Rovi Guides, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

IPR2019-00281 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 39
571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 26, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of
claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,621,956 B2
(Ex. 1201, the “’956 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Patent
Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We
instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 314. Paper 10 (“Inst. Dec.”).
After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”); Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24); and Patent
Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 33, “PO Sur-reply” or “Sur-Reply”).
Thereafter, the parties presented oral arguments via a video hearing (April 1,
2020), a transcript of which appears in the record. Paper 38 (“Tr.”).
For the reasons set forth in this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 318(a), we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a
preponderance of evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies the following entities as the real parties-in-
interest: Comcast Corp.; Comcast Business Communications, LLC;
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC; Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC; Comcast Financial Agency Corp.; Comcast
Holdings Corp.; Comcast Shared Services, LLC; Comcast STB Software I,
LLC; Comcast of Santa Maria, LLC; and Comcast of Lompoc, LLC. Pet. 1.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

3
Patent Owner identifies Rovi Guides, Inc. and Rovi Corp. as the real parties-
in-interest. Paper 4, 1.
B. Related Matters
The parties state that Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:18-
cv-00253 (C.D. Cal.), filed January 10, 2018, and In re Digital Video
Receivers and Related Hardware and Software Components, No. 337-TA-
1103 (ITC) (“ITC action”), filed February 8, 2018, each involve the ’956
patent. Pet. 1, Paper 4, 1.
In addition to the instant Petition, Petitioner concurrently filed four
other petitions requesting inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’956
patent: IPR2019-00279, IPR2019-00280, IPR2019-00282, and IPR2019-
00283. See Paper 4, 1; Paper 8, 1–5 (Petitioner’s ranking of petitions).
Exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we denied institution of
the four concurrent petitions. See, e.g., IPR2019-00279, Paper 10 at 5 (“In
considering a balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances in these
proceedings, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that institution of additional,
concurrent proceedings would promote the efficient administration of the
Office or the integrity of the system.”).
C. The ’956 Patent
The ʼ956 patent describes a transport control interface “to provide
information, control or both for live and recorded video programming.”
Ex. 1201, code (57). Figure 32 of the ’956 patent follows:

IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

4

Figure 32 illustrates an example of a transport control bar 3200 for currently
viewed live broadcast video, with buffer region 3204 colored to indicate an
automatically recorded portion of the video (id. at 31:7–12), and control
block 3208 representing “the current time and the relative time position in
the current program or the time span between start time 3210 and end time
3212, which may also be graphically indicated by tab 3206” (id. at 30:27–
45).
The system provides the automatic recording and the transport control
bar, respectively, for example, “when the user tunes to the currently
broadcasting channel” (see id. at 31:6–7) and similarly “in response to the
user tuning to a broadcast channel” (see id. at 30:31–32). Region 3202
represents video portions of the live broadcast not recorded, while region
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

5
3214 represents additional memory for future buffering or recording. See id.
at 31:4–25.
“In some embodiments of the present invention the visual appearance
of a buffer region that designates automatically recorded content may be
distinguishable from the visual appearance of a region of the transport
control bar that designates content that is being recorded at the request of the
user.” Id. at 34:48–53. The specification describes the “buffer” in general
terms: “[T]he buffer region applies to any suitable indication of content
being recorded, including automatic recording, manual recording,
programmed recording, any other suitable type of recording, or any
combination of thereof.” Id. at 31:52–56.
The specification describes automatic recording, which as noted
above, may occur in response to a user tuning to a channel, and the
specification also describes user-initiated recording:
[T]ransport control bar 3200 may also display information when
the user activates a recording option to record a particular
program (as opposed to automatic recording of content into a
buffer). For example, the interactive television program guide
application may display transport control bar 3200 when the user
presses a “record” button on a remote control to record content
on a currently tuned channel. Buffer region 3204, in such a
situation, may indicate the content saved into memory sines [sic]
the recording began. Tab 3206 may be moved within region
3204 in order [to] perform any suitable action (e.g., rewind)
while the program continues to be recorded (and region 3204
continues to expand to the right). Start time 3210 and end time
3212 may indicate the actual start time and end time of the
program being recorded.
Id. at 31:36–52.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

6
D. Illustrative Claim
As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’956 patent.
Pet. 8. Method claims 2–10 ultimately depend from independent method
claim 1, and system claims 12–20 ultimately depend from independent
system claim 11. Independent method claim 1 materially tracks independent
system claim 11 and follows:
1. A method for providing information about a video
program, the method comprising:
generating for display, using control circuitry, the video
program and a transport control interface that indicates a time
length of the video program, wherein the transport control
interface indicates:
a first stored time segment of the video program which
is recorded in response to a specific user command, and
a second stored time segment of the video program
which is automatically recorded into buffer memory,
wherein the first stored time segment and the second
stored time segment are visually distinguished.
Ex. 1201, 39:31–431.
E. Evidence Relied Upon
Petitioner relies on the following references:
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2003/0067886 A1, published Apr. 10,
2003 (Ex. 1202, “Son”);
Su-Woon Jung, Eun-Sam Kim, and Dong-Ho Lee, “Design and
Implementation of an Enhanced Personal Recorder for DTV,” IEEE Trans.
Cons. Electr’cs., Vol. 47, No. 4, Nov. 2001 (Ex. 1205, “Jung”);
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0051037 A1, published Dec. 13, 2001
(Ex. 1206, “Safadi”);
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

7
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0078817 A1, published Apr. 22, 2004
(Ex. 1207, “Horowitz”);
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0142956 A1, published July 31, 2003
(Ex. 1208, “Tomita”); and
U.S. Patent No. 5,371,551, filed Oct. 29, 1992, published Dec. 6, 1994
(Ex. 1222, “Logan”).
Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
(Ex. 1211) and the Second Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
(Ex. 1233). Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth
(Ex. 2003).
F. Grounds Asserted
Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 8):
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1 References
1, 2, 4–6, 11–12, 14–16 103(a) Son, Jung
1, 2, 4–6, 11–12, 14–16 103(a) Son, Jung, Logan
3, 13 103(a) Son, Jung, Horowitz
3, 13 103(a) Son, Jung, Horowitz, Logan
7–10, 17–20 103(a) Son, Jung, Tomita

1 Because the effective filing date of the challenged claims pre-dates March
16, 2013, the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 provisions of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, §§ 3(b)–3(c), 3(n)(1),
125 Stat. 284, 285–87, 293 (2011) do not apply.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

8
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1 References
7–10, 17–20 103(a) Son, Jung, Tomita, Logan
7–10, 17–20 103(a) Son, Jung, Tomita, Safadi
7–10, 17–20 103(a) Son, Jung, Tomita, Safadi, Logan
5, 15 103(a) Son, Jung, Safadi
5, 15 103(a) Son, Jung, Safadi, Logan
See id.; infra Section IV.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Principles of Law Relating to Obviousness
“A patent may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The question of obviousness involves
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) any objective evidence of
nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

9
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).2 In addition, to evaluate a combination of
teachings, we “determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine
the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441, F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The prior art of record reflects the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill
Relying on the testimony of Dr. Rhyne, Petitioner contends a person
of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar
discipline and at least two years of experience with embedded
computer systems. . . . A PHOSITA could have equivalent
experience in industry or research, such as designing,
developing, evaluating, testing or implementing these
technologies.
Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 17–20). Patent Owner materially agrees with
Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 20–21 (agreeing
“a POSA would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline and at
least two years of work experience in embedded computer systems”) (citing
Ex. 2003 ¶ 43).

2 Patent Owner does not present any such objective evidence of
nonobviousness specifically for the ’954 patent, though Patent Owner
generally states, inter alia, at the outset that it “licensed their technology,
including over 5000 pending and issued patents.” See PO Resp. 1.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

10
Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art involves considering
various factors including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior
art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made;
sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in
the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation
omitted); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (the prior art often reflects the appropriate level of skill in the art).
Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art
coincides with the problems, solutions, and sophistication of the technology
as reflected in the prior art of record and the ’956 patent specification and
we adopt both as materially the same.
C. Weighing of Dr. Rhyne’s Testimony
Patent Owner contends Dr. Rhyne’s “should . . . be given little
weight.” PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner,
[t]he problem with Dr. Rhyne’s credentials is simple: he
has general experience with “embedded computer systems”
rather than significant, direct experience with [personal video
recorders (“PVRs”) and associated interface components such as
[transport control interfaces (“TCIs”)] during the relevant
timeframe. Dr. Rhyne was retired as of the relevant timeframe
and “doing consulting work generally related to patent
litigation.” EX2002, 7:13–16. Thus, Dr. Rhyne—especially
when compared with Dr. Almeroth—does not have personal
knowledge rendering him able to reliably opine on what a POSA
would have understood during the relevant time frame. His
opinions should therefore be given little weight.
Id.
Petitioner contends Patent Owner disregards Dr. Rhyne’s “substantial
and direct experience with embedded computer systems.” Reply 17 n.7
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

11
(citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 7–11). At the cited testimony, Dr. Rhyne explains, inter
alia, that at the relevant time frame, he worked as an engineering consultant,
while he “was retired from Texas A&M University in the 2000-2003 time
period.” Ex. 1233 ¶ 10 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 8). Dr. Rhyne testifies (in his first
declaration) to the following experience at the relevant time frame:
I also have hands-on experience with a variety of set-top
boxes during the years 2000-2003, including the Scientific-
Atlanta Explorer® 2000 and 3000 and the 8600X (including
visiting the Scientific-Atlanta R&D facilities to meet with their
engineers), the Pioneer BD-V3000 set-top box, and the Cisco
8742HDC. I have also studied other manufacturers’ set-top
boxes and satellite receivers in the course of my consulting
practice. I have owned or rented several other set-top boxes in
my home, and have owned a Tivo digital video recorder since its
introduction in 1999. I am also familiar with the AT&T U-verse
system for delivery of television programming and an electronic
program guide.
Ex. 1211 ¶ 8. Dr. Rhyne notes (in his second declaration) that he testified
during his deposition that he prepared expert reports as part of his
“consulting work during the years 2000 to 2003” “with the technology of
set-top boxes and transport control interfaces.” Ex. 1233 ¶ 10 (citing
Ex. 2002, 8:25–12:9).3
With over fifty years of experience in electrical and computer
engineering, forty years of part-time consulting engineering experience in
computer systems design, application-specific system design, and expert

3 Petitioner asserts the ’956 patent’s effective date extends to March 18,
2004. Pet. 7; see Ex. 1201, code (63). Patent Owner does not argue
otherwise here. See Pet. 7 (contending that Patent Owner asserted an earlier
effective filing date (March 18, 2003) in the ITC action through a
provisional application (citing Ex. 1226, 1–2)).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

12
witness work, significant experience with design and teaching of computer
systems, microcomputer systems, etc., including with Ph.D. and Masters
level students, and with direct experience with PVRs and interface
components such as TCIs (Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 2–11; Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 9–11) during the
relevant time frame (see supra note 3), Dr. Rhyne’s experience and
knowledge renders him at least a person of ordinary skill and also renders
him capable of opining about what person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood at the time of the invention. As Dr. Rhyne testifies,
Dr. Almeroth’s declaration does not reveal direct experience with PVRs and
interface components such as TCIs. See Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 10–11 (citing Ex. 1232
(Almeroth Deposition), 36:5–37:25; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 5–24). During
Dr. Almeroth’s deposition testimony, he stated although he prepared no
opinion on the subject, he saw no reason why Dr. Rhyne would not qualify
as one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1232, 36:5–37:25. In addition,
Dr. Rhyne satisfies Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill regardless of any
direct experience with PVRs and TCIs. See supra Section III.B; PO Resp.
20–21 (agreeing “a POSA would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in computer
science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline
and at least two years of work experience in embedded computer systems”).
Accordingly, Dr. Rhyne qualifies to testify under Fed. R. Evid. 702
via the submitted declaration and deposition evidence. In general, the record
consistently supports Dr. Rhyne’s testimony and shows his testimony to be
credible and helpful, and we give it due weight.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

13
D. Claim Construction
In this inter partes review of the unexpired ’956 patent, with the
Petition accorded a filing date of November 12, 2018, the broadest
reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) construction in light of the specification of
the ’956 patent applies to the claim terms. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
(2018). Petitioner proposes claim constructions for “buffer memory” and
“time length.” Pet. 11–12.
Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s claim construction
proposal for “buffer memory” as a “device or storage area used to store data
temporarily.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 112–114). Petitioner’s citations to
the specification and extrinsic evidence support this construction. See id. at
11–12 (citing Ex. 1201, 2:4–8, 13:1–5, 28:49–56, 30:64–67, 31:14–20,
33:16–12, 34:66–35:5; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 57, 112–114; Ex. 1224 ¶ 114).
Accordingly, we adopt it.
In a footnote, Patent Owner “contests Petitioner’s construction of the
term time length and Petitioner’s argument that Son-Jung-Logan discloses
this claimed feature.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 276–291; Pet. 40).
Despite the argument, Patent Owner does not provide an alternative to
Petitioner’s proposal for “time length.” The Petition proposes that under
BRI, “‘time length’ should be interpreted to mean “duration of time where
the indication of time length may be quantitative or qualitative.” Pet. 13
(citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 115). Petitioner notes that the specification “does not
explicitly define time length, and this term only appears in two paragraphs of
the specification.” Id. (citing Ex. 1201, 34:15–21, 35:65–36:3). Petitioner
also notes that in the ITC action, Patent Owner proposed what Petitioner
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

14
proposes here, namely “time length” means “duration of time wherein the
indication may be quantitative or qualitative.” Id. (citing Ex. 1228, 23).
The specification supports this claim construction at least under BRI.
In the Institution Decision, although we did not construe the term explicitly,
we noted “Figure 36 of the ’956 patent [specification] reveals that time may
be indicated as a proportion, because it provides “[m]arker 3602” to indicate
a time of 8:00 pm without the screen specifying the time 8:00 pm.” Inst.
Dec. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1201, Fig. 36, 33:45–54). We also noted that the
specification states “‘any suitable indicators’ may be employed” as time
markers. See id. (quoting Ex. 1201, 33:45–54). We adopt and incorporate
our findings regarding claim construction of “time length.” See id.
Accordingly, “time length” means “duration of time wherein the indication
may be quantitative or qualitative.” See id.
Based on the record, no other claim terms require an express
construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only
construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
E. Obviousness—Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14–16
Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14–16 would have
been obvious over the collective teachings of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung,
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

15
and Logan. Pet. 34–60. Patent Owner disagrees. See generally PO Resp.;
PO Sur-reply.4
1. Overview of Son
Son generally describes “[a] system and a method for recording and
reproducing broadcasting programs” (Ex. 1202 ¶ 2), which includes a
“clipping” function for selectively storing portions of a program in an HDD
(hard disc drive) (id. ¶¶ 4, 12, 14, 36). “In the present invention, a partial
recording/editing function for recording only a part of the real-time
broadcasting data, recorded data or time-shifted data in the HDD [hard disc
drive] is called [a] clipping function for convenience of explanation.” Id.
¶ 12. Son describes clipping data for long term HDD memory storage (as
opposed to short term buffer HDD storage) under three operations: when a
user “selectively stor[es] only a part” of 1) “real-time broadcasting data in
the HDD,” 2) “the recorded data in the HDD,” or 3) “the time-shifted data.”
See id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added).
Prior to clipping, a user manually instigates Son’s time shift function
for buffering video in the HDD by pressing (for example) a pause control
command of a broadcast program so that it can be replayed after the pause
point. See id. ¶ 6. A description of the “time shift” function of a broadcast
follows:

4 Patent Owner’s Sur-reply mostly repeats or re-states arguments advanced
in the Response. See PO Sur-reply 1 (“In its Reply, Comcast
Communications (Petitioner) either repeats or aims to belatedly correct the
errors in its Petition that Rovi Guides, Inc. (PO) identified in the Patent
Owner Response (POR).”). Nevertheless, to ensure a review of the
complete record, we address relevant arguments herein.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

16
For example, in case that the user has a phone call while
he is watching a broadcasting program, when he pushes a button
for time shift of a remote control (for example, pause button),
broadcasting streams received after he pushes the button are
stored in a HDD. When the user pushes a play button after he
hangs up, he can watch scenes following the pause scene, which
are stored in the HDD.
Ex. 1202 ¶ 6. Son generally refers to “a program broadcasting in real time”
as typical broadcasting of programs or live events from a television station
as distinct from programming that a user already recorded. See id. ¶ 61.
Users initiate the clipping function (and other functions) by using a
guide bar and a remote control key to start and end a clipping region on the
guide bar. