527 Provisional.

In my opinion, neither provisional provides a full written description that could

support the lengthy claims that issued in the ’801 Patent, nor does either

provisional provide an enabling disclosure as would be required for a POSA to

make and use the claims of the ’801 Patent. I have identified two primary features

recited in the claims of the ’801 Patent that do not find support in the provisional

applications, indicated in the diagram below which reproduces claim 1 of the ’801

Patent:

19 Comcast, Ex-1202

45. First, neither provisional application provides a written description of

“transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide

identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the

Internet” as recited in claim 1 and the other independent claims of the ’801 Patent.

No such communication from a “remote guide” and “to the local guide” is

disclosed.

46. There is no discussion of transmitting a selection of a program

between guides in the ’292 Provisional. Regarding transmitting an instruction to

record, the ’292 Provisional states only that “[i]f a household has only one VCR,

there will only be one location that will make all recordings, regardless of which

station the recordings are set from. If there are multiple VCRs in the home, the

20 Comcast, Ex-1202

viewer may be given the option of choosing among those locations,” without

further support. (See Ex-1204, p. 2). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain a

written description of “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the

local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing

via the Internet,” much less provide such written description as would be required

for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.

47. There is a similar lack of support for this feature in the ’527

Provisional. The ’527 Provisional states that:

A viewer may also set reminders, schedule recordings, or purchase

pay programs from a remote computer. These scheduled events

would be transmitted to the television viewing station, where they

would be acted upon at the appropriate time. A viewer might request

that a program be recorded on a VCR in the home, a digital storage

medium in the home (such as recordable DVD) or on a remote server.

These requests might also be made via a touch-tone phone. (Ex-1205,

p. 3).

48. The ’527 Provisional does not discuss identification of a user selection

being sent by a remote guide to a local guide for the local guide to commence a

recording. At best, the relevant section of the ’527 Provisional only states that a

remote computer may schedule a recording via transmission to a television viewing

station. (Id.). However, there is no discussion of transmitting a program selection

from a “remote guide” and “to the local guide” for recording by the local guide.

21 Comcast, Ex-1202

Thus, the ’527 Provisional does not contain a written description of “transmitting,

with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program

corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet,” much less provide

such written description as would be required for a POSA to make and use such a

limitation.

49. Second, neither provisional application provides a written description

for “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a

display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide

information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the

Internet,” as recited in claim 1 and the other independent claims of the ’801 Patent.

The ’292 Provisional states that a guide “may make . . . available” “a profile or

favorite channels” for multiple locations. (Ex-1204, p. 2). However, there is no

recitation of a lineup of “program listings” based on the profile or favorite

channels at all, much less a description of a display on a remote device comprising

a plurality of program listings. (See id.). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not

contain a written description of “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a

user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide

based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on

22 Comcast, Ex-1202

user equipment via the Internet,” much less provide such written description as

would be required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.

50. The ’527 Provisional similarly fails. The ’527 Provisional states that

“user profiles, channel lineups, and parental control options might be retrieved

from the guide . . . .” (Ex-1205, p. 3). However, there is no recitation of how that

information would be used to display “a plurality of program listings” on a remote

device. In fact, there is no recitation of the information being displayed on a

remote device, at all. (Id.). Thus, there is no sufficient written description of

generating program listings based on program guide information as would be

required for a POSA to make and use such a limitation.

51. Further, though the ’527 Provisional recites “a guide running in a car

might allow the user to ask verbally for a list of upcoming programs meeting a user

profile loaded from the television,” this description specifically recites verbal

information. (Ex-1205, p. 3). The guide allows “the user to ask verbally,” and

“the user hears the program of interest.” (Id.). While a user profile loaded from

the television is involved in the result, there is no recitation of any display of a

guide based on the user profile in the ’527 Provisional. (Ex-1205, pp. 3-4). Thus,

the ’527 Provisional does not contain a written description of “generating, with a

remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a

plurality of program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the display

23 Comcast, Ex-1202

is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received

from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,” much less

provide such written description as would be required for a POSA to make and use

such a limitation.

52. Therefore, a POSA would be unable to make or use the system

conforming to the limitations of claim 1 based on the limited disclosures provided

by the ’292 Provisional and the ’527 Provisional. Because the other claims of the

’801 Patent recite similar features to claim 1, the provisional applications would

similarly fail to provide a POSA with sufficient written description as would be

required for a POSA to make and use such limitations as they recite. Thus, after

reviewing the claims of the ’801 Patent and the two provisional applications, it is

my opinion that neither provisional included sufficient disclosure to fully support

or enable the lengthy claims that issued in the ’801 Patent.

53. I understand that the ’814 Application was filed as a continuation of

an abandoned application (U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 09/354,344 – “the ’344

Application”) directed to selecting programs over a remote access link for

recording. The ’344 Application expanded substantially on the bare concepts of

the two provisional applications. It is my opinion that the alleged invention

claimed in the ’801 Patent was at best first disclosed in the specification of the

’344 Application on July 16, 1999, the filing date of the ’344 Application.

24 Comcast, Ex-1202

B. Relevant Background of the ’801 Patent

54. In the years before July 16, 1999, the date to which the ’801 Patent is

at best entitled to claim priority, the number of channels available on cable and

satellite television systems was beginning to increase dramatically, calling into

question the workability of traditional paper guides.

55. Solutions to this problem that had appeared in the marketplace were

electronic program guides (EPGs – then dedicated television channels where

program listings would scroll passively) and interactive program guides (IPGs -

where users could scroll, search, and select the listings through button pushes on

the remote control). By the time the applications to which the ’801 Patent claims

priority were filed, both of these solutions were well known to those of ordinary

skill in the art. Additionally, as interactive program guides became ubiquitous, use

of the terms began to overlap. In the technical literature, authors frequently used

EPG to refer to a television program guide offering interactive features.

56. While interactive program guides were originally implemented on set-

top boxes, communicating via the cable company’s connection to the home, that

was beginning to change by the claimed priority date of the ’801 Patent. On-line

program guides were also being implemented that would allow users to access

interactive program guides from other devices, and from anywhere with an Internet

connection. (See, e.g., Ex-1201, 1:43-50). These program guides would allow

25 Comcast, Ex-1202

users to use personal computers on the Internet to browse to an on-line program

guide where the user could scroll and search through program listings. (See, e.g.,

Ex-1201, 1:43-44, 2:1-4). And, some of these online interactive program guides

gave users the ability to use the online program guides to remotely schedule

recordings of programs on their home equipment. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:1-2,

18:1-16).

57. Another known solution to the problem of the large number of

channels was to generate the program listings based on user profiles or favorite

channel lists in order to limit the number of programs or channels displayed to

those the user would find most appealing. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 1:20-41, 2:1-13).

C. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention

58. The alleged invention of the ’801 Patent relates to remotely accessible

guides that are able to schedule recordings on local hardware by communicating

with local guide software. (See Ex-1201, 1:16-19, 2:20-25). The claims of the

’801 Patent recite systems and methods “enabling a user to perform recordings.”

(Ex-1201, claim 1). The system includes “a remote guide accessible by a user of a

remote device.” (Id.). The system also includes “a local guide implemented on

user equipment.” (Id.). The remote guide is recited as “generating . . . a display

comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide

26 Comcast, Ex-1202

information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the

Internet.” (Id.). The remote guide receives “a user selection of a program listing

from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a

program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local

guide,” and transmits “a communication to the local guide identifying the program

corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet.” (Id.). The local

guide “receiv[es] the communication” and schedules “the program corresponding

to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.” (Id.).

59. In other words, the claims are generally directed to systems and

methods having a local guide on local guide equipment in communication via the

Internet with a remote guide on a remote guide device. The remote guide sends a

communication to the local guide over the Internet identifying a user-selected

program and instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program.

The remote guide is generated based on program guide information received from

the local guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1201 at claim 1).

D. Prosecution History

60. Based on my review of the file history of the ’814 Application (which

became the ’801 Patent), it is my understanding that the applicant repeatedly

argued that the primary distinction between the prior art and the alleged invention

lay in the two-guide nature of the claims. However, many remote access IPG

27 Comcast, Ex-1202

systems including guide-to-guide communication were well-known at the time of

the alleged invention. For example, IPGs and associated functionality were

commonly implemented on DSS and other STB hardware at the time of the alleged

invention of the ’801 Patent, as admitted in the specification of the ’801 Patent

itself. (See, e.g., Ex-1202, 1:20-27). I note that no evidence was submitted during

prosecution regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

61. In particular, I note that the Blake reference relied on herein was cited

during prosecution of the ’814 Application. As explained below, during

prosecution of the ’814 Application, the applicant relied on a narrow interpretation

of the claimed invention wherein the communication of user program selections

were sent from the remote device to a local guide implemented on equipment in

the user’s home.

62. For example, in response to an office action rejecting the claims over

Blake, the applicant argued that Blake’s system only includes one guide,

maintaining that Blake “does not show or suggest a remote guide that transmits a

communication to a second guide (on user equipment) to schedule and perform a

recording of a program selected at the remote guide . . . .” (Ex-1233, p. 18-19

(emphasis added)). The applicant also argued in a prior response that “the Blake

system uses central processing system 334 to schedule recordings of programs

selected by the user using a single schedule guide” and control the recording

28 Comcast, Ex-1202

device to perform the recording, as a result “there is only one guide with which the

recording is performed remotely, and not two guides in communication to perform

the remote recording.” (Ex-1232, p. 9).

63. To overcome the examiner objections in view of Blake, the applicant

mischaracterized Blake’s system as only having one guide. However, as explained

further herein (see Section X, infra), Blake’s system indeed included two guides in

communication as recited in the claims of the ’801 Patent.

64. To overcome rejections based on Blake’s disclosure of two guides in

communication, the applicant emphasized during prosecution that the claimed

communication of user-selected program listings from the remote guide to the local

guide was not met by Blake’s communication of user selection information from

input device 332 to central processing system 334. For example, during

prosecution, the applicant submitted a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Dr.

George T. Ligler (“the Ligler Declaration”) arguing that the claimed

communication of program listings from a remote guide to the local guide was not

met by Blake since both embodiments (i.e., the “the Page 17 Embodiments” and

“the Page 18 Embodiments”) required transmitting the user selections from the

remote guide to a central processing system 334. (See Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 21, 24, 41).

65. Consequently, to distinguish over Blake during prosecution, the

applicant advanced a narrow interpretation of the claimed local interactive

29 Comcast, Ex-1202

television program guide, wherein the local guide is implemented solely on

hardware within the user’s home. However, I understand that in the ITC

Investigation Patent Owner relied on a much broader interpretation of the claimed

limitations, arguing that the local interactive television program guide could be

implemented on equipment that includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the

user’s home. (See Ex-1245, p. 56, 218:21-220:13, p. 58, 226:14-227:14

(discussing the local guide in the context of Petitioner’s system, and arguing that

the data server providing guide information or guide functionality, including

recording commands, was part of the local guide)).

