COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ROVI GUIDES ......Bradley C. Wright (Reg. No. 38,061)...
Transcript of COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ROVI GUIDES ......Bradley C. Wright (Reg. No. 38,061)...
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner
v.
ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner
Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date: August 26, 2004 Issue Date: October 25, 2011
Title: INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM GUIDE WITH REMOTE ACCESS
________________
Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
________________
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
Petition 2 of 3
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ........ 1
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related Matters ........................................................................................................ 1
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service Information ................................................................................................. 3
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................................................. 4
Payment of Fees ......................................................................................... 4
Grounds for Standing ................................................................................. 4
III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 4
IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’801 PATENT ......................................................... 6
Brief Description of the Alleged Invention ................................................ 6
Prosecution History and Litigation ............................................................. 6
Claims 5 and 7-54 Stand or Fall Together with Claims 1-4 and 6 ............. 8
V. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED ....... 11
Claims for Which Review is Requested and Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based ............................................................................. 11
How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................... 13
How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable ......................................... 17
Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge ............................................ 17
The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ................................................ 19
VI. CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SATO IN VIEW OF HUMPLEMAN ............................................................................................ 19
Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................. 26
Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 35
Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 36
Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 36
ii
Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 36
Claims 5 and 7-54 ..................................................................................... 37
VII. CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER WOO IN VIEW OF MIZUNO 37
Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................. 42
Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 53
Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 54
Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 54
Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 55
Claims 5 and 7-54 ..................................................................................... 55
VIII. TABLE 1 – CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CLAIMS 5, 7-54 AND CLAIMS 1-4, 6 ............................................................................................. 56
IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 77
CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................ 80
iii
EXHIBITS
Ex-1101: U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801 (“the ’801 Patent”)
Ex-1102: Expert Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden
Ex-1103: Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary Tjaden
Ex-1104: U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093,292 (“the ’292 Provisional”)
Ex-1105: U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/097,527 (“the ’527 Provisional”)
Ex-1106: Humpleman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094
Ex-1107: Humpleman Provisional, U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499
[Ex-1108 – Ex-1114 omitted]
Ex-1115: Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435
Ex-1116: Woo, U.S. Pat. No. 5,485,219
Ex-1117: Mizuno, WIPO Publication WO 97/18636
[Ex-1118 – Ex-1130 omitted]
Ex-1131: Final Office Action Mailed February 7, 2008, in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 10/927,814 (“the ’814 Application”)
Ex-1132: Applicant’s Response to the Final Office Action, dated June 6, 2008, in the ’814 Application
Ex-1133: Applicant’s Response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated January 26, 2009, in the ’814 Application
Ex-1134: Applicant-Submitted Expert Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, dated October 6, 2010, in the ’814 Application
Ex-1135: Notice of Allowance, dated June 21, 2011, in the ’814 Application
[Ex-1136 – Ex-1144 omitted]
iv
Ex-1145: Excerpts from Transcript of Day 1 of Hearing in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001, December 14, 2016, pp. 214-229
Ex-1146: Excerpts from Transcript of Day 4 of Hearing in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001, December 19, 2016, pp. 1110-1153
Ex-1147: Declaration of Michael Murray in Support of Ex-1145 and Ex-1146
1
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for
inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et
seq. of claims 1-54 of U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801 (“the ’801 Patent”), attached as
Ex-1101. This petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden,
attached as Ex-1102.
I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related Matters
The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Comcast Corporation, (ii)
Comcast Business Communications, LLC, (iii) Comcast Cable Communications
Management, LLC, (iv) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (v) Comcast
Financial Agency Corporation, (vi) Comcast Holdings Corporation, (vii) Comcast
of Houston, LLC, (viii) Comcast Shared Services, LLC, and (ix) Comcast STB
Software I, LLC. These entities are referenced below as “Comcast entity __” or as
“Comcast entities __,” where “__” is one or more of (i) through (ix).
No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for inter
partes review of the ’801 Patent, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or
direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting IPR.
The ’801 Patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (iv) and (vi)
- (viii), as well as other defendants, in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation,
et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:16-cv-
2
00322 (“EDTX litigation”). The earliest date of service on any of the Comcast
entities named in the EDTX litigation was April 4, 2016.
The EDTX litigation has been transferred to the Southern District of New
York, and is now pending as Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation et al., U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:16-cv-09826.
The ’801 Patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (iv), (vi),
and (viii) 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”).
The ’801 Patent is at issue in Comcast Corporation, et al. v. Rovi
Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03852 (“SDNY litigation”). The SDNY litigation was brought
by Comcast entities (i) - (iv) and (vi) - (ix). The SDNY litigation does not
challenge the validity of a claim of the ’801 Patent.
According to the Office’s records from the PAIR system, the ’801 Patent is a
continuation of application no. 09/354,344 (abandoned), and claims priority based
on application nos. 60/093,292 (expired) and 60/097,527 (expired). According to
the PAIR system, application nos. 11/246,392 (U.S. Patent 8,006,263), 11/820,587
(U.S. Patent 7,913,278), 11/894,646 (abandoned), 11/894,800 (U.S. Patent
8,578,423), 13/195,678 (U.S. Patent 9,204,184), 13/233,655 (abandoned),
3
13/275,049 (U.S. Patent 8,584,172), 13/310,262 (abandoned), 14/716,273
(pending), 13/275,565 (U.S. Patent 8,578,413), 13/952,381 (U.S. Patent
8,768,148), and 13/952,404 (U.S. Patent 8,755,666) claim priority to the
application that became the ’801 Patent.
This is Petitioner’s second of three petitions for inter partes review against
the ’801 Patent. Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review against
related U.S. Patents 8,006,263, 8,755,666, and 8,578,413.
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service Information
Petitioner designates counsel listed below and consents to electronic service.
A power of attorney for counsel is being filed with this Petition.
Lead Counsel Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282) [email protected]
Back-Up Counsel
Bradley C. Wright (Reg. No. 38,061) [email protected]
Banner and Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001
Additional Back-Up Counsel Scott M. Kelly (Reg. No. 65,121) [email protected]
Azuka C. Dike (Reg. No. 68,497) [email protected]
Joshua Davenport (Reg. No. 72,756) [email protected]
Jared Radkiewicz (Reg. No. 70,713) [email protected]
Camille Sauer (Reg. No. 71,866) [email protected]
Banner and Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001
4
Please address all correspondence to counsel at the addresses shown above.
Petitioners further consent to electronic service by email at the following address:
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
Payment of Fees
The undersigned authorizes the charge of any necessary fees to Deposit
Account No. 19-0733.
Grounds for Standing
Petitioner certifies that the ’801 Patent is available for inter partes review
and that Petitioner is not estopped from challenging claims 1-54 on the grounds in
this Petition.
III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The alleged invention relates to a remotely accessible television program
guide that schedules recordings on local hardware by communicating with a local
program guide over the Internet. 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 record the program using local
equipment. The remote guide is generated based on “program guide information”
received from the local guide.
5
Similarly, Sato (Ex-1115) discloses an Internet-enabled program guide
system where program listings are provided on web pages that allow a remote user
to select a program for recording on local equipment over the Internet via a local
PC. Sato’s remote guide receives its guide data from the same Internet server that
provides guide data to the local guide. Humpleman (Ex-1106), which teaches a
similar system, provides features for generating the remote guide based on user
preference information from the local guide. As explained further herein, Claims
1-54 would have been obvious over Sato in combination with Humpleman. (Sec.
VI, infra).
And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to improve then-
existing local guide systems having remote access features, such as those disclosed
in Woo (Ex-1116), with a remote access guide interface, such as those disclosed in
Mizuno (Ex-1117). This would be done to automate processes previously
performed by human operators and to facilitate easy remote scheduling of
recordings. As also explained further herein, Claims 1-54 would have been
obvious over Woo in combination with Mizuno. (Sec. VII, infra).
Sato and Mizuno were not cited during prosecution of the ’801 Patent.
Humpleman and Woo were cited, but were never relied on in rejecting the claims.
6
IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’801 PATENT
Brief Description of the Alleged Invention
The claims generally require a local guide on user equipment
communicating with a remote guide on a remote device. The remote guide sends a
communication to the local guide identifying a user-selected program and
instructing the local guide to record the program. The remote guide display is
generated based on program guide information received from the local guide. (Ex-
1101, claim 1).
Prosecution History and Litigation
The ’801 Patent was filed as App. No. 10/927,814 (“the ’814 Application”)
on August 26, 2004, as the second in a chain of applications claiming priority to
two provisional applications that thinly described features related to networked
electronic program guides. (App. No. 60/093,292, Ex-1104 (“the ’292
Provisional”); App. No. 60/097,527, Ex-1105 (“the ’527 Provisional”)). Each
provisional is barely a page long and neither supports the lengthy claims in the
’801 Patent. (Ex-1102, ¶¶42-52). For example, neither provisional discloses or
enables “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide
identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the
Internet” as recited in the independent claims. (Ex-1102, ¶¶45-48). Yet such
guide-to-guide communication was argued as a primary point of novelty during
prosecution.
7
The ’814 Application was filed as a continuation of App. No. 09/354,344
(“the ’344 Application”). The ’801 Patent is at best entitled to the ’344
Application’s filing date of July 16, 1999. (Ex-1102, ¶53).
Throughout prosecution, the applicant attempted to distinguish over prior art
systems having remote guides that allegedly communicated directly with a local
VCR, rather than with a local guide. A final office action mailed February 7, 2008,
rejected the claims as obvious over Blake, WO 98/10589. (Ex-1131, pp.4-8). The
applicant argued that Blake did not describe two guides in communication, even if
it did show scheduling a local recording using a remote access guide. (Ex-1132,
pp.7-10). The applicant argued that Blake’s system communicated remote
recording requests to a central processing system which then instructed local
recording equipment to record a selected program. (Id.). The two-guide nature of
the claims continued to be argued as the primary point of novelty throughout
prosecution. (See, e.g., Ex-1133, pp.18-19). The applicant even submitted an
expert declaration characterizing the “two guide approach” as a primary point of
distinction over the prior art. (Ex-1134). In an examiner’s amendment allowing
the claims, the examiner referred to the applicant’s prior argument that the prior art
did not teach a two-guide system. (Ex-1135, p.21).
Despite the narrow interpretation during prosecution, Patent Owner now
relied on a broader interpretation of the claims in the ITC Investigation. Patent
8
Owner argued that the local guide limitations cover software implemented in part
on equipment located outside the user premises. (See, e.g., Ex-1145, p.56, 219:13-
220:13). Under this construction, the local guide equipment could include a
central server that provides information underlying a local guide displayed at user
premises. (Ex-1102, ¶36).
Claims 5 and 7-54 Stand or Fall Together with Claims 1-4 and 6
The ’801 Patent includes 54 claims, of which 12 are independent. Although
the independent claims alternatively recite systems and methods, each recites
substantially identical device elements and functionality. (Ex-1102, ¶¶63-76). All
of the limitations in claim 1 are present in each independent claim, although the
language and sequence of limitations differs slightly. Both the system claims (10,
15, 28, 33, 46, and 51) and method claims (1, 5, 19, 23, 37, and 41) recite the same
devices performing the same steps. Therefore, the nature of a claim as “a system”
or “a method,” and all other differences, is insubstantial for purposes of invalidity.
(Id.).
Independent claims 5, 10, and 15 recite substantially the same limitations as
claim 1. (Ex-1102, ¶¶64-67).
Independent claims 19, 23, 28, and 33 recite substantially the same
limitations as claim 1 from the perspective of the remote guide. (Ex-1102, ¶¶68-
71).
9
Independent claims 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially the same
limitations as claim 1 from the perspective of the local guide. (Ex-1102, ¶¶72-75).
The minor language variations in the independent claims include:
Internet – Claims 1, 15, 19, 33, 37, and 51 recite “via the Internet,”
whereas claims 5, 10, and 28 recite “via an Internet connection to a
remote server” and claims 23, 41, and 46 recite “via an Internet
connection with a remote server.”
Recording – Claims 1 and 5 recite “recording,” whereas claims 10, 15,
19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite “recording . . . at the appropriate
time.”
User Equipment – Claims 1, 5, 19, 23, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite “user
equipment,” whereas claims 10, 15, 28, and 33 recite “television
equipment.”
User Equipment Location – Claims 1, 5, 19, and 23 recite “wherein the
user equipment is remote to the remote device,” whereas claims 10, 15,
28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 do not.
Selected from the Display – Claims 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite “the user
selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the
remote guide,” whereas claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, and 33 do not.
10
These differences are insubstantial for purposes of unpatentability. (Ex-1102,
¶¶63-75).
Claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 depend on claims 5, 10,
15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, respectively, and are substantially identical
to claim 2. (Ex-1102, ¶76).
Claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 depend on claims 5, 10,
15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, respectively, and are substantially identical
to claim 3. (Id.).
Claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 depend on claims 5, 10,
15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, respectively, and are substantially identical
to claim 4. (Id.).
Claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47 depend on claims 10, 23, 28, 41, and 46,
respectively, and are substantially identical to claim 6. (Id.).
Table 1 in Section VIII, infra, shows where each limitation of claims 5 and
7-54 is discussed in this petition regarding the corresponding limitations in claims
1-4 and 6. To any extent there are differences between independent claim 1 and
independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, the differences are
insubstantial or render the other claims broader than claim 1. (Ex-1102, ¶¶63-75).
Accordingly:
11
Independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 stand or
fall together with independent claim 1.
Claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 stand or fall together
with claim 2.
Claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 stand or fall together
with claim 3.
Claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 stand or fall together
with claim 4.
Claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47 stand or fall together with claim 6.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED
Claims for Which Review is Requested and Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based
Petitioner requests inter partes review on these non-redundant grounds:
Claims Grounds Sec.
1-54 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sato in view of
Humpleman
VI
1-54 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Woo in view of
Mizuno.
VII
Grounds based on Sato in view of Humpleman (Sec. VI) present a prior art
system where remote and local devices are able to schedule recordings via program
12
listing web pages. Sato was not made of record during prosecution. Although
Humpleman was cited, it was never used to reject the claims.
Grounds based on Woo in view of Mizuno (Sec. VII) present prior art
systems that allowed users to remotely interact with local guides, and have priority
dates several years earlier than the ’801 Patent. Mizuno was not made of record
during prosecution. Although Woo was cited, it was never used to reject the
claims.
These grounds are not redundant over grounds based on Humpleman as a
primary reference. (Petition 1 of 3). Humpleman presents an extensible system
allowing remote control of any home device by generating HTML pages by
controlled home devices, including a set-top box.
Nor are these grounds redundant over grounds based on Kondo (Jap. Pat.
App. Pub. No. H10-155131), Killian (U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316), and Kawamura
(Jap. Pat. App. Pub. No. H09-102827). (Petition 1 of 3). Kondo presents a system
for using a remote terminal to obtain a program guide and schedule a recording on
a videotape recorder attached to a local terminal. Killian and Kawamura provide
additional evidence regarding conventional features that would be used to
implement local and remote displays of the program guide.
13
These grounds are also not redundant over grounds based on Blake, WO
98/10589. (Petition 3 of 3). Blake’s two-guide system incorporates a central
processing system allowing users to schedule recordings from a remote device.
How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
invention would have had 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. (Ex-1102, ¶¶27-29). Alternatively, a POSA could have had equivalent
experience in industry or research, such as designing, developing, evaluating,
testing, or implementing these technologies. (Id.).
2. How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed
An unexpired claim subject to inter partes review “shall be given its
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
it appears.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Consistent with this standard, the terms
below should be construed as follows. All other claim terms should be given their
plain and ordinary meaning.
14
i. “Guide” and “Electronic Program Guide”
“Guide” and “electronic program guide” find no clear definition in the ’801
Patent. A POSA would understand the broadest reasonable construction (“BRC”)
of these terms is software operative at least in part to generate a display of
television program listings. (Ex-1102, ¶¶32-34). The ’801 Patent describes at least
two different types of “guides:” “interactive television program guides” (“IPGs”)
and “on-line program guides,” each with different characteristics. (Ex-1102, ¶32).
Because the ’801 Patent describes different types of program guides but only
claims the generic term “guide,” a POSA would understand that “guide” includes,
but is not limited to, interactive television program guides. (Id.).
“Electronic program guide” (claim 3, et al.) also does not appear in the ’801
Patent specification. Under a BRC standard, a POSA would understand this to be
software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of television program
listings. (Ex-1102, ¶33). Interactive television program guides are one type of
“electronic program guide.” (Id.).
To any extent the terms “guide” or “electronic program guide” are limited to
“interactive” program guides, an “interactive” program guide allows a user to
navigate program listings, make selections, and control functions of the software.
A reference may disclose an interactive television program guide despite
characterizing it as an “electronic program guide.” (Ex-1102, ¶34).
15
ii. “Local Guide”
The BRC of “local guide” is a guide that generates a display of television
program listings for use at the user premises. (Ex-1102, ¶36). In the ITC
Investigation, Patent Owner argued that the local guide could be implemented on
equipment that includes, but is not limited to, equipment in the user’s home.
(Attached are redacted excerpts from the trial in the ITC Investigation, including
Ex-1145 (Day 1) and Ex-1146 (Day 4), along with a declaration regarding their
authenticity (Ex-1147)). The full, unredacted, transcripts were entered into the
court record in the ITC Investigation. In discussing the local guide in the context
of Petitioner’s system, Patent Owner argued that a data server, located away from
the user premises, providing guide information or guide functionality, including
recording commands, was part of the local guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1145, p. 56,
219:13-220:13). Similarly, in discussing Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435, Patent
Owner agreed that Sato’s local computer and external broadcast station could
collectively form the local guide. (Ex-1146, p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2). Under a
BRC standard and using Patent Owner’s construction, the local guide may be
implemented at least in part on a server or other device outside the user’s home.
16
(Ex-1102, ¶36). For this proceeding, the Patent Owner’s interpretation of “local
guide” from the ITC Investigation should be adopted as the BRC of this term.1
iii. “Remote Guide”
Under a BRC standard, a POSA would understand a “remote guide” is a
guide that generates a display of television program listings for use on a remote
access device, such as a mobile device. (Ex-1102, ¶37).
iv.“User Equipment” and “Television Equipment”
“User equipment” and “television equipment” find no clear definition in the
’801 Patent. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate arrangements of “user television equipment”
including a set-top box, storage device, remote control, and television coupled
together. Under a BRC standard, a POSA would understand “user television
equipment” to include typical components of a home television system, such as a
set-top box, remote control, secondary storage device, a television, or any of these
alone or coupled together with other devices. (Ex-1101, 5:41-43, 10:15-28, 11:51-
62; Ex-1102, ¶¶38-39). A POSA, under a BRC standard, would further understand
1 Patent Owner’s construction of this term in the ITC Investigation is broader than
that argued by the applicant in distinguishing over Blake during prosecution. (See
Sec. IV.B, supra).
17
“user equipment” and “television equipment” to have the same meaning as “user
television equipment” as used in the specification. (Ex-1102, ¶39).
v. “Program Guide Information”
The BRC of “program guide information” is “reminder information, listings
information, recording information, message information, status information,
parental control settings, audio and video, status or polling information, user
information, favorites settings, or any other information necessary for remotely
providing program guide functionality.” (Ex-1101, 15:33-41; see also 15:42-16:5,
16:55-17:9, 21:1-10, 24:62-25:7; Ex-1102, ¶40).
How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable
Sections VI and VII below explain how the claims are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103, including identification of where each limitation is taught by the
prior art and rationales for combining those teachings.
Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge
The evidence supporting Petitioner’s challenge is identified in the list of
Exhibits above, including the Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden (Ex-1102). Dr.
Tjaden has considerable experience in the fields of television program guides,
home theater control systems, and Internet communications between software.
(Ex-1102, ¶¶5-16; Ex-1103). His declaration provides evidence of the level of
18
skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and explains why the claimed
inventions would have been obvious.
As discussed above in Sec. IV.B, supra, the ’801 Patent is not entitled to a
priority date earlier than July 16, 1999, the filing date of the ’344 Application.
Even if it were entitled to an earlier date, every reference relied on herein would
remain prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e).
Sato (Ex-1115) issued June 18, 2002 on an application filed April 29, 1997.
Sato is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Humpleman (Ex-1106) issued January 30, 2001, on an application filed June
24, 1998, before the earliest claimed priority in the ’801 Patent. Humpleman is
prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Humpleman claims priority to and incorporates by reference Humpleman
Provisional, U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499 (Ex-1107), filed September 22, 1997.
Humpleman Provisional fully supports at least claim 1 of Humpleman. (See Ex-
1102, ¶¶83-84, citing Ex-1107, pp. 2-3, 10-12, 21-22, 25-26, B-5, and Figs. 8-9,
13). Accordingly, Humpleman Provisional is prior art both as part of Humpleman
and on its own.
Woo (Ex-1116) issued January 16, 1996. Woo is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
19
Mizuno (Ex-1117) published in English on May 22, 1997. Mizuno is prior
art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable
A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the petition.” (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). This Petition meets the
reasonable likelihood threshold with respect to claims 1-54.
The grounds discussed below demonstrate that the claims are unpatentable
for obviousness. Each ground is discussed in turn below, and relies on the
teachings of the references as would have been understood by a POSA. Each
ground explains the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. (See
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)). Taking into
account the knowledge, experience, and creativity of a POSA, such a person would
have found the challenged claims to be “a predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions,” and therefore obvious in view of this
prior art. (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
VI. CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SATO IN VIEW OF HUMPLEMAN
The claims recite a “remote guide” on a remote device communicating via
the Internet with a “local guide” on user equipment. The remote guide display is
20
generated based on program guide information received from the local guide. The
remote guide receives a user selection of a program listing for recording by the
local guide, and transmits a communication to the local guide via the Internet
instructing the local guide to record the program using the user equipment.
Similarly, Sato discloses an Internet-enabled program guide system for
setting recordings on a multimedia system, where program listings are provided
over the Internet with embedded commands for allowing a user to select a program
for recording on local equipment. (Ex-1115, 4:40-45, 9:8-17; Ex-1102, ¶96). Sato
discloses a local PC 21 that is able to control a wide range of home devices using
an interface box 25, as shown in Fig. 1:
21
(Ex-1115, 4:40-58, Fig. 1). In particular, Sato discloses that users can schedule
programs for recording on a local VTR (e.g., VTR 11) using interactive guide web
pages on their local PC (e.g., PC 21). (Ex-1115, 5:45-54, Fig. 2). Sato discloses
that users click a title of a desired program displayed in the HTML program guide,
and that the system will responsively cause a record command to be sent to local
hardware. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25; Ex-1102, ¶96).
Sato also discloses an external portable computer that allows a remote user
to control devices within the home by communicating with the local PC over the
Internet. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶97). Fig. 17 shows Sato’s system
architecture, illustrating the local PC in communication with an external portable
computer over the Internet:
22
(Ex-1115, Fig. 17, annotated to show remote guide access device in red, local
guide device in blue). In addition to the example electronic devices shown in Fig.
17 (i.e., television 101 and lamp 102), the external portable computer is able to
control “any other electronic device” within the home via the local PC, including
VTR 11 and PC21 of Fig. 1. (Ex-1115, 9:51-55; Ex-1102, ¶98). Sato’s disclosed
methods for controlling a TV receiver and VTR involve use of the web program
guide pages to schedule recordings, as explained above. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25, 5:45-
54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶98). Since the external portable computer is also described
as being able to control these same home devices, a POSA would have understood
that the external portable computer presents a program guide to allow the remote
user to select a program for recording, as that is how Sato’s system receives
selections of programs. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶98). The external
portable computer sends an HTML command to the local PC which sets up the
recording on the local multimedia equipment. (Id.).
Sato’s browsers, in presenting the program guide web pages, meet the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “guide” because the browser, in displaying
and executing the HTML code, is control software that generates a display of
television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the listings, make
selections, and control functions of the software (e.g., scheduling a recording on
local equipment). (Ex-1115, 5:8-25; Ex-1102, ¶98).
23
A POSA would have understood that Sato discloses the claimed “local
guide” and the “remote guide.” To any extent Sato may fail to disclose additional
details regarding the act of “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user
of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display
on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based
on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user
equipment via the Internet,” it would have been obvious that the remote device
would require a useful user interface allowing users to select programs, as is done
on the local device. (Ex-1115, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶99). It would have been further
obvious that the remote guide would be generated based on program guide
information from the local guide. (Ex-1102, ¶99). Further evidence regarding the
obviousness of these limitations is provided by Humpleman.
Humpleman discloses an improved home network wherein controlled
devices make available HTML control pages for access by other browser enabled
devices elsewhere in the network or located externally over the Internet. (Ex-1106,
1:15-19, 2:31-47, 20:31-51; Ex-1102, ¶100). Any browser-equipped device can
access the HTML guide, including a device located remotely from the home
network via the Internet. (Ex-1106, 6:1-18, 20:31-51; Ex-1102, ¶100). A user at
work (away from home) can access an HTML program guide from his home
television equipment using his work PC, display the program guide, and remotely
24
schedule a recording. (Ex-1106, 20:31-51). Humpleman’s system generates 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-
1106, 22:31-47). This would allow a user to avoid display of a disfavored channel
or content, for example. (Ex-1106, 22:42-47; Ex-1102, ¶101).
As explained below, it would have been obvious to incorporate
Humpleman’s remote HTML program guide, which is generated locally, in Sato’s
remote control system to provide users with improved access to their desired
content. (Ex-1102, ¶¶104). A POSA would have been motivated to improve Sato
in this manner under many of the rationales in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 415-21 (2007).
First, it would have been nothing more than using known techniques
(Humpleman’s remote display of locally customized HTML program guide pages)
to improve a similar device (Sato’s TV control system) to obtain a predictable
result (allowing users to better identify and select desired content). (Ex-1102,
¶105). In Sato’s system, a local PC and an external PC can access HTML program
listings to schedule recordings. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65). The external PC can send
recording commands to the local PC based on selections in a displayed guide.
(Id.). Humpleman discloses serving HTML program guide pages from local
devices, including processed and filtered guide data from external sources. (Ex-
25
1115, 22:31-47, 22:61-66). It would have been obvious to improve Sato’s remote
access recording control system with the known feature of Humpleman’s locally
generated and customized HTML control pages. (Ex-1102, ¶105). This would
provide predictable results such as providing users with better access to desired
information and limiting the amount of data that needs to be transferred over the
Internet to the external PC. (Id.).
Second, it would have been a simple substitution of one known, closely-
related feature (Humpleman’s generation of customized HTML program guide
pages served by local equipment) for another (Sato’s WWW pages) that produces
predictable results (avoiding display of a disfavored channel or content). (Ex-
1115, 4:60-5:2; Ex-1106, 22:31-47; Ex-1102, ¶106).
Third, Humpleman expressly teaches that its invention improves control of
multimedia devices by generating a program guide based on information provided
by the multimedia device. (Ex-1106, 2:23-28; Ex-1102, ¶107). A POSA would
have been motivated to use Humpleman’s generation of customized program
guides to improve Sato’s program guide web pages to provide a complete picture
of the content available on the user’s local television receiver. (Ex-1102, ¶107).
This would provide the benefit of allowing the user to view available programs on
multiple channels. (Id.).
26
Independent Claim 1
The limitations of claim 1 appear in the Claims Listing Appendix, labeled as
Limitations [1A]-[1F]. The following explains how claim 1 is obvious over Sato
in view of Humpleman.
1. Limitation [1A]
Sato teaches the claimed “method of enabling a user to perform recordings.”
(Ex-1115, 9:51-65, 5:18-25, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶¶111-112). Sato discloses
that an external portable computer allows a remote user to communicate with a
local PC over the Internet to control devices within the home. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65).
Sato’s disclosed methods for controlling a TV receiver and VTR involve use of the
web program guide pages to schedule recordings, as explained above. (Ex-1115,
5:18-25, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶111). Since the external portable computer is
also disclosed as being able to control these same home devices, a POSA would
have understood that the external portable computer presents a program guide to
allow the remote user to select a program for recording, as that is how Sato’s
system receives selections of programs. (Ex-1102, ¶112).
2. Limitation [1B]
Sato teaches “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a
remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on
the remote device.” (Ex-1115, 9:56-65, 5:45-54, 4:60-5:2, Fig. 17; Ex-1102,
¶¶114-120). Sato discloses, with respect to Fig. 1, a local personal computer that
27
can access program listings web pages and schedule recordings on a local VTR by
selecting program titles from the web pages. (Ex-1115, 4:59-66, 4:40-45, Figs. 1,
2, 5:21-23, 9:9-18, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶114). These HTML program guide pages,
received from the broadcast station web sites, include program lists that correspond
to available programs that the user can record and are rendered by a browser to
generate a display of the program guide. (Ex-1115, 5:45-54). Fig. 2 shows this
program guide display:
Sato also discloses an external portable computer that allows a remote user
to control devices within the home by communicating with the local PC over the
Internet. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶115). The external portable computer can
control electronic devices shown in Fig. 17 (i.e., television 101 and lamp 102) and
“any other electronic device” within the home via the local PC, which would
include VTR 11 and PC 21. (Ex-1115, 9:51-55; Ex-1102, ¶¶115, 119). Sato’s
28
disclosed methods for controlling a TV receiver and VTR involve use of the web
program guide pages to schedule recordings. (Ex-1115, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102,
¶116). Since the external portable computer also controls the same home devices
as the local PC, a POSA would have understood that the external portable
computer similarly would access and present the program guide web pages to
allow the remote user to select a program for recording, as that is how Sato’s
system receives selections of programs. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶¶116-117).
Sato’s local and remote browsers, in presenting the program guide web pages, are
“interactive” guides because they are control software that generates a display of
television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the listings, make
selections, and control functions of the software (e.g., scheduling a recording on
local equipment). (Ex-1115, 5:8-25; Ex-1102, ¶¶114, 117).
Sato discloses that external portable computer 107 of Fig. 17 can control a
local PC 105. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65). To any extent local PC 105 (Fig. 17) and local
PC 21 (Fig. 1) are not expressly described as the same element, it would have at
least been obvious that the external portable computer can control local PC 21 of
Fig. 1, as the external portable computer controls any electronic device in the
home. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶¶118-119).
Sato also discloses a “local guide implemented on user equipment,” and
“wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for
29
display on a display device at the user site” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 4:46-5:2, 5:45-
54, 9:29-37, Figs. 2, 5, 17; Ex-1102, ¶¶121-122, 134-136). As discussed above,
the local PC includes a browser which displays program guide web pages at the
user’s home and controls components of the family’s audio/visual system using an
infrared interface box. (Ex-1115, 4:61-66, 4:1-9, 451-58, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102,
¶¶121, 135). Sato’s local PC in combination with the interface box, TV receiver,
and VTR is “user equipment” because each are typical components of a home
television system. (See Sec. V.B.2.iv, supra; Ex-1102, ¶122). And in the ITC
Investigation, Patent Owner admitted that Sato disclosed a local IPG under its
argued construction of the term, and that this limitation was met by the
combination of Sato’s local PC and external broadcast station, such as station 1 in
Fig. 1. (Ex-1146, p. 42, 1116:13-16; p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2).
Sato further teaches “wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote
device” and “wherein the user equipment is located at a user site” as claimed.
(Ex-1115, 4:46-58, Fig. 1, 4:1-9; Ex-1102, ¶¶133-134). Sato discloses an “external
portable computer 107” that accesses and displays the HTML program guide to
send instructions over the Internet to the local PC to set recordings at the user’s
home. (Ex-1115, 9:51-55). Portable computer 107 is “external” relative to the
location of the “personal computer 105” which is in the user’s home (“user site”).
(Ex-1115, 4:46-58, Fig. 1, 4:1-9, Fig. 17; Ex-1102, ¶133).
30
Sato also teaches “wherein the [remote guide] display is generated by the
remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide
implemented on user equipment via the Internet.” (Ex-1115, 9:51-65, Ex-1102,
¶¶121-123). Under Patent Owner’s construction in the ITC Investigation, “local
guide” includes devices outside the user’s home such as a server providing
program guide information. (Sec. V.B.2.ii, supra, citing Ex-1146, p. 43, 1117:14-
1118:2). Specifically, Patent Owner admitted that Sato’s broadcast station 1 and
the local personal computer 21 were collectively a “local guide” under Patent
Owner’s construction. (Id.). As explained above, a POSA would have understood
that the local guide would access a broadcast station to retrieve program guide
data, and the external portable computer would access the same broadcast station
to retrieve its program guide pages in order to allow a user to remotely schedule
recordings. (See Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶123). Since the broadcast station,
as a source of program guide information, is part of the local guide under Patent
Owner’s construction, the remote guide display is generated “based on program
guide information received from a local guide” when the external portable
computer accesses the broadcast station and generates the display of the guide.
(Ex-1102, ¶123).
If “local guide” were narrowly construed to be limited to software located
within the user premises, excluding an external listings server (contrary to Patent
31
Owner’s position), a POSA would nevertheless find this this limitation obvious in
view of Humpleman’s remote display of locally customized HTML program
guides. (Ex-1102, ¶¶124-131). It would have been obvious to generate the remote
guide based on program guide information from the local guide, such as the EPG
data or the user preference information stored at the DSS in Humpleman. (Ex-
1102, ¶¶124-125, 129-131).
Humpleman discloses generating a remote control HTML program guide
based on program listings information (“program guide information”) underlying
an EPG displayed by a television receiver (“a local guide implemented on user
equipment”). (Ex-1106, 22:31-47; Ex-1102, ¶124). Once generated by the DSS
control software, the HTML program guide is accessed and displayed on any
browser-equipped device, including a remote PC. (Ex-1106, 22:48-60, 7:25-35;
Ex-1102, ¶128). One example disclosed in Humpleman is using a work computer
to access the home network program guide to set a recording on a home DVCR.
(Ex-1106, 20:47-51). Humpleman generates the HTML program guide including a
subset of the content of the full EPG based on user preferences (another example
of “program guide information”). (Ex-1106, 22:31-47; Ex-1102, ¶125).
Humpleman also discloses that the program guide information is “received
from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet” as claimed.
(Ex-1102, ¶126). The EPG information used to generate the HTML program guide
32
is stored at the DSS (“user equipment”). (Ex-1106, 22:31-47). Further, the system
generates the customized HTML control pages, such as the customized HTML
program guide, and stores the HTML page in accessible memory on the DSS. (Ex-
1106, 22:33-47; see also Ex-1107, p. 21, Fig. 13; Ex-1102, ¶126).
A POSA would have understood that Sato discloses displaying the HTML
program guide on an external portable computer (i.e., as a “remote guide”). (Ex-
1102, ¶129). This is further reinforced by Humpleman, which teaches that a
remote access system should display a program guide user interface to allow users
to select from available content. (Id.). It would have been obvious to incorporate
Humpleman’s local generation of customized HTML guides for display by a
remote device in Sato’s remote control system to provide users with efficient
access to their desired content. (Id.).
A POSA would have been motivated to improve Sato’s remote program
guide web pages using Humpleman’s customized program guides to provide the
user with a complete picture of the content available on the user’s local television
receiver. (Ex-1102, ¶¶129-131). Humpleman expressly teaches that its invention
improves control of multimedia devices by generating a consolidated program
guide based on information provided by multiple multimedia devices. (Ex-1106,
2:23-28; Ex-1102, ¶131). This would provide the benefit of allowing the user to
view available programs on multiple channels. (Ex-1102, ¶131).
33
As explained above, this would be nothing more than using known
techniques (Humpleman’s remote display of locally customized HTML program
guide pages) to improve a similar device (Sato’s control system) to obtain a
predictable result (allowing users to better identify and select desired content).
(Ex-1102, ¶129). This also would have been a simple substitution of one known
feature (Humpleman’s locally stored customized guides) for another, closely-
related feature (Sato’s broadcast station pages), obtaining predictable results
(viewing listings for multiple channels and avoiding display of a disfavored
channel or content). (Ex-1102, ¶130).
3. Limitation [1C]
Sato teaches “receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a
program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user selection
identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording
by the local guide” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25, 9:56-65, 9:8-17; Ex-1102,
¶¶137-138). Sato discloses that users can click a title of a desired program
displayed in the HTML program guide, and that the system will responsively cause
a record command to be sent to local hardware. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25; Ex-1102,
¶137). Although the program guide is discussed with respect to the local PC, as
explained above, Sato’s external portable computer controls “any” electronic
device in the home, which a POSA would have understood to include the local PC,
34
TV receiver, and VTR of Fig. 1, and would similarly do so through the HTML
program guide. (Ex-1115, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶137).
4. Limitation [1D]
Sato teaches “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the
local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing
via the Internet” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65, 6:10-17; Ex-1102, ¶¶139-140).
When the user selects an operation (e.g., a program to be recorded), the external
portable computer sends a hypertext formatted command to the local PC. (Ex-
1115, 9:51-65). In the case of a scheduled recording, the command includes a
representation of a “G code” associated with the selected program. (Ex-1115,
6:10-17).
5. Limitation [1E]
Sato teaches “receiving the communication with the local guide” as claimed.
(Ex-1115, 9:56-65, 6:10-17; Ex-1102, ¶¶141-142). Control software on the local
PC (which includes the browser displaying the local guide) receives the hypertext
command from the external portable computer and issues appropriate commands to
local hardware. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65; Ex-1102, ¶¶141-142). When the user selects
an operation (e.g., a program to be recorded), the external portable computer sends
a hypertext formatted command to the local PC (part of the “local guide”), which
35
has control software to receive and process the command. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65; Ex-
1102, ¶142).
6. Limitation [1F]
Sato teaches “responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local
guide, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by
the user equipment” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65, 5:18-25; Ex-1102, ¶¶143-
145). In the case of a recording command, as is described with respect to Sato’s
local PC of Fig. 1, “an infrared signal instructing the VTR 11 to record the
program at the indicated time is output from the interface box 25 in FIG. 1. Thus,
the VTR 11 is set in the reserved mode for recording the program at the reserved
time by the infrared signal.” (Ex-1115, 5:18-25).
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the user equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem.” As discussed above with respect
to claim 1, Sato in view of Humpleman teaches communication between a remote
device and user equipment over “the internet.” (Ex-1115, 9:56-65; Ex-1102,
¶¶146-147). A POSA would have understood or at least found it obvious that
content and devices accessible over the Internet are “accessible . . . over a
modem.” (Ex-1102, ¶146).
36
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein scheduling the recording
comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on
the remote device.” Sato’s remote guide (see Sec. VI.A.2, supra) is an “electronic
program guide” as properly construed because it is control software that is
operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings. (See
Sec. V.B.2.i, supra; Ex-1102, ¶148).
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein a web site is accessible to
the user from a computing device of the user.” This claim merely recites the
existence of any web site that is accessible from a previously unrecited computing
device of the user, and has no relationship to the rest of the claim. Sato discloses
that the local PC can access web sites and web pages. (Ex-1115, 4:33-39, 5:8-17;
Ex-1102, ¶¶150-152).
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 (see below) and recites “wherein the user
equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.” Sato teaches this
feature. (Ex-1102, ¶¶153-154). Sato teaches that an external PC receives a user
selection of a program on a displayed page, and sends a recording command over
“the Internet” to a local PC to schedule a recording of the selected program in
communication with a TV receiver. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65).
37
Claims 5 and 7-54
As established above in Section IV.C, independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23,
28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially identical limitations to those in claim
1 for validity purposes, and they stand or fall together.
Similarly, claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 recite
substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21,
26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 recite substantially identical limitations to those
recited in claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 recite
substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 4; claims 11, 24, 29, 42,
and 47 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 6; and they
respectively stand or fall together.
Table 1, infra at Section VIII, shows where each limitation of claims 5 and
7-54 are discussed with respect to claims 1-4 and 6.
Accordingly, claims 5 and 7-54 would have been obvious over Sato in view
of Humpleman. (Ex-1102, ¶¶155-158).
VII. CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER WOO IN VIEW OF MIZUNO
As explained above, the claims recite scheduling recordings using a remote
guide in communication via the Internet with a local guide, where the remote guide
is implemented on a remote device and where user program guide information
from the local guide is used to generate the remote guide.
38
Woo discloses a system for scheduling recordings on a home receiver
comprising a local guide from a remote location. (Ex-1116, 1:43-50, 2:9-30, 9:56-
63, 3:7-18; Ex-1102, ¶¶86-88, 161-162). Woo’s local processor generates a
display of a program schedule table and allows users to interactively schedule
recordings on local hardware. (Ex-1116, 6:50-7:1, Fig. 4). If a user is away from
home, the user can call in to a central control station to schedule recordings on the
user’s local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21). The control station sends a command
initiating the recording on local hardware via a broadcast or modem connection
(Ex-1116, 9:57-61, 2:9-21, 7:50-65, 8:24-31). Figs. 1 and 4 show Woo’s system
architecture:
39
(Ex-1116, Figs. 1 and 4, annotated to show local processor in blue, local guide in
green [callout Fig. 4], local recording equipment in purple, and remote control
station in red).
In other words, Woo discloses a “local guide” that allows users to schedule
recordings from a remote location. (Ex-1102, ¶¶161-165). This is disclosed as
accomplished through a manual call-in process where the user calls an operator at a
central station. (Id.).
Woo does not expressly disclose scheduling recordings from “a remote
guide accessible by a user of a remote device.” However, replacing the manual
call-in process of Woo with a “remote guide” on a “remote device” would have
been obvious, as shown at least by Mizuno. (Ex-1102, ¶¶165-174).
Mizuno discloses a controller that serves HTML pages to remote user
computers allowing control of a number of home devices, such as TVs and VCRs.
(Ex-1117, Fig. 1, 1:24-2:12; Ex-1102, ¶166). Mizuno’s controller generates a
program guide web page allowing remote users to select a program for recording
on their local system. (Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-11:3). Remote users access the
remote guide page using an HTML browser on any suitable device. (Ex-1117, 3:4-
18). The user selects a program for recording, and the server transmits suitable
commands to local hardware to effect the desired recording. (Ex-1117, 10:18-
11:3). Fig. 1 shows Mizuno’s system architecture:
40
(Ex-1117, Fig. 1, annotated to illustrate remote guide device in red, remote guide
in orange, local control device in blue, and local user television equipment in
purple).
Mizuno further teaches generating a display based on “program guide
information” received from the local guide. Mizuno teaches that software on the
local controller (i.e., the “local guide” in the combination of Woo and Mizuno)
polls TV listing web sites to obtain program listing information. (Ex-1117, 10:18-
22; Ex-1102, ¶167). Mizuno uses this program listing information to generate the
HTML pages including the program listings (“program guide information”), and
provides these pages to the remote device. (Ex-1117, 10:22-29). The remote
device generates a display of the “remote guide” based on these HTML pages from
the local controller. (Id.).
41
It would have been obvious to automate Woo’s manual call-in scheduling
process by using Mizuno’s remote access guide pages. (Ex-1102, ¶¶169-174). A
POSA would have been motivated to use Mizuno’s remote access program guide
in Woo’s centralized call-in system for many reasons, including many of the
rationales cited in KSR.
First, merely automating a manual process has long been recognized as
insufficient to distinguish over prior art systems. (See MPEP § 2144.04, citing In
re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Woo’s central
call center allows users to call in to schedule recordings on their local hardware if
they are not present to set a recording directly on their device. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21).
Mizuno discloses that it would be advantageous to provide a remote access HTML
guide so that users can schedule recordings while away from home. (Ex-1117,
10:18-11:3; Ex-1102, ¶171). It would have been obvious to replace or supplement
the manual call-in process of Woo with the remote access guide pages of Mizuno
to allow users more control over the setting of recordings and to obviate the
expense and inconvenience of a call center and human operators. (Ex-1102, ¶171).
Second, combining Mizuno with Woo would be nothing more than using
known techniques to improve similar devices, obtaining a predictable result. (Ex-
1102, ¶172). The known improvement of Mizuno’s remote access guide pages
42
could be used to improve Woo’s similar call-in process. (Id.). This would obtain
the predictable benefits associated with automation described above. (Id.).
Third, combining Mizuno with Woo would be a simple substitution of the
remote guide of Mizuno for the human operator of Woo to obtain a predictable
result. (Ex-1102, ¶173). Woo’s central call-in system sends recording instructions
to the user’s local processor, including information that controls the local processor
to record a selected program. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21). Woo’s system receives the
selection of the program by receiving a call from the user indicating a desired
program. (Id.). It would have been obvious to substitute Mizuno’s remote
program guide pages for the manual call-in process, as both allow a user to
communicate their selection of a program. (Ex-1102, ¶173). This substitution
would not significantly alter how Woo operates, as Woo’s system would instruct
the local processor to record the identified program in the same manner regardless
of how it receives the selection. (Id.). This would provide the predictable benefits
associated with automation described above. (Id.).
Independent Claim 1
The limitations of claim 1 appear in the Claims Listing Appendix, labeled as
Limitations [1A]-[1F]. The following explains how claim 1 is obvious over Woo
in view of Mizuno.
43
1. Limitation [1A]
Woo teaches “method of enabling a user to perform recordings.” (See, e.g.,
Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 1:42-44; Ex-1102, ¶¶178-179). Woo allows users to select
programs from a local display of program listings for recording. (Ex-1116, 1:42-
44). Woo also teaches that a central control station operator receives user selection
of a program and instructs that user’s local hardware to record the program. (Ex-
1116, 2:9-21).
2. Limitation [1B]
Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “generating, with a remote guide accessible
by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings
for display on the remote device.” (Ex-1102, ¶181). Woo provides a remote
access service that allows users to schedule recordings while away from home by
calling in to a central control station. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 5:12-26; Ex-1102, ¶181).
The remote access service is provided by a central control station that serves
devices in a plurality of user’s homes. (Ex-1116, 2:63-3:27, 3:29-41). Each home
has a local processor that implements a “local guide.” (Ex-1116, 6:50-7:1, Fig. 4).
Woo’s local guide, as generated by control software on the local processor,
generates a display of television program listings and allows a user to navigate
through the listings, make selections, and control functions of the software. (Ex-
1116, 6:46-60; Ex-1102, ¶181).
44
Woo does not expressly describe “a remote guide accessible by a user of a
remote device” or “generating . . . a display comprising a plurality of program
listings for display on the remote device.” However, replacing the manual call-in
process of Woo with a remote device and remote guide, as shown by Mizuno,
would have been obvious. (Ex-1102, ¶¶182-187).
Mizuno discloses a controller that serves HTML pages to remote user
computers allowing control of a number of home devices, such as TVs and VCRs.
(Ex-1117, Fig. 1, 1:24-2:12; Ex-1102, ¶183). Remote users access the remote
guide page using an HTML browser on any suitable device. (Ex-1117, 3:15-18).
Mizuno further teaches that a user controls a TV or a VCR through the HTML
browser on the remote computer and that selections made using the browser are
sent to local equipment for recording. (Ex-1117, 10:18-11:3, 1:24-2:12, 9:20-
10:8). Mizuno’s browser, in presenting the remote access guide pages on a
browser-enabled computer (“remote device”), is a “remote guide” because it is
control software that generates a display of television program listings. (See Sec.
V.B.2.i, supra; Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-11:3; Ex-1102, ¶184). It is also an
“interactive” guide. (Ex-1102, ¶184). That is, Mizuno’s system creates a “remote
guide,” and Mizuno’s remote client renders a display of this “remote guide.” (Ex-
1102, ¶184).
45
As explained above, it would have been obvious to automate Woo’s manual
call-in process by using Mizuno’s remote access guide pages. (Ex-1102, ¶185).
Mizuno teaches that any suitable computer running a web browser may provide a
remote access guide allowing users to schedule recordings on their local hardware.
(Ex-1117, 3:4-18). A POSA would utilize Mizuno’s remote computers and remote
access guides in Woo’s centralized control system to automate the process of
scheduling a recording without requiring human call center operators to manually
enter the user’s selection. (Ex-1102, ¶185).
This combination would be motivated by at least the reasons described
above. First, it has long been recognized that merely automating a manual process
is insufficient to distinguish over prior art systems, as noted above. (See MPEP §
2144.04, citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958);
Ex-1102, ¶185). Second, combining Mizuno with Woo would be nothing more
than using a known technique (Mizuno’s remote access guide pages) to improve a
similar device (Woo’s centralized recording controls) to obtain the known benefits
of automating a manual process. (Ex-1102, ¶187). Third, this would be a simple
substitution of Mizuno’s remote guide for Woo’s human operator to obtain these
benefits of automation. (Ex-1102, ¶186).
The combination of Woo in view of Mizuno further teaches “wherein the
display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information
46
received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet” as
claimed. (Ex-1102, ¶¶189-195).
Mizuno teaches that software on the local controller (i.e., the “local guide”
in the combination of Woo and Mizuno) polls TV listing web sites to obtain
program listing information (“program guide information”). (Ex-1117, 10:18-22;
Ex-1102, ¶191). Mizuno uses this program listing information to generate the
HTML pages including the program listings, and provides these pages to the
remote device. (Ex-1117, 10:22-29). The remote device generates a display of the
“remote guide” based on these HTML pages from the local controller. (Id.). This
process is shown in Fig. 5:
47
(Ex-1117, Fig. 5 (annotated to show relevant steps 510 (HTML data generated
based on “program guide information”), 517 (HTML page provided to “remote
device” by local controller), and 520 (“remote device” generates a display of the
“remote guide”)).
Mizuno also teaches that the controlled devices (e.g., TV/VCR) send status
information back to the controller. (Ex-1117, 5:19-30; Ex-1102, ¶¶192-193). This
status information is also “program guide information” as construed in Sec.
V.B.2.iii, above. (Ex-1102, ¶192). This status information would be included in
Mizuno’s remote access HTML pages, as shown in Fig. 3:
48
(Ex-1117, Fig. 3 (annotated to show the status information received on the
controller in red, and the transfer to the remote client for display in blue); Ex-1102,
¶¶192-193).
As explained above, it would have been obvious to automate Woo’s manual
call-in process with Mizuno’s remote access guide. Mizuno’s remote guide is
generated based on program listing information stored and processed by the local
controller. (Ex-1102, ¶191). It would also have been obvious to use Mizuno’s
display of status information on the remote guide in the combination of Woo and
Mizuno. (Ex-1102, ¶194). This would obtain the predictable result of informing
the user of the result of requested operations. (Id.).
The combination of Woo and Mizuno teaches wherein “the user equipment
is remote to the remote device” and “the user equipment is located at a user site”
as claimed. (Ex-1116, Abstract, 2:9-21, 5:12-26; Ex-1102, ¶¶196-198). Woo
teaches that the local processors and VCRs (i.e., “user equipment”) are “located in
the homes of users,” which is the claimed “user site.” (Ex-1116, Abstract). And
Mizuno discloses that its methods provide “control of remote devices at remote
locations via the internet.” (Ex-1117, 1:4-8).
Woo teaches wherein “the local guide generates a display of one or more
program listings for display on a display device at the user site.” (Ex-1116, Fig. 1,
Fig. 4, 6:50-7:10; Ex-1102, ¶¶199-201). Woo’s local processor generates a display
49
that “includes a number of fields for accessing the TV program schedule table” and
“pairs of buttons to cycle through different entries in the TV program schedule
table.” (Ex-1116, 6:50-7:10). This is shown by Fig. 4:
(Ex-1116, Fig. 4).
3. Limitation [1C]
Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “receiving, with the remote guide, a user
selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the
user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing
for recording by the local guide” as claimed. (Ex-1102, ¶¶202-204). Woo’s
operator at the central control station receives user input identifying a program to
be recorded by a user’s local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 5:12-26). The operator
uses the user’s input to look up the corresponding program, and the operator causes
the local hardware to record the corresponding program using a special broadcast
command. (Id.). Woo discloses that recording commands identify programs using
date, channel, and time information. (Ex-1116, 6:38-43).
50
Mizuno teaches that the controller serves an HTML guide page comprising
interactive program listings to remote user computers, and that users select a
program listing from the displayed page. (Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-11:3, Fig. 1,
Fig. 5 (steps 514, 517, 520), 3:26-4:14). As explained above, it would have been
obvious to replace Woo’s manual remote access process with Mizuno’s remote
guide displays. (Sec. VII.A.2, supra; Ex-1102, ¶203). It would have been
apparent that a selection of a program from Mizuno’s HTML guide would identify
the corresponding program in a suitable fashion, such as using the date, channel,
and time recording information disclosed in Woo. (Ex-1102, ¶203).
4. Limitation [1D]
Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “transmitting, with the remote guide, a
communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the
selected program listing via the Internet.” (Ex-1102, ¶¶205-209). Woo discloses
that an indication of a recording selected by an operator is transmitted via a modem
to the local processor for recording by local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 6:38-45,
9:57-61, 6:57-63, 1:43-50; Ex-1102, ¶¶205-206).
To any extent Woo may fail to expressly disclose transmitting the program
selection “with the remote guide . . . via the Internet,” Mizuno discloses that user
selections on the rendered HTML guide on the remote device are sent to the local
controller and local hardware via the Internet. (Ex-1117, 1:4-8; 4:26-28, Ex-1102,
51
¶207-208). Mizuno discloses that, in response to “the user input to the WWW
browser . . . the program effects remote command transmission.” (Ex-1117, 3:26-
4:14; 10:27-29). This is shown in Fig. 3:
(Ex-1117, Fig. 3 (annotated); see also 3:27-4:14).
As explained above, it would have been obvious to utilize Mizuno’s remote
access guide and Internet communication techniques to improve Woo’s recording
control system, thereby automating the manual process and improving user
experience. (Ex-1102, ¶208).
5. Limitation [1E]
Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “receiving the communication with the local
guide” as claimed. (Ex-1102, ¶¶210-214). Woo’s operator at the control station
remotely programs the user’s local processor to record the selected program using
52
remote programming codes broadcast to the local processor. (Ex-1116, 5:22-26,
6:32-45, 8:24-32). Thus, Woo discloses using broadcast data received by control
software of a local processor (the same device that is recited as generating a local
guide display) to record content on local interactive television program guide
equipment (e.g., “VCR 190”). (Ex-1102, ¶¶210-211).
To any extent Woo may fail to teach receiving the communication as
transmitted from a “remote device,” this would have been obvious in view of
Mizuno as already discussed above. (Ex-1102, ¶¶212-213). Mizuno discloses that,
“[u]pon the receipt of the command from http clients (web browser), the controller
sends infra-red or electromagnetic signals to the targets TAl.” (Ex-1117, 5:12-22).
6. Limitation [1F]
Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “responsive to the communication,
scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the selected
program listing for recording by the user equipment.” (Ex-1102, ¶¶215-219).
Woo discloses that the local processor effects the recording of the television
program using an associated VCR, which a POSA would have understood would
be accomplished through control software on the local processor. (Ex-1116, 3:42-
46; Ex-1102, ¶¶215-216). Woo discloses a local processor incorporated into a
VCR. (Ex-1116, 1:42-50, Fig. 1). Woo’s recording unit, including a local
processor and a local VCR that coordinate to schedule recordings, is “user
53
equipment” as construed above. (See Sec. V.B.2.ii; Ex-1102, ¶216). Similarly,
Mizuno discloses that, “[u]pon the receipt of the command from http clients (web
browser), the controller sends infra-red or electromagnetic signals to the targets
TAl.” (Ex-1117, 5:12-22; Ex-1102, ¶217). Mizuno discloses the targets as
including VCRs, and Fig. 5 indicates that the controller causes local hardware to
show a channel or schedule a recording. (Id.; Ex-1117, 3:26-4:14, 6:1-3, 10:18-
11:3).
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the user equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem.” Woo discloses that an indication
of a recording selected by an operator is transmitted via a modem to the local
processor for recording by local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 6:38-45, 9:57-61,
1:43-50; Ex-1102, ¶221).
To any extent Woo may fail to expressly disclose accessing the user
equipment by “the remote device,” Mizuno discloses that user selections are sent to
the server and local hardware via the Internet. (Ex-1117, 1:4-8, 4:26-28; Ex-1102,
¶222). Mizuno teaches that this Internet connection is provided over a “modem.”
(Ex-1117, 4:26-28).
54
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein scheduling the recording
comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on
the remote device.” As discussed above, it would have been obvious to use
Mizuno’s remote guide to automate the manual call-in process of Woo. (Ex-1102,
¶225). Remote users in Mizuno’s system access an HTML remote guide page, and
selections made on the remote guide page are sent to local equipment to schedule a
recording. (Ex-1117, 10:18-11:3, 1:24-2:12, 9:20-10:8). Mizuno’s remote access
guide pages are an “electronic program guide” because they are software that
generates a display of television program listings. (See Sec. V.B.2.i, supra; Ex-
1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:19-11:3; Ex-1102, ¶225).
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and further recites “wherein a web site is
accessible to the user from a computing device of the user.”
Claim 4 merely recites the existence of any web site that is accessible from a
previously unrecited computing device of the user, and has no relationship to the
rest of the claim. It was well known that users access web sites from suitable
computing devices. (Ex-1102, ¶228). Further, Mizuno teaches an HTML guide
page web site accessed from a computing device. (Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-
11:3, Fig. 1, Fig. 5 (steps 514, 517, 520), 3:26-4:14; Ex-1102, ¶228).
55
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 (see below) and recites “wherein the user
equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.” Mizuno discloses
remote access HTML guide pages that are accessed over the Internet, and that user
recording selections are sent to the home server and local hardware via the
Internet. (Ex-1117, 1:4-8, 4:26-28, 5:12-24; Ex-1102, ¶¶230-231).
Claims 5 and 7-54
As established above in Section IV.C, independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23,
28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially identical limitations to those in claim
1 for validity purposes, and they stand or fall together.
Similarly, claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 recite
substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21,
26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 recite substantially identical limitations to those
recited in claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 recite
substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 4; claims 11, 24, 29, 42,
and 47 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 6; and they
respectively stand or fall together.
Table 1, infra at Section VIII, shows where each limitation of claims 5 and
7-54 are discussed with respect to claims 1-4 and 6.
56
Accordingly, claims 5 and 7-54 would have been obvious over Woo in view
of Mizuno. (Ex-1102, ¶¶233-236).
VIII. TABLE 1 – CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CLAIMS 5, 7-54 AND CLAIMS 1-4, 6
As explained above in Section IV.C, each independent claim recites the
same set of limitations. Although the language and sequencing of limitations in
the claims varies, every limitation of the other independent claims corresponds to
one or more limitations of claim 1.
Table 1 is a claim chart shows where each limitation of claims 5 and 7-54 is
discussed in this petition with respect to the corresponding limitation in claims 1-4
and 6, thereby establishing the obviousness of claims 5 and 7-54.
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 5
[5A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[5B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet connection to a remote server,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
57
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[5C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[5D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet connection to the remote server;
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
[5E] receiving the communication with the local guide; and VI.A.5 VII.A.5
[5F] responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 7 7 The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
58
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 8
8 The method of claim 5, wherein scheduling the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 9 9 The method of claim 5, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 10 [10A] A system comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[10B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, VI.A.2 VII.A.2
that generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; and VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[10C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[10D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
59
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via an Internet connection to a remote server;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[10E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide; and
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[10F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing using the Internet connection to the remote server;
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
[10G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and
VI.A.5 VII.A.5
[10H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 11 [11] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E
60
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 12
[12] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem.
VI.B VII.B
Claim 13 [13] The system of claim 10, wherein scheduling the recording comprises
scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 14 [14] The system of claim 10, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 15 [15A] A system comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[15B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, VI.A.2 VII.A.2
that generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; and VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[15C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2
61
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[15D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[15E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide; and
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[15F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet;
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
[15G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and
VI.A.5 VII.A.5
[15H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 16 [16] The system of claim 15, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
62
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 17
[17] The system of claim 15, wherein scheduling the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 18 [18] The system of claim 15, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 19 [19A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising: VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[19B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
63
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[19C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[19D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet; and
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
[19E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 20 [20] The method of claim 19, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
Claim 21 [21] The method of claim 19, wherein causing the local guide to schedule
the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 22 [22] The method of claim 19, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
64
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 23
[23A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[23B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet connection with a remote server,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[23C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
65
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[23D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing using the Internet connection with the remote server; and
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
[23E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 24 [24] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E
Claim 25 [25] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
Claim 26 [26] The method of claim 23, wherein causing the local guide to schedule
the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device. • VI.C • VII.C
Claim 27 [27] The method of claim 23, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 28 [28A] A system comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
66
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[28B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[28C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on television equipment via an Internet connection to a remote server,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site, and
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[28D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[28E] transmits a communication using the Internet connection to the remote server to the local guide indicating the selection of the program for recording; and
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
67
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[28F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television responsive equipment.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 29 [29] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E
Claim 30 [30] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
Claim 31 [31] The system of claim 28, wherein the remote guide further causes the
local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 32 [32] The system of claim 28, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 33 [33A] A system comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[33B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2
68
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[33C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on television equipment via the Internet,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site, and
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[33D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[33E] transmits a communication via the Internet to the local guide indicating the selection of the program for recording; and
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
[33F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
69
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 34
[34] The system of claim 33, wherein the television equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem.
VI.B VII.B
Claim 35 [35] The system of claim 33, wherein the remote guide further causes the
local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 36 [36] The system of claim 33, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 37 [37A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising: VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[37B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[37C] receiving a communication via the Internet from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
70
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet, and
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[37D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 38 [38] The method of claim 37, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
Claim 39 [39] The method of claim 37, wherein scheduling the recording
comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
71
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 40
[40] The method of claim 37, wherein a web site is accessible to the user from a computing device of the user.
VI.D VII.D
Claim 41 [41A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising: VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[41B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[41C] receiving a communication via an Internet connection with a remote server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet connection with the remote server, and
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
72
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[41D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the received communication.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 42 [42] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E
Claim 43 [43] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
Claim 44 [44] The method of claim 41, wherein scheduling the recording
comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 45 [45] The method of claim 41, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 46 [46A] A system comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
73
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[46B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site, that:
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[46C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[46D] receives a communication via an Internet connection with a remote server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet connection with the remote server, and
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[46E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
74
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 47
[47] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.
VI.E VII.E
Claim 48 [48] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
Claim 49 [49] The system of claim 46, wherein the local guide further schedules
the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 50 [50] The system of claim 46, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
Claim 51 [51A] A system comprising:
VI.A.1 VII.A.1
[51B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site, that:
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
[51C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
75
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section
[51D] receives a communication via the Internet from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide
VI.A.4 VII.A.4
identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of listings for display on the remote device,
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet, and
VI.A.2 VII.A.2
wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and
VI.A.3 VII.A.3
[51E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.
VI.A.6 VII.A.6
Claim 52 [52] The system of claim 51, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B
76
TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 53
[53] The system of claim 51, wherein the local guide further schedules the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
VI.C VII.C
Claim 54 [54] The system of claim 51, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D
77
IX. CONCLUSION
Petitioners submit that inter partes review of claims 1-54 of the ’801 Patent
should be instituted on the grounds set forth herein.
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
Dated: March 23, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /
Frederic M. Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner & Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 824-3000 (202) 824-3001 [email protected]
78
CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
that the word count for the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals
13,794, as counted by the Word Count feature of Microsoft Word, which is less
than the 14,000 allowed under 37 CFR § 42.24(a)(i).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1), this count does not include the table of
contents, the table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8, the certificate of
service, this certification of word count, the claims listing appendix, or appendix of
exhibits.
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
Dated: March 23, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /
Frederic M. Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner & Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 824-3000 (202) 824-3001 [email protected]
79
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, I hereby certify that I caused a true and
correct copy of the Petition for Inter Partes Review in connection with U.S. Patent
No. 8,046,801 and supporting evidence to be served via FedEx Priority Overnight
on March 23, 2017, on the following:
ROPES & GRAY LLP PATENT DOCKETING 39/361 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK NY 10036-8704
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
Dated: March 23, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /
Frederic M. Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner & Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 824-3000 (202) 824-3001 [email protected]
80
CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX
U.S. Pat. No. 8,046,801
Designation Claim Language
Claim 1
[1A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising:
[1B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote
device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,
wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, wherein
the user equipment is located at a user site, and wherein the local
guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display
on a display device at the user site;
[1C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program
listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user
selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program
listing for recording by the local guide;
[1D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local
guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program
listing via the Internet;
[1E] receiving the communication with the local guide; and
[1F] responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide,
the program corresponding to the selected program listing for
recording by the user equipment.
81
Designation Claim Language
Claim 2
[2] The method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem.
Claim 3
[3] The method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the recording comprises
scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running
on the remote device.
Claim 4
[4] The method of claim 1, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 5
[5A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising:
[5B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote
device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet
connection to a remote server, wherein the user equipment is remote
to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located at a user
site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more
program listings for display on a display device at the user site;
82
Designation Claim Language
[5C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program
listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user
selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program
listing for recording by the local guide;
[5D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local
guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program
listing using the Internet connection to the remote server;
[5E] receiving the communication with the local guide; and
[5F] responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide,
the program corresponding to the selected program listing for
recording by the user equipment.
Claim 6
[6] The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over the Internet.
Claim 7
[7] The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem.
Claim 8
[8] The method of claim 5, wherein scheduling the recording comprises
scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running
on the remote device.
Claim 9
[9] The method of claim 5, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
83
Designation Claim Language
Claim 10
[10A] A system comprising:
[10B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, that generates a
display of one or more program listings for display on a display
device at a user site, wherein the television equipment is located at
the user site; and
[10C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:
[10D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
the local guide via an Internet connection to a remote server;
[10E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of
program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a program
corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the
local guide; and
[10F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the
program corresponding to the selected program listing using the
Internet connection to the remote server;
[10G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and
[10H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program
corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the
appropriate time using the television equipment.
Claim 11
[11] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over the Internet.
84
Designation Claim Language
Claim 12
[12] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem.
Claim 13
[13] The system of claim 10, wherein scheduling the recording comprises
scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running
on the remote device.
Claim 14
[14] The system of claim 10, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 15
[15A] A system comprising:
[15B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, that generates a
display of one or more program listings for display on a display
device at a user site, wherein the television equipment is located at
the user site; and
[15C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:
[15D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
the local guide via the Internet;
[15E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of
program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a program
corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the
local guide; and
85
Designation Claim Language
[15F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the
program corresponding to the selected program listing via the
Internet;
[15G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and
[15H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program
corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the
appropriate time using the television equipment.
Claim 16
[16] The system of claim 15, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem.
Claim 17
[17] The system of claim 15, wherein scheduling the recording comprises
scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running
on the remote device.
Claim 18
[18] The system of claim 15, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 19
[19A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising:
86
Designation Claim Language
[19B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote
device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,
wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, wherein
the user equipment is located at a user site, and wherein the local
guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display
on a display device at the user site;
[19C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program
listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user
selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program
listing for recording by the local guide;
[19D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local
guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program
listing via the Internet; and
[19E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the
selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the
appropriate time based on the communication.
Claim 20
[20] The method of claim 19, wherein the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over a modem.
87
Designation Claim Language
Claim 21
[21] The method of claim 19, wherein causing the local guide to schedule
the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from
an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
Claim 22
[22] The method of claim 19, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 23
[23A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising:
[23B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote
device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet
connection with a remote server, wherein the user equipment is
remote to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located
at a user site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one
or more program listings for display on a display device at the user
site;
[23C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program
listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user
selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program
listing for recording by the local guide;
88
Designation Claim Language
[23D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local
guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program
listing using the Internet connection with the remote server; and
[23E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the
selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the
appropriate time based on the communication.
Claim 24
[24] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over the Internet.
Claim 25
[25] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over a modem.
Claim 26
[26] The method of claim 23, wherein causing the local guide to schedule
the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from
an electronic program guide running on the remote device.
Claim 27
[27] The method of claim 23, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 28
[28A] A system comprising:
[28B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:
89
Designation Claim Language
[28C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on television equipment via an Internet
connection to a remote server, wherein the local guide generates a
display of one or more program listings for display on a display
device at a user site, and wherein the television equipment is located
at the user site;
[28D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program
listings, wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to
the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
[28E] transmits a communication using the Internet connection to the
remote server to the local guide indicating the selection of the
program for recording; and
[28F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication,
the program corresponding to the selected program listing for
recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.
Claim 29
[29] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over the Internet.
Claim 30
[30] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem.
90
Designation Claim Language
Claim 31
[31] The system of claim 28, wherein the remote guide further causes the
local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an
electronic program guide running on the remote device.
Claim 32
[32] The system of claim 28, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 33
[33A] A system comprising:
[33B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:
[33C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for
display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by
the remote guide based on program guide information received from
a local guide implemented on television equipment via the Internet,
wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program
listings for display on a display device at a user site, and where the
television equipment is located at the user site;
[33D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program
listings, wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to
the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;
[33E] transmits a communication via the Internet to the local guide
indicating the selection of the program for recording; and
[33F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication,
the program corresponding to the selected program listing for
recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.
91
Designation Claim Language
Claim 34
[34] The system of claim 33, wherein the television equipment is
accessible by the remote device over a modem.
Claim 35
[35] The system of claim 33, wherein the remote guide further causes the
local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an
electronic program guide running on the remote device.
Claim 36
[36] The system of claim 33, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 37
[37A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising:
[37B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a
display of one or more program listings for display on a display
device at a user site, wherein the user equipment is located at the
user site;
92
Designation Claim Language
[37C] receiving a communication via the Internet from a remote guide,
accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide identifying
a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for
recording by the local guide, wherein the remote guide generates a
display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the
remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide
based on program guide information received from the local guide
via the Internet, and wherein the user selected program listing is
selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and
[37D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the
user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at
the appropriate time based on the communication.
Claim 38
[38] The method of claim 37, wherein the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over a modem.
Claim 39
[39] The method of claim 37, wherein scheduling the recording
comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program
guide running on the remote device.
Claim 40
[40] The method of claim 37, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 41
[41A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method
comprising:
93
Designation Claim Language
[41B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a
display of one or more program listings for display on a display
device at a user site, wherein the user equipment is located at the
user site;
[41C] receiving a communication via an Internet connection with a remote
server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device,
at the local guide identifying a program corresponding to a user
selected program listing for recording by the local guide, wherein
the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of
program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the
display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide
information received from the local guide via the Internet
connection with the remote server, and wherein the user selected
program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote
guide; and
[41D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the
user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at
the appropriate time based on the received communication.
Claim 42
[42] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over the Internet.
Claim 43
[43] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible
by the remote device over a modem.
94
Designation Claim Language
Claim 44
[44] The method of claim 41, wherein scheduling the recording
comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program
guide running on the remote device.
Claim 45
[45] The method of claim 41, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 46
[46A] A system comprising:
[46B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site,
that:
[46C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a
display device at the user site;
[46D] receives a communication via an Internet connection with a remote
server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device,
at the local guide identifying a program corresponding to a user
selected program listing for recording by the local guide, wherein
the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of
program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the
display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide
information received from the local guide via the Internet
connection with the remote server, and wherein the user selected
program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote
guide; and
95
Designation Claim Language
[46E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program
listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time
based on the communication.
Claim 47
[47] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over the Internet.
Claim 48
[48] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem.
Claim 49
[49] The system of claim 46, wherein the local guide further schedules
the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic
program guide running on the remote device.
Claim 50
[50] The system of claim 46, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.
Claim 51
[51A] A system comprising:
[51B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site,
that:
[51C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a
display device at the user site;
96
Designation Claim Language
[51D] receives a communication via the Internet from a remote guide,
accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide identifying
a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for
recording by the local guide, wherein the remote guide generates a
display comprising a plurality of listings for display on the remote
device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based
on program guide information received from the local guide via the
Internet, and wherein the user selected program listing is selected
from the display generated by the remote guide; and
[51E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program
listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time
based on the communication.
Claim 52
[52] The system of claim 51, wherein the user equipment is accessible by
the remote device over a modem.
Claim 53
[53] The system of claim 51, wherein the local guide further schedules
the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic
program guide running on the remote device.
Claim 54
[54] The system of claim 51, wherein a web site is accessible to the user
from a computing device of the user.