Contemporary Display LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2020

IPR2019-01167 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29
571-272-7822 Date: November 25, 2020
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
Petitioner,

v.

CONTEMPORARY DISPLAY LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JONI Y. CHANG, and JOHN A. HUDALLA,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

Petitioner, DISH Network L.L.C. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition
(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,028,643 (Ex. 1001, “the ’643 patent”). Patent Owner,
Contemporary Display LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response
(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Taking into account the arguments presented in
the Preliminary Response, we determined that the information presented in
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
2
the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail with respect to its unpatentability challenges. Pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on December 13, 2019, as to
all challenged claims and all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. on
Inst.”).
During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 11, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
Owner Response (Paper 16, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a
Sur-reply. Paper 21 (“PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing was held on
September 15, 2020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record.
Paper 28 (“Tr.”).
Petitioner filed Declarations of Anthony Wechselberger with its
Petition (Ex. 1003) and Reply (Ex. 1034). Patent Owner filed a Declaration
of Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D., with its Response. Ex. 2001. The parties
also filed transcripts of the depositions of Mr. Wechselberger (Ex. 2004) and
Dr. Brogioli (Ex. 1033).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
claims 1–25 of the ’643 patent. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–25 of the
’643 patent are unpatentable.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Real-Parties-in-Interest
Petitioner identifies DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Network
Corporation, and DISH Technologies L.L.C. as real-parties-in-interest.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
3
Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Contemporary Display LLC as the real-
party-in-interest. Paper 7, 1; Paper 27, 2.

B. Related Proceedings
The parties identify the following proceeding related to the
’643 patent (Pet. 1; Paper 7, 1; Paper 27, 2): Contemporary Display LLC v.
DISH Network Corp., No. 1:18-cv-476 (W.D. Tex. filed June 4, 2018).
In addition, Petitioner filed petitions for inter partes review against
other patents owned by Patent Owner in IPR2019-01163, IPR2019-01164,
and IPR2019-01166. We granted Patent Owner’s requests for adverse
judgment in each of these proceedings.

C. The ’643 Patent
The ’643 patent relates to a video adapter in a personal computer that
includes at least two television tuners and that sends video data to multiple
computer displays. Ex. 1001, 1:7–11. Figure 1 of the ’643 patent is
reproduced below.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
4

Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of a computer system that includes a video
adapter and video adapter software according to the invention of the
’643 patent. Id. at 3:41–43, 4:66–5:1. Computer system 100 includes
computer 110 with CPU 102, memory 104, bus 105, first display device 130,
second display device 140, and input device 160 (e.g., a mouse). Id. at
5:1–5. Adapter 150 is coupled to first display device 130 and second display
device 140 by electrical connections. Id. at 5:5–7. Memory 104 can include
video adapter software 125 that supports graphics processing and control
functionality, among other things. Id. at 5:11–13.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
5
Figures 2 and 2A of the ’643 patent are reproduced below.

Figures 2 and 2A depict a functional block diagram of adapter 150 with
support for four television monitors or four computer monitors. Id. at 3:44–
45, 5:28–29. Video adapter 150 interfaces with computer 110 via PCI
(Peripheral Component Interconnect) bridge 240 using 32-bit PCI Version
2.1-compliant bus interface 220 that couples with a single PCI bus
expansion slot in computer 110. Id. at 5:29–35. Video adapter 150
processes video data from computer 110 via PCI bridge 240, which bridges
data from PCI bus interface 220 to multiple accelerators on the card. Id. at
5:39–42.
Video adapter 150 includes television tuners 260, 270, which each
accept television signals from a cable television connection, a video cassette
recorder, a television antenna, or similar television signal source. Id. at
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
6
5:54–58. Video adapter 150 also includes video multiplexer inputs 280,
290, which accept RCA and S-Video inputs from a variety of sources,
including outputs from tuners 260, 270. Id. at 5:58–62. Video decoders
275, 285 convert analog video signals from video multiplexers 280, 290 into
a digital component stream for use by graphics accelerators 210, 235. Id. at
6:4–6.
A user interface for computer 110 is implemented in various windows
with menu selections. Id. at 5:20–21, 7:2–9, Fig. 3. One such window is
illustrated in Figure 23 of the ’643 patent, which is reproduced below.

Figure 23 depicts tool window 2302 that a user may select from various
menus in the user interface for computer 110. Id. at 12:46–48. Tool
window 2302 includes, inter alia, keypad 2308, which allows the user to
select particular audio and video settings for the active window. Id. at
12:48–52.
The application from which the ’643 patent issued was filed on
September 3, 1997. Id. at code (22). As discussed below, Petitioner asserts
that its asserted references qualify as prior art relative to the September 3,
1997, filing date. See Pet. 2–3.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
7
D. Illustrative Claims
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent.
Claims 2–11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 13–15
depend directly or indirectly from claim 12; and claims 17–25 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 16. Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the
challenged claims and recite:
1. A video adapter for use in a computer having an internal
bus, the video adapter comprising:
a first graphic accelerator;
a second graphic accelerator;
at least one video decoder coupled to at least one of the
first and second graphic accelerators;
a first television tuner receiving a first television signal
a second television tuner receiving a second television
signal;
circuitry for coupling the first and second television
tuners to the at least one video decoder; and
a plurality of video monitor outputs.

16. A method for displaying information on multiple display
devices, comprising the steps, performed by a computer, of:
providing a computer containing an adapter which
supplies signals to a plurality of monitors, the adapter
containing a plurality of video tuners;
displaying a tool window interface coupled to control the
adapter, wherein a first display device output window having a
group of selectable inputs including at least one video input,
and a second display device output window having a group of
selectable inputs having at least one video input, are displayed;
inputting an indication that a user wishes to select a first
input for the first display device output window;
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
8
inputting an indication that a user wishes to select a
second input for the second display device output window;
causing the adapter to display, on the first display device,
signals according to the first display device input indication;
and
causing the adapter to display, on the second display
device, signals according to the second display device input
indication.
Ex. 1001, 13:53–65, 14:59–15:15.

E. Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
U.S. Patent No. 5,675,390, filed July 17, 1995, issued
Oct. 7, 1997 (Ex. 1005, “Schindler”);
U.S. Patent No. 5,923,307, filed Jan. 27, 1997, issued
July 13, 1999 (Ex. 1006, “Hogle”);
U.S. Patent No. 5,428,730, filed Dec. 15, 1992, issued
June 27, 1995 (Ex. 1007, “Baker”); and
U.S. Patent No. 5,794,016, filed Dec. 11, 1995, issued
Aug. 11, 1998 (Ex. 1008, “Kelleher”).

F. The Instituted Grounds
We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–25 of the ’643 patent on
the following grounds (Dec. on Inst. 41), which are all the grounds presented
in the Petition (Pet. 3):
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
16–19, 24, 25 103(a)1 Schindler, Hogle

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
effective filing date of the ’643 patent is before March 16, 2013 (the
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
9
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
20–23 103(a) Schindler, Hogle, Baker
1–14 103(a) Schindler, Kelleher
15 103(a) Schindler, Kelleher, Hogle

II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations.2 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).

effective date of the relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102
and 103 apply.
2 The record does not contain any evidence of secondary considerations of
nonobviousness.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
10
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Citing testimony from Mr. Wechselberger, Petitioner contends a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a Bachelor of
Science in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical
Engineering, or an equivalent as well as at least two years of relevant
academic or industry experience in the field of computer processing and
display of analog and digital video signals.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 66).
Patent Owner puts forth the same definition with support from Dr. Brogioli.
PO Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 38).
We adopt the parties’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill of skill
necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’643 patent and
the asserted prior art.

C. Claim Interpretation
Because this inter partes review is based on a petition filed after
November 13, 2018, we construe each claim “in accordance with the
ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018).3 Accordingly, our claim construction

3 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the
Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district courts.
CHANGES TO THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD FOR INTERPRETING
CLAIMS IN TRIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) (2019)). This rule change applies to petitions filed on or after
November 13, 2018.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
11
standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard
applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and
ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc).
In the Petition, Petitioner contended that the terms “video adapter” (in
claims 1 and 12) and “adapter” (in claim 16) should be construed to mean
“separate video card.” Pet. 8–10. In the Preliminary Response, Patent
Owner contended that no construction of these or any other terms is
necessary and that all terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary
meaning. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. In our Decision on Institution, we determined
that no terms required construction. Dec. on Inst. 9.
In its Response, Patent Owner repeats its position from the
Preliminary Response that no construction of any terms is necessary and that
all terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning.4 PO

4 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel put forth new arguments about
how we should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “adapter.”
See Tr. 22:16–30:7. These arguments do not appear in Patent Owner’s
briefs. The oral hearing is limited to “argument on an issue raised in a
paper” and is not a vehicle for introducing new argument or evidence to the
proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 85–86 (Nov. 2019) (“Consolidated
Trial Practice Guide”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“[A] party . . . may only present arguments
relied upon in the papers previously submitted.”). As such, we do not
consider Patent Owner’s new arguments. And, as discussed below, Patent
Owner does not dispute that the asserted references teach the “adapter”
limitations in the challenged claims.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
12
Resp. 3–4. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “[n]o meaningful claim
construction disputes remain, and the Board need not construe any terms to
resolve what little controversy is left in this case.” Pet. Reply 2.
We agree with Petitioner that no disputes in this case turn on
construction of claim terms, so we maintain our determination that no terms
require explicit construction. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need
only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary
to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).

D. Obviousness Ground Based on Schindler and Hogle
Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16–19, 24, and 25
would have been obvious over Schindler and Hogle. Pet. 11–51; Pet.
Reply 2–18. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not provided sufficient
evidence to show that Schindler and Hogle can be appropriately combined.
PO Resp. 4–10; PO Sur-reply 1–13.