66. This interpretation is broader than the narrower constructions that

were advanced during prosecution and argued in the Ligler Declaration. In fact,

under Patent Owner’s more expansive interpretation of the claimed local guide,

many of the admissions made by the applicant during prosecution regarding Blake

resemble what Patent Owner now contends would infringe the alleged inventions

of the ’801 Patent. For example, to distinguish over Blake, the applicant argued

during prosecution that the claimed communication of program listings was not

met by Blake because input device 332 communicated user program selections to

the central processing system and not a local guide implemented on local

equipment. (See Ex-1233, p. 18-19; Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 21, 24, 33, 35, 41). However,

Patent Owner now contends that a recording request made on Blake’s input device

30 Comcast, Ex-1202

332 is communicated to the local guide because the request is communicated to

central processing system 334 and then to VCR 32. (See Ex-1246, p. 48, 1137:23-

1138:15).

67. The ’801 Patent recites the following in the abstract:

An interactive television program guide with remote access is

provided. The interactive television program guide is implemented on

interactive television program guide equipment. A remote program

guide access device is connected to the interactive television program

guide equipment by a remote access link to provide a user with remote

access to program guide functions. (Ex-1201, Abstract).

Therefore, in my opinion, it is a reasonable and accurate statement to conclude: the

general area of technology of the ’801 Patent is that of interactive program guides,

and remote or local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.

68. In the analyses I make below I will use multiple prior art references to

show that the claims of the ’801 Patent would have been obvious to a POSA. For

each prior art reference, I will show that its general field of technology is the same

as that of the ’801 Patent, and thus a POSA of the time would have found it

obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art references in order to arrive at the

claims of the ’801 Patent.

E. Limitation Correspondence of All Claims of the ’801 Patent

69. The ’801 Patent includes 54 claims, of which 12 are independent.

After reviewing the independent claims of the ’801 Patent, it is my opinion that the

31 Comcast, Ex-1202

requirements of each of the independent claims are the same for purposes of

determining whether every limitation is disclosed in the prior art. That is, claims 1,

5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 are all either of the same scope or have

minor variations in wording that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA, for

purposes of prior art analysis. I have reviewed both the system claims (10, 15, 28,

33, 46, 51) and the method claims (1, 5, 19, 23, 37, 41), and they each recite the

same devices performing the same steps. Therefore, it is my opinion that the

nature of a claim as “a system” or “a method” is insubstantial for purposes of prior

art analysis. Additionally, it is my opinion that dependent claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25,

30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 are of the same scope with claim 2, that dependent

claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 are of the same scope with claim

3, that dependent claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 are of the

same scope with claim 4, and that dependent claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47 are of

the same scope with claim 6.

70. In the figure below, I have identified, using annotations, where each

limitation of claim 5 can be found in claim 1:

32 Comcast, Ex-1202

Although claim 5 does not explicitly require that “user equipment is located at a

user site,” claim element 5(b) requires that “the local guide generates a display of

one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site.” As

noted in Section VI.D, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user equipment”

includes “a display device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in

language, in my opinion claims 1 and 5 are either of the same scope or have minor

variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior

art analysis.



33 Comcast, Ex-1202

Claim 10 is a system claim, but recites the same devices performing the same steps

as claim 1. Although claim 10 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim

element 10(b) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these

terms are interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and

“user equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis.

Although claim 10 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is

remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most,

render claim 10 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations

in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 10 are either of the same scope or have

minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA, for purposes of

prior art analysis.

34 Comcast, Ex-1202




as claim 1. Although claim 15 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim

element 15(b) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these

terms are interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and

“user equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis.



render claim 15 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations

in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 15 are either of the same scope or have

35 Comcast, Ex-1202

minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of

prior art analysis.



Although claim 19 does not explicitly require “receiving the communication with

the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim

19 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations in language,

in my opinion claims 1 and 19 are either of the same scope or have minor


art analysis.



36 Comcast, Ex-1202

Although claim 23 does not explicitly require “receiving the communication with

the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim

23 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are minor variations in language,

in my opinion claims 1 and 23 are either of the same scope or have minor


art analysis.



37 Comcast, Ex-1202

Although claim 28 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim element

28(c) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these terms are

interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and “user

equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis. Although

claim 28 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is remote to the

remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim

28 broader than claim 1. Although claim 28 does not explicitly require “receiving

the communication with the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference

would, at most, render claim 28 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are

minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 28 are either of the same

scope or have minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA

for purposes of prior art analysis.

38 Comcast, Ex-1202



Although claim 33 does not explicitly require “user equipment,” claim element

33(c) requires “television equipment.” As noted in Section VI.D, these terms are

interchangeable as used in the ’801 Patent, so “television equipment” and “user

equipment” are of the same scope for purposes of prior art analysis. Although

claim 33 does not explicitly require “wherein the user equipment is remote to the

remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference would, at most, render claim

33 broader than claim 1. Although claim 33 does not explicitly require “receiving

the communication with the local guide,” as recited in claim 1, this difference

would, at most, render claim 33 broader than claim 1. Therefore, while there are

minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 33 are either of the same

39 Comcast, Ex-1202

scope or have minor variations that would be considered insubstantial to a POSA

for purposes of prior art analysis.





render claim 37 broader than claim 1. Claim 37 requires “the user selected

program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide” which

is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim 1’s “user

selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to come from

the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote

device” in order for a user to see the program listing he is selecting. Therefore,

40 Comcast, Ex-1202

while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 37 are

either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be considered

insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.





render claim 41 broader than claim 1. Claim 41 requires “the user selected

program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide” which

is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim 1’s “user

selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to come from

the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote

41 Comcast, Ex-1202

device” in order for a user to see the program listing he is selecting. Therefore,

while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1 and 41 are

either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be considered

insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.




as claim 1. Although claim 46 does not explicitly require “wherein the user

equipment is remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference

would, at most, render claim 46 broader than claim 1. Claim 46 requires that “the

user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote

guide” which is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim

42 Comcast, Ex-1202

1’s “user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to

come from the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on

the remote device” in order for a user to see the program listing they are selecting.

Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1

and 46 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be

considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.




as claim 1. Although claim 51 does not explicitly require “wherein the user

equipment is remote to the remote device” as recited in claim 1, this difference

would, at most, render claim 51 broader than claim 1. Claim 51 requires “the user

43 Comcast, Ex-1202

selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote

guide” which is not recited in claim 1. However, a POSA would understand claim

1’s “user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings” to

come from the “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on

the remote device” in order for a user to see the program listing he is selecting.

Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion claims 1

and 51 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be

considered insubstantial to a POSA for purposes of prior art analysis.

81. The dependent claims of each independent claim generally correspond

to one another. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and relates to accessing the remote

device over a modem. The limitations of claim 2 are recited using the same or

similar language in dependent claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52,

and are of the same scope. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and relates to scheduling a

recording from an electronic program guide (e.g., the “remote guide”) running on

the remote device. The limitations of claim 3 are recited using the same or similar

language in dependent claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53, and are

of the same scope. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and relates to a user having access

to a website through a computer. The limitations of claim 4 are recited using the

same or similar language in dependent claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50,

and 54 are of the same scope. And claim 6 depends on claim 5 and relates to

44 Comcast, Ex-1202

accessing the remote device over the Internet. The limitations of claim 6 are

recited using the same or similar language in dependent claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and

47, and are of the same scope.

82. As a result of this analysis, it is my opinion that it is only necessary to

show obviousness of all requirements of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, and

6 to also show obviousness of claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51

and their respective dependent claims. That is, a POSA would understand that

claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 require the same limitations

and would conclude that claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 were

obvious if claim 1 were found obvious. Similarly, a POSA would understand that

claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 require the same limitations as

claim 2; that claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 require the same

limitations as claim 3; that claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54

require the same limitations as claim 4; and that claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47

require the same limitations as claim 6, and would conclude that these claims

would be obvious if claims 2, 3, 4, and 6 were found obvious.

VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART

A. WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 – Blake (Ex-1222)

83. Blake was published on March 12, 1998. Accordingly, it is my

understanding that Blake is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).

45 Comcast, Ex-1202

84. Blake is generally directed to “a system for providing media schedule

information, and more particularly to a television schedule system with enhanced

recording capability.” (Ex-1222, 1:17-19). Peripheral devices (e.g.,

television/guide equipment) located within a user’s home, for example a PC,

PCTV, or set-top box 38, receive broadcast data streams from a distribution center

and include software applications that utilize television schedule information in the

data stream to generate an interactive electronic program guide. (See, e.g., Ex-

1222, 4:10-14, 4:24-26, 4:28-30, 5:1-6, 6:7-10). The local guide displays

television schedule information, allows a user to make program selections, and

controls a recording device located in the user’s home (e.g., VCR 32 of Fig. 1) to

record selected programs. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 15:3-7, 16:12-33; Figs. 1, 12, and

13). The system architecture of Blake is illustrated in Fig. 1:

46 Comcast, Ex-1202

(Ex-1222, Fig. 1 (annotated to illustrate the various receiving locations (e.g., user

premises) in red and “peripheral devices” such as VCRs 32 and 36 in blue, TVs 30

and 34 in purple, and set-top box 38 in orange)).

85. Blake’s television system “enhances the recording capability of the

[local] schedule guide,” for example a schedule guide as disclosed in Young

(incorporated by reference in Blake), “by allowing the user to schedule recordings

from a remote location.” (Ex-1222, 17:1-2 (emphasis added); see also 1:20-2:5).

In particular, Blake discloses that “a user who is away from home may record a

program remotely by using input device 332,” which allows a user to select

47 Comcast, Ex-1202

programs to record according to theme and control recording equipment located in

the user premises (e.g., recording device 336, VCRs 32) to record the selected

program. (Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 17:8-15, 17:19-21, 18:1-16, Figs. 1 and 13). Program

selections made on input device 332 (e.g., program recording requests) are

communicated to and stored at processing system 334 which then activates the

local recording device to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 17:8-18, 18:5-16,

18:18-29). Blake further teaches performing theme-based selections via “a web

site which is connected to processing system 334 to enter the user’s selection.”

(Ex-1222, 18:19-23).

86. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Blake is the same as

that of the ’801 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or

local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.

B. U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 – Killian (Ex-1208)

87. Killian was filed on October 3, 1997, and issued December 19, 2000.

Accordingly, it is my understanding that Killian is available as prior art under 35

U.S.C. § 102(e).

88. Killian is directed to using Internet technology to provide a program

guide applet or application that allows viewers to select, schedule, and record

viewing opportunities according to viewer profiles and program listing information

retrieved from a database. (See Ex-1208, 6:26-31).

48 Comcast, Ex-1202

89. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Killian is the same as

that of the ’801 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or

local access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment.

C. U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,121 – Young (Ex-1223)

90. Young was filed May 6, 1986, and issued on November 10, 1987.

Accordingly, it is my understanding that Young is available as prior art under 35

U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (e). Blake incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No.

4,706,121 to Young (Ex-1223)2, and prominently recites in its fourth paragraph that

Young is incorporated by reference therein. (Ex-1222, 1:32-2:5).

91. As discussed above in Section VIII.A, Blake’s system enhances the

recording capability of local IPGs including known systems for providing

television schedule information to users. (Ex-1222, 1:20-2:5, 17:1-2). Blake

describes the IPG disclosed in Young as an example of a known interactive

television schedule system. (Ex-1222, 1:17-22). Blake notes that Young’s

interactive television schedule system receives and displays broadcast television

schedule information on a user’s television screen. (Ex-1222, 1:20-24). In

particular, Young discloses an electronic system for controlling a television to

2 Unless expressly stated herein, citations to columns 1 through 12 of Young are

not referencing the Reexamination Certificate issued under 35 U.S.C. 307.

