comcast cable communications, llc, rovi guides, inc

Comcast, Ex-1002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

_______________

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner

v.

ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

Patent No. 8,006,263 Filing Date: October 7, 2005 Issue Date: August 23, 2011

Title: INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM GUIDE WITH REMOTE ACCESS

________________

Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned

________________

DECLARATION OF DR. GARY TJADEN

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

Declaration in Support of Petition 1 of 3

i Comcast, Ex-1002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES .................... 7

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

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 12

VII. THE ’263 PATENT ..................................................................................... 20

VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 39

IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’263 PATENT ....................................................................................................................... 44

ii Comcast, Ex-1002

X. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, AND 17-18 ...................................... 45

XI. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, AND 19 ....................................................................................................................... 98

XII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KAWAMURA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, AND 17-18 ............................................................................................101

XIII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN IN VIEW OF KAWAMURA AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, AND 19 ......................................................................................139

iii Comcast, Ex-1002

XIV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................142

1 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

competently.

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

review proceeding.

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

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

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

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

Patent No. 8,006,263 (Ex-1001, “the ’263 Patent”) and the unpatentability grounds

set forth in the Petition for this proceeding.

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

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

opinions or testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.

II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

5. A description of my professional background and qualifications is

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

2 Comcast, Ex-1002

is included in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1003 to the

Petition.

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

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

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

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

degree in computer science from the Johns Hopkins University.

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

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

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

applications. These include applications for automating the editing of textual

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

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

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

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

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

end-user preferences.

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

telecommunication systems and information technology services, with a significant

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

3 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

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

Systems at the Georgia Institute of Technology, NYNEX Corporation,

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

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

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

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

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

research to help commercial enterprises to use information technology to support

business strategy and operations.

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

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

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

manufacturer of computer systems and provider of information technology

services. Of particular relevance to the technology underlying the ’263 Patent and

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

development and implementation of computer systems comprised of multiple

4 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

area communication networks at NYNEX/Burroughs.

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

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

company activities and ventures, including supervising development and

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

as INDAX. Of particular relevance to the technology underlying the ’263 Patent

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

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

technology for efficiently providing two-way data communication over cable

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

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

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

Communications.

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

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

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

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

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

5 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

and non-obviousness requirements for patentability.

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

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

member of the National Science Foundation Committee on the National

Telecommunications Network, representing the Cable Television (CATV)

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

Association Engineering Committee from 1982-84.

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

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

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

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

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

An Operational Interactive Cable Television and Home Information System",

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

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

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

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

6 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

the time of the invention of the ’263 Patent, which I have been instructed is 1998-

1999 for purposes of this proceeding.

III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED

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

8,006,263 to Michael D. Ellis (Ex-1001, “the ’263 Patent”), as to which I am

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

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

exhibits, including the file history of the ’263 Patent.

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

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

U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 to Humpleman (Ex-1006)

U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499, hereinafter “Humpleman Provisional”

(Ex-1007)

U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 to Killian (Ex-1008)

U.S. Pat. No. 5,805,763 to Lawler (Ex-1009)

Jap. Pub. No. H10-155131 to Kondo (Ex-1011 [Japanese original] and

Ex-1012 [English translation])

7 Comcast, Ex-1002

Jap. Pub. No. H9-102827 to Kawamura (Ex-1013 [Japanese original] and

Ex-1014 [English translation])

IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES

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

applicable legal standards pertaining to the patentability issues presented in this

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

claims of the ’263 Patent based on the following grounds:

Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103(a) based on Humpleman in view of Killian.

Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

based on Humpleman in view of Killian and Lawler.

Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103(a) based on Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura.

Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

based on Kondo in view of Killian, Kawamura, and Lawler.

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

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

evidence.

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

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

8 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

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

appropriate, secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant

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

was reasonably pertinent to the particular problems the inventor faced.

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

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

understanding that an obviousness analysis involving two or more references

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

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

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

9 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for combining the limitations in the manner claimed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at the claimed invention.

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

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

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

(“POSA”). The ’263 Patent states that the invention “relates to interactive

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

relevant field of art. (See Ex-1001, 1:19-22). I understand that a person of ordinary

skill in the art is one who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along

conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity.

11 Comcast, Ex-1002

28. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’263 Patent at

the time of the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent would have a bachelor’s degree

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

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

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

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

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

the ’263 Patent could have equivalent experience either in industry or research,

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

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

and leading up to, the time of the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent, and thus, I

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

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

ordinary skill in the art would have known, understood, appreciated, been

motivated to do, etc. refer to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the

earliest claimed priority date of the ’263 Patent – i.e., July 17, 1998 (although, as I

establish in Section VII.A below, the ’263 Patent is not entitled to claim a priority

date prior to July 16, 1999).

12 Comcast, Ex-1002

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

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

of the claims of the ’263 Patent. I understand that claims subject to inter partes

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

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

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

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

the priority date.

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

interactive television program guide, mobile device, user television equipment, and

user profile. Each of these is addressed below in turn.

A. Local and Remote Interactive Television Program Guides

32. The term “interactive television program guide” would be understood

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

display of television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the

television program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.

This understanding is consistent with the term’s usage in the ’263 Patent, which

discloses the term by function: “Interactive television program guides allow the

user to navigate through television program listings using a remote control.” (Ex-

1001, 1:31-33). An example of a “typical” program guide is provided in which

13 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

1001, 1:33-36). This usage would inform a POSA that an interactive television

program guide at least provides functionality to allow a user to navigate television

program listings. Furthermore, as described in the ’263 Patent, such interactive

television program guides are “typically implemented on set-top boxes . . .

connected to the user's television.” (Ex-1001, 1:37-40). A POSA would further

understand that an interactive television program guide provides users the

capability to make selections and to control functions of the program guide

software.

33. I note in particular that interactive program guides are a type of

“electronic program guide” (EPG). Whether or not a program guide is

“interactive” is determined based on, for example, whether it offers interactive

features allowing a user to navigate through television program listings, make

selections, and control functions of the software (such as selecting a program for

recording). Thus, a reference may disclose the claimed “interactive television

program guide” despite describing the guide as an “electronic program guide.”

34. The ’263 Patent distinguishes between “interactive television program

guide equipment” and an “interactive television program guide,” which is

implemented on interactive television program guide equipment. (See e.g., Ex-

14 Comcast, Ex-1002

1001, claim 1). A POSA would understand this distinction to mean that the

“interactive television program guide” is control software that is implemented on

interactive television program guide equipment, such as a set-top box. (See, e.g.,

Ex-1001, 1:37-38 (“Interactive television program guides are typically

implemented on set-top boxes located in the homes of users.”)).

35. The term “local interactive television program guide” would be

understood by a POSA to refer to an interactive television program guide that

generates a display of television program listings for use at the user premises. (Ex-

1001, 1:31-33, 1:37-40, 12:23-29, 21:24-29). It is my understanding that the

Patent Owner has asserted claims of the ’263 Patent in U.S. International Trade

Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001, styled In the Matter of Certain

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

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

the local interactive television program guide could be implemented on equipment

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

Patent Owner presented arguments that the claimed local guide limitations could

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

premises. (Ex-1045, p. 56, 218:21-220:13 (discussing the local guide in the

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

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

15 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

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

(Ex-1046, p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2 (discussing Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435, and

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

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

interpretation of “local interactive television program guide,” as evidenced by the

argument portions I have cited, the local guide may be implemented at least in part

on a server or other device outside the user’s home. I have been informed that

Petitioner is requesting that the Board adopt this broad interpretation for purposes

of this proceeding only, despite certain statements made during prosecution of the

’263 Patent and related patents. In my analysis below, I present my conclusions

under this broad interpretation as well as under a narrower interpretation in which

the local guide is only implemented on equipment located within the user’s home.

36. The term “remote interactive television program guide” would be

understood by a POSA to refer to an interactive television program guide that

generates a display of television program listings for use on a remote access

device, such as a mobile device. (Ex-1001, 11:16-33, 9:43-49).

16 Comcast, Ex-1002

B. Mobile Device

37. The term “mobile device” would be understood by a POSA to refer to

any portable computer-based device, for example a notebook computer, as

contrasted with stationary devices such as servers and desktop computers. The

term “mobile device” finds no clear definition in the ’263 Patent, and is in fact not

recited in the ’263 Patent specification. However, the ’263 Patent specification

does recite a “remote program guide access device” and provides several

examples: “As shown in FIG. 5, remote program guide access device 24 may be

any suitable personal computer (PC), portable computer (e.g., a notebook

computer), palmtop computer, handheld personal computer (H/PC), display

remote, touch-screen remote, automobile PC, personal digital assistant (PDA), or

other suitable computer based device.” (Ex-1001, 9:43-49).

38. The ’263 Patent specification does not identify any of these devices

particularly as “mobile devices.” A POSA would recognize, however, that some of

the devices identified as a “remote program guide access device” are also “mobile

devices,” while some would be understood as non-mobile. For example, a

“portable computer (e.g., a notebook computer), palmtop computer, handheld

personal computer (H/PC), display remote, touch-screen remote, automobile PC,

[or] personal digital assistant (PDA)” would be understood by a POSA to be

mobile. A POSA would understand that “other suitable computer based device[s]”

17 Comcast, Ex-1002

may include both portable and non-portable devices, and would consider suitable

computer-based portable devices to fall within the term mobile device as used in

the ’263 Patent. Therefore, a POSA would understand “mobile device” to refer to

any portable computer-based device.

C. User Television Equipment

39. The term “user television equipment” would be understood by a

POSA to at least include various typical components of a home television system,

such as a set-top box, remote control, secondary storage device, and a television, or

any of these alone or coupled together with other such devices. An example of

user television equipment is provided in FIG. 3 of the ’263 Patent. (Ex-1001, 3:51-

53 (“FIG. 3 is an illustrative schematic block diagram of the user television

equipment of FIG. 2 in accordance with the principles of the present invention.”)).

In this example, user television equipment includes “set-top box 28,” “remote

control 40,” “secondary storage device 32,” and “television 36.” (Ex-1001, Fig. 3;

see also 7:27-8:62).

40. However, the ’263 Patent makes clear that this is not the only example

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

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

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

and “communications device 51.” (Ex-1001, Fig. 4, 8:63-9:41.). As such, a POSA

18 Comcast, Ex-1002

would understand that “user television equipment” is not confined to only the

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

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

interpretation of “user television equipment” also includes a display device. A

POSA would also understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user

television equipment” in view of the ’263 Patent Specification includes multiple

devices communicatively coupled together, such as a STB and a VCR. (See Ex-

1001, Figs. 3 and 4, 7:27-40, 8:63-9:7).

D. User Profile

41. The term “user profile” would be understood by a POSA to include

any data indicating a user preference. The ’263 Patent specification uses “User

Profiles”, “User Preference Profiles”, and “Preference Profiles” interchangeably.

(See, e.g., Ex-1001, 17:37-47, 23:60-24:26). As such, a POSA would recognize

these terms to be interchangeable within the context of the ’263 Patent. The ’263

Patent specification provides some examples of what “user preference profiles” are

used for. For example, “[u]ser preference profiles may also be used to limit the

amount of data provided to remote program guide access device” by “data filtering

… according to the user profiles when transferring data to remote program guide

access device 24.” (Ex-1001, 17:37-43). Specifically, “[o]nly data for those

19 Comcast, Ex-1002

programs or channels that are of interest to the user may be transferred if desired.”

(Ex-1001, 17:43-45.)

42. Based on this usage, a POSA would understand a “user profile” to

include, at least, information indicating “programs or channels that are of interest

to the user.” (Id.). However, user profile information is not limited to favorites.

For example, user profiles are described as also having “favorite channels, themes,

indicate likes or dislikes, etc.” (Ex-1001, 24:4-7). Therefore, a POSA would

understand that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a “user profile” includes

any data indicating a user preference.

E. Preambles of Claims of the ’263 Patent

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

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

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

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

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

understand that the preamble of a claim may also act as a necessary component of

the claimed invention when limitations of a dependent claim rely upon and derive

antecedent basis from the preamble. Based on this understanding, in my analyses

given below I have assumed that the preamble of all independent claims of the

’263 Patent is not to be treated as limiting the scope of the claims.

20 Comcast, Ex-1002

VII. THE ’263 PATENT

A. Priority Date of the ’263 Patent

44. I understand that U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 11/246,392 (“the ’392

Application”), which eventually became the ’263 Patent, was filed on October 7,

2005. It is further my understanding that the ’392 Application was the third in a

chain of applications claiming priority to two provisional applications filed in 1998

that briefly described features related to networked electronic program guides.

(See Ex-1004 - U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093,292 (“the ’292 Provisional”); and Ex-

1005 - U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/097,527 (“the ’527 Provisional”)).

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

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

support the lengthy claims that issued in the ’263 Patent, nor does either

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

make and use the claims of the ’263 Patent. I have identified two primary features

recited in the claims of the ’263 Patent that do not find support in the provisional

applications, indicated in the diagram below which reproduces claim 1 of the ’263

Patent:

21 Comcast, Ex-1002

46. First, neither provisional application provides a written description for

a system wherein the remote access interactive television program guide “transmits

a communication identifying the television program corresponding to the selected

program listing from the remote access interactive television program guide to the

local interactive television program guide [for recording by the local interactive

22 Comcast, Ex-1002

television program guide] over the Internet communications path” as recited in

claim 1 and the other independent claims of the ’263 Patent. No such

communication from a “remote access interactive television program guide to the

local interactive television program guide” is disclosed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

further support. (See Ex-1004 at p. 2). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain

a written description of a system wherein the remote access interactive television

program guide “transmits a communication identifying the television program

corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive

television program guide to the local interactive television program guide [for

recording by the local interactive television program guide] over the Internet

communications path,” much less provide such written description as would be

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

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

Provisional. The ’527 Provisional states that “[a] viewer may also set reminders,

23 Comcast, Ex-1002

schedule recordings, or purchase pay programs from a remote computer. These

scheduled events would be transmitted to the television viewing station, where

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

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

(such as recordable DVD) or on a remote server. These requests might also be

made via a touch-tone phone.” (Ex-1005 at p. 3).

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

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

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

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

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

from a “remote access interactive television program guide” and “to the local

interactive television program guide” for recording by the local guide. Thus, the

’527 Provisional does not contain a written description of a system wherein the

remote access interactive television program guide “transmits a communication

identifying the television program corresponding to the selected program listing

from the remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive

television program guide [for recording by the local interactive television program

guide] over the Internet communications path,” much less provide such written

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

24 Comcast, Ex-1002

50. Second, neither provisional application provides a written description

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

guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is

generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote

program guide access device” as recited in claim 1 and the other independent

claims of the ’263 Patent. The ’292 Provisional states that a guide “may make…

available” “a profile or favorite channels” for multiple locations. (Ex-1004 at p. 2).

However, there is no recitation of a lineup of “program listings” based on the

profile or favorite channels at all, much less a description of a display on a remote

device comprising a plurality of program listings based on the profile or favorite

channels. (See id.). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain a written

description of “a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the

remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of

program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote

from the remote program guide access device,” much less provide such written

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

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

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

from the guide.” (Ex-1005 at p. 3). However, there is no recitation of how that

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

25 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

generating program listings based on program guide information as would be

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

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

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

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

information. (Id.). The guide allows “the user to ask verbally,” and “the user hears

the program of interest.” (Id.). While a user profile loaded from the television is

involved in the result, there is no recitation of any display of a guide based on the

user profile in the ’527 Provisional. (Id.). Thus, the ’527 Provisional does not

contain a written description of “a display of a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the

plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a

location remote from the remote program guide access device,” much less provide

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

limitation.

53. Additionally, the ’292 Provisional fails to provide a written

description for “wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile

device.” The ’292 Provisional fails to provide any disclosure of “a mobile device,”

26 Comcast, Ex-1002

much less a remote access program guide operating on a mobile device. (Ex-1004

at p. 2). Thus, the ’292 Provisional does not contain a written description of

“wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device,” much less

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

such a limitation.

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

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

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

’263 patent recite similar features to claim 1, the provisional applications would

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

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

reviewing the claims of the ’263 Patent and the two provisional applications, it is

my opinion that neither provisional included sufficient disclosure to fully support

or enable the lengthy claims that issued in the ’263 Patent.

55. I understand that the ’392 Application was filed as continuation of an

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

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

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

the two provisional applications. I understand that the ’392 Application claims

priority to the ’344 Application by way of U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 10/927,814. It

27 Comcast, Ex-1002

is my opinion that the alleged invention claimed in the ’263 Patent was at best first

described in the specification of the ’344 Application on July 16, 1999, the filing

date of the ’344 Application.

B. Relevant Background of the ’263 Patent

56. In the years before July 16, 1999, the date to which the ’263 Patent is

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

satellite television systems was beginning to increase dramatically, calling into

question the workability of traditional paper guides.

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

electronic program guides (EPGs – then dedicated television channels where

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

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

the remote control). By the time the applications to which the ’263 Patent claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

was beginning to change by the priority date of the ’263 Patent. On-line program

28 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

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

connection. (See, e.g., Ex-1001, 1:46-53). These program guides would allow

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

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

Ex-1001 at 1:46-53, 2:4-7). And, some of these online interactive program guides

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

recordings of programs on their home equipment. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 20:42-51).

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

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

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

those the user would find most appealing. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, 1:20-41, 2:1-13).

C. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention

60. The alleged invention of the ’263 Patent relates to remotely accessible

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

with local IPG software. (See Ex-1001, 1:19-22, 2:23-28). The claims of the ’263

Patent recite systems and methods “for selecting television programs over a remote

access link comprising an Internet communications path for recording.” (Ex-

1001, claim 1). The system includes “local interactive television program guide

equipment on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented.”

29 Comcast, Ex-1002

(Id.). The system also includes a “remote program guide access device located

outside of the user’s home on which a remote access interactive television program

guide is implemented,” which is recited as being a “mobile device.” (Id.). The

remote guide is recited as operating to “generate a display of a plurality of

program listings for display on the remote program guide access device, wherein

the display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile

stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device.” (Id.).

The remote guide “receives a selection of a program listing” for recording by the

local guide, and “transmits a communication identifying the television program

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

guide “receives the communication and records the television program… using the

local interactive television program guide equipment.” (Id.).

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

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

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

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

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

The remote guide is generated based on user profile information stored at a

location other than the remote guide device. (See, e.g., Ex-1001 at claim 1).

30 Comcast, Ex-1002

62. Based on my review of the file history of the ’263 Patent, it is my

understanding that the applicant repeatedly argued that the primary distinction

between the prior art and the alleged invention lay in the two-guide nature of the

claims. However, many remote access IPG systems including guide-to-guide

communication were well-known at the time of the alleged invention. I note that

no evidence was submitted during prosecution regarding secondary considerations

of non-obviousness.

63. The ’263 Patent recites the following in the abstract: “An interactive

television program guide with remote access is provided. The interactive

television program guide is implemented on interactive television program guide

equipment. A remote program guide access device is connected to the interactive

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

remote access to program guide functions.” (Ex-1001, Abstract). Therefore, in my

opinion, it is a reasonable and accurate statement to conclude: the general area of

technology of the ’263 Patent is that of interactive program guides, and remote or

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

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

show that the claims of the ’263 Patent would have been obvious to a POSA. For

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

as that of the ’263 Patent, and thus a POSA of the time would have found it

31 Comcast, Ex-1002

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

claims of the ’263 Patent.

D. Limitation Correspondence of All Claims of the ’263 Patent

65. The ’263 Patent includes 19 claims, of which 6 are independent.

After reviewing the independent claims of the ’263 Patent, it is my opinion that the

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

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

5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 are all either of the same scope or have minor variations in

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

art analysis. I have reviewed both the system claims (1, 8, 14) and the method

claims (5, 11, 17), and they each recite the same devices performing the same

steps. Therefore, it is my opinion that the nature of a claim as “a system” or “a

method” is insubstantial for purposes of prior art invalidity. Additionally, it is my

opinion that dependent claims 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 are of the same scope as claim 2,

and that dependent claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are of the same scope as claim 3.

The features of claim 4 are not repeated.

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

limitation of claim 5 can be found in claim 1:

32 Comcast, Ex-1002

Although claim 5 does not explicitly require “user television equipment located

within a user’s home,” claim element 5(b) requires “the local interactive television

program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a

display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the broadest

reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a display

device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion,

33 Comcast, Ex-1002

claims 1 and 5 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be

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




within a user’s home,” claim element 8(c) requires “the local interactive television

program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a

34 Comcast, Ex-1002

display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the broadest

reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a display

device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my opinion

claims 1 and 8 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that would be

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



35 Comcast, Ex-1002


within a user’s home,” claim element 11(b) requires “the local interactive

television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for

display on a display device at the user's home.” As noted in Section VI.C, the

broadest reasonable interpretation of “user television equipment” includes “a

display device.” Therefore, while there are minor variations in language, in my

opinion claims 1 and 11 are either of the same scope or have minor variations that

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



36 Comcast, Ex-1002


within a user’s home,” claim elements 14(a) and 14(b) require “a local interactive

television program guide implemented on… local interactive television program

guide equipment [] located within a user's home… wherein the local interactive

television program guide: generates a display of one or more program listings for



37 Comcast, Ex-1002







within a user’s home,” claim element 17(a) requires “the local interactive

38 Comcast, Ex-1002







71. The table below summarizes the results of the above analysis. To

understand how to interpret the table contents, note, for example, that claim

element 5(a) is shown as corresponding to both claim elements 1(b) and 1(c). This

means that a portion of claim element 5(a) matches the entire claim element 1(b),

while another portion of claim element 5(a) matches the entire claim element 1(c).

And, the table shows that the requirements of both claim elements 5(d) and 5(e) are

met by the entire claim element 1(f). The overall result is that all of the

requirements of claims 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 are met by one or more elements of

claim 1. Any differences in scope are either insubstantial or would lead to claim 1

being narrower in scope than the other independent claims. Furthermore, all

requirements of claims 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 are met by claim 2, and all requirements

of claims 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19 are met by claim 3.

Claim 1 Claim 5 Claim 8 Claim 11 Claim14 Claim 17 1(a) 5(b) 8(c) 11(b) 14(a)14(b) 17(a) 1(b) 5(a) 8(a), 8(b) 11(a) 14(c) 17(b) 1(c) 5(a) 8(a), 8(b) 11(a) 14(c) 17(b)

39 Comcast, Ex-1002

1(d) 5(b) 8(c) 11(b) 14(c) 17(b) 1(e) 5(c) 8(d) 11(c) 14(c) 17(b) 1(f) 5(d), 5(e) 8(e) 11(d) 14(d) 17(c) 2 6 9 12 15 18 3 7 10 13 16 19

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

show obviousness of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 3 to also show

obviousness of claims 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 and their respective dependent claims.

That is, a POSA would understand that claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 require the

same features and would conclude that claims 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 would be

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

claims 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 require the same limitations as claim 2 and that claims

7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 require the same limitations as claim 3, and would conclude

that these claims would be obvious if claims 2 and 3 were found obvious.

VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART

A. U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 – Humpleman (Ex-1006) and U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499 – Humpleman Provisional (Ex-1007)

73. Humpleman was filed June 24, 1998, and issued January 30, 2001.

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

35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).

74. Humpleman is generally directed to “a browser based home network

[that] uses Internet technology to control and command home devices that are

connected to a home network.” (Ex-1006, 4:5-7). In the Humpleman system, each

40 Comcast, Ex-1002

home device contains “one or more Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) pages

that provide for the commanding and controlling of the home device.” (Ex-1006,

4:12-15). Then, using browser technology, “the home network employs Internet

standards to render the HTML pages in order to provide users with a plurality of

graphical user interfaces (“GUIs”) for commanding and controlling each [of the]

home devices.” (Ex-1006, 4:15-19).

75. I understand that Humpleman claimed the benefit of priority of

Humpleman Provisional, which was filed September 22, 1997, and also

incorporated that document by reference. (See Ex-1006, 1:7-13). I have reviewed

Humpleman Provisional, and it is my opinion that the disclosure of Humpleman

Provisional fully discloses every element of at least claim 1 of Humpleman, as

evidenced in the chart below:

#

Humpleman [Ex-1006] Claim Text

Humpleman Provisional [Ex-1007]

[1.P.i] A method for generating a program guide for a home network,

“Here additional html files are available to represent the programs audio and video material available for the server device to source.” (Ex-1007, p. 10). (See also Ex-1007, p. 2; p. 3, Fig. 1; p. 11, Fig. 8; p. 12, Fig. 9; p. B-5)

[1.P.ii] wherein the program guide identifies multi-media material that is associated with a first home device connected to the home network,

“Here additional html files are available to represent the programs audio and video material available for the server device to source.” (Ex-1007, p. 10).

41 Comcast, Ex-1002

#

Humpleman [Ex-1006] Claim Text

Humpleman Provisional [Ex-1007]

the method comprising the steps of:

[1.A] identifying multi-media material associated with the first home device;

“One of the more innovative pieces to this self-populating tree is that it has the ability to begin categorizing and indexing available (and unavailable) media for the home.” (Ex-1007, p. 25-26). (See also Ex-1007, p. 21, Fig. 13; p. 22).

[1.B] generating an HTML page based on the identified multi-media material associated with the first home device;

“Here additional html files are available to represent the programs audio and video material available for the server device to source.” (Ex-1007, p. 10). (See also Ex-1007, p. 11, Fig. 8).

[1.C] storing the HTML page in an accessible area on the first home device; and

“The device is represented by an 'html' (hyper text markup language) file kept in a accessible directory of the device.” (Ex-1007, p. 2).

[1.D] providing a means for retrieving the HTML page of the first home device without user input.

“The DTV browser accesses, using http protocol, the devices html file and renders it to create the devices GUI and present it to the user.” (Ex-1007, p. 2). (See also Ex-1007, p. B-5).

Humpleman prominently recites in its first paragraph that Humpleman Provisional

is incorporated by reference. (Ex-1006, 1:7-13). It is my opinion that one of

ordinary skill in the art would understand that Humpleman Provisional, as

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

Humpleman’s disclosed system. Upon seeing the incorporation by reference of

Humpleman Provisional, one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to Humpleman

42 Comcast, Ex-1002

Provisional as a part of the document and would rely on it as teaching various

implementation details and other features of the system.

76. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Humpleman is the

same as that of the ’263 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and

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

B. U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 – Killian (Ex-1008)

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

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

U.S.C. § 102 (e).

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

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

viewing opportunities according to viewer profiles and program listing information

retrieved from a database. (See Ex-1008, 6:26-31).

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

that of the ’263 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and remote or


C. U.S. Pat. No. 5,805,763 – Lawler (Ex-1009)

80. Lawler was filed May 5, 1995, and issued on September 8, 1998.

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

U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (e).

43 Comcast, Ex-1002

81. Lawler teaches a program recording system which, in some

embodiments, utilizes a central recording device at a head end to record programs

for multiple users. (See, e.g., Ex-1009, 2:24-29 and 13:26-37).

82. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Lawler is the same as



D. Jap. Pub. No. H10-155131 – Kondo (Ex-1011 [Japanese Original]

and Ex-1012 [English translation])

83. Kondo published June 9, 1998, in the Japanese language (Ex-1011),

and I have reviewed a certified translation of Kondo in the English language (Ex-

1012). Accordingly, it is my understanding that Kondo is available as prior art

under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (b).

84. Kondo is directed to a system allowing users to schedule recordings

on their local equipment over the Internet using a program guide displayed by a

remote access terminal. (Ex-1012, [0012]-[0013]). In particular, Kondo discloses a

communication terminal TA1 that schedules recordings via the Internet at a video

recorder VTR attached to a reception terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, [0010]-[0011];

FIG. 1).

85. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Kondo is the same as


44 Comcast, Ex-1002


E. Jap. Pub. No. H9-102827 – Kawamura (Ex-1013 [Japanese

original] and Ex-1014 [English translation])

86. Kawamura published April 15, 1997, in the Japanese language (Ex-

1013), and I have reviewed a certified translation of Kawamura in the English

language (Ex-1014). Accordingly, it is my understanding that Kawamura is

available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).

87. Kawamura is directed to a system allowing users away from home to

set recordings on their local hardware. (Ex-1014, [0023], [0001]). Kawamura

teaches that a user on a mobile terminal may access and display a remote guide to

select programs for recording by local hardware. (Ex-1014, [0021]; [0023]; FIG.

7).

88. In my opinion, the general area of technology of Kawamura is the

same as that of the ’263 Patent, which is that of interactive program guides, and

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

IX. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ’263 PATENT

89. It is my opinion that claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 of

the ’263 Patent are rendered obvious by Humpleman in view of Killian.

90. It is my opinion that claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19 of the ’263 Patent

are rendered obvious by Humpleman in view of Killian and in further view of

Lawler.

45 Comcast, Ex-1002

91. It is my opinion that claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 of

the ’263 Patent are rendered obvious by Kondo in view of Killian and in further

view of Kawamura.

92. It is my opinion that claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 of the ’263 Patent

are rendered obvious by Kondo in view of Killian in view of Kawamura and in

further view of Lawler.

X. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, AND 17-18

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

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

relevant art would have combined Humpleman (Ex-1006) and Killian (Ex-1008) in

a manner that renders obvious claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18.

94. As set forth above, the claims of the ’263 Patent relate to “a local

interactive television program guide” on local guide equipment in communication

via the Internet with a “remote access interactive television program guide” on a

mobile device. The remote guide receives user input selecting a program for

recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to the local guide over

the Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program using

the local guide equipment. The remote guide is generated based on user profile

information stored at a location other than the mobile device.

46 Comcast, Ex-1002

95. Similarly, Humpleman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094 (Ex-1006), discloses

a system where a user uses a remote guide HTML page and selects a program for

recording in order to schedule a recording on local equipment by way of a local

guide. (Ex-1006, 20:31-51). As I explained above, Humpleman is generally

directed to an improved home network wherein controlled devices make HTML

control pages available for access by other browser-enabled devices elsewhere in

the network or located externally over the Internet. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 1:16-18,

2:31-47, 20:32-51). In particular, Humpleman discloses a digital satellite services

interface device (referred to in Humpleman as a DSS-NIU and hereinafter as a

“DSS,” which is typically called a set-top box) that provides a conventional EPG

which is displayed on a television to which the digital satellite services interface

device is connected (i.e. as a local guide) but also contains Humpleman software

that generates an HTML page with a remote version of that guide for remote use

by other devices on the network (i.e., a remote guide). (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 22:21-

59). The HTML guide may be accessed by any suitable browser-equipped device,

including an external device located remotely from the home network via the

Internet. (Ex-1006, 5:55-67, 20:32-51). Humpleman discloses as one example that

a user at work (away from home) can access the HTML program guide for his

home DSS using his work PC over the Internet, and that the user may be able to

schedule a recording remotely. (See Ex-1006, 20:32-51). Humpleman further

47 Comcast, Ex-1002

explains that the system may generate an HTML program guide having a subset of

program information based on user preferences, such as by removing certain

channels disfavored by the user. (Ex-1006, 22:30-46).

96. Humpleman claims priority to and incorporates by reference

Humpleman Provisional, U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499 (Ex-1007). (Ex-1006,

1:7-13). It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that

Humpleman Provisional, as incorporated by reference, provides further details as

to the features of Humpleman’s disclosed system. Upon seeing the incorporation

by reference of Humpleman Provisional, one of ordinary skill in the art would turn

to Humpleman Provisional as a part of the document and would rely on it as

teaching various implementation details and other features of the system.

97. Humpleman Provisional provides additional detail regarding the

operation of the devices in Humpleman’s system, as well as the interactions

therebetween. In particular, Humpleman Provisional provides illustrative diagrams

of the software structures involved:

48 Comcast, Ex-1002

(Ex-1007 at p. 21, Fig. 13 (annotated to show local guide software and EPG data in

purple, remote guide files in orange, control software for the local recording

equipment in blue, and referencing the remote guide equipment in red)).

Humpleman Provisional further discloses that the DSS interface receives

identification of the program to be recorded, then passes this information on to the

VCR: “The One Touch Record (OTR) program is triggered by the server observing

a 'record_program' set in the dss GUI. The OTR accesses the dvcr GUI, transfers

information from the dss GUI to the dvcr GUI, and returns the dvcr form to set it to

49 Comcast, Ex-1002

record, see figure 10.” (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶4). A remote device sends a message to

the DSS control application (i.e. “the local . . . television program guide”) over the

Internet in response to the user making a selection in a displayed HTML program

guide (i.e. “the remote access interactive television program guide”), instructing

the DSS control application to control DVCR hardware to record the selected

program. (Id.).

98. As I will demonstrate further below, a POSA would understand

Humpleman to disclose a local guide on local guide equipment in communication


mobile device, as required in the claims of the ’263 Patent. Humpleman allows

users to navigate program listings and select a program to control local hardware to

record the program using its remotely displayed HTML guide. For example,

Humpleman’s HTML pages “allow[] users to command and control the home

devices that are connected to the home network,” specifically, for example, to

“program[] a DBSS, and record[] a television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:5-14).

Humpleman discloses the generation of an HTML program guide as part of its

control page system. (Ex-1006, 22:30-59). Humpleman Provisional explains how

a recording is scheduled through the DSS (rather than the DVCR): “One touch

record takes place at the dss GUI where a selection is made for a future

recording. Somehow the information must be transfered to the dvcr automatically.

50 Comcast, Ex-1002

This is done by the dss server accessing the dvcr GUI automatically and filling in

the record information and returning it back to the dvcr.” (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶2

(errors in original, emphasis added)). And Humpleman teaches that the HTML

program guide is useable to select programs. (See Ex-1007, p. 6, ¶6 (“selecting

program material”); p. 10, sec. 3.4 (“Program selection”)). Humpleman further

discloses that its remote guide sends a communication to the local guide over the

Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program using the

local guide equipment. (See Ex-1006, 20:32-51). Further, Humpleman discloses

that the remote guide is generated based on “user profile” information stored at the

local guide. (Ex-1006, 22:30-46).

99. As detailed further below, one of ordinary skill in the art would

understand Humpleman to render obvious the claimed local interactive television

program guide. To any extent Humpleman may not expressly describe additional

details regarding interactive selection and control features of its locally

implemented program guide on a DSS, it is my opinion that implementation of an

interactive program guide as the control software on the DSS would have been

obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. IPGs and associated functionality were

widely-known and commonly implemented on DSS and other STB hardware at the

time of the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent, as admitted in the specification of

the ’263 Patent itself. (Ex-1001, 1:27-38). Similarly, to any extent the remote

51 Comcast, Ex-1002

HTML guide may not be expressly described as receiving user selections for

recording, using an IPG to implement Humpleman’s disclosed features of allowing

a remote user at work to schedule recordings on his work PC would have also been

obvious. Further, to any extent Humpleman may fail to describe particular details

of the exemplary user profile embodiments described in the ’263 Patent related to

favorites lists, building a filtered guide based on a user profile stored on the STB or

in an Internet database would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art

based on conventional listing filtering techniques. Further evidence regarding

functionality of interactive television program guides, including an IPG operating

on a conventional DSS and a program guide with filtering, is described in Killian.

100. Killian, U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 (Ex-1008), is directed to a system

providing an interactive television program guide implemented using the familiar

JAVA stack and utilizing Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to

coordinate system functionality. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, 2:1-24, 3:7-37). A JAVA

program guide application is locally installed on a JAVA-enabled television

receiver (such as a receiver for a direct broadcast satellite system (DBSS), or a

“regular satellite broadcast system” which a POSA would understand to refer to a

DSS) (hereinafter “receiver”). (Ex-1008, 3:7-18, 3:50-58). This locally installed

program guide application (i.e., the claimed “local interactive television program

guide”) generates displays of programming information and receives user input for

52 Comcast, Ex-1002

navigating through program listings, selecting programs for recording, and

controlling functions of the receiver and platform. (See Ex-1008 passim, e.g., Ex-

1008 at Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-47, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-56, 10:61-

11:13, 13:12-21, and 15:53-16:7). Using control APIs, the locally installed

program guide can control local recording hardware in order to record selected

programs. (See, e.g., Ex-1008 at 15:5-28). Furthermore, the EPG displays

generated by the guide software may be based on user profiles stored in a user

profile database on the Internet or stored local to the receiver. (See, e.g., Ex-1008,

9:10-25; 10:61-66). Killian expressly notes that its guide software modules can be

distributed in order to operate on external processing platforms. (See Ex-1008,

15:53-16:7).

101. The general area of technology of Killian is also the same as that of

Humpleman; namely, that of interactive program guides (IPGs), and remote or

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

POSA would have known to combine the teachings of Humpleman and Killian to

arrive at the elements claimed in the ’263 Patent.

102. As I explain further below with reference to specific claim recitations,

it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate

interactive features in Humpleman’s local guide, such as the interactive program

guide features described in Killian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have

53 Comcast, Ex-1002

been motivated to use Killian’s interactive television program guide features in

Humpleman’s system for many reasons, including many of the exemplary

rationales that I understand may support a finding of obviousness as noted

above in Section IV.

103. First, Humpleman provides an express teaching that its extensible

HTML home control system is configured to be interoperable with existing and

conventional hardware, including vendor-supplied control applications. (See Ex-

1006 at 6:55-64, 19:46-55, 22:47-59). Humpleman further discloses that the DSS

displays its own EPG (i.e., a local guide) separately from the generated HTML

program guide (i.e., a remote guide). (See Ex-1006 at 22:29-59). One of ordinary

skill in the art would understand Humpleman’s discussion of interoperability to

teach that the techniques described there in were designed to work with an existing

program guide installed on the user’s local equipment. That is, Humpleman’s

system is designed to be layered on top of existing hardware and software

installations in an extensible manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would

understand that the remote access techniques of Humpleman were intended to

interface with a pre-existing local interactive television program guide, such as

where one of the devices on the user’s home network was a STB/DSS loaded with

the interactive program guide of Killian. This combination would be done for the

purpose of interoperability with existing STBs having installed thereon Killian’s

54 Comcast, Ex-1002

program guide software, allowing them to be integrated in and controlled by

Humpleman’s network of remote devices. This would obtain the known benefits

of interoperability, namely allowing users to continue utilizing already installed

hardware and providing control over a broader range of devices.

104. Second, Killian also provides an express teaching that the EPG

software modules (which implement the control APIs used in its JAVA platform)

could be integral to the functionality of devices other than the receiver on which

the local program guide is implemented. (Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). The system of

Humpleman was designed to use well known web/HTML technology, which

included both JAVA programs and code to control devices, and JAVA scripts

inserted into HTML web pages. (Ex-1006, 7:16-23, 19:34-45). One of ordinary

skill in the art would readily recognize that the generic HTML control messages of

Humpleman could be implemented using Killian’s modules implementing the

JAVA control APIs of Killian. Seeking to implement Humpleman’s control

software using JAVA code, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to

use Killian’s modules implementing the control APIs based on Killian’s express

teaching that its modules could be integral to the functionality of other devices

(e.g. Humpleman’s remote access device). This would provide the predictable

result of allowing existing STBs having installed thereon Killian’s guide software

to be integrated in and controlled by Humpleman’s network of remote devices.

55 Comcast, Ex-1002

105. Third, in my opinion combining Killian with Humpleman would be

nothing more than using known techniques to improve similar devices, obtaining a

predictable result. As I explained above, Humpleman’s DSS displays its own EPG

(i.e., a local guide) separately from the generated HTML page comprising a remote

program guide (i.e., a remote guide). (Ex-1006, 22:30-59). Further, to any extent

Humpleman’s local guide arguably may not be expressly described as

"interactive," a POSA would recognize that Humpleman’s local guide could be

improved by using the features of Killian's known IPG. This would achieve the

predictable result of creating a local guide with interactive features as in Killian,

where the local guide is able to communicate with a remote guide in order to

schedule recordings. This would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses,

namely “allowing viewers to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their

viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23). Furthermore, the known techniques

of displaying local guides and filtering based on stored user profiles would be used

by one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the similar DSS device of

Humpleman in the same way as these features improved the STBs in Killian. One

of ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious to incorporate the known local

program guide of Killian in the DSS EPG control software in Humpleman to

achieve the predictable result of providing users with expected and typical user

interfaces to view and navigate scheduled programs. Similarly, to any extent

56 Comcast, Ex-1002

Humpleman may not expressly describe using the remote guide page to allow the

user to program his DVCR remotely (such as from work), it would have been

obvious to use interactive guide features in the remote guide to obtain the benefits

of an interactive remote guide.

106. Fourth, this would also be a simple substitution of one known element

for another, closely related element that would produce predictable results. A

POSA would recognize that Killian's known IPG could be installed on

Humpleman’s DSS as a simple substitution for the generically recited EPG. This

would achieve the predictable result of a local interactive television program guide

having the conventional and expected interactive features disclosed in Killian, and

would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses, namely “allowing viewers

to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their viewing opportunities.”

(Ex-1008, 1:20-23).

107. In the following sections, I explain how each limitation of claims 1-2,

4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 is disclosed in Humpleman and Killian, as would

have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.

A. Independent Claim 1

108. Independent claim 1 requires “a local interactive television program

guide” on local guide equipment in communication via the internet with a “remote

access interactive television program guide” on a mobile device. The claim

57 Comcast, Ex-1002

requires that the remote guide receive user input selecting a program for recording

by the local guide, and sends a communication to the local guide over the Internet

instructing the local guide to schedule a recording of the program using the local

guide equipment. The claim further requires that the remote guide is generated

based on user profile information stored at a location other than the mobile device.

109. Below, I explain how each limitation of independent claim 1 is

disclosed in Humpleman and Killian, as would have been understood by one of

ordinary skill in the art.

“A system for selecting television programs over a remote access link comprising an Internet communications path for recording”

110. Humpleman discloses a home network including an “Electronic

Programming Guide (EPG)” that “displays a list of available programs” on a DSS.

(Ex-1006, 22:33-35). Data underlying this EPG can be used to create an HTML

program guide for use by other devices to control operations on the DSS. (Ex-

1006, 22:38-39). Humpleman also discloses that “connecting the home network to

the Internet can provide the advantage of being able to control home devices from

outside the home.” (Ex-1006, 20:33-35). Humpleman Provisional makes clear:

“Moreover the system is compatible with the Internet protocols so may be

controlled from a computer outside the home running a browser just as well as the

home DTV.” (Ex-1007, p. 3, ¶3). These two features of Humpleman’s disclosure

58 Comcast, Ex-1002

work together: “[f]or example, if a user is required to work late and is therefore

unable to watch the Monday night football game, the user can program a DVCR

connected to their home network via the Internet, in order to record the particular

event.” (Ex-1006, 20:47-51).

111. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses a system for

selecting television programs (i.e., the HTML program guide described at Ex-

1006, 22:38-39) over a remote access link comprising an Internet communications

path (i.e., the Internet connection described at Ex-1006, 20:32-35) for recording

(i.e., the example provided of recording football at Ex-1006, 20:42-51).

“a local interactive television program guide equipment on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the local interactive television program guide equipment includes user television equipment located within a user’s home and the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user's home”

112. Humpleman discloses all of this claim element as would be

understood by a POSA. However, to the extent that there are some details that are

not explicitly disclosed by Humpleman, the combination of Humpleman in view of

Killian renders this claim element obvious. Below, I have broken the above

limitation into discrete segments for purposes of illustrating how each portion of

this limitation is disclosed in Humpleman and Killian.

59 Comcast, Ex-1002

a) “a local interactive television program guide

equipment on which a local interactive television program

guide is implemented”

113. Humpleman discloses that one example of a home device is a digital

satellite services (DSS) device: “[f]or example, the term home device includes but

is not limited to such electronic devices as security systems, theatre equipment

(e.g., TVs, VCRs, stereo equipment, and direct broadcast satellite services or

(DBSS), also known as digital satellite services (DSS)).” (Ex-1006, 1:25-30).

When Humpleman uses the terms DBSS or DSS to refer to a home device, it is the

set-top box (STB) that receives and uses the information that is broadcast by the

satellite services to which Humpleman is referring. Humpleman recognizes that

each home device, such as a DSS/STB, provides its own control interface in

addition to a home network control interface: “[t]he control application of a home

device further enables the respective vendors to provide their own control

scenarios for their devices.” (Ex-1006, 19:49-52).

114. This vendor-supplied control scenario is distinct from the control

methods over a home network as described in Humpleman. An example of such a

device-provided control is an Electronic Program Guide (EPG) provided by digital

satellite service (DSS): “[m]ost digital satellite services provide programming

information through an Electronic Programming Guide (EPG).” (Ex-1006, 22:32-

34). Thus, the EPG displayed by the DSS is a separate user interface from the

60 Comcast, Ex-1002

HTML program guide generated for remote access, as evidenced by Humpleman’s

separate discussion of the display of the DSS EPG and the generation of the

HTML program guide. (See Ex-1006, 22:30-59; see also Ex-1007,p. 10, ¶2).

115. I understand the term “interactive television program guide” to refer

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

television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the television

program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.” (See

Section VI.A, supra). The local EPG described by Humpleman is described as

being displayed by the DSS. However, to any extent Humpleman may not disclose

additional details regarding the interactive features supported by the local EPG,

such as allowing a user to navigate through television program listings, make

selections, and control functions of the software (the "interactive" in “interactive

television program guide”), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it

obvious to implement an interactive program guide having conventional and

expected IPG functionality on the DSS. As acknowledged in the ’263 Patent itself,

interactive program guides having the features I described above were widely

implemented on typical STBs of the time of the alleged invention of the ’263

Patent. (Ex-1001,1:27-38). One such typical IPG and associated software is

described in Killian.

61 Comcast, Ex-1002

116. Killian discloses a program guide application locally installed on a

receiver that generates displays of programming information and receives user

input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select programs for

recording, and control functions of the receiver. (See Ex-1008 at Fig. 5, 3:20-33,

4:7-13, 4:20-47, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5--56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-21, and

15:53-16:7). That is, Killian discloses an “interactive television program guide.”

Killian discloses “[a]n electronic programming guide (EPG) JAVA applet or

application running on platform 12 periodically accesses database 48 using link 14

and server 46 to receive program listing information 6 that allows the EPG applet

or application to provide television-related functionalities to viewers associated

with receiver 10 and television 40.” (Ex-1008, 4:7-12; see also 3:7-27, 8:36-56).

The program guide disclosed by Killian is software-based (e.g., “JAVA”) and

implemented on computing hardware (i.e., “one or more processors”). (Ex-1008,

3:7-27, 6:32-57, 8:36-56).

117. Killian discloses an “EPG applet 70” that includes functionality to

“record[] a television program that is scheduled for broadcast on some unspecified

date in the future.” (Ex-1008, 8:8-11.) This EPG, which includes program listings

corresponding to multiple channels over a range of time slots, is illustrated in FIG.

5:

62 Comcast, Ex-1002

(Ex-1008, FIG. 5, 10:66-11:13; see also 15:53-16:7, 8:49-56). This display is, for

example, output to a television via a super video (S-video) output with RCA jack

cable support or any other suitable video output. (Ex-1008, 4:39-44).

118. Therefore, Killian discloses a local interactive television program

guide equipment (e.g., the “JAVA-enabled television system” disclosed at 3:7-18)

on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented (i.e., “an

electronic programming guide (EPG) JAVA applet or application running on

platform 12” disclosed at 4:7-8).

119. As I explained above, a POSA would readily implement

Humpleman’s local guide using the conventional interactive television program

63 Comcast, Ex-1002

guide features of Killian to provide users with expected and typical television

control functionality through a local IPG. This would be a use of known

techniques (Killian’s interactive features) to improve a similar device

(Humpleman’s local guide on the DSS), obtaining a predictable result (providing

interactive features on a local guide). Humpleman’s DSS displays its own EPG

(i.e., a local guide) separately from the generated HTML program guide (i.e., a

remote guide). (Ex-1006, 22:30-59). To any extent Humpleman’s local guide

arguably may not be expressly described as "interactive," a POSA would recognize

that the features of Killian's known IPG could be used to improve Humpleman’s

local guide. This would achieve the predictable result of a local guide having

interactive features and able to communicate with a remote guide, and would

provide the same benefits that Killian discloses, namely “allowing viewers to more

intelligently select, schedule, and record their viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008,

1:20-23).

120. Furthermore, using Killian’s local IPG in Humpleman’s system would

be a simple substitution of one known element for another, closely related element

that would obtain predictable results. Killian’s program guide is the type of

program guide software that Humpleman discloses as “[t]he control application of

a home device [that] further enables the respective vendors to provide their own

control scenarios for their devices.” (Ex-1006, 19:49-52). Killian discloses its

64 Comcast, Ex-1002

program guide in connection with a “direct broadcast satellite system,” (Ex-1008,

3:55) similar to Humpleman’s disclosure of a digital satellite system providing an

EPG (Ex-1006, 22:32-34). In light of these similarities, a POSA would be

motivated to look to Killian’s program guide as one example of a “control

application of a home device” provided by a satellite television vendor “to provide

their own control scenarios for their devices.” (Ex-1006, 19:50-52). Doing so

would be a simple substitution of one known element (Killian’s program guide) for

another (the local EPG described by Humpleman) to obtain predictable results (a

satellite set-top box with an IPG).

121. This combination would be further motivated based on express

teachings in both Humpleman and Killian. (Ex-1006, 6:55-64, 19:46-55, 22:47-59;

Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). Humpleman explains that its HTML home control system

is configured to be interoperable with existing and conventional hardware,

including vendor-supplied control applications. (See Ex-1006, 6:55-64, 19:46-55,

22:47-59). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a STB/DSS

loaded with Killian’s JAVA program guide could and would be utilized in

Humpleman, because Humpleman was designed to layer in on top of existing

hardware and software installations.

122. And Killian contemplates that the modules implementing its control

APIs and available on its devices could be integral to the functioning of external

65 Comcast, Ex-1002

devices other than the receiver. (See Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). One of ordinary skill

in the art would readily recognize that Humpleman’s generic HTML control

messages could be implemented using Killian’s modules implementing the control

APIs. This would be done for interoperability with existing STBs having installed

thereon Killian’s EPG software, allowing them to be integrated in and controlled

by Humpleman’s network of local and remote home devices.

123. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian

discloses a local interactive television program guide equipment on which a local

interactive television program guide is implemented (i.e., the local, vendor-

provided program guide of Humpleman’s DSS, improved with the typical

interactive features of Killian).

b) “wherein the local interactive television program

guide equipment includes user television equipment located

within a user’s home”

124. In Humpleman, the local interactive television program guide

equipment that implements the DSS EPG includes a DSS unit, or a Digital Satellite

Service Network Interface Unit (DSS-NIU). (See Ex-1006, 5:39-62; see also,

22:30-46; 22:47-59; Ex-1007 at, p. 10, ¶2). Humpleman discloses a home network

including “DSS-NIU 104” that is “connected to the home network.” (Ex-1006,

6:31-34). This home network disclosed by Humpleman also includes “DTV 102,

DVCR 110, DVD 108, … and security system 120” as other home devices on the

66 Comcast, Ex-1002

home network. (Id.). Because I understand the term “user television equipment”

to include various typical components of a home television system, such as a set-

top box, remote control, secondary storage device, and a television, or any of these

alone or coupled together with other such devices, Humpleman’s disclosure of a

home network including these devices communicatively coupled by the home

network constitutes “user television equipment.” (See Section VI.C, supra).

Additionally, Humpleman describes that these devices are “found in the home.”

(Ex-1006, 1:21-31).

125. As such, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses “wherein the

local interactive television program guide equipment includes user television

equipment located within a user’s home” (i.e., the DSS and other devices

connected to the home network such as the DVCR).

c) “the local interactive television program guide

generates a display of one or more program listings for

display on a display device at the user's home”

126. The program guide displayed by the DSS in Humpleman “displays a

list of available programs and the specific time in which the programs can be

viewed through the service.” (Ex-1006, 22:34-36). A POSA would understand

that this display would be displayed on a display device, such as a television set or

monitor, at the user’s home. As such, Humpleman discloses “the local interactive


67 Comcast, Ex-1002

display on a display device at the user’s home” (i.e., the local guide generated by

the DSS). I have already explained above in Section X.A.2.a how the combination

of Humpleman and Killian discloses that the local guide would be an “interactive

television program guide”.

127. It is my opinion that Humpleman discloses that the local guide

generates a display of one or more program listings. Killian’s locally installed

program guide also “generates a display of one or more program listings for

display on a display device at the user’s home.” For example, Killian discloses an

“EPG applet 70” that includes functionality to “record[] a television program that

is scheduled for broadcast on some unspecified date in the future.” (Ex-1008, 8:8-

11.) This EPG is illustrated in FIG. 5:

68 Comcast, Ex-1002

(Ex-1008, FIG. 5, 10:66-11:13, see also 8:49-56, 15:53-16:7). This display is, for

example, output to a television via a super video (S-video) output with RCA jack

cable support or any other suitable video output. (Ex-1008, 4:39-44).

128. As I have already explained above in Section X.A.2.a, it would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Killian’s interactive

program guide into Humpleman’s system to obtain the interoperability benefits

described in Humpleman, to obtain the improved usability of Killian’s interactive

program guide, and to obtain the predictable results of providing users with an

interactive user interface to control their television system.

69 Comcast, Ex-1002

129. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian

discloses “the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one

or more program listings for display on a display device at the user's home.”

“a remote program guide access device located outside of the user's home on which a remote access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device”

130. Humpleman discloses “an interface between the home network 1100

and the Internet” by which “a user can remotely control home devices connected to

the home network 1100.” (Ex-1006, 20:43-47). This Internet connection can be

used, in an example, “[i]f a user is required to work late and is therefore unable to

watch the Monday night football game, the user can program a DVCR connected

to their home network via the Internet, in order to record the particular event.”

(Ex-1006, 20:47-51). Humpleman Provisional makes clear: “Moreover the system

is compatible with the Internet protocols so may be controlled from a computer

outside the home running a browser just as well as the home DTV.” (Ex-1007 at

p. 3, ¶3). Humpleman discloses that “home devices having a display capability

may be used to provide the human interface” to control devices on the home

network, such as a “personal computer.” (Ex-1006, 5:62-65). A POSA would

recognize that in the example provided of controlling a DVCR to record a football

game, a device such as a personal computer would be necessary to interface with

70 Comcast, Ex-1002

and control the home network, and such a device would be located outside of the

home because the user is at work and not home.

131. As I explained above, Humpleman discloses a local EPG on a DSS

that “displays a list of available programs and the specific time in which the

programs can be viewed through the service.” (Ex-1006, 22:34-36). The EPG

information underlying this local EPG is used by the system to generate HTML

program guide pages to allow other (remote) devices to control the DSS. (Ex-1006,

22:38-39). Humpleman explains that “[t]he home network uses the EPG

information to build a home network HTML program guide” that can be viewed

remotely. (Id.; see also Ex-1007 at 21, Figure 13). “Like the EPGs, the HTML

program guide is periodically updated to reflect the currently available programs.”

(Ex-1006, 22:55-57). One use of this HTML program guide page, for example, is

to allow a user who is away from home to use a remote device to program a

scheduled recording for a particular event (e.g., the Monday night football game).

(Ex-1006, 20:47-51).

132. A POSA would understand the remote access HTML program guide

page of Humpleman, as rendered by a browser, to be an “interactive television

program guide.” (See Section VI.A, supra). Humpleman’s HTML pages “allow[]

users to command and control the home devices that are connected to the home

network,” specifically, for example, to “program[] a DBSS, and record[] a

71 Comcast, Ex-1002

television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:5-13). Humpleman discloses the generation of

an HTML program guide as part of its control page system. (Ex-1006, 22:30-59).

Humpleman Provisional explains how a recording is scheduled through the DSS

(rather than the DVCR): “One touch record takes place at the dss GUI where a

selection is made for a future recording. Somehow the information must be

transfered to the dvcr automatically. This is done by the dss server accessing the

dvcr GUI automatically and filling in the record information and returning it back

to the dvcr.” (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶2 (errors in original, emphasis added)). And

Humpleman teaches that the HTML program guide is useable to select programs.

(See Ex-1007, p. 6, ¶6 (“selecting program material”); p. 10, sec. 3.4 (“Program

selection”)). In order to allow users to remotely schedule recordings for particular

events, the HTML program guide pages as disclosed in Humpleman would allow

the user to navigate through the television program listings, make a selection of the

particular event, and control the devices on the home network to cause the

recording of the selected event. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 22:30-46).

133. Therefore, Humpleman discloses “a remote program guide access

device” (i.e., the work computer used to control the DVCR) “located outside of the

user's home” (i.e., the user is at work, not home) on which a remote access

interactive television program guide is implemented (i.e., the home network

HTML program guide as disclosed by Humpleman).

72 Comcast, Ex-1002

134. Additionally, to any extent the remote HTML guide may not be

expressly described as receiving user selections for recording, using an IPG to

implement Humpleman’s disclosed features of allowing a remote user at work to

schedule recordings on his work PC would have been an obvious way to

implement the remote recording selections described in Humpleman. (Ex-1006,

20:40-52). As explained above, Humpleman provides significant discussions

regarding the use of interactivity in allowing a user to “select” a program. (See

Ex-1006, 22:30-59, 20:42-51, 23:42-46, 14:5-14; Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶2; p. 6, ¶6; p.

10, sec. 3.4). A POSA would have understood the many advantages associated

with providing an IPG user interface to allow users to select a program for

recording, as it was widely recognized that IPGs provided a user-friendly

alternative to more primitive recording scheduling methods (such as entry of

channel, date, time, and length). Further evidence of these advantages and IPG

features is shown in Killian.

135. As I explained above in Section X.A.2, Killian discloses a program

guide application locally installed on a receiver that generates displays of

programming information and receives user input to, for example, navigate

through program listings, select programs for recording, and control functions of

the receiver. (See e.g., Ex-1008 at Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-47, 5:11-29, 7:8-

16, 7:49-61, 8:5--56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-21, and 15:53-16:7). That is, Killian

73 Comcast, Ex-1002

discloses an “interactive television program guide.” Killian’s guide includes

functionality to “record[] a television program that is scheduled for broadcast on

some unspecified date in the future.” (Ex-1008, 8:8-11.) Killian describes several

advantages offered by its guide, including “allowing viewers to more intelligently

select, schedule, and record their viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23).

136. Similarly to the local guide discussed above, a POSA would readily

implement Killian’s conventional interactive television program guide features on

Humpleman’s remote guide in order to provide users with the television control

functionality they would expect on a local IPG. This would be a use of known

techniques (Killian’s interactive features) to improve a similar device

(Humpleman’s remote HTML guide on the work PC) and obtain a predictable

result (providing interactive features on the remote guide). To any extent

Humpleman may not expressly describe using the HTML guide to implement the

selection of a program for remote recording, a POSA would recognize that the

features of Killian's known IPG could be used to improve Humpleman’s remote

recording feature in the remote guide. This would achieve the predictable result of

a remote guide having interactive features and able to receive a user selection of a

program for recording, and would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses,

namely “allowing viewers to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their

viewing opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23).

74 Comcast, Ex-1002

137. As discussed above, Humpleman discloses controlling home devices

“[u]sing [] browser technology” and “Internet standards to render the HTML pages

in order to provide users with a plurality of graphical user interfaces ("GUIs") for

commanding and controlling [] home devices.” (Ex-1006, 4:15-19). Examples of

such a device are a DTV or a “personal computer” as both “provide[] the human

interface for the home network 100 by employing browser technology to allow

users to control and command the home devices over the home network.” (Ex-

1006, 5:55-67). A POSA would recognize that there are many such devices that

employ “browser technology” and Internet standards to interface with the home

network. (Ex-1006 at 7:25-35). Some of these devices are “mobile devices” under

the proper construction as discussed above. (See Section VI.B, supra). For

example, Humpleman discloses that one type of controlling device may be a

“laptop computer.” (See Ex-1006, 1:21-36). A POSA would understand that such

a laptop computer may be used as a client device both inside the home and outside

the home, such as in the example of a work PC or other remote device accessing

the home network via the Internet. (Ex-1006, 20:42-52). Because a laptop

computer is a “mobile device” under the proper construction, Humpleman also

discloses wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device.

138. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses “a remote

program guide access device located outside of the user's home on which a remote

75 Comcast, Ex-1002

access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the remote

program guide access device is a mobile device.”

“wherein the remote access interactive television program guide: generates a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device”

139. As I explained above, a POSA would understand Humpleman’s

remote access HTML program guide page, as rendered by a browser, to be an

“interactive television program guide.” In Humpleman’s system, the HTML files

(such as the HTML program guide) are rendered by a client “[u]sing a browser

based home device” such that “a user can display the available material on a

particular home device by rendering the particular home device's HTML program

guide file.” (Ex-1006, 23:7-10). In order to allow users to remotely schedule

recordings for particular events, the HTML program guide pages would be

processed by suitable browser software and rendered for display to a user. (See,

e.g., Ex-1006, 22:30-46; see also Ex-1007 at 21, Figure 13). “Like the EPGs, the

HTML program guide is periodically updated to reflect the currently available

programs.” (Ex-1006, 22:55-57). Humpleman Provisional provides an illustration

of the data flows:

76 Comcast, Ex-1002

(Ex-1007, p. 4, Fig. 2, annotated to illustrate the transfer of the program guide data

in blue, generating the display of the remote guide in green, and displaying the

remote guide in red). Humpleman Provisional explains that the DTV (or other

client device) renders HTML control pages (e.g., the HTML program guide on the

DSS) provided by the controlled devices (e.g., the DSS), and receives user input in

the form of user button clicks and form filling. (Ex-1007, p.2, ¶6). While Figure 2

shows a DTV as the display device, I have shown in the above discussion that the

display device can also be a remotely located laptop PC. Therefore, Humpleman

discloses “wherein the remote access interactive television program guide

generates a display of a plurality of program listings” (i.e., currently available

programs) “for display on the remote program guide access device” (i.e., HTML

program guide that can be accessed remotely by a remote program guide access

device).

77 Comcast, Ex-1002

140. The HTML program guide disclosed by Humpleman can be

customized “to view only a particular set of the available information.” (Ex-1006,

22:57-59). In Humpleman, “users can customize the particular programming

information that is displayed.” (Ex-1006, 22:41-46). “For example, if a user

would prefer not to display the schedule for a particular channel, e.g., because of

its programming contents, the user may request that channel be removed from the

HTML program guide.” (Id.). Humpleman Provisional provides an illustration:

(Ex-1007 , Figure 5; annotation highlighting “Favorite Program Channels” in red).

141. This customization of programming information is an example of a

“user profile” because it is information indicating programs or channels that are of

interest to the user. (See Section VI.D, supra). Therefore, Humpleman discloses

“wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated” (i.e.,

customizing the HTML program guide) “based on a user profile” (i.e., the data

used to customize programming information that is displayed).

78 Comcast, Ex-1002

142. Humpleman also discloses that the user profile is “stored at a location

remote from the remote program guide access device.” The system generates

HTML control pages, such as a customized HTML program guide, and stores the

HTML page in memory on the DSS (local device). (See Ex-1006, 2:31-39). A

customized HTML program guide stored at the DSS may be served up to clients in

the network. (Id.). Humpleman further discloses that user customization and

preferences may be implemented using macros. (See, e.g., Ex-1006, 20:58-21:3;

see also Ex-1007, at p. 10, ¶¶3-4). These macros are described as being saved

locally to the controlled device (e.g., DSS). (Id.). One of ordinary skill in the art

would understand that both the locally saved customized HTML program guide

and the locally saved macros meet the claimed “user profiles” because both are

data indicating a user preference. (See Section VI.D, supra). Additionally, the

locally saved customized HTML program guide and the locally saved macros are

used in generating the display of the remote guide and would be stored in the

memory of the DSS, which is remote from the work PC (i.e., “stored at a location

remote from the remote program guide access device”).

143. Furthermore, Humpleman discloses its home network in terms of

servers and clients. Humpleman discloses “the server control program is able to

save the state which has been controlled by the GUI, such as setting up a timer

record action for example.” (Ex-1006, 8:34-49). Because the state is saved on the

79 Comcast, Ex-1002

server, “it is not necessary to provide the client with the ability to save a previously

controlled state.” (Id). Because of this, “the server does not rely on another

device, such as the client, for its operation.” (Id.). It is my opinion that a POSA

would recognize that the data used to “customize the particular programming

information that is displayed” of the HTML program guide is one type of “state”

that would therefore also need to be stored on the server (e.g. the DSS having the

EPG information), not the client. (Ex-1006, 22:14-46).

144. Therefore, Humpleman discloses “wherein the display of the plurality

of program listings is generated based on a user profile” (i.e., users can customize

the particular programming information that is displayed) “stored at a location

remote [i.e., at home] from the remote program guide access device” (i.e.,the

device used by the user at work).

145. I have explained above how Humpleman discloses the claimed “user

profile” limitations as they are construed under a broadest reasonable

interpretation. However, to any extent this claim term were to be construed as

narrowly limited to the examples provided in the ’263 Patent specification,

building a filtered guide based on a user preference profile stored on a local STB or

Internet server would have been obvious to implement in Humpleman’s system

based on Killian.

80 Comcast, Ex-1002

146. In addition to the teachings described above regarding a local

interactive television program guide, Killian also discloses user profiles. For

example, Killian discloses “an electronic programming guide JAVA applet or

application that allows viewers to select, schedule, and record viewing

opportunities according to viewer profiles and program listing information 6

retrieved from database 48.” (Ex-1008, 6:28-31). Killian discloses a “profile

module” that collects preference information and “constructs, builds, or otherwise

generates corresponding viewer profiles 84 for storage in [a] profile database.”

(Ex-1008, 9:10-15). This profile database where the viewer profiles are stored

may reside at “one or more locations that are integral to or separate from receiver

10.” (Ex-1008, 9:22-25, see also 11:20-21).

147. Killian’s “viewer profiles” include “viewer preference information”

that include “rankings 88 corresponding to preference options,” for example,

“genre,” “actor,” “sports team,” and “keyword” options. (Ex-1008, 16:10-18).

Taken together, these options “provide an indication of the relative desirability to

the viewer of programming.” (Ex-1008, 16:23-24). Killian’s system uses these

profiles to “construct[] electronic scheduling displays according to viewer profiles

and selected program listing information.” (Ex-1008, 7:54-55).

148. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “user profile” includes

any data indicating a user preference. (See Section VI.D, supra.) Here, Killian’s

81 Comcast, Ex-1002

“viewer profiles” are “user profiles” because they include data indicating a user

preference, such as viewer preference information that provides an indication of

the relative desirability to the viewer of programming. (See Ex-1008, 16:10-25).

Furthermore, Killian’s viewer profiles are information stored on the local STB or

remote server and are described as being utilized to “construct[] electronic

scheduling displays according to viewer profiles and selected program listing

information.” (Ex-1008, 7:54-55). Therefore, Killian’s viewer profiles also meet

an (improperly) narrow construction of the term as limited to the example user

preference profile embodiment in the ’263 Patent specification.

149. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize

the profile-based customization of Killian to implement the customized HTML

program guides of Humpleman, which discloses generating customized HTML

program guides and storing them on a DSS. (See Ex-1006, 22:47-59, 2:31-39).

Killian teaches that program guides may be advantageously customized based on

user profile information stored locally or remotely, and that program guide

displays are constructed based on the user profile information. (See Ex-1008,

9:10-25, 11:20-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that

Killian’s user profiles would be used to store information about user preferences in

Humpleman’s system, allowing the system to better track a user’s preferences and

generate more effective user interfaces. Doing so would be a simple substitution

82 Comcast, Ex-1002

of one known element (Killian’s viewer profiles and EPG customization) for

another (Humpleman’s HTML program guide customization) to obtain predictable

results (program guide customization). It would also have been no more than use

of a known technique (Killian’s viewer profiles) to improve a similar feature

(Humpleman’s customized HTML program guide) to obtain predictable results

(improving user experience through better tracking of user preferences and better

identification of desired/undesired content).


discloses “wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:

generates a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote

program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program

listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the

remote program guide access device.”

“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings in the display, wherein the selection identifies a television program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local interactive television program guide”

151. As I have explained above, Humpleman’s HTML program guide

pages as accessed by a computer-based device outside the user’s home are a

“remote access interactive television program guide.” Humpleman’s program

guide can be operated on a device that “receives HTML files” where “The HTML

83 Comcast, Ex-1002

files enable the browser based [device] to graphically display control and

command information to a user for a particular home device.” (Ex-1006, 6:52-57).

Specifically, these HTML pages “allow[] users to command and control the home

devices that are connected to the home network,” specifically, for example, to

“record[] a television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:5-13). For example, Humpleman

illustrates a client device receiving a “BUTTON CLICK” input:

(Ex-1007, p. 4, Fig. 2). The client then relays a control signal back to the home

device being controlled. (Id.; see also Ex-1006, 7:4-24; Ex-1007, p. 3, Fig. 2; p. 2

¶6).

152. Returning to the example used above, “if a user is required to work

late and is therefore unable to watch the Monday night football game, the user can

program a DVCR connected to their home network via the Internet, in order to

record the particular event.” (Ex-1006, 20:42-51). Here, the user provides a

selection of, for example, “Monday night football” by making a “button ‘click’

84 Comcast, Ex-1002

selection” on a displayed HTML page, and the system sends appropriate

commands to set the recording. (Id.).

153. Humpleman Provisional further explains that the DSS interface

receives identification of the program, then passes this information to the VCR:

“The One Touch Record (OTR) program is triggered by the server observing a

'record_program' set in the dss GUI. The OTR accesses the dvcr GUI transfers

information from the dss GUI to the dvcr GUI and returns the dvcr form to set it to

record, see figure 10.” (Ex-1007, at p. 14, ¶4). A message is sent to the DSS

control application (i.e., the “local interactive television program guide”) by the

remote device over the Internet responsive to the user making a selection in a

remotely displayed HTML program guide (i.e., the “remote interactive television

program guide”), instructing it to control DVCR hardware to record the selected

program.

154. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman discloses “wherein the

remote access interactive television program guide receives a selection of a

program listing [i.e., Monday night football] of the plurality of program listings in

the display [i.e., the HTML program guide], wherein the selection identifies a

television program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by

the local interactive television program guide” (i.e.,the remote user can program a

DVCR via the DSS to record the particular event).

85 Comcast, Ex-1002

155. Killian similarly discloses selection of an event for recording by a

user, and details the use of program identifiers to identify programs selected for

recording. (See Ex-1008, 17:7-23; 17:44-51 (discussing syntax of record

command)).

“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] transmits a communication identifying the television program corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive television program guide over the Internet communications path”

156. As discussed above, Humpleman allows a user to schedule a

recording for a particular event on local equipment from a remote location via the

Internet. (Ex-1006, 20:42-51). Specifically, Humpleman discloses a home

network that “provides an interface which allows users to command and control

the home devices that are connected to the home network in order to . . . record[] a

television program.” (Ex-1006, 14:8-13.) A concrete example of this is that “a

user can remotely control home devices connected to the home network . . . in

order to record the particular event [such as Monday night football].” (Ex-1006,

20:46-51).

157. Humpleman Provisional makes clear that users can set recordings

through the DSS interface in an “automatic one touch record system” rather than

requiring the user to schedule a channel tune on the DSS and then further schedule

a record operation on the DVCR. (Ex-1007 at p. 14, ¶1). Specifically,

86 Comcast, Ex-1002

Humpleman Provisional discloses that control software on the DSS receives

identification of the program “by the server observing a 'record_program' set in the

[remote] [DSS] GUI,” and then “transfers information from the [DSS] GUI to the

[DVCR] GUI and. . . set[s] [the DVCR] to record. . . ” (Ex-1007 at p. 14, ¶4). A

POSA would understand that the disclosed One Touch Record feature and

associated communication between the client device and the DSS would be the

same regardless of whether the accessing client was local to the user’s home or

accessing the home network via the internet. Thus, in the example above, a

message is sent to the DSS control application (i.e., the “local interactive television

program guide”) by the remote device over the Internet (e.g., the user at work)

responsive to the user making a selection (e.g., Monday night football) in a

displayed HTML program guide (i.e., the “remote access interactive television

program guide”), instructing it to control DVCR hardware to record the selected

program (as detailed in Humpleman Provisional).

158. Control software on the DSS, and other home device servers, may be

aggregated and maintained in a vendor-supplied device application. (See Ex-1006,

19:46-55). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the

control software on the DSS which receives the selection of the program is the

local guide application provided by the vendor. One of ordinary skill in the art

would understand that the DSS operating software of Humpleman includes code to

87 Comcast, Ex-1002

implement the functionality described above, including code to implement the

local guide, the generation of the HTML program guide, and the one-touch

recording features. It is my opinion that the operating software of Humpleman,

when modified to include the interactive program guide features of Killian, is an

“interactive television program guide.” This is because it is control software

operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings and

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

and control functions of the software, even if it also performs other functions such

as generating an HTML program guide for use by remote devices. (See Sections

VI.A, X.A.2, supra).

159. Humpleman and Humpleman Provisional both explain how a DSS

would instruct a DVCR to record a particular program, such as Monday night

football. (Ex-1006, 14:8-13; Ex-1007 at p. 14, ¶4). Accordingly, Humpleman

discloses (with reference to the Monday night football example) “the remote

access interactive television program guide” (used by a user at work) “transmits a

communication identifying the television program” (Monday night football)

“corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive

television program guide” (the HTML program guide) “to the local interactive

television program guide” (the local guide running on the DSS) “over the Internet

communications path” (the home network being controllable via the Internet).

88 Comcast, Ex-1002

160. However, to any extent that Humpleman may not explicitly disclose

that the same application responsible for displaying the local guide receives the

communication identifying the selected program, a POSA would understand that

guide software should operate as a central manager of scheduled recordings,

coordinating selections from multiple sources. Although Humpleman does

describe that, in aggregate, it is the software on the DSS that generates a display of

the local guide and also schedules one-touch recordings, one of ordinary skill in

the art would implement these features in the same application based on Killian’s

teachings of a local IPG platform that operates to generate guide displays and also

control scheduled recordings.

161. As explained above, Killian discloses a JAVA program guide

operable to control local hardware using a range of JAVA APIs, and in particular is

described as using APIs to control scheduled recordings on a local VCR. (See,

e.g., Ex-1008, 8:5-35, 8:57-9:9, 17:7-23, 17:44-51). The local program guide

application calls various API routines associated with the VCR to coordinate

scheduled recordings. (See Ex-1008, 8:5-35). Killian asserts that this modular API

architecture provides a “technical advantage” by allowing “virtually any

appropriate EPG applet” to control the local recorder. (Ex-1008, 8:31-32). The

APIs are used to pass suitable information concerning the program and desired

listings. (See Ex-1008, 8:57-9:9). Program identifiers, such as titles or air

89 Comcast, Ex-1002

date/time, may be used to identify recordings and may be passed through the

system to identify a program to be recorded. (See Ex-1008, 17:7-23). Killian’s

program identifiers facilitate the easy identification of programs selected for

recording in a manner that is less susceptible to user error than classic time, date,

channel, duration methods of identifying a scheduled recording. (See Ex-1008,

17:18-22 (“EPG 70 is able to cause recorder to record any program using a

program identifier for the program, without information from the viewer regarding

the air date, start time, stop time, or channel. . . .”)).

162. It would have been obvious to a POSA to use Killian’s recording APIs

and program identifiers provided by the guide platform to effect the recording

commands received from a remote HTML program guide in Humpleman’s system,

as it would be a use of a known technique (Killian’s specific program guide API-

based recording) for a closely related element (Humpleman’s recording control) to

achieve the predictable result of effectively scheduling recordings using the DSS,

thereby avoiding the need for separate communications with recording hardware

by the remote device. This would also achieve a predictable benefit of allowing

the local guide on the DSS to assess recording schedule conflicts and assist the

user in resolving any conflicts that would otherwise arise if the remote guide were

able to schedule recordings without going through the local guide. Using Killian’s

program identifiers would simplify the process of scheduling a recording by

90 Comcast, Ex-1002

reducing the likelihood of user error and would reduce the amount of information

the system must exchange between devices to schedule recordings.

163. Furthermore, as I explained above, Killian provides an express

teaching that the modules implementing the control APIs provided by its guide

platform could be integral to the functionality of devices other than the receiver on

which the local program guide is implemented. (Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). One of

ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the generic HTML control

messages of Humpleman could be implemented using the modules implementing

control APIs provided by the local guide of Killian based on this express

suggestion.


discloses wherein the remote access interactive television program guide

“transmits a communication identifying the television program corresponding to

the selected program listing from the remote access interactive television program

guide to the local interactive television program guide over the Internet

communications path.”

“wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment.”

91 Comcast, Ex-1002

165. As discussed above, Humpleman discloses allowing a user to schedule

a recording for a particular event on local equipment from a remote location via the

Internet. (See Ex-1006, 20:42-51). Humpleman Provisional discloses that the DSS

interface receives identification of the program, then passes this information to the

VCR. (Ex-1007, p. 14, ¶4). Thus, in the example provided above, Humpleman

discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide” (i.e., the DSS

EPG/control software) “receives the communication” (e.g., from a device used by

a user at work, over the Internet) “and records the television program” (e.g.,

Monday night football) “corresponding to the selected program listing” (i.e., via

the HTML program guide) “responsive to the communication using the local

interactive television program guide equipment” (the DVCR). (See Ex-1006,

20:42-51).

166. As I explained above, to any extent Humpleman may not expressly

describe the nature of the communication identifying the selected program listing,

a POSA would understand that Killian’s modules implementing recording APIs

and program identifiers could easily be utilized by a vendor-supplied control

application to effect the recording commands scheduled by the user in

Humpleman. Thus, as explained above, it would have been obvious to utilize

Killian’s program identifiers to identify the events selected for recording in

Humpleman, and to utilize Killian’s modules to control local recording hardware.

92 Comcast, Ex-1002

167. Therefore, it is my opinion that Humpleman in view of Killian

discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the

communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected

program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive

television program guide equipment.”

168. For the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that a POSA would

have found claim 1 of the ’263 Patent obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian.

B. Dependent Claim 2: The system defined in claim 1 wherein the

local interactive television program guide records the television

program corresponding to the selected program listing on the user

television equipment.

169. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Humpleman in view of

Killian discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide” (the

DSS of Humpleman in view of the IPG of Killian) “receives the communication”

(from a device used by a user at work, over the Internet) “and records the

television program” (e.g., Monday night football) “corresponding to the selected

program listing” (via the HTML program guide) “responsive to the

communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment”

(the DSS and other connected devices such as DVCR). (See Section X.A, supra;

see also Ex-1006, 20:42-51).

93 Comcast, Ex-1002

170. Because the local interactive television program guide equipment of

Humpleman in view of Killian as applied in claim 1 is user television equipment,

Humpleman in view of Killian also renders obvious claim 2. Specifically, the DSS

and DVCR of Humpleman is “user television equipment.” As discussed above,

“user television equipment” includes two devices communicatively coupled

together. (See Section VI.C, supra). Humpleman discloses the “DSS-NIU” and

“DVCR” as interconnected components of a “home network” as illustrated in

FIG. 1:

171. (Ex-1006, FIG. 1.) Similarly, the ’263 Patent illustrates “user

television equipment” as including a set-top box and a secondary storage device in

FIG. 3:

94 Comcast, Ex-1002

172. (Ex-1001, FIG. 3., see also 7:27-8:62) Therefore, because at least the

DSS and DVCR of Humpleman is “user television equipment,” and because the

system of Humpleman records the program using the DVCR, Humpleman

discloses “wherein the local interactive television program guide records the

television program corresponding to the selected program listing on the user

television equipment”.

173. Additionally, Humpleman discloses that its devices can be

implemented using a single physical package or housing, such as a combined

TV/VCR. (Ex-1006, 4:53-61). In such an embodiment, a single piece of user

television equipment (the combined TV/VCR) would implement the local guide

and perform the act of recording.

95 Comcast, Ex-1002

174. Accordingly, in my opinion, Humpleman in view of Killian renders

obvious claim 2 of the ’263 Patent.

C. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the local

interactive television program guide stores information indicating the

user who selected the program listing with the remote access

interactive television program guide.

175. As discussed above, Humpleman in view of Killian discloses every

limitation of claim 1. In my opinion, Humpleman in view of Killian also renders

obvious claim 4. Humpleman discloses that its system stores various information

about users who access the system. For example, Humpleman discloses “a

security mechanism is associated with the home network that is used to restrict

access to the home network to particular authorized users.” (Ex-1006, 20:54-56).

One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a security mechanism, such as

that described by Humpleman, would store information indicating the user who is

logged in as a necessary consequence of restricting access to particular authorized

users.

176. Similarly, Humpleman discloses storing user preferences of a first

user and different preferences of a second user. (Ex-1006, 20:58-21:9 (“For

example, a first user may have a particular preference as to the brightness, tint

and/or contrast of a particular DTV, while a second user has different

preferences.”)). Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that

96 Comcast, Ex-1002

associating a first set of preferences with a first user and a second set of

preferences with a second user necessitates storing user identities.

177. However, to any extent Humpleman does not expressly describe

storing metadata with a recording indicating which user selected the program for

recording, a POSA would have also found this to be an obvious improvement in

view of techniques well known in the art, such as those taught by Killian.

178. Killian teaches maintaining individual profiles for multiple users, and

prompting users to identify themselves so that their user profile may be accessed

and updated. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25; 10:55-60; 8:57-9:9). A profile module builds

individual viewer profiles based on received preference information associated

with corresponding users. (Id). A control module coordinates communications

between other modules of the guide, such as the profile module and the schedule

module. (See Ex-1008, 8:57-9:9).

179. Through the guide, a user may request that the system set up a

recording by providing user input identifying the user and criteria for the

recording, such as a program title. (See Ex-1008, 17:29-42). Furthermore, the

system may identify a particular user in order to direct that a recording be

performed on a VCR associated with the particular user based on the identification

of the user for whom the program is to be recorded. (See Ex-1008, 15:43-49).

97 Comcast, Ex-1002

180. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in

the art to utilize the individualized user tracking of Killian in the remote access

guide system of Humpleman for the purpose of providing users with an

individualized experience and better results. Killian teaches that it is advantageous

to identify a user to whom the recording corresponds, so that the system may better

generate recommendations and provide access to desired content. (See Ex-1008,

9:10-25; 10:55-60; 8:57-9:9). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated

to apply this known technique of Killian to improve the similar Humpleman

system to provide an improved user experience by updating individual user profiles

to better reflect the user’s preferences and to communicate that a particular

program corresponds to a user.


renders obvious claim 4 of the ’263 Patent.

D. Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18

182. As established above in Section VII.D, independent claims 5, 8, 11,

14, and 17 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 1 for

purposes of prior art invalidity, and they stand or fall together.

183. As similarly established above in Section VII.D, dependent claims 6,

9, 12, 15, and 18 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim

2, and they stand or fall together.

98 Comcast, Ex-1002

184. Claims 1 and 2 have been demonstrated to be unpatentable as obvious

over Humpleman in view of Killian above. My analysis in Section VII.D

illustrates how the various recited limitations of claims 1 and 2 correspond to the

recited limitations of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18.

185. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and

17-18 are obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian for the same reasons as set

forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2.

XI. HUMPLEMAN IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW

OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, AND 19

186. Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 depend on claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and

17, respectively, and further recite that the selected program is recorded at a

television distribution facility. As explained above, it is my opinion that

Humpleman in view of Killian renders obvious every limitation of independent

claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17. In my opinion, Humpleman in view of Killian in

further view of Lawler renders obvious every limitation of claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16,

and 19.

A. Dependent Claim 3: wherein [the] local interactive television

program guide records the television program corresponding to the

selected program listing at a television distribution facility

99 Comcast, Ex-1002

187. As discussed above, Humpleman in view of Killian renders obvious

claim 2, which recites “wherein the local interactive television program guide

records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing on

the user television equipment.” The difference between claim 2 and claim 3 is that

claim 3 recites recording the television program listing “at a television distribution

facility.” Humpleman in view of Killian does not expressly teach recording at a

television distribution facility. However, recording at a television distribution

facility would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and further

would have been an obvious modification of the home control system taught by the

combination of Humpleman in view of Killian. For example, Lawler teaches

recording at a television distribution facility.

188. Lawler discloses “a system that allows the user of an interactive

viewing system to quickly and easily identify and select a desired program using

an interactive program guide and to designate the selected program for recording.”

(Ex-1009, 1:47-50). Lawler further discloses “a central head end in bidirectional

communication with one or more viewer stations.” (Ex-1009, 1:54-55). Lawler

teaches an arrangement of a central distribution facility “that supplies

programming over a network” to a plurality of viewer stations such as those “that

are typically located in the homes of system users or subscribers.” (Ex-1009, 3:31-

34). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that this arrangement

100 Comcast, Ex-1002

is typical of cable or satellite systems such as those described in Humpleman and

Killian.

189. Lawler discloses “a recording device is associated with the head end”

where “the head end controls the recording device to record the program.” (Ex-

1009, 13:26-38; see also 2:24-29). Thus, “[t]he recorded program is stored at the

head end” where “[u]sers could then access the head end, on demand, to retrieve

and view the recorded program.” (Ex-1009, 13:30-33). Recording and storing the

program at a central facility “would allow multiple users to access a single

recording of the program.” (Ex-1009, 13:33-35).

190. Substituting and/or supplementing the recording at local user

television equipment in the combination of Humpleman and Killian with the

centralized recording of Lawler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary

skill in the art. Lawler teaches both localized and centralized recording as

alternatives to each other that work similarly. However, Lawler further teaches

that, as a substitute to local recording, it may be advantageous to record programs

at a head end so that they may be made available to other subscribers and to

eliminate the need for a separate recorder. (See, e.g., Ex-1009, 13:26-38; see also

2:24-29). This would have been a simple substitution of one known recording

arrangement (i.e., centralized) for another known recording arrangement (i.e., at

the user television equipment) that would have yielded the predictable results


described in Lawler (i.e., recording programs with the advantages of centralized

recording - so that they may be made available to other subscribers and to

eliminate the need for a separate recorder).

191. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claim 3 of the ’263 Patent is

obvious over Humpleman in view of Killian and in further view of Lawler.

B. Dependent Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19

192. Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 depend on claims 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17,

respectively, and each recites the same limitation as claim 3. As established above

in Section VII.D, these claims should stand or fall together.

193. Therefore, in my opinion and for the same reasons described above

with respect to claim 3, claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are also obvious over

Humpleman in view of Killian and Lawler.

XII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF

KAWAMURA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15,

AND 17-18

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

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

relevant art would have combined Kondo (Ex-1012), Killian (Ex-1008), and

Kawamura (Ex-1014) in a manner that renders obvious claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12,

14-15, and 17-18.


195. As I have previously explained above, the claims of the ’263 Patent

relate to “a local interactive television program guide” on local guide equipment in

communication via the Internet with a “remote access interactive television

program guide” on a mobile device. The remote guide receives user input

selecting a program for recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to

the local guide over the Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording

of the program using the local guide equipment. The remote guide is generated

based on user profile information stored at a location other than the mobile device.

196. Similarly, Kondo, Jap. Pub. No. H10-155131 (Ex-1011 [Japanese

original]; Ex-1012 [English translation]), discloses a system where users can

schedule recordings on their local equipment over the Internet using a program

guide displayed by a remote access terminal. (Ex-1012, [0012], [0013]). In

particular, Kondo discloses that a user can schedule recordings at a first

communication terminal TA1 (“remote program guide access device”) which then

commands, via the Internet, a video recorder VTR attached to a second

communication terminal TA2 (“local interactive television program guide

equipment”). (Ex-1012, [0010], [0011], FIG. 1). Kondo further discloses that

both remote terminal TA1 and local terminal TA2 acquire broadcast program guide

data and allow users to select programs listed in the program guide for recording.

(Ex-1012, [0012]). When a user selects a program for recording from the program


guide on the remote terminal TA1, the remote terminal initiates a recording by

sending a recording request over the Internet (and via a server BSV) to local

terminal TA2 to schedule the recording on the local recording equipment (VTR).

(Ex-1012, [0013], [0014], FIG. 1). Kondo provides the following illustration:

(Ex-1012, FIG. 1 (annotated to illustrate the remote terminal in red, the local

terminal in blue, the local recorder in purple, the program guide data in orange, and

the Internet path in green)).

197. The system described in Kondo closely mirrors that claimed in the

’263 Patent. Implementation details required by the claims of the ’263 Patent, such

as the interactive nature of the displayed local guide and remote guide, and

filtering based on user preferences, would have been obvious to one of ordinary

skill in the art. Kondo describes that its program guide data is used to allow users

to select programs for recording. (Ex-1012, [0012]). IPGs and associated

functionality were widely-known and commonly implemented on DSS and other


STB hardware at the time of the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent, as admitted

in the specification of the ’263 Patent itself. (Ex-1001, 1:27-36). A POSA would

understand that IPGs were used to allow users to select programs from program

listings data. This is shown at least by Killian and Kawamura.

198. Killian, U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316 (Ex-1008), as discussed above, is

directed to a system providing a software program guide implemented using the

familiar JAVA stack and utilizing control APIs to coordinate system functionality.

(Ex-1008, 2:1-24; 3:7-37). A JAVA program guide application locally installed on

a receiver (“local interactive television program guide”) generates displays of

programming information and receives user input that, for example, selects a

program for recording. (Ex-1008, 2:1-13, 4:20-47, 8:5-35, 8:36-56). The receiver

in Killian is described as a JAVA-enabled receiver, such as a receiver for a direct

broadcast satellite system (DBSS), or a “regular satellite broadcast system” which

a POSA would understand to refer to a DSS. (Ex-1008, 3:7-18, 3:50-58). The

program guide of Killian, referred to as an “EPG,” provides interactive features by

generating displays of programming information and receiving user input for

navigating through program listings, selecting programs, and controlling functions

of the receiver and platform. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-47,

5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-35, 8:36-56, 10:61-11:13, 13:12-20, and 15:53-16:7).

Using control APIs, the locally installed program guide can control local recording


hardware in order to record selected programs. (Ex-1008, 15:5-28). Furthermore,

the “EPG” displays generated by the guide software may be based on user profiles

stored in a user profile database on the Internet or stored local to the receiver.

(See, e.g., Ex-1008, 9:10-25; 10:61-66). Killian expressly notes that its guide

software modules may be distributed in order to operate on external processing

platforms. (See Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7).

199. Kawamura, Jap. Pub. No. H9-102827 (Ex-1013 [Japanese original];

Ex-1014 [English translation]), like Kondo, is directed to a system that allows

users to set recordings on their local hardware while away from home. (Ex-1014,

[0023], [0001]). Kawamura teaches that a user can use a mobile terminal (“mobile

device”) to access a displayed remote guide (“remote access interactive television

program guide”) and select programs from the remote guide for recording by local

hardware. (Ex-1014, [0021], [0023], [0032], FIG. 7).

200. The general area of technology of Killian and Kawamura is also the

same as that of Kondo, namely that of program guides, and remote or local access

to and use of program guides to control end-user video equipment. Therefore, a

POSA would have known to combine the teachings of Kondo, Killian, and

Kawamura to arrive at the elements claimed in the ’263 Patent.

201. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kondo teaches

that both the remote terminal TA1 and the local terminal TA2 would be operative


to display the received program guide data in order to facilitate selection of a

program for recording. As I explain further below with reference to specific claim

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

implement the system of Kondo using both local and remote displays of guide

information having interactive features. IPGs were widely-known at the time of

the alleged invention of the ’263 Patent and one of ordinary skill in the art would

have readily incorporated interactive program guide features into the system of

Kondo. Killian illustrates well-known details that one of ordinary skill in the art

would readily utilize to provide a user of terminals TA1 and TA2 of Kondo with

interactive program guide features. Kawamura similarly illustrates additional well-

known details regarding display of a remote guide on a mobile device, such as the

remote terminal TA1 of Kondo.

202. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use

Killian’s interactive television program guide features in Kondo’s system for many

reasons, including many of the exemplary rationales that I understand may

support a finding of obviousness as noted above in Section IV.

203. First, Killian provides an express teaching that the modules

implementing the control APIs used in its JAVA platform could be integral to the

functionality of devices other than the receiver on which the local program guide is

implemented. (Ex-1008, 15:53-16:7). Seeking to implement Kondo’s scheduling


of selected programs for recording, one of ordinary skill in the art would be

motivated to use Killian’s modules implementing the control APIs based on

Killian’s express teaching that its modules could be integral to the functionality of

other devices (e.g. allowing Kondo’s remote terminal to schedule a recording).

Killian discloses detailed techniques that one of ordinary skill in the art would

recognize could be used to implement the scheduling of recordings in Kondo. This

would provide the predictable result of causing the selected program to be

scheduled for recording on local hardware using Killian’s known control APIs.

204. Second, in my opinion combining Killian with Kondo would be

nothing more than using known techniques to improve similar devices, obtaining a

predictable result. Kondo’s local terminal retrieves program guide information and

uses this information to allow users to select a program. (Ex-1012, [0012]). As I

explained above, Kondo displays a program guide to allow the user to select a

recording. A POSA would recognize that the interactive features of Killian's

known IPG could be used to improve Kondo’s local terminal. This would achieve

the predictable result of facilitating the selection of a program for recording by the

local user by providing a user interface (which, in my opinion Kondo would

necessarily provide). Improving Kondo’s local guide with the interactive features

of Killian would provide the same benefits that Killian discloses, namely “allowing

viewers to more intelligently select, schedule, and record their viewing


opportunities.” (Ex-1008, 1:20-23). Additionally, Killian teaches that user profile

data stored locally or remotely (such as on a device accessible over the Internet)

may advantageously be utilized to tailor program guide listings to the user’s

preferences. (Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:61-66). Killian’s known techniques of

displaying interactive local television program guides and filtering guide displays

based on stored user profiles would be used by one of ordinary skill in the art to

improve the similar devices of Kondo in the same way as these features improved

the STBs in Killian. This would obtain the predictable benefit of providing users

with better access to desired programming.

205. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated

to use Kawamura’s interactive television program guide features and mobile

device in Kondo’s system. A POSA would recognize that he could improve

Kondo’s system for remotely scheduling recordings by using Kawamura’s known

remote guide display and mobile device features. This would achieve the

predictable result of allowing users to schedule recordings “even when away from

home” using their mobile device, as disclosed in Kawamura. (Ex-1014, [0034]).

A. Independent Claim 1

206. As I explained previously, independent claim 1 requires “a local

interactive television program guide” on local guide equipment in communication



mobile device. The claim requires that the remote guide receives user input

selecting a program for recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to

the local guide over the Internet instructing the local guide to schedule a recording

of the program using the local guide equipment. The claim further requires that the

remote guide is generated based on user profile information stored at a location

other than the mobile device.

207. Below, I explain how each limitation of independent claim 1 is

disclosed in Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura, as would have been understood by

one of ordinary skill in the art.

“A system for selecting television programs over a remote access link comprising an Internet communications path for recording, comprising:”

208. Kondo discloses a system that “connects a communication terminal of

the network to [a] server .… to provide the information related to broadcast

programs or provide a program recording scheduling service or the like from the

server to the communication terminal” (Ex-1012, Abstract). Kondo explains that

its system is intended to overcome the problem of scheduling recording of TV

broadcasts. (Id.). Under the conventional approach, as Kondo explains, a user

must look in a “magazine or newspaper” to find schedule information for broadcast

programs and manually enter information to record a program. (Id.). Kondo

discloses this conventional approach as “difficult” because if “the time of the


reserved program changes, [the conventional approach] it is not possible to change

the preset recording time.” (Id.). Further, this conventional approach is unable “to

perform scheduling of recording from a place away from home, such as a

workplace.” (Id.).

209. Against this backdrop, Kondo discloses a system where, “to schedule

video recording,” a user acquires a “broadcast program guide” using a

“communication terminal” connected to a “server” over a “network.” (Ex-1012,

[0012]; FIG. 1). Then, “[a]fter selecting the program, the user accesses the server

… to request scheduling of program recording.” (Id.).

210. As such, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses “a system for selecting

television programs over a remote access link comprising an Internet

communications path for recording.”

“a local interactive television program guide equipment on which a local interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the local interactive television program guide equipment includes user television equipment located within a user’s home and the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user’s home”

211. Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura discloses this claim element.

Each clause of this claim element is discussed in turn below. Below, I have broken

the above limitation into discrete segments for purposes of illustrating how each

portion of this limitation is disclosed in Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura.


a) “a local interactive television program guide

equipment on which a local interactive television program

guide is implemented”

212. Kondo discloses a system with two terminals, TA1 and TA2. (Ex-

1012, [0010]; FIG. 1). The first terminal, TA1, “is a general communication

terminal,” and the second terminal TA2 is similarly a communication terminal but

is connected to a video device such as a videotape recorder. (Ex-1012, [0010]-

[0011]). This configuration, showing the two terminals TA1 and TA2 is illustrated

in FIG. 1:

(Ex-1012, FIG. 1). For purposes of this analysis, I will adopt the convention that

terminal TA2, the one connected to the videotape recorder, will be referred to as

the “local terminal.”

213. Using this local terminal TA2, “to schedule video recording, a user

first uses the communication terminal TA1 or TA2 to access the server BSV via

the network INT to acquire a broadcast program guide or the information INF


related to the broadcast programs stored in the server BSV from the network and

select a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012, [0012]).

(Ex-1012, Fig. 1; annotated to illustrate local terminal TA2 in blue and program

guide data in orange).

214. I have interpreted the term “interactive television program guide” to

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

television program listings and that allows a user to navigate through the television

program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software. (See

Section VI.A, supra). A POSA would understand that Kondo necessarily displays

a user interface allowing the user to select the program for recording from the

broadcast program listings on the local terminal (e.g., a display of television

program listings that allows a user to control functions of the software). However,

to the extent Kondo may not expressly describe additional details as to the


implementation of this local program guide, such as it allowing a user to navigate

through the displayed program listings, implementation of IPG functionality in the

system of Kondo would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. IPGs

and associated functionality were implemented on typical STBs at the time of

invention, as admitted in the ’263 Patent. (Ex-1001, 1:27-36). Furthermore,

Killian teaches conventional displays of interactive local guide user interfaces.

215. Killian, as I explained above, discloses a receiver with a locally

installed program application built on top of a JAVA stack. (See Ex-1008, 8:36-

56; 3:7-27; 6:32-56). The local program displays program schedules and controls

the recording of selected programs. (See Ex-1008, 8:5-35; 7:49-61; 15:53-16:7).

The program guide of Killian, referred to as an “EPG,” provides interactive

features by generating displays of programming information and receiving user

input to, for example, navigate through program listings, select programs, and

control functions of the receiver. (See, e.g., Ex-1008, Fig. 5, 3:20-33, 4:7-13, 4:20-

47, 5:11-29, 7:8-16, 7:49-61, 8:5-35, 8:36-56, 10:61-11:13, 13:11-20, and 15:53-

16:7). That is, Killian discloses an “interactive television program guide.”

216. In my opinion, combining the prior art elements of Kondo’s program

guide with the interactive features of Killian’s program guide and Killian’s display

of a program guide would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and

would have yielded the predictable result of providing interactive local user


interfaces in the system of Kondo, similar to how Killian displays a program guide.

This would be nothing more than using a known improvement (Killian’s local

interactive television program guide) to improve a similar device (Kondo’s local

terminal TA2) to obtain a predictable result (providing users with an interactive

user interface to control the local terminal). Killian shows that at the time of the

’263 Patent, it was known that it was important to display program guide listings

and provide interactive features so that the user could select a program for

recording. Kondo discloses that users may select a program for recording, and one

of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would be accomplished via a

display of the retrieved broadcast program guide information. This would be done

at least for the purpose of providing the user with an expected and familiar user

interface, thereby improving user experience.

217. Thus, it is my opinion that Kondo in view of Killian discloses “a local

interactive television program guide equipment” (terminal TA2) “on which a local

interactive television program guide” (the broadcast program guide as accessed by

terminal TA2, incorporating the interactive features of Killian) “is implemented.”

b) “wherein the local interactive television program

guide equipment includes user television equipment located

within a user’s home”

218. As I explained above, Kondo teaches a local terminal TA2 located in

the user’s home and connected to a VTR. (Ex-1012, [0010]-[0011]). I have


interpreted “user television equipment” to include various typical components of a

home television system, such as a set-top box, remote control, secondary storage

device, and a television. (See Section VI.C, supra). As such, Kondo’s local

terminal TA2 and the connected “videotape recorder VTR” are both user television

equipment as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (alone or

coupled together).

219. Kondo discloses one communication terminal is “at a place away from

home,” in communication with a “video device at home.” (Ex-1012, [0015]).

Because Kondo discloses that the local terminal TA2 is connected to a video tape

recorder, a POSA would recognize that Kondo discloses where local terminal TA2

is “at home” while terminal TA1 is “away from home.” (Id.). This understanding

is further reinforced by Kondo’s description of a problem with conventional

systems is that they are unable to “perform scheduling of recording from a place

away from home, such as a workplace.” (Ex-1012, Abstract).

220. As such, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses wherein the local

interactive television program guide equipment includes user television equipment

located within a user’s home.


c) “the local interactive television program guide

generates a display of one or more program listings for

display on a display device at the user’s home”

221. As described above, Kondo discloses accessing a “broadcast program

guide” and “select[ing] a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012,

[0012]). Either terminal TA1 or TA2 can access this program guide. (Id.). A

POSA would recognize that a program guide would be displayed to a user in order

for a user to select a program from the program guide. I note that I have already

explained above in Section XII.A.2.a how the combination of Kondo and Killian

discloses that the local guide would be an interactive television program guide.

Therefore, Kondo in view of Killian discloses the local interactive television

program guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on

a display device at the user’s home.

222. As described above, implementation of IPG functionality in the

system of Kondo would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

Killian teaches conventional display of interactive local guide user interfaces.

223. In Killian, the local EPG displays program schedules and controls the

recording of selected programs. (See Ex-1008, 8:5-35, 7:49-61, 15:53-16:7).

Generated displays of the EPG may be combined with television signals and output

via conventional video outputs, such as S-video. (See Ex-1008, 4:20-38, 4:39-47).


224. As described above, in my opinion, it would have been obvious to one

of ordinary skill in the art to display the local interactive television program guide

taught by the combination of Kondo and Killian. Kondo discloses that a user

selects a program for recording, and one of ordinary skill in the art would

understand that this would be accomplished using a display of the program listings.

This is further shown in Killian, where the program guide is displayed to users to

provide improved selection of programs for recording. As I explained above, this

would be nothing more than using a known improvement (Killian’s IPG) to

improve a similar device (Kondo’s local terminal) to obtain predictable results

(facilitating user selection of the program through providing a user interface). This

would be done at least for the purpose of providing the user with an expected and

familiar user interface, thereby improving user experience.

225. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian discloses wherein

the local interactive television program guide generates a display of one or more

program listings for display on a display device at the user’s home.

“a remote program guide access device located outside of the user’s home on which a remote access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the remote program guide access device is a mobile device”

226. As described above, Kondo discloses two terminals, TA1 and TA2.

One communication terminal is “at a place away from home,” in communication

with a “video device at home.” (Ex-1012, [0015]). Because Kondo discloses one


terminal, TA2, connected to a video tape recorder, a POSA would recognize that in

this disclosure Kondo discloses an embodiment where terminal TA2 is “at home”

while terminal TA1 is “away from home.” (Id.). I will refer to terminal TA1 as

the “remote terminal.” Kondo discloses that the remote terminal “TA1 is a general

communication terminal used to exchange information between the server

connected to the network INT and another communication terminal.” (Ex-1012,

[0010]). Kondo further discloses accessing a “broadcast program guide” and

“select[ing] a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012, [0012]). Either

terminal TA1 or TA2 can access this program guide. (Id.). The remote terminal

and program guide information are illustrated in FIG. 1:

(Ex-1012, Fig. 1; annotated to illustrate remote terminal TA1 in red and program

guide data in orange). A recording requested on remote terminal TA1 may be


transmitted to local terminal TA2 for recording on a video recorder connected to

local terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, [0013]-[0014]).

227. I understand the term “interactive television program guide” to refer

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

television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the television

program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.” (See

Section VI.A, supra). A POSA would understand that Kondo necessarily displays

a user interface allowing the user to select the program for recording from the

broadcast program listings on the remote terminal (a display of television program

listings that allows a user to control functions of the software). However, to the

extent Kondo may not expressly describe additional details as to the

implementation of this remote program guide, such as it allowing a user to

navigate through the displayed program listings, implementation of IPG

functionality in the system of Kondo would have been obvious to one of ordinary

skill in the art. IPGs and associated functionality were implemented on typical

STBs at the time of invention, as admitted in the ’263 Patent. (Ex-1001, 1:27-36).

Furthermore, Kawamura teaches conventional display of interactive remote

program guide user interfaces.

228. Kawamura discloses a remote access guide system similar to that of

Kondo. (Ex-1014, Abstract; [0032]-[0033]). The remote access device is


described as being a mobile terminal that is generally portable. (Ex-1014, [0021],

[0023]-[0024], [0082] (describing other embodiments where the mobile terminal is

not portable)). The mobile terminal is described as being a “personal data mobile

terminal (PCS),” (Ex-1014, [0024]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would

understand referred to a Personal Communications Service device – a term

sometimes used to refer to mobile phones. The mobile terminal is used to access

broadcast programing listings, display a remote program guide, and facilitate the

recording of a selected show by local hardware. (Ex-1014, [0027]; [0023]; see

also [0032]-[0033]). An example of this remote program guide is illustrated in

FIG. 7:


(Ex-1014, Fig. 7). The mobile terminal may display a remote program guide

comprising program listings corresponding to any broadcast channels that are

received. (Ex-1014, [0053]). If the user provides appropriate keyboard or stylus

input, the mobile terminal may scroll through the program listings displayed on the

screen. (Ex-1014, [0042]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the

remote program guide of Kawamura to be an interactive program guide, as it is

operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings and

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

and control functions of the software. (See Section VI.A, supra).

229. As explained above, Kondo displays a program guide on remote

terminal TA1. Kawamura shows that it is important to provide interactivity so that

the user could select a program for recording. Kondo discloses that users may

select a program for recording, and a POSA would understand that this would be

accomplished through an interactive program guide. (Id.). While Kondo does not

explicitly state that the terminal TA1 is a mobile device, it would have been

obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a mobile device as the

terminal. For example, Kondo discloses one terminal as “at a place away from

home,” in communication with a “video device at home.” (Ex-1012, [0015]). It

would be obvious to try to implement the terminal TA1 of Kondo on a mobile

device to facilitate travel to “a place away from home.” (Id.). And using a mobile


device as a program guide terminal would have been obvious given the teachings

of Kawamura.

230. As set forth above, this combination would have been nothing more

than using a known technique (an interactive television program guide on a mobile

device as taught by Kawamura) to improve a similar device (Kondo’s remote

terminal TA1) and a simple substitution of known elements to obtain predictable

results; namely, allowing users to schedule recordings “even when away from

home.” (Ex-1014, [0034]). It would have been obvious to implement Kondo’s

remote terminal TA1 using Kawamura’s mobile terminal, allowing a user the

flexibility to use the remote terminal to view program information away from

home and schedule recordings remotely. This would be a simple substitution,

using Kawamura’s mobile terminal as Kondo’s general communication terminal,

and would obtain predictable results. As exemplified in Kawamura, this would

allow users to schedule recordings of a desired program “even when away from

home” on their “personal data mobile terminal,” a well-known type of general

communication terminal, providing the benefits discussed in Kawamura. (Ex-1014

at [0034], [0024]).

231. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Kawamura discloses “a

remote program guide access device located outside of the user’s home on which a


remote access interactive television program guide is implemented, wherein the

remote program guide access device is a mobile device.”

232. Additional details regarding conventional interactive program guide

features are also provided by Killian, as discussed above. Killian’s disclosure

further establishes the obviousness of using an IPG to allow users to select the

program on remote terminal TA1.

“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] generates a display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide access device, wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device”

233. Kondo in view of Kawamura discloses this claim element. Each

clause of this claim element is discussed in turn below. Below, I have broken the

above limitation into discrete segments for purposes of illustrating how each

portion of this limitation is disclosed in Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura.

a) “[wherein the remote access interactive television

program guide:] generates a display of a plurality of

program listings for display on the remote program guide

access device”

234. As explained above, Kondo discloses accessing a “broadcast program

guide” and “select[ing] a program to record from this information.” (Ex-1012,

[0012]). Either terminal TA1 (i.e., the remote program guide access device) or


TA2 can access this program guide. (Id.). A POSA would recognize that the

remote terminal of Kondo would display a program guide in order for a user to

select a program from the program guide. Therefore, Kondo discloses wherein the

remote access interactive television program guide “generates a display of a

plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide access

device.”

235. However, to the extent Kondo may not expressly describe the display

of this remote interactive program guide, display of the remote interactive program

guide would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One example of

such a display of a remote interactive program guide is provided in Kawamura.

236. As discussed above, Kawamura discloses display of a remote program

guide by a mobile terminal, allowing a user to select a program for recording on

local equipment. (Ex-1014, [0027], [0032]-[0033]). An example of this remote

program guide is illustrated in FIG. 7:


(Ex-1014, Fig. 7). The mobile terminal may display a remote program guide

comprising program listings corresponding to any broadcast channels that are

received. (Ex-1014, [0053]). This guide may be narrowed based on user

preferences and/or memory limitations. (Ex-1014, [0053], [0062], [0042]-[0043]).

237. As explained above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have

understood Kondo to disclose a display of the program guide on the remote

terminal TA1. This is further evidenced by Kawamura, as one of ordinary skill in

the art would have understood it important to display program guide listings so that

the user could select a program for recording. Kondo discloses that users may

select a program for recording, and one of ordinary skill in the art would

understand that this would be accomplished via a display of the retrieved broadcast


program guide information. (Ex-1014, [0053], [0062], [0042]-[0043]). This

would be done at least for the purpose of providing the user with an expected and

familiar user interface, thereby improving user experience. (Id.).

238. Additional details regarding conventional interactive program guide

features are also provided by Killian, as discussed above.

239. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Kawamura discloses

wherein the remote access interactive television program guide “generates a

display of a plurality of program listings for display on the remote program guide

access device.”

b) “wherein the display of the plurality of program

listings is generated based on a user profile stored at a

location remote from the remote program guide access

device”

240. To any extent that Kondo fails to expressly disclose “wherein the

display of the plurality of program listings is generated based on a user profile

stored at a location remote from the remote program guide access device,” this

would have been an obvious modification of Kondo in light of common program

guide filtering systems known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example,

Killian teaches use of a profile module to customize a program guide based on user

preferences stored as user profile data. And Kawamura teaches using preference

information to sort and filter the program guide.


241. Killian’s user profiles are stored in a profile database that may be

stored locally to the STB or remotely accessible over the Internet. (Ex-1008, 9:10-

25; see also Ex-1008, 11:20-21). User profiles may be used to filter channels and

specific content from program listings during generation of program guide

displays. (Ex-1008, 7:49-61, 1:20-41). Killian discloses: “[t]oolkit 58 also

includes an electronic programming guide (EPG) API 60 that contains classes for

… constructing electronic scheduling displays according to viewer profiles and

selected program listing information . . . ” (Ex-1008, 7:49-61, emphasis added).

Therefore, Killian teaches that program guides may be advantageously customized

based on user profile information stored locally or remotely, and that program

guide displays are constructed based on the user profile information. (Ex-1008,

9:10-25, 11:20-21).

242. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to

implement Kondo’s remote access guide system using Killian’s profile-based

filtered guides. Kondo discloses that its terminals acquire a broadcast program

guide and track viewing data. (Ex-1012, [0012], [0027]). Killian discloses that

program guides may be customized based on user profile information stored on a

local device or obtained remotely. (Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 11:20-21). A POSA would

have recognized that the user profiles of Killian could be used to store the user

preference information disclosed by Kondo. A POSA would realize that this would


allow the system to better track a user’s preferences and generate more effective

user interfaces. This would be nothing more than using known techniques

(Killian’s customized program guides with user preference filtering) to improve a

similar device (Kondo’s remote guide on remote terminal TA1) to obtain

predictable results. This would also help improve the user experience by

improving tracking of user preferences and allowing for better identification of

desired/undesired content. This would be done for the purpose of customizing the

remote access guide, providing the advantages discussed in Killian. For example,

applying Killian’s known teachings regarding program guide filtering based on

locally stored information would provide the benefit of a customized guide,

allowing the user to more quickly identify a desired program in the program

listings.

243. Similarly, Kawamura teaches “register[ing] a desired genre, actor, or

the like” and then at “regular intervals or irregular intervals” the device “receives

the program listing or program information” and “a sound or image is output to

notify the user” when a matching desired genre or actor is found in a program

listing. (Ex-1014, [0062]). In this way, Kawamura teaches a program listing based

on a user profile (i.e., a desired genre, actor, or the like).

244. A POSA would have found it obvious that the user profiles of

Kawamura could be incorporated into the remote guide displayed on Kondo’s


remote terminal TA1. This would be nothing more than using known techniques

(Kawamura’s user profiles) to improve a similar device (Kondo’s remote guide) to

obtain predictable results. This would allow the user to more easily select and

schedule programs for recording.

245. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura

discloses “wherein the display of the plurality of program listings is generated

based on a user profile stored at a location remote from the remote program guide

access device.”

“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings in the display, wherein the selection identifies a television program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local interactive television program guide”

246. Kondo discloses a system where a user on a communication terminal

acquires a broadcast program guide from a server over the Internet to schedule a

recording. (Ex-1012, [0012], FIG. 1). The user then “select[s] a program to record

from this information.” (Id.). Then, “[a]fter selecting the program, the user

accesses the server . . . to request scheduling of program recording.” (Id.). Where

the selection is made on terminal TA1, that is, the remote terminal, a “recording

request is sent” by way of server BSV “to the videotape recorder VTR connected

to the terminal TA2 that can be connected to another video device.” (Ex-1012,


[0013]). “In this way, the videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2

can automatically record the scheduled program.” (Ex-1012, [0014]).

247. To any extent Kondo may not expressly teach that the selection is

made using an IPG, a POSA would find this obvious over the combination of

Kondo with Killian and/or Kawamura, as explained above in Sections XII.A.2-4.

248. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses “wherein the remote

access interactive television program guide receives a selection of a program

listing of the plurality of program listings in the display, wherein the selection

identifies a television program corresponding to the selected program listing for

recording by the local interactive television program guide.”

“[wherein the remote access interactive television program guide:] transmits a communication identifying the television program corresponding to the selected program listing from the remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive television program guide over the Internet communications path”

249. As discussed above, Kondo discloses making a selection on terminal

TA1, that is, the remote terminal, and then a “recording request is sent to the

videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2 that can be connected to

another video device.” (Ex-1012, [0013]). Here, terminal TA2 is the local

terminal. Further, step 2 of Kondo FIG. 1 is identified as “Program recording

scheduling request,” and is shown travelling from the remote terminal TA1 to the


server BSV before continuing to the local terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, Fig. 1, [0012]-

[0014]).

250. Under the broad construction argued by Patent Owner in the ITC

Investigation, the server BSV and local terminal TA2 may collectively be

considered as implementing the local guide. (See Sec. VI.A, supra). This is

because the server includes program guide information and provides it to local

terminal TA2 so that the local terminal can display the guide and receive user

selections. Thus, the remote guide sending the recording request to server BSV

would meet the claimed limitation under this broad construction. Kondo does not

expressly disclose a narrower construction of this term where the message is sent

by the remote guide to a local guide implemented wholly on local terminal TA2.

However, a POSA would have found it obvious to merely forward the recording

request received at server BSV to the local terminal TA2. This would provide the


expected result of allowing local terminal TA2 to control the VTR to record the

program and would minimize necessary processing on the server.

251. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses wherein the remote

access interactive television program guide transmits a communication identifying

the television program corresponding to the selected program listing from the

remote access interactive television program guide to the local interactive

television program guide over the Internet communications path.

“wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment.”

252. As I explained above, Kondo discloses that a user on the remote

terminal TA1 acquires a broadcast program guide from a server over the Internet to

schedule a recording. (Ex-1012, [0012], FIG. 1). The user then “select[s] a

program to record from this information.” (Id.). Then, “[a]fter selecting the

program, the user accesses the server … to request scheduling of program

recording.” (Id.).

253. Where the selection is made on terminal TA1, that is, the remote

terminal, a “recording request is sent to the videotape recorder VTR connected to

the terminal TA2 that can be connected to another video device.” (Ex-1012,

[0013]). “In this way, the videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2


can automatically record the scheduled program.” (Ex-1012, [0014]). Step 3 of

Fig. 1 in Kondo is identified as “Recording schesule command,” which I

understand to include a typographical error for “schedule,” and is shown as

travelling from the server BSV to the local terminal TA2. (Ex-1012, Fig. 1).

254. As explained above, under the broad construction argued by Patent

Owner in the ITC, the communication received by server BSV is received by the

local guide. Under a narrower construction, this would have been obvious as also

explained above. Accordingly, in my opinion Kondo discloses “wherein the local

interactive television program guide receives the communication and records the

television program corresponding to the selected program listing responsive to the

communication using the local interactive television program guide equipment.”

255. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would further

understand that Killian’s modules implementing the recording APIs and program

identifiers could easily be utilized to effect the recording commands scheduled by


the user in Kondo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to

utilize the program identifiers of Killian to identify the particular events selected

for recording in the system of Kondo, and to utilize Killian’s APIs to control local

recording hardware, as already described above.

256. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo in view of Killian discloses

“wherein the local interactive television program guide receives the

communication and records the television program corresponding to the selected

program listing responsive to the communication using the local interactive

television program guide equipment.”

257. For the reasons set forth above, it is my opinion that a POSA would

have found claim 1 of the ’263 Patent to be obvious over Kondo in view of Killian

and Kawamura.

B. Dependent Claim 2: The system defined in claim 1 wherein the

local interactive television program guide records the television

program corresponding to the selected program listing on the user

television equipment.

258. As discussed above, Kondo in view of Killian and further in view of

Kawamura discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kondo in view of Killian and

Kawamura further discloses “wherein the local interactive television program

guide records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing

on the user television equipment.” For example, this is taught by Kondo which


discloses that a recording reservation is received at the local terminal TA2 for

recording on a connected videotape recorder. (Ex-1012, [0014]). Kondo states

that “[i]n this way, the videotape recorder VTR connected to the terminal TA2 can

automatically record the scheduled program.” (Id.).

259. I have interpreted “user television equipment” to include various

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

control, secondary storage device, and a television. (See Section VI.C, supra). As

such, Kondo’s teaching of a “videotape recorder VTR” is user television

equipment as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (alone or

coupled with local terminal TA2).

260. Therefore, it is my opinion that Kondo discloses “wherein the local

interactive television program guide records the television program corresponding

to the selected program listing on the user television equipment.”

261. Accordingly, in my opinion Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura



C. Dependent Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the local

interactive television program guide stores information indicating the

user who selected the program listing with the remote access

interactive television program guide.

262. As discussed above, Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura renders

obvious claim 1. In my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian and further in view of

Kawamura further renders obvious claim 4.

263. For example, Kondo discloses storing various information about the

users of its system, such as “questionnaire/results,” “viewing rate information,”

and “questionnaire information.” (See, e.g., Ex-1012, [0016]-[0017]; [0027]). A

person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such information would

necessarily be linked to a particular user.

264. However, to any extent Kondo does not expressly describe storing

information indicating which user selected a program for recording, storing this

type of information was well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.

Incorporating this type of stored information would have been an obvious

modification of Kondo in view of at least Killian.

265. Killian teaches maintaining individual profiles for multiple users, and

prompting users to identify themselves so that their user profile may be accessed

and updated. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:55-60, 8:57-9:9). A profile module builds

individual viewer profiles based on received preference information associated


with corresponding users. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:55-60). A control module

coordinates communications between other modules of the EPG, such as the

profile module and the schedule module. (See Ex-1008, 8:57-9:9). Through the

program guide, a user may request that the system set up a recording by providing

user input identifying the user and criteria for the recording, such as a program

title. (See Ex-1008, 17:30-42). Furthermore, the system may direct a recording to

be performed on a VCR associated with a particular user based on the

identification of the user for whom the program is to be recorded. (See Ex-1008,

15:43-52).

266. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in

the art to utilize Killian’s individualized user tracking in the remote access guide

system of Kondo for the purpose of providing users with an individualized

experience and better results. Killian teaches that it is advantageous to identify a

user corresponding to a given recording, so that the system may track user

behavior in order to generate better user recommendations and provide the user

with access to desired content. (See Ex-1008, 9:10-25, 10:55-60, 8:57-9:9). One

of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the known user tracking

techniques of Killian to improve Kondo’s similar guide system in order to provide

an improved user experience by updating individual user profiles based on tracking

information to better reflect the user’s preferences and to communicate to a user


which particular program corresponds to that user. Furthermore, one of ordinary

skill in the art would understand Killian’s teachings of viewer profiles to be fully

compatible with Kawamura’s teachings as applied in the discussion of claim 1, in

my opinion.

267. Therefore, in my opinion, Kondo in view of Killian discloses

“wherein the local interactive television program guide stores information

indicating the user who selected the program listing with the remote access

interactive television program guide.”

268. Accordingly, in my opinion Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura


D. Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17- 18

269. As established above in Section VII.D, independent claims 5, 8, 11,

14, and 17 recite substantially identical features to those recited in claim 1 for

purposes of prior art invalidity, and should stand or fall together.

270. As similarly established above in Section VII.D, dependent claims 6,

9, 12, 15, and 18 recite substantially identical features to those recited in claim 2,

and should stand or fall together.

271. Claims 1 and 2 have been demonstrated to be unpatentable as obvious

over Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura above. My analysis in Section


VII.D illustrates how the various recited features of claims 1 and 2 correspond to

the recited features of claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18.

272. Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and

17-18 are obvious over Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura for the same

reasons as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2.

XIII. KONDO IN VIEW OF KILLIAN IN VIEW OF KAWAMURA AND IN

FURTHER VIEW OF LAWLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 7, 10, 13,

16, AND 19

273. Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 depend on claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and

17, respectively, and further recite that the selected program is recorded at a

television distribution facility. As explained above, it is my opinion that Kondo in

view of Killian and further in view of Kawamura renders obvious every limitation

of independent claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17. In my opinion, Kondo in view of

Killian in view of Kawamura and in further view of Lawler renders obvious claims

3, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.

A. Dependent Claim 3: wherein [the] local interactive television

program guide records the television program corresponding to the

selected program listing at a television distribution facility

274. As discussed above, Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura renders

obvious claim 2, which recites “wherein the local interactive television program

guide records the television program corresponding to the selected program listing


on the user television equipment.” The difference between claim 2 and claim 3 is

that claim 3 recites recording the television program listing “at a television

distribution facility.” Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura does not expressly

teach recording at a television distribution facility. However, recording at a

television distribution facility would have been known to one of ordinary skill in

the art, and further would have been an obvious modification of the control system

taught by the combination of Kondo, Killian, and Kawamura. For example,

Lawler teaches recording at a television distribution facility.

275. Lawler discloses “a system that allows the user of an interactive

viewing system to quickly and easily identify and select a desired program using

an interactive program guide and to designate the selected program for recording.”

(Ex-1009, 1:47-50). Lawler further discloses “a central head end in bidirectional

communication with one or more viewer stations.” (Ex-1009, 1:54-55). Lawler

teaches an arrangement of a central distribution facility “that supplies

programming over a network” to a plurality of viewer stations such as “that are

typically located in the homes of system users or subscribers.” (Ex-1009, 3:31-34).

One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that this arrangement is

typical of cable or satellite systems such as those described in Kondo, Killian, and

Kawamura.


276. Lawler discloses “a recording device is associated with the head end”

where “the head end controls the recording device to record the program.” (See

Ex-1009, 13:26-38; see also 2:24-29). Thus, “[t]he recorded program is stored at

the head end” where “[u]sers could then access the head end, on demand, to

retrieve and view the recorded program.” (Ex-1009, 13:30-33). Recording and

storing the program at a central facility “would allow multiple users to access a

single recording of the program.” (Ex-1009, 13:33-35).

277. Substituting and/or supplementing the recording at television

equipment of Kondo in view of Killian and Kawamura with the centralized

recording of Lawler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the

art. Lawler teaches both localized and centralized recording as alternatives to each

other that work similarly. However, Lawler further teaches that, as a substitute to

local recording, it may be advantageous to record programs at a head end so that

they may be made available to other subscribers and to eliminate the need for a

separate recorder. (Ex-1009, 13:26-37; see also 2:24-29). This would have been a

simple substitution of one known recording arrangement (i.e., centralized) for

another known recording arrangement (i.e., at the user television equipment) that

would have yielded the predictable results described in Lawler (i.e., recording

programs with the advantages of centralized recording - so that they may be made

available to other subscribers and to eliminate the need for a separate recorder).

comcast cable communications, llc, rovi guides, inc

Documents