1. Schindler
Schindler is a U.S. patent directed to “a system having a high quality
monitor to display digitally received broadband video without loss of signal
quality.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–10. Figure 1 of Schindler is reproduced below.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
13

Figure 1 depicts home entertainment system 110 for processing and
displaying high quality video. Id. at 6:37–39, 7:44–45. In system 110,
antenna 114 receives satellite signals, and personal computer 118 contains
circuitry and software to demodulate and decode signals from antenna 114 to
produce a video graphics array (VGA) signal. Id. at 7:50–53, 7:61–65. The
VGA signal is provided via cable 120 to drive monitor 122. Id. at 5:58–59,
7:65–8:2. In addition, personal computer 118 may receive signals from
camera 156, public switched telephone network (PSTN) 162, CD
jukebox 168, VCR 172, and cable source 174. Id. at 21:8–25. Personal
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
14
computer 118 may also drive multiple monitors, including National
Television Systems Committee (NTSC) TV 150. Id. at 21:25–28. A user
controls system 118 via handheld remote control 124 (with standard
television controls and numeric keypad) and computer keyboard 126. Id. at
8:2–12.
Figure 3 of Schindler is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a block diagram showing the major components of personal
computer 118. Id. at 6:43–45, 8:66–67. Processor 310 resides on a system
board containing industry standard PCI bus 312. Id. at 8:67–9:1.
Computer 118 also includes receiver 316, “video graphics adapter, VGA
converter card 318,” sound card 320, and modem 322. Id. at 9:5–7. Radio
frequency (RF) receiver 324 receives RF signals from remote controls 124,
which provide indications of the keys being pressed along with the identity
of the remote control 124 or keyboard 126 sending the signal. Id. at 9:24–
26. A system controller program running on processor 310 supervises
software drivers, which are programmed to distinguish the source of the
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
15
remote key signals and control the particular program the signals affect. Id.
at 9:31–34.
Figure 11a of Schindler is reproduced below.

Figure 11a is a flowchart showing how commands issued from different
remote control devices are interpreted by processor 310 to control different
applications. Id. at 15:13–16. At step 1110, when an application is started
in a window (as in a Windows 3.11 or Windows 95 environment), the
application is initialized and associated with a particular remote control. Id.
at 15:16–18. At step 1112, RF circuitry 324 receives signals from a remote
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
16
control and identifies the command (i.e., the identity of the key that was
pressed and the remote device from which it came) to processor 310. Id. at
15:26–29. At step 1114, processor 310 identifies the application in a
window to which the command should be applied. Id. at 15:29–31. If the
command is a presentation type of command (e.g., enlarging a window or
opening a window) as determined at step 1116, the command is routed to the
window manager for execution at step 1118. Id. at 15:31–34. If the
command is not a presentation type of command as determined at step 1116,
the command is executed at step 1120 in the application underlying the
window. Id. at 15:34–36.
Figure 14a of Schindler is reproduced below.

Figure 14a depicts a “first screen display” user interface for interacting with
the entertainment system of Schindler. Id. at 7:12–14, 18:57–58. The first
screen display, which includes a set of icons, acts as an application manager,
allowing the user to launch other applications and utilities from within it. Id.
at 18:58–65. The first screen display “is organized into the following areas,
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
17
each of which leads to further menus: Entertainment, Information Services,
Productivity, and Logon/Help/Configuration controls.” Id. at 18:65–19:1.
Figure 14c of Schindler is reproduced below.

Figure 14c depicts an entertainment menu that is activated by selecting an
appropriate icon in a higher-level menu. Id. at 19:12–19. The entertainment
menu includes “selections such as Microsoft Home Theater, CD audio,
Digital Video, IR Blaster and Games, all of which may be launched from
this window.” Id. at 19:19–23.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
18
Figure 13 of Schindler is reproduced below.

Figure 13 depicts a user interface for controlling broadband video. Id. at
7:10–11, 17:57–62. Television schedule 1310 includes a timeline across the
top and various cells (e.g., A2, C5) indicating programs on four channels, A,
B, C, and D. Id. at 17:61–18:9. To view a program, a user either double-
clicks on a cell or drags the cell to view icon 1326 and drops it there. Id. at
18:21–22.
Petitioner contends Schindler qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on its filing date. Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the
prior art status of Schindler. We have no evidence of an invention date other
than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims.
Thus, we determine that Schindler qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) because Schindler’s filing date of July 17, 1995, is before the
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
19
earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is
September 3, 1997. Ex. 1001, code (22); Ex. 1005, code (22).

2. Hogle
Hogle is a U.S. patent directed to “configuring monitor screen
displays in a multiple monitor environment.” Ex. 1006, 1:4–5. Figure 3 of
Hogle is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a block diagram of a computer system including monitors 330
and 332 with monitor spaces 41 and 43, respectively, defined by the logical
height and width of each display. Id. at 1:53–57. The combination of the
monitor spaces 41 and 43 may be treated as a single, continuous display
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
20
space. Id. at 1:57–62. Computer 300 includes central processing unit 304,
input/output unit 306 and memory 302 containing operating system 303 and
application programs 305. Id. at 1:8–11.
Figure 4 of Hogle is reproduced below.

Figure 4 is a screen diagram showing display regions in a graphical user
interface as used in the computer system of Figure 3 above. Id. at 4:42–44.
Virtual desktop 45 includes monitor spaces 41 and 43. Id. at 1:57–62. A
user may move objects, such as windows A, B, C, and D and cursor 25, back
and forth between monitor spaces 41 and 43 and may position an object
(e.g., window C) so that it spans monitor spaces 41 and 43. Id. at 1:62–67.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
21
Figure 6 of Hogle is reproduced below.

Figure 6 depicts a multiple monitor display architecture including two
device drivers 35, 203 and two monitors 37, 207. Id. at 9:43–45.
Presentation shell 31 (e.g., a graphical user interface or “GUI”) allows an
end-user to communicate with the operating system and application
programs 32. Id. at 5:51–53. An application running on the computer
system may display information in one or more of the display regions
through a graphical device interface subsystem 34 (“GDI”) provided by the
operating system. Id. at 5:53–56. Forking display driver 201 is software
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
22
code that effectively splits the graphics stream from GDI 34 into a number
of parts equal to the number of monitors being used (e.g., two parts for two
monitors) and thus distributes the virtual desktop across multiple monitors.
Id. at 9:45–54. USER subsystem 33 provides functions relating to the GUI,
including functions to create, move, size, and remove screen objects such as
display windows, selection menus appearing in the display windows,
graphical icons, and the like. Id. at 7:66–8:2. USER subsystem 33 also
provides the end-user with a continuous display space (e.g., virtual desktop)
regardless of the number of monitors (one or more) from which the display
space is composed. Id. at 10:8–11.
Petitioner contends Hogle qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on its filing date. Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the
prior art status of Hogle. We have no evidence of an invention date other
than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims.
Thus, we determine that Hogle qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) because Hogle’s filing date of January 27, 1997, is before the
earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is
September 3, 1997. Ex. 1001, code (22); Ex. 1006, code (22).

3. Claim 16
a. Preamble and Claim Limitations
The preamble of claim 16 recites “[a] method for displaying
information on multiple display devices.” Ex. 1001, 14:59–61. Petitioner
cites Schindler’s teaching about personal computer 118, which “is set up to
drive multiple monitors.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:58–59, Fig. 1).
Petitioner also relies on Hogle’s teaching of a computer system that
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
23
“arranges multiple monitors in logical space to form a contiguous and non-
overlapping region.” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:1–7) (emphasis
omitted); see also id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:53–57, Fig. 3) (describing
monitors 330, 332).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble of
claim 16. Neither party addresses whether the preamble is limiting.
Because Petitioner has shown that Schindler (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 5:58–59,
Fig. 1 (computer 118 driving VGA monitor 122 and NTSC TV 150)) and
Hogle ((see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:53–57, Fig. 3) (monitors 330, 332)) both teach
the preamble, we need not determine whether the preamble is limiting. See
Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
Claim 16 further recites “providing a computer containing an adapter
which supplies signals to a plurality of monitors, the adapter containing a
plurality of video tuners.” Ex. 1001, 14:62–64. For the computer, Petitioner
cites Schindler’s personal computer 118. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:66–
9:7). For the adapter, Petitioner cites Schindler’s PCI bus 312, receiver 316
and VGA adapter 318; Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known to integrate these components on a single card (using
PCI bus 312) that enables personal computer 118 to interface with NTSC
and VGA displays. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106–108; Ex. 1005, 4:23–26,
8:66–9:7). For “suppl[ying] signals to a plurality of monitors,” Petitioner
cites VGA adapter 318 and its provision of output signals to VGA
monitor 122 and NTSC monitor 150. Id. at 27–29 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:17–
21, 11:31–37, 11:40–58, Fig. 5). For the “plurality of video tuners,”
Petitioner cites Schindler’s tuners 410 and 526. Id. at 29–30 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106–109; Ex. 1005, 10:13–15, Figs. 3–5).
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
24
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the “providing”
limitation.5 Schindler’s personal computer 118 is commensurate with the
recited “computer,” and Petitioner persuasively shows how Schindler’s PCI
bus 312, receiver 316, and VGA adapter 318 act as the recited “adapter”
because they “enable[] Schindler’s PC 118 to interface with NTSC and VGA
displays.” See Pet. 26–29; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–108
(Mr. Wechselberger’s supporting testimony regarding the same). Petitioner
also shows how Schindler’s VGA adapter 318 outputs signals to VGA
monitor 122 and NTSC monitor 150, which teaches that the adapter
“supplies signals to a plurality of monitors.” Pet. 27–29 (citing, inter alia,
Ex. 1005, 11:17–21, 31–37, 11:40–58, Figs. 3, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105).
Petitioner additionally establishes that receiver 316 includes tuner 410 and
VGA adapter 318 includes tuner 526, so Schindler teaches the recited
“plurality of video tuners.” Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 3–5). Thus,
we find that the combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches the “providing”
limitation of claim 16.
Claim 16 further recites “displaying a tool window interface coupled
to control the adapter.” Ex. 1001, 14:65–66. Petitioner contends that
Schindler’s personal computer 118 achieves control using a windows
architecture and a virtual desktop. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113;
Ex. 1005, 15:40–46, 18:57–19:4). In particular, Petitioner cites Schindler’s

5 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel put forth new arguments about
how Petitioner had not established that the combination of Schindler and
Hogle teaches the recited “adapter” recited in claim 16. See Tr. 33:12–
34:12. These arguments do not appear in Patent Owner’s briefs. For the
same reasons discussed above, we do not consider Patent Owner’s new
arguments. See supra note 4.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
25
front-end menu displayed on VGA monitor 122 and contends that an
ordinarily skilled artisan also would have known to display the menu on
NTSC monitor 150. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005, 11:51–55,
18:57–58). Petitioner further contends that Schindler teaches “simultaneous
interaction by users with different display windows.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
15:6–9, 15:44–46). Thus, in light of Schindler’s and Hogle’s teachings
about Windows-based interfaces and Hogle’s teachings about using multiple
monitors (see id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–114; Ex. 1005, 15:40–46;
Ex. 1006, Fig. 4)), Petitioner contends that a system combining Schindler
and Hogle would have resulted in a virtual desktop that “includes a first
window on the first monitor and a second window on the second monitor.”
Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 117).
Petitioner also cites Schindler’s various menu displays from which a
user may select programs for viewing. See id. at 33–35 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 118–119, 122; Ex. 1005, 15:40–42, 17:60–18:6, 18:21–23, 19:12–24,
Figs. 13, 14a, 14c). According to Petitioner, the user may select a channel
via these displays, which causes the device driver executing on
processor 310 to send the adapter appropriate commands to produce the
required output. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:35–36). This may include
“processor 310 of the PC ‘send[ing] the command over the PCI bus 312 to
receiver 316, where tuner 410 tunes in a different channel.’” Id. at 36
(quoting Ex. 1005, 10:41–45). Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have “recognize[d] that selection of any input source listed in
any of Schindler’s menus would also ‘control the adapter’ because the
adapter would be required to interact with software executing on
processor 310.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123).
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
26
As mentioned above, Petitioner contends “the virtual desktop can be
split across two monitors.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Ex. 1006,
Fig. 4). An annotated drawing of Petitioner’s proposed virtual desktop is
reproduced below.

Id. at 37. In this annotated drawing, Petitioner has depicted its conception of
virtual desktop in the combined dual monitor system of Schindler and
Hogle. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 124). The proposed virtual desktop
includes Window A on a first monitor and Window B on a second monitor,
each of which is displaying Schindler’s front-end menu (i.e., Schindler’s
Figure 14a). Id. at 36–37. Petitioner asserts that child menus, such as the
entertainment menu (i.e., Schindler’s Figure 14c) and broadband menu (i.e.,
Schindler’s Figure 13) depicted on the second monitor, can be activated
from Schindler’s front-end menu. Id. According to Petitioner, “[t]he virtual
desktop in the combined system is the recited ‘tool window interface’
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
27
because it is the interface used to present menus controlling content
displayed in each window on each monitor.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 1266).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of this limitation.
We are persuaded that Schindler’s window-based menu displays, such as
those depicted in Figures 14a (“first screen display”), 14c (“entertainment
menu”), and 13 (“broadband video” interface), teach the recited “tool
window interface.” As implemented in Petitioner’s proposed virtual desktop
in the combined dual monitor system of Schindler and Hogle, these displays
“control the adapter” because a user’s inputs in the virtual desktop result in
changes to the video outputted to the monitors. See Ex. 1005, 10:41–45
(channel-changing command); Ex. 1006, 6:34–36 (adapter producing
“required output” in response to function call); Ex. 1003 ¶ 123
(Mr. Wechselberger’s testimony regarding same). Thus, we find the
combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches “displaying a tool window
interface coupled to control the adapter.”
Claim 16 further recites “a first display device output window having
a group of selectable inputs including at least one video input, and a second
display device output window having a group of selectable inputs having at
least one video input, are displayed.” Ex. 1001, 14:66–15:3. Continuing its
analysis of the combined system of Schindler and Hogle, Petitioner contends
the windows containing Schindler’s menus in each of the monitors is a
“display device output window.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 127).

6 Petitioner inadvertently omits the paragraph number from its citation to
Exhibit 1003, but the context makes clear that Petitioner intended to cite
paragraph 126.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
28
Petitioner notes that Schindler’s menus “include a list of input sources that is
selectable by the user,” such as the list of selections (including “digital
video”) in Schindler’s entertainment menu. Id.; see also id. at 34 (citing
Ex. 1005, 19:20–24) (citing Schindler’s teaching that selectable items in
Schindler’s entertainment menu “may be launched from this window”). As
such, Petitioner contends “a viewer can select one input source for
monitor 122 via a first display device window and a second input source for
NTSC monitor 150 via a second display device window.” Id. at 38 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 127).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the “display
device output window” limitations. Schindler teaches an entertainment
menu window having selectable video inputs, including “digital video,” that
“may be launched from this window.” See Ex. 1005, 19:20–24, Fig. 14c.
Petitioner also establishes, via Mr. Wechselberger’s uncontested testimony,
that an ordinarily skilled artisan considering Schindler’s teachings on
customizing menus would have listed other supported video inputs
(including satellite, cable, and broadcast) in the entertainment menu.
Pet. 34; Ex. 1003 ¶ 119; Ex. 1005, 19:45–50. Considering the multiple
menu windows in Petitioner’s proposed virtual desktop (as implemented in
the dual monitor system of Schindler and Hogle (see, e.g., Pet. 40)), we are
persuaded that the combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches first and
second “display device output window[s] having a group of selectable
inputs.”
Claim 16 further recites “inputting an indication that a user wishes to
select a first input for the first display device output window” and “inputting
an indication that a user wishes to select a second input for the second
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
29
display device output window.” Ex. 1001, 15:4–9. For these limitations,
Petitioner provides the drawing figure reproduced below.

Id. at 40. This figure depicts Petitioner’s example of a user selecting
different television programs for display in the combined system of
Schindler and Hogle. Id. at 39. Petitioner contends that Schindler’s
broadband video menu (Ex. 1005, Fig. 13) permits a user to control the
video streams displayed on the associated monitor, such as by clicking or
performing a drag-and-drop operation in the user interface. Id. at 40–41
(citing Ex. 1005, 17:57–18:5, 18:21–22). The depicted virtual desktop
allegedly includes “a first display device window selecting program A2 for
display in its window and a second display device window selection
program D2 for display in its window.” Id. at 39. Petitioner asserts that the
user selects program A2 (highlighted) for display on first monitor space 41
and program D2 (highlighted) for display on second monitor space 43. Id. at
41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130). According to Petitioner, processor 310 executes
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
30
a channel-changing command by “send[ing] the command over the PCI
bus 312 to the receiver 316, where tuner 410 tunes in a different channel.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 10:41–44). Petitioner further cites Schindler’s teaching
that different remote controls may be associated with different windows,
which allows each window to be controlled by a different user in the
combined system. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132; Ex. 1005, 6:6–8).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the “inputting”
limitations. Petitioner posits two instances of Schindler’s broadband menu
in different windows of the Schindler–Hogle virtual desktop. Pet. 40.
Schindler teaches the broadband menu is an exemplary user interface for
controlling video streams. Ex. 1005, 17:57–63. In Petitioner’s example,
users select different programs (i.e., A2 and D2) in the broadband menus for
display on each monitor, which is consistent with Schindler’s teachings on
multiple remote controls controlling different portions of Schindler’s system.
Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–132; Ex. 1005, 6:6–8. Thus, we are persuaded
that the combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches the two “inputting”
limitations of claim 16.
Claim 16 further recites “causing the adapter to display, on the first
display device, signals according to the first display device input indication”
and “causing the adapter to display, on the second display device, signals
according to the second display device input indication.” Ex. 1001, 15:10–
15. Petitioner cites Schindler’s teaching that after tuning, tuner output video
signals (digital MPEG signals) are processed and sent on to VGA card 318
for decoding and conversion to VGA signals for display on monitor 122 or
to NTSC signals for display on NSTC monitor 150. Id. at 41–42 (citing
Ex. 1005, 10:44–46, 11:19–37). Petitioner further asserts that “the adapter
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
31
can be used to simultaneously tune to and display different channels.” Id. at
42 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:6–11). As such, Petitioner contends “the adapter can
cause the display of A2 on the first display simultaneously with the display
of D2 on the second display.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the “causing”
limitations. Schindler teaches receiving, tuning, and converting for output
multiple simultaneous video channels. See Ex. 1005, 10:6–11, 11:19–37.
We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied this
functionality to different displays of the Schindler–Hogle virtual desktop to
“cause the display of A2 on the first display simultaneously with the display
of D2 on the second display” in response to user input in Schindler’s
broadband menu windows. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 135. Thus, we find that the
combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches the two “causing” limitations of
claim 16.
Based on the entire trial record, we are satisfied that the combination
of Schindler and Hogle teaches all of the limitations of claim 16.

b. Reasons for the Combination
Petitioner notes that Schindler does not provide details on how to
display data on multiple monitors, so Petitioner contends an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to search for references, such as
Hogle, that taught these details. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; Ex. 1006,
1:5–6). Petitioner notes that both Hogle’s display architecture and
Schindler’s graphical user interface are designed to operate in a Windows-
based operating system environment. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94;
Ex. 1005, 18:57–63; Ex. 1006, 5:45–50). Petitioner contends “Hogle’s
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
32
architecture alleviates screen clutter present in systems with a large number
of applications and inputs such as disclosed by Schindler.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 95; Ex. 1006, 1:53–57). Petitioner also contends Hogle’s display
architecture approach results in increased screen real estate and efficiency
improvements for the graphics engine. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:40–
45). Petitioner additionally contends that, “[b]ecause Schindler’s system
supports multiple monitors, it would have been straightforward to a[n
ordinarily skilled artisan] to apply Hogle’s software-based multi-monitor
configuration technique into Schindler’s GUI software and the results would
have been predictable.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96).
In addition, Petitioner argues that “Schindler handles requests on a
per-application, per-window basis” and that “Schindler arbitrates requests
from multiple users for multiple windows.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1005,
15:14–46, Fig. 11a; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 12–18). Petitioner further argues that
distributing these windows across two screens, as in the combination with
Hogle, makes no difference to Schindler’s request arbitration. Id. at 6–7
(citing Ex. 1006, 6:35–43; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 19–20).
Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s proposed combination is
missing key technical components that would allow such a combination to
function in the manner Petitioner suggests.” PO Resp. 5. In particular,
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to address “how to arbitrate
access requests from multiple users for access to multiple video sources
across multiple display screens.” PO Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner
(PO Sur-reply 4), Petitioner inconsistently cites Schindler’s “explicit
teaching of multiple monitors” to show such arbitration (Pet. Reply 6), while
at the same time conceding that “Schindler does not provide details
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
33
regarding how the system manages the display of data on multiple monitors”
(Pet. 23). Patent Owner also cites Dr. Brogioli’s testimony and an internet
article for the proposition that “even years after the time of Schindler and
Hogle, the technical questions of how to arbitrate . . . access requests
remained quite difficult.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 49; Ex. 2003).
Furthermore, Patent Owner highlights certain testimony from
Mr. Wechselberger regarding certain “new commands”—above and beyond
the presentation commands discussed in Schindler—that would be necessary
to implement the combination of Schindler and Hogle. PO Sur-reply 6–8
(quoting Ex. 2004, 63:10–15). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner
provides no evidence of what these ‘new commands’ might be or where in
either Schindler or Hogle one of ordinary skill in the art would look to
discern these new commands.” Id. at 6.
Patent Owner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have encountered a number of significant challenges in the combined
Schindler–Hogle combination, including “handling of user input requests,
handling of multiple user interfaces, maintaining synchronization between
the multiple displays and multiple user inputs, management of the memory,
dealing with varying resolutions between displays, and how callback
functionality responds to one or more user events in such a system.” PO
Resp. 8–9; PO Sur-reply 11. In its Reply, Petitioner responds point-by-point
to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding these alleged challenges with
support from a reply declaration from Mr. Wechselberger. Pet. Reply 7–13
(citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 21–30).
At the outset, we note that “‘[a] person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,’ so the fact that it would
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
34
take some creativity to carry out the combination does not defeat a finding of
obviousness.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d
1321, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). Indeed, an
obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a [tribunal] can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Moreover, “[t]he test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather
whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.”
Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d
1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted).
In addition, Patent Owner makes certain concessions that help to
frame the issue of whether Petitioner has proven a rationale for combining
Schindler and Hogle by a preponderance of the evidence. First, Patent
Owner does not contest that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a
motivation to combine Schindler and Hogle. See PO Resp. 7 (quoting
Ex. 1003 ¶ 957); PO Sur-reply 2–3. Second, Patent Owner does not contest
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had the requisite knowledge to
overcome the technical challenges (as mentioned by Patent Owner) in
making the combination. See PO Sur-reply 2. Instead, Patent Owner states
its argument this way: “Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to
support its argument that Schindler and Hogle can be appropriately

7 Patent Owner mistakenly cites paragraph 96, but the context makes clear
that Patent Owner intended to cite paragraph 95.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
35
combined to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the challenged
claims under Petitioner’s theory of [unpatentability].” Id. at 3. We now
consider the sufficiency of Petitioner’s rationale for the combination of
Schindler and Hogle in light of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding a
failure of proof.
As Petitioner points out (Pet. 38, 41; Pet. Reply 4–5), Schindler
already teaches arbitrating requests from multiple users using different
remote controls. See Ex. 1005, 6:6–8 (“[E]ach remote control controls its
own cursor to allow multiple users to control different portions of the
system”), 15:4–9 (“[M]ultiple remotes are provided, each with its own
identifying frequency or code” so that “each individual in the room can be
controlling their application or program in a window, or be playing different
parts in a game.”), 15:44–46 (“[I]f someone else is watching a program in a
different window, their channel selection controls will only affect their
window.”). Schindler also supports Petitioner’s argument (Pet. Reply 6–7)
that (1) each application is associated with a particular remote control and a
particular window; and (2) incoming commands from a remote control are
routed based on the remote control’s associated window. See Ex. 1005,
15:14–36, Fig. 11a. Schindler additionally teaches the use of two different
monitors, albeit not in a configuration where these monitors are combined in
a single, continuous virtual desktop. See id. at 3:34–37, 5:47–62 (discussing
a large monitor or television in a “home entertainment environment” versus
a “display . . . located in a den, where it is displaying a financial
application”), Fig. 1 (depicting VGA display 122 and NTSC TV 150). Thus,
the only remaining question is whether Petitioner has shown that Schindler
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
36
and Hogle would have been “appropriately combined” such that the
combination accounts for request arbitration.
Mr. Wechselberger testifies that spreading Schindler’s windows
across Hogle’s two screens makes no difference to Schindler’s request
arbitration scheme. Ex. 1034 ¶ 20. He cites Hogle’s example of an end-user
moving a window back and forth between two monitor spaces and explains
that “[s]uch end-user input would constitute a ‘presentation command’ as
disclosed in Schindler’s Figure 4 and would be handled separately from
commands directed to the application itself.” Id. ¶ 19 (citing Ex. 1005,
15:29–36; Ex. 1006, 1:62–67). He contends that Schindler’s system would
pass such a presentation command to Hogle’s system, which in turn would
handle the display of the windows across multiple screens. Id. And, as
Petitioner points out (Pet. 20–22), Hogle teaches graphical device interface
(GDI) subsystem 34 and forking display driver 201 to route display
information to multiple monitors. Ex. 1006, 5:53–60, 9:50–54, Fig. 6; see
also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89, 92, 125 (Mr. Wechselberger explaining the same).
Thus, according to Mr. Wechselberger, Schindler’s arbitration approach
works the same in the combined system with Hogle “because the user input
is not on a per-screen basis, but on a per-window basis.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 22.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. In
Schindler, each of multiple users utilizes a particular remote control to
control an application in a particular window. See Ex. 1005, 15:4–9, 15:44–
46. Schindler’s Figure 11a flowchart shows how commands from a remote
control are routed to an associated window. See Ex. 1005, 15:14–36,
Fig. 11a. Thus, Schindler includes a native request arbitration scheme. Via
testimony from Mr. Wechselberger, Petitioner persuasively shows how this
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
37
scheme would be applied to the combined Schindler–Hogle virtual desktop
environment. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 19. In particular, he testifies persuasively that
commands to move a window between Hogle’s displays would be associated
with a particular window and routed according to Schindler’s Figure 11a
flowchart as a “presentation command” for that window. See id. In turn,
Hogle’s system would handle display of the particular window across
multiple screens. See id.; Ex. 1006, 1:24–28, 1:62–67, 5:53–60, 9:50–54,
Fig. 6; see also Pet. 23 (describing “Hogle’s display architecture” as “a
natural extension to the display architecture used with Schindler’s Windows-
based operating environment”). As such, we credit Mr. Wechselberger’s
testimony because it is consistent with the record and requires no more than
is already disclosed in the individual references themselves. Thus, we agree
with Petitioner that implementing request arbitration in the combined system
would have been a straightforward application of ordinary skill.
Against this showing, Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a]rbitrating access
requests (e.g., read requests for a video feed) for multiple users seeking
access [to] multiple video sources across multiple sources is not a
straightforward extension of doing so on a single monitor.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 49;
see also PO Resp. 8 (citing same). Dr. Brogioli’s only support for this
contention is an internet article regarding certain problems with dual-display
screen sharing in the Apple Macintosh operating system. Ex. 2001 ¶ 49
(citing Ex. 2003). Yet Dr. Brogioli does not explain how the problems
described in the article relate to the instant combination. We agree with
Petitioner (Pet. Reply 13–14) that this article does not bear on the
combinability of Schindler and Hogle at least because (1) it is not
contemporaneous with the challenged patent; (2) it does not discuss
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
38
arbitrating requests from different users for multiple displays; and (3) it
discusses single users, not multiple users, sharing multiple screens. See
Ex. 2003, 1–2. Nor does Dr. Brogioli’s testimony undermine Petitioner’s
persuasive showing of how Schindler’s request arbitration scheme works
with Hogle’s multi-screen window display mechanism in the Schindler–
Hogle virtual desktop environment. As stated above, Petitioner’s proposed
combination relies only on existing functionality within Schindler and
Hogle.
We also note that Petitioner’s rationale for the combination is at least
as detailed about request arbitration as the disclosure of the ’643 patent.
Importantly, the ’643 patent does not expressly address request arbitration
for multiple users on multiple screens. During his deposition, Dr. Brogioli
pointed only to the ’643 patent’s mention of a dynamic link library (DLL)
and a peripheral component interconnect (PCI) bus as being related to the
arbitration of requests. Ex. 1033, 14:1–15:17. Yet the ’643 patent does not
state that these items arbitrate requests. Ex. 1034 ¶ 11. And both of these
items were well known in the art as of the time of the ’643 patent. Id.;
Ex. 1033, 15:18–21. In light of this, and given that the ’643 patent is silent
on request arbitration, we do not agree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. 8) that
implementing request arbitration based on Schindler in a multi-user/multi-
source/multi-screen environment was “a significant technical feat.” To the
contrary, the lack of disclosure in the ’643 patent and the fact that DLLs and
PCI buses were well known suggests that implementing request arbitration
was within the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. This supports
Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
implemented request arbitration from multiple users for multiple monitors
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
39
based on Schindler’s “per-application, per-window” scheme. See Pet.
Reply 4–7 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, Fig. 11a).
For similar reasons, we do not agree with Patent Owner (PO
Sur-reply 5) that Petitioner presents “a brand new theory” in its Reply
simply because Petitioner responded to Patent Owner’s arguments about
request arbitration. We find that Petitioner merely elucidates how arbitration
would have worked in its existing combination without any change in how
the Petition described the combination of Hogle with Schindler. As stated
above, the ’643 patent does not discuss request arbitration, so it is
unsurprising that Petitioner did not initially emphasize the combination’s
ability to arbitrate requests.
Regarding Mr. Wechselberger’s deposition testimony about the need
for “new commands” (Ex. 2004, 63:10–15), we do not share Patent Owner’s
interpretation of what he said. Having read Mr. Wechselberger’s testimony
in context (see id. at 61:16–63:21), we understand him to be saying that
Hogle’s existing functions, e.g., software-based commands governing
Hogle’s virtual desktop, would be implemented in Schindler’s system. See
id. at 63:17–21 (“[T]he Schindler commands are changed as much as I
would say Hogle provides some richer features in terms of managing
multiple[] monitors that might require commands that didn’t exist in
Schindler alone.”). Petitioner describes Hogle’s commands with respect to
USER subsystem 33, which “provides functions relating to the GUI
including functions to create, move, size, and remove screen objects such as
display windows, selection menus appearing in the display windows,
graphical icons, and the like” and “provid[es] the end-user with a continuous
display space (e.g., virtual desktop) regardless of the number of monitors
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
40
(one or more) from which the display space is composed.” Pet. 21 (quoting
Ex. 1006, 7:64–8:2, 10:8–11). Correspondingly, Petitioner relies on Hogle’s
commands in its stated rationale for combining Schindler and Hogle. See
Pet. 24 (“[I]t would have been straightforward to a[n ordinarily skilled
artisan] to apply Hogle’s software-based multi-monitor configuration
technique into Schindler’s GUI software”); Pet. Reply 7 (“Hogle handles
allocating windows to screens”). In this way, the “new commands” from
Hogle are new to Schindler’s system, but not new in the sense that Petitioner
has failed to account for them in its papers.
We also have considered Patent Owner’s argument about Petitioner’s
allegedly inconsistent treatment of Schindler’s multiple monitors in
Petitioner’s submissions. PO Sur-reply 4. We do not agree with Patent
Owner that Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability has changed or that
Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition are inconsistent with its arguments in
the Reply. Specifically, Petitioner is correct to say that “Schindler does not
provide details regarding how the system manages the display of data on
multiple monitors.” Pet. 23. Schindler does not detail display options like
Hogle’s virtual desktop with windows spread across monitors, for example.
But that does not negate the fact that Schindler nonetheless discloses driving
multiple monitors, as Petitioner alleges in the Reply. See Pet. Reply 6.
Patent Owner admits as much in its Sur-reply. See PO Sur-reply 4–5. And
Schindler’s “per-application, per-window” arbitration across multiple
monitors supports its rationale for the combination even if Schindler did not
teach the concurrent use of multiple monitors (e.g., a single window spread
across two monitors), as Patent Owner alleges. See id.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
41
Finally, we consider Patent Owner’s list of alleged technical
challenges associated with combining Schindler and Hogle. PO Resp. 8–9
(citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 50); PO Sur-reply 7–8. We have already discussed Patent
Owner’s arguments about “handling of user input requests” and “handling of
multiple user interfaces” in our discussion of request arbitration above.
Regarding “maintaining synchronization between the multiple displays and
multiple user inputs,” our discussion above touches on how Schindler’s
request arbitration would handle multiple inputs. For synchronizing
displays, we agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 9–10) that Hogle teaches
synchronizing a window across two screens. Ex. 1006, Fig. 4 (Window C),
Ex. 1034 ¶ 24. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments about the
alleged lack of evidence regarding “synchroniz[ing] displays when multiple
users are seeking concurrent access to multiple displays” (PO Sur-reply 8–
9), because Petitioner sufficiently explains the request arbitration process in
the combined system, as discussed above.
Regarding memory management, we agree with Petitioner that the
combination of Schindler and Hogle requires nothing more than is taught by
the individual references. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 27). And, as
discussed above, Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Sur-reply 7–8) regarding
the alleged need for “new commands”—particularly with respect to memory
management, in this instance—takes Mr. Wechselberger’s cross-
examination testimony out of context. We also do not agree with Patent
Owner’s argument that varying resolutions among displays would be a
technical challenge, because Schindler itself describes a system with VGA
display 122 and NTSC TV 150; these displays necessarily have different
resolutions. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. As noted by Petitioner, “Schindler’s system is
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
42
already capable of handling the different resolutions through its separate
VGA and NTSC decoders and NTSC conversion block.” Pet. Reply 11
(citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Ex. 1034 ¶ 28).
Patent Owner characterizes “callback functionality” as an additional
technical challenge. Although Patent Owner does not explain what this
means, Dr. Brogioli testified that callback functionality is “the kind of thing
where the user is interacting with the system, changing various parameters
or reconfiguring inputs and outputs, you know, how the system needs to be
able to handle the desired behavior from the user, one or more user events.”
Ex. 1033, 11:23–12:17. We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 12) that
Schindler’s “per-application, per-window” request arbitration would
successfully route commands to applications, as discussed above. See
Ex. 1034 ¶ 29.
We additionally note that Patent Owner expressly abandons any
argument that its enumerated technical hurdles are insurmountable or too
complicated for an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Sur-reply 2. Patent
Owner only disputes that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that
Schindler and Hogle can be appropriately combined. Id. at 3. We are
persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments from its Reply (Pet. Reply 7–13) that
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to overcome the enumerated
challenges. And, similar to Petitioner’s reply arguments about request
arbitration, Petitioner’s reply arguments regarding the alleged technical
challenges do not purport to change its proposed combination set forth the
Petition.
Based on the entire trial record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons to
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
43
combine Hogle with Schindler. We also find that Petitioner’s reasons are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

c. Conclusion Regarding Claim 16
On the entire trial record, we are satisfied that the combination of
Schindler and Hogle teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 and that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine these
references in the manner suggested by Petitioner. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 16 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Hogle under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

4. Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and recites that “if the first input is
identical to the second input, the adapter displays, on the first display device
and the second display device, signals according to the first display device
input indication.” Ex. 1001, 15:16–20. Petitioner contends that Schindler’s
VGA adapter 318 permits the same input (e.g., the output of tuner 526) to be
displayed on both the NTSC monitor and the VGA monitor. Pet. 43–44
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 138; Ex. 1005, 11:40–45, Fig. 5). Thus, Petitioner
contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that
Schindler’s system is capable of displaying the same input on multiple
displays when, for example, a popular event is being broadcasted live. Id. at
44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 139).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16. We are persuaded that Schinder’s system is capable of
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
44
displaying identical inputs on both the NTSC monitor and the VGA monitor,
in which case the adapter would be displaying signals “according to the first
display device input indication.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–139. Thus, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
subject matter of claim 17 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Hogle under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

5. Claims 18 and 19
Claims 18 and 19 each depend from claim 17 and recite that the first
and second groups of selectable inputs include “an external television input.”
Ex. 1001, 15:21–28. Petitioner contends that, “for each display device
(monitor) in Schindler’s system, the users can select a video input source
(e.g., digital video) from the entertainment menu.” Pet. 45. In support of its
analysis, Petitioner provides an annotated depiction of its proposed
Schindler–Hogle virtual desktop, which is reproduced below.

IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
45
Id. at 46. In this annotated depiction, Petitioner has indicated with red
arrows first and second groups of selectable inputs in separate instances of
Schindler’s entertainment menu in two different windows, Window A and
Window B. Id. Petitioner also has indicated with red arrows the selection of
“DIGITAL VIDEO” as an external television source within each instance of
Schindler’s entertainment menu. Id.
In further support of its analysis, Petitioner cites Schindler’s teaching
of external satellite 112 transmitting signals “comprising 150 channels of
modulated digital video, audio and data signals.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1005,
7:44–50). Petitioner contends these satellite signals are received by
antenna 114, downconverted, and then provided to PC 118. Id. at 45–46
(citing Ex. 1005, 7:62–64). Petitioner further notes that Schindler’s VGA
adapter 318 receives input from an external cable/antenna source over
port 524. Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5). As such, Petitioner contends
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that, beyond simply
the “DIGITAL VIDEO” selection shown above, “the other supported video
inputs, including satellite, cable, and broadcast, would be listed on the
entertainment menu.” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 143; Ex. 1005, 19:45–
50 (teaching that a user can modify Schindler’s menus)).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16. We are persuaded that Schindler teaches various
“external television input[s],” including “DIGITAL VIDEO” and satellite,
cable, and broadcast television, which are displayed (or may be added) as
selections in Schindler’s entertainment menu. See Pet. 46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 143;
Ex. 1005, 7:44–50, 7:62–64, 19:45–50, Fig. 5. And, as shown above in
Petitioner’s annotated depiction, the two different instances of entertainment
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
46
menus teaches the first and second groups of selectable inputs. See Pet. 46.
Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the subject matter of claims 18 and 19 would have been
obvious over the combination of Schindler and Hogle under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

6. Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 16 and further recites:
displaying an input window within the tool window, the
input window including a plurality of selectable internal video
inputs and a plurality of external video inputs;
inputting an indication that the user wishes to select a
particular internal video input; and
inputting an indication that the user wishes to select a
particular external video input.
Ex. 1001, 16:23–33.
For “displaying an input window,” Petitioner cites Schindler’s
teachings of a front-end menu (i.e., a “first screen display” as depicted in
Figure 14a) with selectable areas that lead to further menus. Pet. 47–48
(citing Ex. 1005, 18:65–19:1, Fig. 14a). As noted by Petitioner, one of those
selectable areas leads to Schindler’s entertainment menu, which “includes a
set of external video sources (e.g., Microsoft Home Theater (MHT) and
digital video) and a set of internal video sources (e.g., games).” Id. at 48;
see also Ex. 1005, Fig. 14c. In support of its analysis, Petitioner provides an
annotated depiction of its proposed Schindler–Hogle virtual desktop, which
is reproduced below.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
47

Pet. 49. In this annotated depiction, Petitioner has indicated with red arrows
external video inputs (“DIGITAL VIDEO” and “VCR”) and an internal
video input (“GAMES”) in one instance of Schindler’s entertainment menu
in Window A. Id. Petitioner added the “VCR” selection based on its
reasoning that Schindler supports a VCR as an external input and that
Schindler teaches customizing the entertainment menu. Id. at 48–49 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 148; Ex. 1005, 12:22–27, 19:45–50, Figs. 1, 7).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16 and does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the
“displaying an input window” limitation. We are persuaded that Schindler’s
front-end menu and entertainment menu teach the recited “input window”
which appears in the Schindler–Hogle virtual desktop (i.e., the “tool
window”). See Pet. 49; Ex. 1005, 18:65–19:1, Figs. 14a, 14c. We also are
persuaded by that Schindler teaches “external video inputs” and “internal
video inputs” in its entertainment menu. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 14c. Thus, we
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
48
find that the combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches the “displaying an
input window” limitation of claim 24.
For the two “inputting an indication” limitations, Petitioner cites
Schindler’s teaching of using a remote control to control a cursor to select
items in Schindler’s menus. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:63–65).
Accordingly, Petitioner contends the user can select one of the listed internal
or external input sources on Schindler’s menus. Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 150). Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16 and does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the two
“inputting an indication” limitations. We are persuaded that Schindler
teaches the use of a remote control to input indications that select the
internal and external video inputs discussed above. See Ex. 1005, 5:63–65.
Thus, we find that the combination of Schindler and Hogle teaches the
“inputting an indication” limitations of claim 24.
Based on the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 24 would
have been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Hogle under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

7. Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and recites that “the plurality of
selectable external video inputs includes a plurality of S-Video inputs.”
Ex. 1001, 16:34–37. Petitioner cites Schindler’s teaching that VGA
adapter 318 includes S-video pin 546. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5).
Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious
“to provide additional S-video inputs to Schindler’s adapter” in order to
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
49
“allow[] Schindler’s system to support multiple video sources using S-video
(e.g., VCR, cameras, etc.) and allow[] multiple monitors to display different
S-video sources simultaneously.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 152). Petitioner
further contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have “include[d] S-video
input sources such as VCR, camera, and laserdisc, on Schindler’s
entertainment menu.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 153; Ex. 1005, 19:45–50).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16. We are persuaded that Schindler’s S-video pin 546
teaches the recited inputs. See Ex. 1005, 11:45–48, Fig. 5. We are also
persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to implement
multiple such S-video inputs and to modify Schindler’s entertainment menu
accordingly. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 152–153. Thus, we determine Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of
claim 25 would have been obvious over the combination of Schindler and
Hogle under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

E. Obviousness Ground Based on Schindler, Hogle, and Baker
Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 20–23 would have
been obvious over Schindler, Hogle, and Baker. Pet. 51–60. Patent Owner
relies on the same arguments discussed above in the Schindler–Hogle
ground. See PO Resp. 5, 10.

1. Baker
Baker is a U.S. patent directed to a “multimedia system having a
software mechanism that provides standardized interfaces and controls for
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
50
the operation of multimedia devices.” Ex. 1007, 1:8–12. Figure 2 of Baker
is reproduced below.

Figure 2 illustrates exemplary control screen 200 for a multimedia data
processing system in which a plurality of windows or panels are displayed
on a monitor. Id. at 3:40–42. Control screen 200 includes video
window 202, audio control panel 204, video control panel 206, and player
control panel 208. Id. at 4:9–12. Audio control panel 204 includes mute
button 220, volume control 221, balance control 222, treble control 223, and
bass control 224. Id. at 4:20–25. Video control panel 206 includes freeze
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
51
button 231, brightness control 232, contrast control 233, color control 234,
tint control 235, and sharpness control 236. Id. at 4:42–46. A user
manipulates the controls and buttons with a mouse. Id. at 4:33–38.
Petitioner contends Baker qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on its issue date. Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the
prior art status of Baker. We determine that Baker qualifies as prior art
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Baker’s issue date of June 27, 1995, is
more than one year before the earliest possible effective filing date of the
challenged claims, which is September 3, 1997. Ex. 1001, code (22);
Ex. 1007, code (45).

2. Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 16 and further recites:
displaying a video window within the tool window, the
video window including a plurality of selectable video
characteristics;
inputting an indication that the user wishes to select a
particular video characteristic for an active window; and
adjusting the selected video characteristic for the active
the active window.
Ex. 1001, 15:29–39.
For “displaying a video window,” Petitioner cites Baker’s video
control panel 206 in Figure 2. Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:42–46, Fig. 2).
For the “selectable video characteristics,” Petitioner cites dial controls 232–
236 for controlling the brightness, contrast, color, tint, and sharpness of a
video device. Id. Regarding “inputting an indication,” Petitioner cites
Baker’s teaching of moving a cursor on a button or dial. Id. at 56–57 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 165; Ex. 1007, 4:35–38). Petitioner notes that such cursor
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
52
movement is “accompanied by signals being sent to the physical device
whose controls are being simulated to cause the corresponding action to
occur.” Id. at 56 (quoting Ex. 1007, 4:35–38). According to Petitioner, this
teaches the “adjusting the selected video characteristic” limitation. Id.
We are persuaded that Baker’s video control panel 206 teaches the
“video window” that allows a user to select and adjust various video
characteristics. See Ex. 1007, Fig. 2. Patent Owner does not dispute
Petitioner’s analysis of the additional limitations in claim 20. Thus, we find
that Baker teaches the additional limitations of claim 20.
Regarding its rationale for combining Baker with Schindler and
Hogle, Petitioner notes that Schindler teaches monitor controls for
“brightness, contrast, vertical and horizontal sizing and positioning, [and]
on/off (rest/resume).” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:56–58). In light of these
teachings, Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been
motivated to search for references that permit a remote system to adjust
these monitor controls” and “to include Baker’s controls on Schindler’s user
interface to improve usability and convenience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 160–161). Petitioner further contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have known “to launch a child window including Baker’s audio controls and
a child window including Baker’s video controls from the broadband video
menu of Schindler.” Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 159).
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known to implement Baker’s selectable displayed audio and
video controls in the system of Schindler and Hogle. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
53
161. Thus, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale for combining Baker
with Schindler and Hogle.
Based on the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 20 would
have been obvious over the combination of Schindler, Hogle, and Baker
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

3. Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and recites that “the plurality of
selectable video characteristics includes a color characteristic, a tint
characteristic, a brightness characteristic, and a contrast characteristic.”
Ex. 1001, 16:1–5. Petitioner cites the same teachings from Baker discussed
above regarding “dial controls 232–236 for controlling the brightness,
contrast, color, tint, and sharpness of the video device.” Pet. 57 (citing
Ex. 1008, 4:42–46). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for
claim 21. We are persuaded that Baker teaches the recited selectable video
characteristics. See Ex. 1008, 4:42–46, Fig. 2. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 21 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler, Hogle, and Baker under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

4. Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 16 and further recites:
displaying an audio window within the tool window, the
audio window including a plurality of selectable audio
characteristics;
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
54
inputting an indication that the user wishes to select a
particular audio characteristic for an active window; and
adjusting the selected audio characteristic for the active
window.
Ex. 1001, 16:6–17.
For “displaying an audio window,” Petitioner cites Baker’s audio
control panel 204 in Figure 2. Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:23–25, Fig. 2).
For the “selectable audio characteristics,” Petitioner cites dial controls 221–
224 for controlling volume, balance, treble and bass. Id. Regarding
“inputting an indication,” Petitioner cites Baker’s teaching of moving a
cursor on a button or dial. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171–172;
Ex. 1007, 4:35–38). Petitioner notes that such cursor movement is
“accompanied by signals being sent to the physical device whose controls
are being simulated to cause the corresponding action to occur.” Id. at 59
(quoting Ex. 1007, 4:35–38). According to Petitioner, this teaches the
“adjusting the selected audio characteristic” limitation. Id. at 59–60.
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 16. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known to implement Baker’s selectable displayed audio controls
in the system of Schindler and Hogle. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 171–172. Thus, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
subject matter of claim 22 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler, Hogle, and Baker under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
55
5. Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 228 and recites that “the plurality of
selectable audio characteristics includes a bass characteristic and a treble
characteristic.” Ex. 1001, 16:18–21. Petitioner cites the same teachings
from Baker discussed above regarding dial controls 221–224 for controlling
volume, balance, treble and bass. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:23–25). Patent
Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 23. We are persuaded
that Baker teaches the recited selectable audio characteristics. See Ex. 1008,
4:23–25, Fig. 2. Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 23 would
have been obvious over the combination of Schindler, Hogle, and Baker
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

F. Obviousness Ground Based on Schindler and Kelleher
Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1–14 would have been
obvious over Schindler and Kelleher. Pet. 61–99. Patent Owner does not
dispute Petitioner’s contentions.

8 The ’643 patent states that claim 23 depends from claim 16. Ex. 1001,
16:19. This appears to be a conspicuous error based on the prosecution
history. See Ex. 1002, 34 (original claim with amendment annotations), 129
(Office Action addressing incorrect dependency), 135 (amendment
correcting dependency). Accordingly, we follow the counsel of the court in
Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020), to
correct the error and to resolve the patentability of this claim based on the
intended dependency from claim 22.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
56
1. Kelleher
Kelleher is a U.S. patent directed to “a parallel-processor graphics
architecture appropriate for multimedia graphics workstations that is
scalable to the needs of a user.” Ex. 1008, 1:7–9. Figure 2 of Kelleher is
reproduced below.

Figure 2 is a block diagram depicting graphics system 10B with two
rendering processors 20A and 20B. Id. at 2:45–46, 3:20–21. Rendering
processors 20A and 20B are connected to general-purpose computer
system 12 via PCI bus 30. Rendering processors 20A and 20B are the
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
57
primary components of graphics system 10B that implement graphics and
multimedia algorithms. Id. at 3:64–4:1. In particular, rendering processors
20A and 20B integrate video technologies including 2D and 3D geometric
graphics, photorealistic rendering, stereoscopic viewing, windowing
operations, and live video. Id. at 4:1–4.
Petitioner contends Kelleher qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on its filing date. Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the
prior art status of Kelleher. We have no evidence of an invention date other
than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims.
Thus, we determine that Kelleher qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) because Kelleher’s filing date of December 11, 1995, is before the
earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is
September 3, 1997. Ex. 1001, code (22); Ex. 1008, code (22).

2. Claim 1
The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] video adapter for use in a
computer having an internal bus.” Ex. 1001, 13:53–54. Petitioner cites
Schindler’s personal computer 118, which includes PCI bus 312 coupled to
processor 310, receiver 316, and VGA adapter 318. Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1005,
8:66–9:7). Petitioner likens PCI bus 312 to the recited “internal bus.” Id.
Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
that circuitry including receiver 316, VGA adapter 318, and PCI bus 312 is
the recited “adapter” because it enables Schindler’s personal computer 118
to use NTSC and VGA displays. Id. at 67–68 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 189–191).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the preamble.
Neither party addresses whether the preamble is limiting. Because Petitioner
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
58
establishes that Schindler’s processor 310, PCI bus 312, receiver 316, and
VGA adapter 318 function as an adapter (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 191), we need not
determine whether the preamble is limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
Claim 1 further recites first and second graphic accelerators.
Ex. 1001, 13:55–56. For these limitations, Petitioner notes that Schindler’s
VGA adapter 318 includes Mediastream controller 510. Id. at 68–69 (citing
Ex. 1005, Fig. 5). Petitioner further notes that controller 510 processes
video signals and places “video information into a dynamic random access
memory or video random access memory, VRAM 518.” Id. (quoting
Ex. 1005, 11:31–34). Petitioner then posits the replacement of “Schindler’s
Mediastream controller 510 and VRAM 518 with components of Kelleher’s
parallel-processor graphics architecture (e.g., processors 20A and 20B,
memory 22, and PCI bridge 38).” Id. at 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 193). The
Petition includes a diagram of this combination, which is reproduced below.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
59

Id. at 70. In this diagram from the Petition, Petitioner depicts its conception
of a VGA adapter combining the teachings of Schindler and Kelleher. Id.
The diagram shows that rendering processors 0 and 1 (shaded in pink) from
Kelleher’s Figure 2 have replaced Schindler’s Mediastream controller 510
and VRAM 518 in Figure 5 from Schindler. Id. at 69–70. Petitioner notes
that these rendering processors “implement[] graphics and multimedia
algorithms” and integrate various video technologies, which makes them
“special-purpose hardware that handle graphics processing.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1008, 3:36–38, 3:65–4:4). According to Petitioner, Kelleher’s
processors 0 and 1 in the combination are each commensurate with a
“graphic accelerator” in claim 1 because they each “offload[] . . . processing
from the main processor of the personal computer (CPU 310) and
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
60
accelerat[e] graphics applications.” Id. at 70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 194;
Ex. 1008, 1:53–56).
Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined
Kelleher with Schindler “to improve the performance of Schindler’s system”
based on Kelleher’s teaching about “substantial gains in graphics system
performance” from using parallel processors. Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182;
Ex. 1008, 1:26–28). Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been motivated to use Kelleher’s graphics architecture
because it is scalable, and this would have allowed lower- and higher-
performance configurability. Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 183; Ex. 1008,
Abstract, 2:19–24).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the first and
second graphic accelerator limitations. We are persuaded that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have replaced Schindler’s Mediastream controller 510
and VRAM 518 with Kelleher’s parallel processors 20A and 20B and
associated memory 22. See Pet. 70; Ex. 1003 ¶ 181. We find that the
parallel processors in this combination teach the first and second graphic
accelerator limitations of claim 1. We also find that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been motivated to use multiple processors to obtain the
gains in graphic system performance touted by Kelleher. See id. ¶ 182;
Ex. 1008, 1:26–28.
Claim 1 further recites “at least one video decoder coupled to at least
one of the first and second graphic accelerators.” Ex. 1001, 13:58–59.
Petitioner cites Schindler’s MPEG-2 decoder 512 for decoding MPEG data
and video decoder 530, which “receives the output of tuner 526 and inputs
from RCA jacks 544, 548 and S-video pin 546” and “decodes the received
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
61
signals into YUV video output on line 550.” Id. at 71 (citing Ex. 1005,
11:22–23, 11:42–51). Petitioner further contends decoders 512 and 530 are
coupled to Kelleher’s processors 0 and 1 in the combined system of
Schindler and Kelleher. Id. at 71–72.
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the “video
decoder” limitation. We find that Schindler’s decoders 512 and 530 in
Petitioner’s combined Schindler–Kelleher system teach the “video decoder”
limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 70; Ex. 1005, 11:22–23, 11:42–48.
Claim 1 further recites first and second television tuners for receiving
first and second television signals, respectively. Ex. 1001, 13:60–62. For
the first television tuner, Petitioner cites Schindler’s tuner 410 within
receiver 318, which receives a direct broadcast signal from an antenna. Id.
at 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:13–15). For the second television tuner, Petitioner
cites Schindler’s tuner 526 within VGA card 318, which receives cable
television input. Id. at 72–73 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1005,
11:38–40 (describing video input from standard cable connector 524).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the television
tuner limitations. We find that Schindler’s tuner 410 for broadcast signals
and tuner 526 for cable television signals teach the recited first and second
television tuners of claim 1. See Ex. 1005, 10:13–15, 11:38–40.
Claim 1 further recites “circuitry for coupling the first and second
television tuners to the at least one video decoder.” Ex. 1001, 13:64–65.
Petitioner contends Schindler’s tuner 410 within receiver 316 is coupled via
PCI bus 312 to decoder 512 within VGA card 318. Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 199; Ex. 1005, 10:43–47, 11:19–22). Petitioner further contends tuner 526
is coupled to decoder 530 via line 532. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 200; Ex. 1005,
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
62
11:40–42). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the
“circuitry” limitation. We find that Schindler’s PCI bus 312 and line 523
(i.e., “circuitry”) couples the first and second television tuners to decoders
512 and 530, respectively. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 199; Ex. 1005, 10:43–47, 11:19–
22, 11:40–42.
Claim 1 further recites “a plurality of video monitor outputs.”
Ex. 1001, 13:65. Petitioner contends Schindler’s personal computer 118 is
set up to drive multiple monitors, including VGA monitor 122 and NTSC
monitor 150. Pet. 75 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:58–59, Fig. 1). Petitioner further
notes that Schindler’s Figures 5 and 7 depict VGA output 522 and NTSC
output 542 as output connectors to these monitors. Id. at 76–77 (citing
Ex. 1005, 4:23–26, 6:53–55, 11:34–37, Figs. 5, 7). Patent Owner does not
dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the “video monitor outputs” limitation. We
find that Schindler teaches VGA output 522 and NTSC output 542 for VGA
monitor 122 and NTSC monitor 150, respectively. See Ex. 1005, 11:34–37,
12:34–35, Figs. 1, 5, 7.
Based on the entire trial record, we are satisfied that the combination
of Schindler and Kelleher teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine these
references in the manner suggested by Petitioner. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
63
3. Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the video adapter
further comprises “a plurality of CVBS outputs.” Ex. 1001, 13:66–67.
According to Petitioner, CVBS refers to composite video. Pet. 78 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 2049). Building on its analysis for claim 1, Petitioner contends
that Schindler suggests composite video outputs insofar as “Figure 1 shows
separate wired connections 151 and 173 to NTSC TV 150 and VCR 171”
and Figure 7 depicts RCA connectors for such composite signals. Id. (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 204–205). Mr. Wechselberger also cites a contemporaneous
reference to show that RCA connectors were associated with composite
video signals. Ex. 1003 ¶ 204 (citing Ex. 1030, 247).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 2. We
are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis that Schindler’s depiction of separate
wired connections for an NTSC TV and a VCR (Fig. 1) and Schindler’s
depiction of RCA connectors (Fig. 7) would have suggested a plurality of
composite video outputs to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 204–
205; Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 7; Ex. 1030, 247. Thus, we determine Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 2
would have been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Kelleher
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

4. Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the video adapter
further comprises “a bus interface communicating with the internal bus” and

9 Petitioner mistakenly refers to paragraph 201, but the context makes clear
that Petitioner intended to cite paragraph 204.
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
64
“a bus bridge coupled to the first and second graphic accelerators and
coupled to the bus interface.” Ex. 1001, 14:1–5. For the recited “bus
bridge,” Petitioner refers to its conception of a combined Schindler–Kelleher
system (as reproduced above) and contends “graphics processors 0 and 1
‘are connected to a system PCI bus 30A through a PCI bridge 38.’” Pet. 79
(quoting Ex. 1008, 3:46–69). For the “bus interface,” Petitioner notes that
the combined Schindler–Kelleher system includes PCI bus 312 (i.e., the
“internal bus”), which Schindler characterizes as an “industry standard.” Id.
at 80 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:67–9:1). Citing a contemporaneous reference,
Petitioner contends “it was well-known that a CPU, such as Schindler’s
processor 310, coupled to a PCI bus has a PCI bus interface so that it can
connect to the bus and communicate with other hardware components.” Id.
at 80–81 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 207; Ex. 1012, 496–503). As such, Petitioner
contends the “bus interface” of processor 310 is coupled to the “bus bridge”
via the PCI bus. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 207).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 3. We
are persuaded that Kelleher’s PCI bridge 38 in Petitioner’s combined system
teaches the recited “bus bridge.” See Ex. 1008, 3:46–69, Fig. 2. We also are
persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a
processor has an interface to connect to an “industry standard” PCI bus. See
Ex. 1003 ¶ 207; Ex. 1005, 8:67–9:1; Ex. 1012, 496–503. Thus, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
65
5. Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the coupling circuitry
further comprises a video multiplexer.” Ex. 1001, 14:6–7. Petitioner cites
Schindler’s video multiplexer 540 and contends it is a component of VGA
adapter 318 and therefore part of the recited “circuitry.” Pet. 81 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 201; Ex. 1005, 11:42–45). Patent Owner does not dispute
Petitioner’s analysis for claim 4. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis
and find that it is consistent with Petitioner’s analysis of the recited
“circuitry” in claim 1. Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 4 would have
been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Kelleher under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

6. Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites that the video adapter
further comprises “a second video multiplexer having an external input and
coupled to at least one video decoder.” Ex. 1001, 14:8–10. Petitioner cites
Schindler’s Figure 5 and contends that “Schindler’s decoder 530 receives
input video signals over S-video pin 546 and RCA jacks 546, 548.” Pet. 82
(citing Ex. 1005, 11:40–48, Fig. 5). Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have known that “the three analog input signals depicted in
Figure 5 are input to the decoding functions (i.e., the decoder) of the chip via
a three-input multiplexer because the decoder processes one signal at a time,
and not all three signals in parallel.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 212). Petitioner
additionally notes that Schindler’s Figure 5 identifies decoder 530 as a
Bt819 video decoder, a type of decoder that an ordinarily skilled artisan
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
66
would have known to include a multiplexer. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 213;
Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Ex. 1013, 5 (Bt819A Functional Description)).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 5. We
are persuaded that the three video inputs to decoder 530 at least suggests the
“second video multiplexer.” See Ex. 1005, 11:40–48, Fig. 5. Petitioner also
puts forth evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known the
exemplary Bt819 video decoder to include a multiplexer. See Ex. 1003
¶ 213; Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Ex. 1013, 5. Thus, we determine Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 5
would have been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Kelleher
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

7. Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites that “the external video
multiplexer input is an S-Video input.” Ex. 1001, 14:11–12. Petitioner cites
Schindler’s input over S-video pin 546. Pet. 82 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:40–48,
Fig. 5). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 6. We
are persuaded that Schindler’s S-video pin 546 teaches the recited input. See
Ex. 1005, 11:40–48, Fig. 5. Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 6 would have
been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Kelleher under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

8. Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that the video adapter
further comprises “a first memory unit coupled to the first accelerator; and a
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
67
second memory unit coupled to the second accelerator.” Ex. 1001, 14:13–
17. Petitioner cites Kelleher’s teaching of partitioned physical memory
segments 42, wherein each memory segment 42 is coupled to a different
rendering processor 20. Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:15–20). To explain its
position, Petitioner provides an annotated diagram of the combined VGA
adapter of Schindler and Kelleher, which is reproduced below.

Id. at 84. In this diagram from the Petition, Petitioner has indicated with red
arrows its mapping of the recited “first memory unit” and “second memory
unit” to Kelleher’s memory segments (shaded blue) and of the recited “first
accelerator” and “second accelerator” to Kelleher’s processors 0 and 1. Id.
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 7. We
are persuaded that Kelleher’s memory segments 42—as grouped by
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
68
Petitioner in the diagram above—teach the recited memory units of claim 7.
See Pet. 84; Ex. 1008, 4:15–20. We also note that Petitioner’s mapping is
consistent with its mapping of the first and second accelerators from claim 1.
Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the subject matter of claim 7 would have been obvious over
the combination of Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

9. Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites that the video adapter
further comprises “a main memory unit coupled to the first and second
accelerators.” Ex. 1001, 14:18–20. Petitioner cites Schindler’s random
access memory (RAM) 314, which is “coupled to both the processor 310 for
direct access, and to the PCI bus 312 for direct access by other components
also coupled to the PCI bus 312.” Pet. 85 (quoting Ex. 1005, 9:1–4).
Petitioner contends Schindler’s RAM 31 is coupled to both graphic
accelerators via PCI bus 312. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 3, 5).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 8. We
are persuaded that Schindler’s RAM 314 is a “main memory” coupled to the
graphic accelerators via PCI bus 312. See Ex. 1005, 9:1–4, Fig. 5. Thus, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
subject matter of claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

10. Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the video adapter
further comprises “a sound processor coupled to at least one of the first and
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
69
second television tuners.” Ex. 1001, 14:21–23. Petitioner cites Schindler’s
sound cards 320 and 321. Pet. 86–87 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:5–7, Fig. 3). To
show the recited coupling to a television tuner, Petitioner notes that when
Schindler tuner 410 tunes to a channel, “the video signals are processed and
sent on to VGA card 318 and sound card 320.” Id. at 87 (quoting Ex. 1005,
10:41–45) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 222).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 9. We
are persuaded that Schindler’s sound card 320 teaches the recited “sound
processor” and that it is coupled to tuner 410, which Petitioner likens to the
recited “first television tuner” in claim 1. See Ex. 1005, 9:5–7, 10:41–45,
Fig. 3. Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the subject matter of claim 9 would have been obvious over
the combination of Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

11. Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the first television
signal is an external signal.” Ex. 1001, 14:24–25. Petitioner notes that
Schindler’s satellite 112 transmits direct broadcast signals “comprising 150
channels of modulated digital video, audio and data signals.” Pet. 88 (citing
Ex. 1005, 7:44–50). Petitioner contends these satellite signals are received
by antenna 114, downconverted, and then provided to PC 118. Id. (citing
Ex. 1005, 7:62–64). Petitioner cites also Schindler’s teaching of tuner 410
receiving a direct broadcast signal from antenna 114. Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
10:13–15).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 10. We
are persuaded that Schindler’s satellite signals, which are ultimately received
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
70
at tuner 410, teach the recited “external signal.” See Ex. 1005, 7:44–50,
7:62–64, 10:13–15. Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 10 would
have been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Kelleher under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

12. Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites that “the external signal
is provided by video-producing equipment.” Ex. 1001, 14:24–25. Building
on its analysis for claim 10, Petitioner contends that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan “that content delivered via the
external television signals (e.g., satellite) in both the ’643 patent and
Schindler was produced by ‘video-producing equipment.’” Pet. 88 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 226). Petitioner also notes that the ’643 patent does not describe
or mention “video-producing equipment.” Id.
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 10. We
are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known
Schindler’s satellite signals (i.e., the “external signal”) to be produced by
“video-producing equipment.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 226. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

13. Claim 12
The preamble of claim 12 recites “[a] computer system.” Ex. 1001,
14:28. Petitioner cites Schindler’s personal computer 118. Pet. 89 (citing
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
71
Ex. 1005, 3:58–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for
the preamble. Neither party addresses whether the preamble is limiting.
Because Petitioner establishes that Schindler’s PC 118 is a computer system
(see Ex. 1005, 3:58–60), we need not determine whether the preamble is
limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
Claim 12 further recites “a central processing unit.” Ex. 1001, 14:29.
Petitioner cites Schindler’s processor 310 within PC 118. Pet. 90 (citing
Ex. 1005, 8:67–9:1, 9:61–62, Fig. 3). Patent Owner does not dispute
Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. We find that Schindler’s
processor 310 teaches the recited “central processing unit.” See Ex. 1005,
8:67–9:1, 9:61–62, Fig. 3.
Claim 12 further recites “a video adapter communicating with the
central processing unit.” Ex. 1001, 14:30–31. Petitioner cites Schindler’s
VGA adapter 318. Pet. 90 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:66–9:7). Patent Owner does
not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. We find that Schindler’s
VGA adapter 318 teaches the recited “video adapter.” See Ex. 1005, 8:66–
9:7, Fig. 3.
Claim 12 further recites first and second video sources providing first
and second video signals to the video adapter. Ex. 1001, 14:33–36.
Petitioner cites Schindler’s description of video signals coming “from cable
source 174” and “from a VCR, camcorder or laserdisc.” Pet. 91 (citing
Ex. 1005, 12:28–30, 21:12–14). Petitioner also notes how VGA adapter 318
includes a standard cable connector, S-video pin, and RCA jack for
receiving such signals. Id. at 91–92 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:38–40, 12:28–30,
Fig. 5). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this
limitation. We find that Schindler’s cable source, VCR, camcorder, and
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
72
laserdisc are “video sources” that provide video signals to the video adapter.
See Ex. 1005, 12:28–30, 21:12–14.
Claim 12 further recites first and second graphic accelerators.
Ex. 1001, 14:37–38. Petitioner relies on the same analysis as for claim 1
(Pet. 92–93), which we find persuasive above. See supra § II.F.2.
Claim 12 further recites “a bus interface communicating with an
internal bus of said computer system” and “a bus bridge coupled to the first
and second graphic accelerators and coupled to the bus interface.” Ex. 1001,
39–42. Petitioner relies on the same analysis as for claim 3 (Pet. 93–94),
which we find persuasive above. See supra § II.F.4.
Claim 12 further recites first and second display devices coupled to
the video adapter for displaying results of the first and second graphic
accelerators, respectively. Ex. 1001, 14:43–49. Regarding displays being
coupled to the video adapter, Petitioner cites Schindler’s teaching of VGA
adapter 318 having two output connectors: NTSC output 542 and VGA
output 522. Pet. 94 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5). According to Petitioner,
NTSC output 542 is coupled to NTSC TV 150 and VGA output 522 is
coupled to VGA monitor 122. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 11:34–37, 11:52–55).
Petitioner also contends NTSC TV 150 and VGA monitor 122 each display
the output of Schindler’s controller 410. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:34–
37; 11:48–55, 19:23–26).
Petitioner’s proposed combination of Schindler and Kelleher employs
Kelleher’s graphic accelerators, and Petitioner notes Kelleher’s teaching that
blocks of data may be flexibly allocated to the accelerators for processing.
Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1008, 5:6–9, 5:44–51, 6:19–21, Fig. 6). In light of
this, Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
73
motivated to assign blocks associated with a first display device to a first
processor and blocks associated with a second display device to a second
processor.” Id. at 96 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 245).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for the “display
device” limitations. We find that Schindler’s NTSC TV 150 and VGA
monitor 122, which receive and display the output of controller 410, teach
the first and second display devices. See Ex. 1005, 11:34–37, 11:48–55,
19:23–26, Fig. 5. We also are persuaded that, in light of Kelleher’s
teachings on allocating data to graphic accelerators (see Ex. 1008, 5:6–9,
5:44–51, 6:19–21, Fig. 6), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have allocated
data to graphic accelerators in the Schindler–Kelleher combination as
proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 245. Thus, we find that the
combination of Schindler and Kelleher teaches the “display device”
limitations of claim 12.
Based on the entire trial record, we are satisfied that the combination
of Schindler and Kelleher teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 and that
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine these
references in the manner suggested by Petitioner. Thus, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject
matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

14. Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites “the first video signal is a
television signal.” Ex. 1001, 14:50–51. Petitioner cites Schindler’s
teachings of cable connector 524 being coupled to video tuner circuit 526
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
74
and of signal 175 being provided from cable source 174. Pet. 97 (citing
Ex. 1005, 11:38–40, 21:12–14). Petitioner contends a cable source is a
provider of television programming. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 247). Patent
Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 13. We find that
Schindler’s cable source is a television signal that is provided to the adapter.
See Ex. 1005, 11:38–40, 21:12–14. Thus, we determine Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of
claim 13 would have been obvious over the combination of Schindler and
Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

15. Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and recites that “if the first video
signal is identical to the second video signal, the results of the first video
signal are displayed on the first and second display devices.” Ex. 1001,
14:52–55. Petitioner notes that each monitor in Schindler has its own user
interface through which a user can select an input to display. Pet. 98; see
also id. at 32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005, 18:57–58. As such, Petitioner
contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that “users of
Schindler’s system could select the same input for multiple displays.”
Pet. 98 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 250). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
analysis for claim 14. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning, which is
supported by Mr. Wechselberger’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 250. Thus,
we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the subject matter of claim 14 would have been obvious over the
combination of Schindler and Kelleher under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
75
G. Obviousness Ground Based on Schindler, Kelleher, and Hogle
Petitioner contends the subject matter of claim 15 would have been
obvious over Schindler, Kelleher, and Hogle. Pet. 99–100. Claim 15
depends from claim 14 and recites “the results of the first video signal are
displayed as a single window across the first and second display devices.”
Ex. 1001, 14:56–58. Petitioner adds Hogle to the Schindler–Kelleher
combination for teaching that a video signal can be displayed in a single
window across the first and second display devices. Pet. 99–100 (citing
Ex. 1006, 1:57–67, Fig. 4). Petitioner relies on the same reasons for
combining Hogle with Schindler discussed above. Id. at 100; see also supra
§ II.D.3.
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis. Hogle teaches
the use of a single window across display devices. See Ex. 1006, 1:57–67,
Fig. 4. We also are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
combined Hogle with Schindler and Kelleher for the same reasons discussed
above in the Schindler–Hogle ground. See supra § II.D.3. Thus, we
determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
subject matter of claim 15 would have been obvious over the combination of
Schindler, Kelleher, and Hogle under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
(1) claims 16–19, 24, and 25 would have been obvious over the combination
of Schindler and Hogle; (2) claims 20–23 would have been obvious over the
combination of Schindler, Hogle, and Baker; (3) claims 1–14 would have
been obvious over the combination of Schindler and Kelleher; and
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
76
(4) claim 15 would have been obvious over the combination of Schindler,
Kelleher, and Hogle.10

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1–25 of the ’643 patent are held to be
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

10 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
77
In summary:

Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not shown
Unpatentable
16–19,
24, 25
103(a) Schindler, Hogle 16–19, 24, 25
20–23 103(a) Schindler, Hogle,
Baker
20–23
1–14 103(a) Schindler, Kelleher 1–14
15 103(a) Schindler,
Kelleher, Hogle
15
Overall
Outcome
1–25
IPR2019-01167
Patent 6,028,643
78
PETITIONER:

Lori A. Gordon
Steven W. Peters
Mikaela M. Stone
KING & SPALDING LLP
lgordon@kslaw.com
speters@kslaw.com
mikaela.stone@kslaw.com

PATENT OWNER:

Robert R. Brunelli
SHERIDAN ROSS PC
rbrunelli@sheridanross.com

Jeffrey G. Toler
Benjamin R. Johnson
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
toler@mbhb.com
bjohnson@mbhb.com