49 Comcast, Ex-1202

present program listings on a television schedule guide based on schedule

information received in broadcast form, and for enabling a user to program a VCR

or other recording device for automatic unattended recordings based on programs

selected by a user via the television schedule guide. (Ex-1223, 1:11-24, 7:5-11,

7:17-21, 7:60-8:3, 21:48-64, Figs. 2 and 3).

92. Additionally, Blake notes that Young’s system allows a user to make

program selections, control the schedule information presented on the screen, and

control a television receiver to automatically record a selected program on a VCR

or other recording device. (See Ex-1222, 1:24-31). In particular, Young discloses

that a user may use a remote control device (e.g., remote controller 1010) to

navigate a cursor through program listings displayed on the television schedule

guide (e.g., “Master Guide”, “Program Guide”), to select television programs to

view, and to schedule program recordings on a local recording device. (See, e.g.,

Ex-1223, 9:7-15, 9:28-31, 9:48-54, 10:13-18, 10:45-47, 11:26-28, 11:51-53, 11:62-

65, 12:13-23).

93. It is my opinion that a POSA would have understood that Young, as

incorporated by reference in Blake, provides further details as to the features of

Blake’s disclosed local television schedule system, such as the features described

above. Upon seeing the incorporation by reference of Young, a POSA would turn

to Young as a part of the Blake reference and would rely on it as teaching various

50 Comcast, Ex-1202

implementation details and other features of Blake’s television schedule system, in

particular the well-known IPG features disclosed in Young.

IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’801 PATENT

94. It is my opinion that claims 1-54 of the ’801 Patent are rendered

obvious by Blake in view of Killian.

X. BLAKE IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-54

95. For reasons that I will address in more detail below, it is my firm

belief and opinion that, at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the

relevant art would have combined Blake (Ex-1222) and Killian (Ex-1208) in a

manner that renders obvious claims 1-54.

96. As explained above, the claims relate to “a local guide” on user

equipment communicating via the Internet with a “remote guide” on a remote

device. The remote guide receives a user selection of a program listing for

recording by the local guide, and transmits a communication to the local guide via

the Internet instructing the local guide to record the program using the user

equipment. The remote guide display is generated based on program guide

information received from the local guide. (Ex-1201, claim 1).

97. Similarly, Blake, WIPO Publication WO 98/10589 (Ex-1222),

discloses a computer/television system that improves the recording capability of

the local interactive television program guide by allowing a user to view television

schedule information and remotely schedule recording requests via a remote input

51 Comcast, Ex-1202

device. (Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 17:8-15, 18:1-16). As explained above, Blake is

directed to an interactive television schedule system with enhanced recording

capability wherein peripheral devices (e.g., television/guide equipment), located

within a user’s home, implement a local interactive television schedule guide that

may incorporate the IPG features and functionality of known systems, such as the

IPG system disclosed in Young. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 1:20-31, 5:1-6, 17:1-2).

98. In particular, Blake discloses a television/computer system that

includes television/guide equipment located in a user’s home that receive broadcast

data streams from a distribution center or service provider (Ex-1222, 4:10-14,

4:20-26), and include software applications that “utilize [television] schedule

information provided in the data stream to generate a [local] schedule guide” for

displaying on a television or monitor. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 5:1-6, 6:7-10 (“The

processor, executing software stored in memory, generates interactive electronic

program guide images, as well as images of received programs. The guide can be

used to interact with and control programs displayed in the [display screen].”)).

User input for Blake’s local interactive television program guide “is provided via a

remote control, mouse or keyboard, for example” (see Ex-1222, 6:19-20, 8:7-11,

14:26-28), thus allowing the local guide to “receive[] commands and respond[] by

presenting the requested display screen and/or by performing the function

52 Comcast, Ex-1202

requested by the command,” such as recording a program. (See Ex-1222, 15:3-7,

15:23-25).

99. The local schedule guide disclosed in Blake meets the broadest

interpretation of a “local guide” because it generates a display of television

program listings, allows a user to navigate through the listings, make program

selections, and control a recording device located at the user premises to record a

selected program. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 16:12-33, Fig. 12). An example display of

program listings generated by the interactive local guide disclosed in Blake is

illustrated in Fig. 12:

(Ex-1222, Fig. 12).

100. Blake’s system also allows a user who is away from home to access a

guide remotely and schedule recordings on their home equipment. (Ex-1222, 17:1-

53 Comcast, Ex-1202

5; see also 18:1-16). This is accomplished using the architecture illustrated in Fig.

13:

(Ex-1222, Fig. 13). Blake discloses an input device 332 that allows a user to

remotely schedule program recordings on local recording equipment. (See, e.g.,

Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 17:8-15, 17:19-21, Fig. 13; see also 18:1-16). Input device 332

may comprise “any device capable of transmitting data from a remote location,”

for example, an office PC, laptop computer, or cellular phone (each “remote

devices”). (Ex-1222, 17:5-8).

101. Specifically, Blake teaches that a user may designate a program to

record, for example, by directly entering program information using input device

332 or by selecting a program to record according to themes. (See, e.g., Ex-1222,

17:8-11, 17:15-16, 18:1-2, 18:20-23). Input device 332 communicates the user

selection information to processing system 334 which stores the information and,

at the appropriate time, activates a recording device in the user’s home to record

54 Comcast, Ex-1202

the selected program. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16). Blake discloses that the local

recording device is a VCR, such as VCR 32 of Fig. 1 (see Ex-1222, 4:24-32), “but

may be any device with video and\or audio recording capabilities.” (Ex-1222,

17:19-21).

102. Thus, in Blake, a remote user on a user input device, such as a laptop,

selects a program from a theme guide. The selected program is communicated to a

central processing system which controls local hardware to record the program. As

noted above in Section VI.B, the broadest reasonable construction of the term local

guide is an interactive television program guide, implemented on equipment that

includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the user’s home, and that generates a

display of television program listings for use at the user premises. Both the central

processing system and the peripheral devices in the user’s home, as disclosed in

Blake, control recording equipment in the user’s home to schedule a recording of a

program selected by the user.

103. As I will explain further below, a POSA would have understood that

Blake discloses the claimed “local guide” on user equipment in communication via

the Internet with the “remote guide” on a remote device, as required by the claims

of the ’801 Patent. The guides are displayed by local and external devices,

respectively, and would allow users to select programs for recording on their local

peripheral device over the Internet. In particular, Blake’s peripheral devices (e.g.,

55 Comcast, Ex-1202

television/guide equipment) processes television schedule information to generate

a local schedule guide (“local guide”) that displays program listings to the user on

a television screen or monitor. (Ex-1222, 5:1-6, 16:8-9). The user may interact

with the local guide to navigate the on-screen program listings and to schedule a

recording of a selected program on a local recording device. (Ex-1222, 16:17-19,

18:26-32). Additionally, Blake discloses that remote input device 332 presents

(via an interface) a list of television program listings by theme, for example

“basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be played.”

(See Ex-1222, 18:8-10). Blake’s remotely displayed user interface allows the user

to filter/navigate theme categories and program listings, select presented program

listings, and control a local recording device to record the selected program(s).

(See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:8-16).

104. A POSA would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that to

display a listing of selectable theme selections and program listings (Ex-1222,

18:2-10), input device 332 would necessarily provide a user interface (e.g., a

remote guide) to allow the user to select desired programs and initiate a record

request, as is done on the local device. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 15:3-7, 16:20-25).

Blake discloses that television schedule information may be customized and/or

adapted to the user by utilizing a user interface to create a special line-up of

channels. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 16:20-22). The presentation of program listings and

56 Comcast, Ex-1202

available theme selections, as displayed by the user interface on input device 332,

meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “remote guide” because it

encompasses control software that generates a display of television program

listings for use on input device 332, and further allows a user to navigate through

the program listings, make program selections, and control functions of the

software (e.g., scheduling a recording on a home recording device). (See, e.g., Ex-

1222, 18:1-16; see also Sec. VI.C, supra). In response to the user

designating/providing program criteria, processing system 334 (part of the “local

guide”) will communicate the corresponding/matching television schedule

information (“program guide information”) to input device 332 for display to the

user (as a “remote guide”). (Ex-1222, 18:5-12).

105. The system described in Blake closely mirrors that claimed in the

’801 Patent. To any extent the claims are read narrowly to require an “interactive”

program guide on the remote device or to require that program guide information

be received from a local guide wholly implemented in the user’s home, and to any

extent these narrow limitations may not be expressly described in Blake, such

limitations would have been obvious to a POSA. IPGs and associated functionality

were widely-known and commonly implemented on DSS and other STB hardware

at the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent, as admitted in the

specification of the ’801 Patent itself. (Ex-1201, 1:24-33). A POSA would have

57 Comcast, Ex-1202

had ample reason to use the interactive features of known program guides to

display program listings at Blake’s input device 332 given that the remote input

device would require a useful user interface allowing users to make program

selections and initiate record requests, as is taught by Young (see, e.g., Ex-1223,

10:13-18, 10:44-62, 12:13-24), and Blake’s own local guide embodiments. (Ex-

1222, Figs. 1 and 12).

106. A POSA would have recognized that Blake’s “input device 332” and

the “personal computer” or “PCTV 90” are similar in that they are personal

computers, display listings of current or future television programs, enable a user

to navigate through themes/listings and select programs to record, and control

audio/visual equipment to schedule program recordings. As such, it would have

been obvious to implement the conventional and expected interactive features of

Blake’s local television schedule guide on input device 332 to, for example,

receive and display television schedule information (e.g., program listings), to

allow the user to navigate through the displayed program listings, and control a

recording device to record the selected program. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 5:3-6, 16:12-

33, Fig. 12). Furthermore, Young (which Blake incorporates by reference) teaches

conventional displays of IPG interfaces. A POSA would have understood, based

on the incorporation by reference, that Young provides further detail as to Blake’s

system. Young’s program guide, referred to as an “EPG,” provides interactive

58 Comcast, Ex-1202

features by generating displays of programming information and receiving user

input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select programs, filter

program listings based on user preferences, and control functions of the VCR.

(See, e.g., Ex-1223, 11:6-24, 11:51-57, 12:13-19). Using these known interactive

guide features to implement the remote interface would provide predictable

benefits, such as allowing a user to visually select a program for recording on the

mobile device using a typical guide user interface.

107. To any extent Blake’s remote user interface arguably may not be

expressly described as an IPG, a POSA would recognize that the features of

Young’s known IPG could be used to improve Blake’s input device 332. A POSA

would find it obvious to incorporate the interactive features of Young’s IPG into

the user interface of Blake’s input device 332 to achieve the predictable result of

providing users with expected and typical user interfaces to view and navigate

displayed program schedule information. This would be using the known IPG

features of Blake and/or Young to improve the closely related program selection

interface on Blake’s remote input device 332 to obtain the predictable results I

describe above, including providing users with expected and typical user interfaces

to view and navigate displayed program schedule information. This would also be

a simple substitution of the IPG interface of Blake or Young for the theme list on

Blake’s remote input device 332, obtaining these same predictable results.

59 Comcast, Ex-1202

108. To any extent that the claims are narrowly read to require that the

local guide be wholly implemented on hardware in the user’s home, excluding

processing system 334 from the local guide (contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion

in the ITC Investigation), it would have been obvious to modify Blake’s system to

retrieve “program guide information” from local hardware. For example, Killian

teaches IPGs that use a profile module to customize a program guide based on user

preferences stored as user profile data. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 9:10-25,10:55-60,

8:57-9:9). Killian’s user profiles are stored in a profile database that may be stored

locally to the STB or remotely accessible over the Internet. (Ex-1208, 9:10-25,

11:20-21). Killian teaches that program guides may be advantageously customized

based on user profile information stored locally or remotely, and that program

guide displays are constructed based on the user profile information. (Ex-1208,

7:49-61, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). Killian’s user profile data is a type of “program

guide information” because it is “user information.” (See Sec. VI.E, supra).

109. The general area of technology of Killian is also the same as Blake;

namely, that of interactive electronic program guides (IPGs), and remote or local

access to and use of IPGs to control end-user video equipment. (See e.g., Ex-1208,

1:7-9, Abstract). A POSA would have known to combine the teachings of Blake

and Killian to arrive at the elements claimed in the ’801 Patent.

60 Comcast, Ex-1202

110. It would have been obvious to a POSA to implement Killian’s filtered

guides using user profiles stored at the local device in Blake’s remote access guide

system. Blake’s input device 332 provides a “remote theme guide” that allows the

user to filter program listings according to themes, tracks the user’s selections, and

stores that information at processing system 334, not the remote input device. (Ex-

1222, 18:1-10, 18:12-14). Killian teaches that program guides may be customized

based on user profile information stored locally or remotely. (Ex-1208, 9:10-25,

11:20-21). A POSA would have recognized that Killian’s user profiles could be

used to store information about user preferences in Blake and that at least some of

the user profile information would be stored on local hardware and shared with the

remote device, allowing the system to better track a user’s preferences and

generate more effective user interfaces. This would be nothing more than using

known techniques (Killian’s user preference filtering based on locally stored user

profiles) to improve a similar device (Blake’s remote guide) to obtain predictable

results. This would also improve the user experience through better tracking of

user preferences and better identification of desired/undesired content. This would

be done for the purpose of customizing the remote access guide (i.e., the “remote

theme guide”), providing the advantages discussed in Killian. For example,

applying Killian’s known teachings regarding program guide filtering based on

locally stored information would provide the benefit of a customized guide,

61 Comcast, Ex-1202

allowing the user to more quickly identify a desired program in the program

listings. As discussed below, Killian also teaches interactive guide features and a

POSA would similarly look to Killian’s known IPG to improve Blake’s similar

remote guide in the same way. (Ex-1208, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-

11:13).

111. In the following sections, I explain how each limitation of claims 1-54

is disclosed in Blake and Killian, as would have been understood by one of

ordinary skill in the art.

A. Independent Claim 1

112. As explained above, the claims relate to “a local guide” on user

equipment communicating via the Internet with a “remote guide” on a remote

device. The remote guide receives a user selection of a program listing for

recording by the local guide, and transmits a communication to the local guide via

the Internet instructing the local guide to record the program using the user

equipment. The remote guide display is generated based on program guide

information received from the local guide. (Ex-1201, claim 1). Below, I explain

how each limitation of independent claim 1 is rendered obvious in view of Blake

and Killian, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.

“A method of enabling a user to perform recordings”

113. Blake discloses an interactive program guide with enhanced recording

capability that provides remote access to recording equipment located within the

62 Comcast, Ex-1202

user premises, allowing the user to schedule recordings while away from home

using input device 332. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 2:8-11, 17:1-5). Specifically, a user

designates a particular program to record using input device 332, for example by

filtering through program listings according to theme and then selecting the desired

program(s). (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:1-10). After the selection(s) has been made,

processing system 334 stores the program selection(s). (Ex-1222, 17:10-13, 18:12-

14). “At the appropriate time, a recording device 336 at the user’s home will be

activated to record the [selected] program.” (See Ex-1222, 17:13-15, 18:14-16).

114. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake discloses “a method of enabling

a user to perform recordings” (e.g., “The present invention enhances the recording

capability of the schedule guide by allowing the user to schedule recordings from a

remote location.”). (Ex-1222, 17:1-2).

“generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet, wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;”

115. Blake discloses all of this claim element as would be understood by a

POSA. However, to the extent that there are some details that are not explicitly

disclosed by Blake, the combination of Blake in view of Killian renders this claim

63 Comcast, Ex-1202

element obvious. Below, I have broken the above limitation into discrete segments

for purposes of illustrating how each portion of this limitation is disclosed in Blake

and Killian.

a) “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user

of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of

program listings for display on the remote device”

116. As explained above, Blake’s system enhances the recording capability

of a local program guide by allowing a user to schedule recordings away from

home using a remote access device (i.e., input device 332). (See, e.g., Ex-1222,

17:1-5). Blake further discloses that a user may use input device 332 to initiate a

record request by selecting a program to record from a list of available programs

presented on input device 332. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:1-16). The user’s program

selection is communicated to processing system 334 in order to, at the appropriate

time, activate a recording device in the user’s home to record the selected program.

(See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:8-15, 18:1-16, Fig. 13). It is my understanding that, in the

ITC Investigation, Patent Owner admitted that Blake’s input device 332 is a

“remote device” that allows a user who is away from home to schedule program

recordings on local television equipment, such as VCR 32. (Ex-1246, pp. 46 and

48, 1132:18-23, 1137:15-22).

117. Blake further discloses that a user may select a television program to

record according to themes. (Ex-1222, 18:1-2, 18:20-23). In particular, Blake

64 Comcast, Ex-1202

discloses that the user may be presented, via a user interface on input device 332,

with several themes to select from when choosing a program to record, such as

“sports, movies, science fiction, sit-coms and the like.” (Ex-1222, 18:2-7). In

response to the user designating/providing program criteria, processing system 334

will communicate the corresponding/matching television schedule information to

input device 332 for display to the user. (Ex-1222, 18:5-12; see also Ex-1234, ¶31

(admission by applicant in Ligler Declaration that Blake’s input device 332

“provides the interface to the user for remotely scheduling recording of a

program”)). Blake describes a particular example of selecting a basketball game to

record (i.e., Chicago Bulls v. LA Lakers) via the user interface presented on input

device 332 wherein:

[T]he user may first choose to select program by themes. The user

may then select sports when presented with a list of theme

selections, and further select basketball. The user may be presented

with a list of basketball games which are currently being played or

are scheduled to be played, and the user may then choose the Bulls v.

Lakers game.

(Ex-1222, 18:5-10 (emphasis added)). For purposes of this analysis, I will adopt

the convention that the various listings of themes (e.g., sports, movies, science

fiction, etc.), theme selections (e.g., basketball), and program listings (e.g., the “list

of basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be

65 Comcast, Ex-1202

played”), as rendered and displayed by the user interface presented on input device

332, will be referred to as a “remote theme guide.” (Ex-1222, 18:2-10). As noted

above, the user may filter through available television schedule information

provided on the remotely displayed user interface when finding a program to

record, which “is particularly helpful when the user is not quite sure of the title of

the program.” (Id.).

118. The remote input device (i.e., input device 332) allows a user to select

a program to record according to themes by presenting, via a “remote theme

guide,” a list of selectable themes (e.g., sports) and theme selections (e.g.,

basketball) for the user to choose from. (Ex-1222, 18:1-8; see also 17:22-24

(describing “user interface” of input device 332)). It is my opinion that the

presentation of the remote theme guide by Blake’s input device 332 meets the

broadest reasonable interpretation of “remote guide” because, as discussed above,

it is software that generates a display of television program listings for use on the

remote input device. It also is an “interactive” guide because it further allows a

user to navigate through the program themes/listings, make theme/program

selections, and control functions of the software (e.g., scheduling a recording on a

local recording device). (Ex-1222, 18:1-16, 17:13-19, 17:22-24). It is my further

understanding that Patent Owner previously admitted in the ITC Investigation that

the remote input device providing enhanced recording capabilities allowing the

66 Comcast, Ex-1202

user to remotely schedule programs, as described in the Fig. 13 embodiment of

Blake, implemented “an interactive program guide.” (Ex-1246, p. 47, 1135:13-19).

119. A POSA would have understood that Blake’s input device 332

necessarily provides a user interface (i.e., the remote theme guide) allowing the

user to select a program for recording from the available theme selections and

program listings on the remote input device (a display of television program

listings that allows a user to control functions of the software). (Ex-1222, 18:1-

26). Additionally, the POSA would have further understood that Blake’s input

device 332 necessarily receives television schedule information to generate the

remote theme guide allowing the user to view and navigate through displayed

program listings. (Ex-1222, 18:1-16, 5:1-3). Because Blake teaches that

television/guide equipment includes software to generate program guides using

television schedule information and to initiate recording requests via the local

guide (Ex-1222, 5:2-3, 6:5-9, 16:20-25), a POSA would have understood that

Blake’s input device 332 would similarly use software to implement the remote

theme guide to display television schedule information on input device 332 and

allow a user to schedule program recordings on home recording equipment via the

remote theme guide.

120. However, to the extent that Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails

to expressly disclose additional details as to the implementation of a remote guide

67 Comcast, Ex-1202

on input device 332, implementing IPG functionality in the user interface of

Blake’s remote input device would have been obvious to a POSA. As discussed

above, interactive electronic program guides, such as Young’s IPG and Blake’s

own local IPG, were well known and commonly implemented prior to the time of

the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent. (See Sec. VII.B, supra). Blake discloses

generating, by the television/guide equipment located within a user’s home, a local

IPG based on television schedule information received from distribution center 10.

(See, e.g., Ex-1222, 4:10-16, 5:1-3, 6:5-9). Specifically, the local program guide

implemented in part on Blake’s television/guide equipment displays “the television

schedule information . . . in a grid-like display on the television screen.” (Ex-1222,

16:12-14). “[V]arious channels are provided on the Y-axis of the grid guide, and

various times are provided on the X-axis of the grid guide.” (Ex-1222, 16:14-16).

An example display of program listings generated by the interactive local guide

disclosed in Blake is illustrated in Fig. 12:

68 Comcast, Ex-1202

(Ex-1222, Fig. 12). As shown in Fig. 12 above, the local IPG presents television

schedule information in a grid-like display, and Blake discloses that the user, via

the local guide interface, can scroll through the television schedule information

provided in the local guide to access additional programs/channels. (See Ex-1222,

16:12-19). The display in Figure 12 of Blake would be displayed on a display

device, such as a television set or computer monitor, at the user’s home. (Ex-1222,

4:28-30, 15:29-30, 16:12-13). Notably, the applicant admitted in the Ligler

Declaration that Blake’s system incorporates a local television schedule guide

implemented on equipment within the user’s home, such as the television schedule

guide disclosed by Young. (See Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 33, 41). Furthermore, during a

discussion of the Blake reference in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner admitted

that Blake discloses an interactive program guide and that IPGs were known well

69 Comcast, Ex-1202

before the time of the alleged invention of the ’801 Patent. (Ex-1246, pp. 44-46,

1123:23-1124:6, 1124:19-22, 1128:8-14, 1128:22-1129:7).

121. A POSA would have been motivated to look elsewhere in the Blake

disclosure to determine how to configure input device 332 to display and/or

implement IPG functionality. When doing so, the POSA would have recognized

that both “input device 332” and the “personal computer” (e.g., peripheral device

within the user premises) are similar in that they are personal computers, display

listings of current or future television programs, enable a user to navigate through

themes/listings and select programs to record, and control audio/visual equipment

to schedule program recordings. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 18:1-16). As such, it would

have been obvious to implement the conventional and expected interactive features

of Blake’s local television schedule guide on input device 332 to, for example,

receive and display television schedule information (e.g., program listings), to

allow the user to navigate through the displayed program listings, create a

customized line-up of program listings, make selections, and control a recording

device to record a selected program. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 5:3-6, 16:12-33, Fig. 12).

122. Furthermore, Young (which Blake incorporates by reference) teaches

conventional displays of IPG interfaces. Young, as I explained above in Section

VIII.C, discloses a system for presenting an electronic program guide that displays

program schedules and controls the recording of selected programs. (See, e.g., Ex-

70 Comcast, Ex-1202

1223, 1:14-24, 10:13-15). Young’s program guide, referred to as an “EPG,”

provides interactive features by generating displays of programming information

and receiving user input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select

programs, filter program listings based on user preferences, and control functions

of the VCR. (See, e.g., Ex-1223, 11:6-24, 11:51-57, 12:13-19). Young also

discloses that the interactive program guide system may be implemented on a

personal computer such that the PC receives program schedule information and

controls, as peripheral devices, the receiver implementing the program guide as

well as the VCR. (See, e.g., Ex-1223, 21:67-22:10). As I explained above,

Blake’s input device 332 displays its own user interface (i.e., remote theme guide)

for viewing/selecting program listings to record and initiating record requests.

(Ex-1222, 18:1-16; see also 17:22-24).

123. To any extent Blake’s remote user interface arguably may not be

expressly described as an IPG, a POSA would recognize that the features of

Young’s known IPG could be used to improve Blake’s input device 332. This

would achieve the predictable result of a remote input device that implements and

displays an IPG for scheduling program recordings, and would provide the same

benefits that Young discloses, such as receiving and displaying television schedule

information in a guide format, customizing the IPG according to user criteria (e.g.,

program theme, user-defined time periods), and scheduling program recordings on

71 Comcast, Ex-1202

television equipment within the user’s home. (Ex-1223, 10:13-15, 11:26-28,

11:51-57, 12:13-24). Furthermore, a POSA would also find it obvious to

incorporate the interactive features of Young’s IPG into the user interface of

Blake’s input device 332 to achieve the predictable result of providing users with

expected and typical user interfaces to view and navigate displayed program

schedule information. Accordingly, it also would have been obvious to a POSA to

use known techniques of providing an IPG, as disclosed in Young, to improve the

comparable remote input device of Blake in the same way.

124. Similarly, Killian teaches conventional displays of interactive

program guide interfaces. As discussed above, Killian’s system provides an IPG

that is locally installed on a television receiver and implemented using APIs to

coordinate system functionality. (Ex-1208, 2:1-24, 3:7-37, 3:50-58). Killian

discloses that the IPG generates displays of programming information and receives

user input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select programs for

recording, and control functions of the receiver and platform. (See, e.g., Ex-1208,

Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-21,

and 15:53-16:7). Killian provides an express teaching that the IPG software

modules could be integral to the functionality of devices other than the receiver on

which the local program guide is implemented. (Ex-1208, 15:53-16:7).

72 Comcast, Ex-1202

125. To any extent Blake may not expressly describe the remote theme

guide as “interactive,” a POSA would recognize that the features of Killian's

known IPG could be used to improve Blake’s remote recording feature in the

remote theme guide. The user interface presented on Blake’s input device 332

allows a user to navigate and select themes by category and subcategory to filter

and display program listings according to themes. (Ex-1222, 18:1-10). The user

may select a desired program listing via the user interface to initiate a recording

request that controls local recording equipment to record the selected program.

(Ex-1222, 18:8-16). A POSA would readily recognize that the remote user

interface of Blake could be improved to incorporate the interactive guide features

disclosed in Killian. This would be a use of Killian’s known interactive features to

improve a similar device (e.g., Blake’s input device 332). This would achieve the

predictable result of a remote guide having interactive features and able to receive

a user selection of a program for recording, and would provide the same benefits

that Killian discloses, namely “allowing viewers to more intelligently select,

schedule, and record their viewing opportunities. . . ” (Ex-1208, 1:20-23). Killian

also provides an express teaching that its IPG modules could be integral to the

functionality of other devices (e.g., Blake’s input device 332). (Ex-1208, 15:53-

16:7).

73 Comcast, Ex-1202

126. Therefore, Blake at least renders obvious “generating, with a remote

guide” (e.g., Blake’s remote theme guide, improved with interactive features as

taught by Blake, Young, and/or Killian) “accessible by a user of a remote device”

(e.g., input device 332), “a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device.”

b) “wherein the display is generated by the remote guide

based on program guide information received from a local

guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet”

127. As explained above, Blake’s discloses a computer/television system

including receiving locations (e.g., a user home) having television/guide equipment

on which a local guide is implemented. (Ex-1222, 4:28-32, 5:2-6). Specifically,

local peripheral devices, such as TVs, VCRs, set-top boxes, PCs, PCTVs (i.e., user

equipment), receive broadcast data streams from a distribution center and include

software that utilizes television schedule information in the data streams to

generate a local guide. (See Ex-1222, 4:10-14, 4:24-32, 5:1-6, 6:1-10). The

configuration of these components is illustrated in Fig. 1:

74 Comcast, Ex-1202

(Ex-1222, Fig. 1). In fact, it is my understanding that, in the ITC Investigation,

Patent Owner admitted that Blake discloses a local IPG implemented on local

interactive program guide equipment (i.e., an IPG implemented on television/guide

equipment located within location 22). (See, e.g., Ex-1246, pp. 44-46, 1123:23-

1124:6, 1124:19-22, 1128:8-14, 1128:22-1129:7). I explain the operation of

Blake’s local guide further below in Section X.A.2.d.

128. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “local guide,” the

local guide may be implemented at least in part on a server or other device outside

the user’s home. (See Sec. VI.B, supra). As I previously noted in Section VII.D,

75 Comcast, Ex-1202

Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the claims in the ITC Investigation is

broader than the arguments that were advanced by the applicant during

prosecution, namely that the local guide was/is implemented solely on hardware

within the user’s home (i.e., user equipment). (See, e.g., Ex-1233, pp. 18-19

(Blake “does not show or suggest a remote guide that transmits a communication

to a second guide (on user equipment) to schedule and perform a recording of a

program selected at the remote guide . . .”)). In fact, in discussing the local guide

in the context of Petitioner’s system, Patent Owner argued that a data server,

located away from the user premises, providing guide information or guide

functionality, including recording commands, was part of the local guide. (Ex-

1245, p. 56, 218:21-220:13, p. 58, 226:14-227:14). Accordingly, under this

expansive interpretation, the local guide would not be limited to an implementation

on television/guide equipment (e.g., peripheral devices) in the user home. Thus,

the local guide equipment and local guide could include hardware and software of

a central data server, such as software that is implemented on central processing

system 334 to activate the recording of a program on a local recording device.

129. As explained above in Section X.A.2.a, a POSA would have

understood that Blake’s input device 332 necessarily provides a “remote guide”

allowing the user to view television schedule information and initiate recording

requests. (Ex-1222, 18:1-26). Blake discloses that the input device 332 receives

76 Comcast, Ex-1202

television schedule information from processing system 334 to present the user

with program listings, such as a list of scheduled basketball games. (Ex-1222,

18:5-12). Referring back to the “Chicago Bulls v. LA Lakers” example disclosed

in Blake, the user is presented via input device 332 with a list of theme categories

to select from and indicates his/her preference to record a sporting event by

selecting the “sports” category. (Ex-1222, 18:2-8). A POSA would have

understood that a user, when provided with several theme categories, such as

“sports, movies, science fiction, sit-coms,” and who then selects one of those

choices, is clearly expressing a preference for the theme category that he/she

selected. (See Ex-1222, 18:2-3). Blake discloses that a user’s theme/program

selections are stored at processing system 334 (Ex-1222, 18:12-14), not input

device 332. It is my understanding that, in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner

admitted that a user’s selections are stored at processing system 334. (See Ex-

1246, p. 47, 1134:18-22). Accordingly, because the user’s theme selections are

stored at processing system 334, the amount of television schedule information that

needs to be sent to input device 332 when generating further displays on the theme

guide interface would be reduced. Again, Patent Owner has admitted this fact.

(Ex-1246, p. 47, 1134:23-1135:6). Because I understand the term “program guide

information” to include various types of information, such as listing information,

recording information, and any other information necessary for remotely providing

77 Comcast, Ex-1202

program guide functionality, the program listing information (e.g., “a list of

basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be

played . . .” (Ex-1222, 18:8-10)) provided from processing system 334 for

presentation on Blake’s remote device constitutes “program guide information.”

(See Sec. VI.E, supra). Under Patent Owner’s expansive interpretation of the local

guide, Blake’s input device receiving television schedule information from

processing system 334 to present program listings to the user would satisfy the

requirement of “wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on

program guide information received from a local guide.”

130. Even under a narrower interpretation, where the local guide is

implemented solely on equipment within the user’s home, excluding processing

system 334 from the local guide (contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion in the ITC

Investigation), the requirement of Blake’s remote theme guide obtaining the

“program guide information” from the local guide is still disclosed by Blake.

Blake discloses that the program guide images and program database may be

generated “locally,” where “the system for creating the electronic programming

guide must receive television schedule information and process the received

information to create a database.” (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 6:18-19, 6:24-26).

Alternatively, the program guide images and database may be generated

“remotely” and the program guide is transmitted to the device

78 Comcast, Ex-1202

implementing/displaying the program guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 6:18-19, 7:13-

15). As such, in the event program guide information is stored locally to central

processing system 334 or peripheral devices in the user’s home, the POSA would

have understood that Blake’s input device 332 would receive the locally stored

television schedule information (i.e., program guide information) from the local

guide to generate the display of theme selections and program listings in the

remote guide. (Ex-1222, 18:1-16, 5:1-3; Sec. X.A.2.a, supra). Further, modifying

Blake’s system to generate the remote guide displays based on user preference

information (another type of “program guide information”) stored at local

hardware, away from the remote device, would have been obvious in view of

Killian.

131. Killian teaches IPGs that use a profile module to customize a program

guide based on user preferences stored as user profile data. (See, e.g., Ex-1208,

9:10-25, 10:55-60, 8:57-9:9). Killian’s user profiles are stored in a profile database

that may be stored locally to the STB or remotely accessible over the Internet.

(Ex-1208, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). User profiles may be used to filter channels and

specific content from program listings during generation of program guide

displays. (Ex-1208, 7:49-61, 1:20-41). Killian discloses: “[t]oolkit 58 also

includes an electronic programming guide (EPG) API 60 that contains classes

for . . . constructing electronic scheduling displays according to viewer profiles

79 Comcast, Ex-1202

and selected program listing information . . . .” (Ex-1208, 7:49-61, (emphasis

added)). Therefore, Killian teaches that program guides may be advantageously

customized based on user profile information stored locally or remotely, and that

program guide displays are constructed based on the user profile information. (Ex-

1208, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). Killian’s user profile data is a type of “program guide

information” because it is “user information.” (See Sec. VI.E, supra).

132. It would have been obvious to a POSA to implement Killian’s filtered

guides using user profiles stored at the local device in Blake’s remote access guide

system. Blake’s input device 332 provides a “remote theme guide” that allows the

user to filter program listings according to themes, tracks the user’s selections, and

stores that information at processing system 334, not the remote input device. (Ex-

1222, 18:1-10, 18:12-14). Killian teaches that program guides may be customized

based on user profile information stored locally or remotely. (Ex-1208, 9:10-25,

11:20-21). A POSA would have recognized that Killian’s user profiles could be

used to store information about user preferences in Blake and that at least some of

the user profile information would be stored on local hardware and shared with the

remote device, allowing the system to better track a user’s preferences and

generate more effective user interfaces. This would be nothing more than using

known techniques (Killian’s user preference filtering based on locally stored user

profiles) to improve a similar device (Blake’s remote guide) to obtain predictable

80 Comcast, Ex-1202

results. This would also improve the user experience through better tracking of

user preferences and better identification of desired/undesired content. This would

be done for the purpose of customizing the remote access guide (i.e., the “remote

theme guide”), providing the advantages discussed in Killian. For example,

applying Killian’s known teachings regarding program guide filtering based on

locally stored information would provide the benefit of a customized guide,

allowing the user to more quickly identify a desired program in the program

listings. As discussed below, Killian also teaches interactive guide features and a

POSA would similarly look to Killian’s known IPG to improve Blake’s similar

remote guide in the same way. (Ex-1208, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-

11:13).

133. Blake further discloses that input device 332 “may be any device

capable of transmitting data from a remote location,” such as a network-accessible

personal computer or laptop computer. (Ex-1222, 17:5-8, 18:18-29). For example,

using input device 332, “the user may access a web site which is connected to

processing system 334 to enter the user’s selection . . . by selecting the program

according to themes.” (Ex-1222, 18:18-23; see also 18:26-29 (discussing use of

email and telnet accounts to transmit recording requests)). Because Blake’s input

device 332 sends user program selections to processing system 334 by accessing a

website, as discussed above, and also receives television schedule information

81 Comcast, Ex-1202

(e.g., program listings) to display via the remote guide (see Sec. X.A.2.a), a POSA

would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that input device 332 is

capable of communicating with processing system 334 or other devices over “the

Internet.” A POSA would have further understood that the television schedule

information sent to input device 332 would also be remotely communicated over

“the Internet” as required by the claims. (See Ex-1222, 18:5-14, 18:18-20, 5:1-8).

134. To any extent Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails to expressly

disclose receiving the program guide information from the local guide “via the

Internet,” this would have been an obvious modification of Blake in light of

common network communication systems known to a POSA at the time of the

’801 Patent. It was well known at the time of the alleged inventions in the ’801

Patent that devices residing in remote locations may use the Internet to transmit

data. Although Blake may not explicitly disclose that television schedule

information is transmitted to input device 332 via an Internet communications

path, a POSA would have understood that a device capable of remotely

transmitting and receiving data, such as input device 332 (see, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:5-

8, 18:5-12; see also, 18:18-20, 18:26-29), would be used for Internet

communications, and furthermore that using Blake’s input device 332 to transmit

and receive information over an Internet communications path would be obvious to

try. In light of the entirety of Blake’s disclosure, utilizing an Internet

82 Comcast, Ex-1202

communications path for receiving television schedule information would have

been a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., Internet communications)

for another (i.e., generic communication) to obtain predictable results (i.e.,

receiving the television schedule information from the local guide).

135. As another example, Killian teaches that the receiver 10 is “coupled to

the Internet and associated sources of Internet information using a bidirectional

link 14” (Ex-1208, 3:18-20), which may be any “wireless or wireline

communications link suitable to couple [receiver 10] to the Internet.” (Ex-1208,

3:41-43). Killian discloses that receiver 10 implements an interactive program

guide that allows viewers to select, schedule, and record viewing opportunities

according to information received using link 14, such as program listing

information. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 8:49-52). Killian’s user profiles are stored in a

profile database that may be stored locally to the STB or remotely accessible over

the Internet (Ex-1208, 9:10-25; see also 11:20-21), and may be used to filter

channels and specific content from program listings during generation of program

guide displays. (Ex-1208, 7:49-61, 1:20-41). It would have been obvious to a

POSA to use Killian’s known techniques for transmitting information over an

Internet communications path within Blake’s system so that a user who is away

from home may use input device 332 to receive television schedule information

from a remote location (e.g., local equipment implementing the local guide). It

83 Comcast, Ex-1202

also would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s Internet communications

to retrieve other types of program guide information, such as Killian’s locally

stored user profiles, for use in generating the display of the remote guide.

Accordingly, communicating television schedule information from remote

locations using an Internet communication path enhances the recording ability of

the local guide by allowing the user to view program listings and schedule program

recordings when away from home and thus, providing the user with increased

access to and control over the television equipment within his/her home.

136. Therefore, Blake in view of Killian discloses “wherein the display is

generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet.”

c) “wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote

device” and “wherein the user equipment is located at a

user site”

137. Blake’s “TV system” includes various receiving locations (e.g., a user

home) that include peripheral devices (e.g., television/guide equipment)

implementing an interactive television program guide. (Ex-1222, 4:24-26, 5:2-3).

Specifically, Blake teaches that the user’s home may include television/guide

equipment, such as PCs, TVs PCTVs, set-top boxes, VCRs or “any recording

device capable of recording on a recordable medium,” that generate a local

schedule guide using television schedule information within broadcast data streams

84 Comcast, Ex-1202

received from a distribution center. (Ex-1222, 4:11-16, 4:24-32, 5:2-8). As I have

explained above, Blake’s television/guide equipment located within the user

premises constitutes “user equipment.” (See Sec. VI.D, supra). It is my further

understanding that, in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner conceded that Blake’s

peripheral devices located within the user’s home, such as a VCR, constitutes user

guide/television equipment. (Ex-1246, pp. 45-46, 1128:22-1129:7).

138. Blake’s system improves the recording capability of a local interactive

television program guide by allowing a user to schedule recordings from a remote

location using a remote device (i.e., input device 332). (Ex-1222, 17:1-5 (“a user

who is away from home may record a program remotely by using input device

332 . . .”)). Blake discloses that the local guide is implemented on user equipment

(e.g., peripheral devices) located at a user’s home (e.g., location 22 of Fig. 1). (Ex-

1222, 4:24-30, 5:1-3, Fig. 1). Notably, the Patent Owner conceded that Blake’s

input device 332 is remotely located from the user guide/television equipment.

(Ex-1246, pp. 46, 1131:21-1132:23). Accordingly, Blake discloses local

equipment located at a user’s home and a remote device remotely operated by a

user, to schedule program recordings via the local guide. (Ex-1222, 17:1-2).

139. As such, Blake discloses “wherein the user equipment” (located at the

user’s home, e.g., the peripheral device(s), etc.) “is remote” (i.e., location away

from the user’s home) “to the remote device” (e.g., input device 332 used to

85 Comcast, Ex-1202

remotely record a program). And Blake discloses “wherein the user equipment is

located at a user site” (i.e., the peripheral devices and other equipment located

within the user’s home, such as VCR 32).

d) “wherein the local guide generates a display of one or

more program listings for display on a display device at the

user site”

140. As described above, Blake discloses generating, by the

television/guide equipment located within a user’s home, a local IPG based on

television schedule information received from distribution center 10. (See, e.g.,

Ex-1222, 5:1-3, 6:5-9). Blake also discloses that the “television system configured

to display an electronic program guide . . . includes an on-screen display controller

and other hardware . . .” to generate and display the program guide images. (Ex-

1222, 6:11-13, 15:29-30; see also 6:18-19). Additionally, it is my understanding

that, in the ITC Investigation, Patent Owner admitted that Blake discloses a local

IPG implemented on local interactive program guide equipment (i.e., an IPG

implemented on television/guide equipment located within location 22). (See, e.g.,

Ex-1246, pp. 44-46, 1123:23-1124:6, 1124:19-22, 1128:8-14, 1128:22-1129:7).

141. It is my opinion that Blake discloses the television/guide equipment

within a user’s home that generates a “local guide” based on television schedule

information, and further that the local guide generates a display of one or more

program listings on a display device. Specifically, the local program guide

86 Comcast, Ex-1202

implemented in part on Blake’s television/guide equipment displays “the television

schedule information . . . in a grid-like display on the television screen.” (Ex-1222,

16:12-14). “[V]arious channels are provided on the Y-axis of the grid guide, and

various times are provided on the X-axis of the grid guide.” (Ex-1222, 16:14-16).

An example display of program listings generated by the interactive local guide

disclosed in Blake is illustrated in Fig. 12:

(Ex-1222, Fig. 12). The display in Figure 12 of Blake would be displayed on a

display device, such as a television set or computer monitor, at the user’s home.

(Ex-1222, 4:28-30, 16:12-13, 15:29-30). Additionally, as discussed above, a local

IPG generating a display of television schedule information on the user’s television

screen is taught by Young, which is incorporated by reference in Blake. (Ex-1222,

1:22-24; see also Ex-1223, 10:44-59, 11:26-28).

87 Comcast, Ex-1202

142. As discussed above, Blake’s interactive television program guide is

navigable by a user to, for example, scroll through and select a particular program

for recording. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 15:3-7, 15:23-25, 16:17-19, 16:23-25). As

such, Blake’s local television/guide equipment implements an interactive program

guide because it displays information on broadcast programs of the stations via a

display screen, allows the user to select a program, and can instruct other user

equipment (e.g., VCRs 32) to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 16:12-19,

16:22-25, 16:31-33). Notably, as discussed above in Section VII.D, the applicant

admitted in the Ligler Declaration that Blake’s system incorporates a local

television schedule guide implemented on equipment within the user’s home, such

as the television schedule guide disclosed by Young. (See, e.g., Ex-1234, ¶¶19, 33,

41).

143. Young, which is incorporated by reference in Blake, provides

additional details as to how Blake’s local guide operated. (Ex-1222, 1:20-2:5).

Young relates to an electronic system for processing program schedule information

to display a plurality of program listings, to facilitate user selection of programs

via a program guide interface displayed on the TV screen, and to provide the

automatic unattended recording of programs by making selections via the program

guide interface. (Ex-1223, 1:17-24, 11:26-29, 12:13-24). Young discloses

receiver and television control systems that display television schedule information

88 Comcast, Ex-1202

in a program guide, receive user program selections via the program guide, and

control a TV receiver and VCR to schedule recordings of programs selected by the

user. (Ex-1223, 7:33-42, 7:60-64, 7:66-8:5, 8:42-66, 11:26-28, 12:13-24). Young

discloses that program listings displayed in the program guide may be filtered by a

user according to program themes and sub-categories (Ex-1223, 12:13-16, 12:46-

60), and further discloses control software used to implement the IPG and

corresponding IPG functionalities. (Ex-1223, 6:12-13, Figs. 7-10, 13). Because

Young is incorporated by reference in Blake and referenced in explaining Blake’s

local television schedule system, a POSA would turn to Young as a part of Blake

and would rely on it as teaching various implementation details and other

interactive features of Blake’s local television schedule system. (Ex-1223, 1:11-

21, 3:3-7, 11:26-31, 12:13-19; see also Ex-1222, 1:20-2:5).

144. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake discloses “wherein the local

guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display

device at the user site.”

“receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide”

145. As I explained above in Section X.A.2.a, Blake’s “remote theme

guide” as presented by input device 332 at a location outside the user’s home is a

“remote guide,” as claimed in the ’801 Patent. Blake expressly discloses that a

89 Comcast, Ex-1202

user may make a series of theme selections, via the remote theme guide on input

device 332, to view program listings that have been filtered based on a selected

theme subcategory. For example, the user may be presented with “a list of

basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be played”

after selecting the “basketball” theme subcategory. (Ex-1222, 18:8-10). The user

may then select a program listing, via the remote theme guide, to identify a

particular program (i.e., the Bulls v. Lakers game) for recording by a recording

device at the user’s home (e.g., recording device 336, VCRs 32). (Ex-1222, 18:12-

16, 17:19-21).

146. Information indicating the user’s program selection (i.e., the Bulls v.

Lakers game) is communicated to processing system 334 to activate a recording

device at the user’s home, such as VCR 32, to record the game. (Ex-1222, 18:14-

16). A POSA would understand that the user program selection made at input

device 332 would necessarily indicate the program to be recorded. In fact,

regarding Blake, the applicant admitted in the Ligler Declaration that Blake

discloses that a user’s recording request, made on input device 332, is

communicated to processing system 334 and the selected program is recorded by

the local recording device. (Ex-1234, ¶¶25, 34, 36; see also Ex-1222, 17:1-2,

17:13-15, 17:29-30, 18:12-16, 18:23-26). Additionally, it is my understanding that

in the ITC Investigation Patent Owner also admitted that when a user makes a

90 Comcast, Ex-1202

program selection at input device 332 “ultimately, there’s a communication from

the input device 332 to a recording device in the user’s home . . . .” (Ex-1246, p.

47, 1136:12-22; see also p. 48, 1137:7-22 (admitting that the Blake “embodiment

of figure 13 can be used to record on the VCR 32 of figure 1”).

147. To any extent Patent Owner may argue that Blake does not expressly

teach that the program selection on input device 332 is made using an IPG, a

POSA would find this obvious as explained above in Sections X.A.2.a. As

discussed above, a POSA would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that

to display a listing of selectable themes to facilitate a user identifying a particular

program to record, input device 332 would provide a user interface (e.g., remote

theme guide) to allow the user to select desired themes and/or program listings,

and to initiate a record request, as is done on the local guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1222,

15:3-7, 16:17-25).

148. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake discloses “receiving, with the

remote guide” (e.g., the remote user can schedule a program recording on a local

recording device, such as VCR 32), “a user selection of a program listing” (e.g.,

Bulls v. Lakers game) “from the plurality of program listings” (e.g., “a list of

basketball games which are currently being played or are scheduled to be played”)

“wherein the user selection identifies a program” (e.g., identification of Bulls V.

91 Comcast, Ex-1202

Lakers game) “corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the

local guide.” (See Ex-1222, 18:1-16).

149. I note that Young (incorporated by reference in Blake) similarly

discloses selection of an event for recording by a user, and details the use of

program identifiers to identify programs selected for recording. (See, e.g., Ex-

1223, 3:14-17, 3:21-24, 3:53-56, 4:36-44, 5:19-27, 5:37-43, 7:60-64, 9:16-23,

15:20-26, 21:48-64 (discussing searching of schedule information based on user

criteria to automate recordings of selected programs)). Killian similarly discloses

selection of an event for recording by a user, and details the use of program

identifiers to identify programs selected for recording. (Ex-1208, 17:7-23, 17:44-

51 (discussing syntax of record command)).

“transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet”

150. Blake discloses at least two ways in which a user may schedule a

program recording at a local recording device. First, a user may schedule the

recording of the program using the local television program guide. (See, e.g., Ex-

1222, 15:3-7, 15:23-25, 6:20-23). Specifically, an entry is made in a recording

queue identifying the user’s program recording request, and when “a time slot for

the time currently indicated by the clock indicates that a program is to be recorded

then the channel broadcasting the program is selected and the VCR is controlled

92 Comcast, Ex-1202

to record the program” by the local guide. (Ex-1222, 16:29-33 (emphasis

added); see also 14:26-32, 15:26-28). Accordingly, a POSA would have

understood from the disclosure of Blake that the local guide controls the recording

device, located in the user’s home, to record a selected program.

151. Second, Blake teaches that a remote input device may improve the

recording capability of the local program guide by allowing a user to remotely

initiate a recording request. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:1-2). Specifically, Blake

discloses that input device 332 allows users to view and select a program to record

on a local recording device according to themes. (See, e.g., Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 18:1-

10, 18:17-26). A concrete example of this is that “[a]fter the user has made his/her

selection(s), processing system 334 preferably confirms the user’s selection(s), and

stores the information [and] . . . [a]t the appropriate time(s), processing system 334

will activate recording device 336 at the user’s home to record the game(s) [such

as the Bulls v. Lakers game].” (Ex-1222, 18:12-16). Blake makes clear that a

desired program can be recorded on the local recording device (e.g., VCR 32) “in

response to the user selecting automatic, unattended recording via the user

interface.” (Ex-1222, 17:22-24). Specifically, Blake discloses that processing

system 334 receives information indicating a program selection made by the user

via the “remote theme guide” implemented on input device 332, stores the user’s

93 Comcast, Ex-1202

selection, and activates the local recording device at the appropriate time to record

the selected program. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 17:13-15).

152. Therefore, in view of Blake’s disclosure, a POSA would have

understood that input device 332 would instruct processing system 334 to control a

VCR, (for example, VCR 32 of Fig. 1), located at the user’s home (e.g., location

22) to record the selected program. (See Ex-1222, 4:28-32, Fig. 1). This is

accomplished through data sent from input device 332, which is communicably

connected to processing system 334, and then to home recording equipment. (See,

e.g., Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 17:10-19; see also Ex-1234, ¶¶25, 34, 36 (admission in

Ligler Declaration that user program selections made at Blake’s input device 332

are communicated to a local recording device to record the selected program)).

153. As noted above in Section X.A.2.b, under the broadest reasonable

interpretation of “local guide,” processing system 334 would also be considered a

part of Blake’s local guide. Here, Blake discloses that user program selections

made via input device 332 are communicated to processing system 334, which

stores the user’s selection information and activates a recording device at the user

premises at the appropriate time. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:16-19).

Because the local guide may be implemented at least in part on a server or other

device outside the user’s home, such as processing system 334 (see Ex-1245, p. 56,

218:21-220:13; see also Ex-1222, 2:32-3:13), a POSA would recognize that the

94 Comcast, Ex-1202

communication indicating a recording request (e.g., user program selections) is

transmitted from input device 332 to the local guide. Notably, Patent Owner

admitted in the ITC Investigation that “when a program is chosen for recording at

input device 332, that’s going to be communicated to central processing system

334 . . . [and then] to the local interactive program guide.” (Ex-1246, p. 48,

1138:5-15). Thus, in view of Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the claims, a

recording request sent from input device 332 to processing system 334 would

satisfy the requirement of “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication

to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program

listing via the Internet.”

154. Additionally, as I explained above in Section X.A.2.b, a POSA would

have understood and/or found it obvious that user program selection information

communicated from input device 332 to processing system 334 would be

transmitted via “the Internet” as required by the claims of the ’801 Patent. Sending

recording commands over the Internet would have been an obvious modification of

Blake in light of common network communication systems known to a POSA at

the time of the ’801 Patent. Input device 332 “may be any device capable of

transmitting data from a remote location.” (Ex-1222, 17:5-8). It was well known

at the time of the alleged inventions in the ’801 Patent that devices residing in

remote locations may use the Internet to transmit data. Although Blake may not

95 Comcast, Ex-1202

explicitly disclose that a user’s program selections are transmitted to processing

system 334 via an Internet communications path, a POSA would have understood

that a device capable of remotely transmitting data, such as input device 332 (see,

e.g., Ex-1222, 17:5-8; see also 18:18-20, 18:26-29), would be used for Internet

communications, and furthermore that using Blake’s input device 332 to transmit

information over an Internet communications path would be obvious to try. In

light of the entirety of Blake’s disclosure, utilizing an Internet communications

path for transmitting program recording commands would have been a simple

substitution of one known element (i.e., Internet communications) for another (i.e.,

generic communication) to obtain predictable results (i.e., communicating the same

television program selection to the processing system). As another example,

Killian teaches that the receiver 10 is “coupled to the Internet and associated

sources of Internet information using a bidirectional link 14” (Ex-1208, 3:18-20),

which may be any “wireless or wireline communications link suitable to couple

[receiver 10] to the Internet.” (Ex-1208, 3:38-43). Killian discloses that receiver

10 implements an interactive program guide that allows viewers to select,

schedule, and record viewing opportunities according to information received

using link 14, such as program listing information. (See, e.g., Ex-1208, 8:49-52).

It would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s known techniques for

transmitting television schedule information over an Internet communications path

96 Comcast, Ex-1202

within Blake’s system so that a user who is away from home may use input device

332 to transmit user program selection information from a remote location to

processing system 334. Accordingly, transmitting user program selection

information from remote locations using an Internet communication path enhances

the recording ability of the local guide by allowing the user to schedule program

recordings when away from home and thus, providing the user with increased

access to and control over the television equipment within his/her home.

155. I have explained above how Blake discloses the claimed “local guide”

limitations as they are construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.

However, to any extent this claim term were to be construed as narrowly limited to

the local guide being solely implemented on a device inside the user’s home, the

requirement of transmitting a communication identifying the user’s program

selections from the remote guide to the local interactive television program guide

would be obvious to a POSA. In particular, Blake discloses that a user’s program

selections are communicated to processing system 334, which stores this

information and activates a recording device at the user premises. (Ex-1222,

18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:12-13, 17:16-19). Blake also teaches that the local guide

controls the local recording device (e.g., VCR 32) to record a selected program.

(Ex-1222, 16:29-33). In fact, Blake expressly states that “[t]he present invention

enhances the recording capability of the [local] guide [to control a local

97 Comcast, Ex-1202

recording device] by allowing the user to schedule recordings from a remote

location.” (Ex-1222, 17:1-2 (emphasis added)). A POSA would have found it

obvious that Blake’s local guide should serve as a central manager of scheduled

recordings on local hardware, and would coordinate selections from multiple

sources (e.g., made directly using the local guide or remotely using the remote

guide).

156. A POSA would have understood from the disclosure in Blake that

processing system 334 would communicate the user’s program selection

information, from the remote user interface to the local guide in order to control (or

activate) the local recording device to record the selected program. (Ex-1222,

17:1-2, 17:16-19, 16:31-33, 18:13-16). Because the forwarding of

communications in this manner was well known at the time of the ’801 Patent, the

POSA would have found it obvious to forward the recording request (e.g., user

selection information) received at processing system 334 to the local guide

implemented on local television/guide equipment. This would provide the

expected result of allowing the local guide to control the local recording device to

record the selected program and would reduce necessary processing on the

processing system. For example, Young (incorporated by reference in Blake)

similarly discloses selection of an event for recording by a user, and discloses the

98 Comcast, Ex-1202

conventional use of control signals to initiate a program recording at a VCR. (Ex-

1223, 8:42-53, 8:56-66, 9:12-35).

157. Additionally, Killian provides further evidence as to the obviousness

of the role of the local guide as a central manager of recordings scheduled on local

hardware. As explained above, Killian discloses a JAVA program guide operable

to control local hardware using a range of JAVA APIs, and in particular is

described as using APIs to control scheduled recordings on a local VCR. (See,

e.g., Ex-1208, 8:5-35, 8:57-9:9, 17:7-23, 17:44-51). The local program guide

application calls various API routines associated with the VCR to coordinate

scheduled recordings. (See Ex-1208, 8:5-35). Killian asserts that this modular API

architecture provides a “technical advantage” by allowing “virtually any

appropriate EPG applet” to control the local recorder. (Ex-1208, 8:31-32). The

APIs are used to pass suitable information concerning the program and desired

listings. (See Ex-1208, 8:57-9:9). Program identifiers, such as titles or air

date/time, may be used to identify recordings and may be passed through the

system to identify a program to be recorded. (See Ex-1208, 17:7-23). Killian’s

program identifiers facilitate the easy identification of programs selected for

recording in a manner that is less susceptible to user error than classic time, date,

channel, duration methods of identifying a scheduled recording. (See Ex-1208,

17:18-22 (“EPG 70 is able to cause recorder to record any program using a

99 Comcast, Ex-1202

program identifier for the program, without information from the viewer regarding

the air date, start time, stop time, or channel. . . .”)).

158. It would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s recording APIs

and program identifiers provided by the guide platform to effect the recording

commands received from a remote guide or central processing system in Blake’s

system, as it would be a use of a known technique (Killian’s specific program

guide API-based recording) for a closely related element (Blake’s recording

control) to achieve the predictable result of effectively scheduling recordings using

the local guide hardware (e.g., a STB), thereby avoiding the need for separate

communications with recording hardware by the remote device. This would also

achieve a predictable benefit of allowing the local guide to assess recording

schedule conflicts and assist the user in resolving any conflicts that would

otherwise arise if the remote guide were able to schedule recordings without going

through the local guide. Using Killian’s program identifiers would simplify the

process of scheduling a recording by reducing the likelihood of user error and

would reduce the amount of information the system must exchange between

devices to schedule recordings.

159. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Blake in view of Killian discloses

“transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide

100 Comcast, Ex-1202

identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the

Internet.”

“receiving the communication with the local guide”

160. As discussed above in Section X.A.4, Blake discloses allowing a user

to schedule a recording for a particular program on a local recording device from a

remote location by sending user program selections from a remote guide to

processing system 334 and then to the local recording device. (See Ex-1222, 17:1-

8, 18:12-16; see also Ex-1246, p. 48, 1137:23-1138:12). Blake discloses that

processing system 334 receives the user’s program selection(s) from the remote

theme guide presented on input device 332, stores this information, and activates

the recording device within the user premises to record the program selected by the

user. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:13-15). As discussed above in Section

X.A.4, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “local guide,” processing

system 334, which receives the user’s program selection from input device 332,

(Ex-1222, 18:8-14), would also be considered a part of Blake’s local guide. Thus,

in view of Patent Owner’s broad interpretation of the claims, a recording request

received by processing system 334 from input device 332 would satisfy the

requirement of “receiving the communication with the local guide.”

161. As further discussed above in Section X.A.4, to any extent this claim

term were to be construed as narrowly limited to the local guide being solely


implemented on a device inside the user’s home, the requirement of receiving the

communication at the local guide and recording the television program

corresponding to the user’s program selections indicated in the communication

would have been obvious to a POSA. As explained above, user program selections

are communicated to Blake’s processing system 334, which stores this information

and activates a local recording device (e.g., VCR 32) to record the selected

program. (Ex-1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26; see also 17:12-13, 17:16-19). A POSA

would have understood that processing system 334 would communicate the

recording request, from input device 332 to the local guide to control the local

recording device to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 16:29-33). Further,

the POSA would have found it obvious to forward the recording request received

at processing system 334 to the local guide, thus providing the expected result of

allowing the local guide to control the local recording device to record the selected

program.

162. Therefore, Blake discloses “receiving the communication with the

local guide” (e.g., from input device 332 used by a user away from home, over the

Internet).

“responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.”


163. Blake discloses allowing a user to schedule a recording for a

particular program on a local recording device from a remote location by sending

user program selections from a remote guide to processing system 334 and then to

the local recording device. (Ex-1222, 17:1-5, 18:12-16; see also Ex-1246, p. 48,

1137:23-1138:12). As discussed above in Sections X.A.4-5, under the broadest

reasonable interpretation of “local guide,” Blake discloses that processing system

334 receives the user’s program selection(s) from the remote theme guide

presented on input device 332, stores this information, and activates the recording

device within the user premises to record the program selected by the user. (Ex-

1222, 18:12-16, 18:23-26, 17:12-15). Blake discloses that the local recording

device may be a VCR or “any device with video and/or audio recording

capabilities.” (Ex-1222, 4:28-32, 17:19-21). Thus, in referring back to the Bulls v.

Lakers example, Blake discloses “responsive to the communication, scheduling,

with the local guide” (i.e., the local guide implemented at least in part on

processing system 334) “the program corresponding to the selected program

listing” (i.e., Bulls v. Lakers game selected by the user via the remote theme guide)

“for recording by the user equipment” (e.g., for recording by VCR 32 in the user’s

home).

164. I have explained above how Blake discloses the claimed “local guide”

limitations as they are construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.


However, to any extent this claim term were to be construed as narrowly limited to

the local guide being implemented on a device inside the user’s home, the

requirement of receiving the communication at the local guide and recording the

television program corresponding to the user’s program selections indicated in the

communication would have been obvious to a POSA. In particular, as discussed

above in Sections X.A.4-5, it would have been obvious to a POSA to forward a

communication indicating a user’s program selections from processing system 334

to the local guide implemented on television/guide equipment within the user

premises, in order to “control” the local recording device to record the selected

program. (Ex-1222, 18:14-16; see also 14:26-32, 15:26-28, 16:29-33). Thus, in

the example provided above, Blake discloses responsive to the communication,

scheduling, with the local guide” (i.e., the local guide operating on television/guide

equipment within the user’s home) “the program corresponding to the selected

program listing” (i.e., Bulls v. Lakers game selected by the user via the remote

theme guide) “for recording by the user equipment” (e.g., for recording by VCR 32

in the user’s home). (See Ex-1222, 5:2-6, 17:1-5, 17:18-21, 18:1-16).

165. Therefore, it is my opinion that Blake in discloses “responsive to the

communication, scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to

the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.”


166. For the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that a POSA would

have found claim 1 of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.

B. Dependent Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the user

equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem.

167. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Blake in view of Killian

teaches communication between a remote device and user equipment over the

Internet. (See Sec. X.A.2.b). For example, Blake’s input device 332 sends user

program selections to processing system 334 by accessing a website or by sending

recording requests via email. (Ex-1222, 18:18-29). Blake further discloses that

television/guide equipment in the user’s home may use a modem or cable modem

to receive program information. (Ex-1222, 5:21-22, Fig. 2). That is, the

television/guide equipment in the user’s home is accessible over modem.

168. As I explained above in Section X.A.4, Blake discloses or renders

obvious transmitting a recording command from the remote guide to the local

guide over the Internet. Modems were well known in the art as one way to use the

Internet at the time of the ’801 Patent. Because modems were a well-known means

of accessing resources over the Internet, and because the remote guide would send

a message to the local guide over the Internet causing the user equipment to record

a program, a POSA would have understood that the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over a modem.


169. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a POSA would have found claim 2

of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.

C. Dependent Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein scheduling

the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic

program guide running on the remote device

170. The “display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on

the remote device” discussed with respect to claim 1 is an electronic program guide

as properly construed because it is control software that is operative at least in part

to generate a display of television program listings. It also allows the user to

navigate through the television program listings, make selections, and control

functions of the software. (See Sec. VI.A, supra).

171. Specifically, Blake discloses that input device 332 allows a user to

select a program to record according to themes by presenting, via a “remote theme

guide,” a list of selectable themes (e.g., sports) and theme selections (e.g.,

basketball) for the user to choose from. (Ex-1222, 18:1-8; see also 17:22-24

(describing “user interface” of input device 332)). As discussed above in Section

X.A.2.a, a POSA would have understood Blake’s “remote theme guide,” as

rendered by input device 332, is an electronic program guide as properly construed

because it is software that generates a display of television program listings for use

on the remote input device. (Ex-1222, 17:16-24, 18:1-16). Notably, Patent Owner

has admitted in the ITC Investigation that Blake’s remote input device


implemented “an interactive program guide.” (Ex-1246, p. 47, 1135:13-19).

However, to any extent that Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails to expressly

disclose additional details as to the implementation of a remote electronic program

guide on input device 332, as discussed above in Section X.A.2.a, implementing

IPG functionality in the user interface of Blake’s remote device would have been

obvious to a POSA. (See, e.g., Sec. X.A.2.a, supra).

172. Therefore, as discussed above, the recording scheduling originating

from the remote device is “scheduling the recording from an electronic program

guide running on the remote device.” (See Ex-1222, 17:1-2, 18:1-16).



D. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein a web site is

accessible to the user from a computing device of the user.

174. This claim merely recites the existence of any website that is

accessible from a previously unrecited computing device of the user, and has no

relationship to the rest of the claim. At the time of the ’801 Patent, it was well

known that a user could access a web site from a computing device.

175. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Blake

discloses that input device 332 “may be any device capable of transmitting data

from a remote location,” and further that the user can use input device 332 to


“access a website which is connected to processing system 334 to enter the user’s

selection.” (Ex-1222, 17:5-9, 18:17-20; see Sec. X.A.2.b, supra).



E. Dependent Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the user

equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.

177. As discussed above with respect to claim 2, this is taught by Blake,

which teaches that remote device (i.e., input device 332) sends a program

recording request to processing system 334, for example by accessing a website,

that stores the user selection information and activates a recording device in the

user’s home to record the selected program. (Ex-1222, 18:1-20; see also 17:12-19;

Sec. X.D, supra). Further, as discussed above in Section X.A.4, a POSA would

have understood from the disclosure in Blake that input device 332 is capable of

communicating with processing system 334 or other devices over an Internet

communication path, as required by the claims of the ’801 Patent, to schedule a

program recording on a local recording device.

178. To any extent Patent Owner may argue that Blake fails to expressly

disclose “wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over the

Internet,” this would have been an obvious modification of Blake in light of

common network communication systems known to a POSA at the time of the

’801 Patent as explained above in Section X.A.4.


179. The user equipment would be “accessible” over the Internet because

the remote device could and would send control commands to the user equipment

over the Internet. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a POSA would have found

claim 6 of the ’801 Patent obvious over Blake in view of Killian.

F. Claims 5 and 7-54

180. As established above in Section VII.D, independent claims 5, 10, 15,

19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially identical limitations to those

in claim 1 for validity purposes, and they should stand or fall together.

181. Similarly, claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 recite

substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21,

26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 recite substantially identical limitations to those

recited in claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 recite

substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 4; claims 11, 24, 29, 42,

and 47 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 6; and

should respectively stand or fall together.

182. Claims 1-4 and 6 have been demonstrated to be unpatentable as

obvious over Blake in view of Killian above. My analysis in Section VII.D

illustrates how the various recited limitations of claims 1-4 and 6 correspond to the

recited limitations of claims 5 and 7-54.


183. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 5 and 7-54 are obvious over

Blake in view of Killian for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to

claims 1-4 and 6.

Documents

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ROVI GUIDES, INC. · Comcast, Ex-1202 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,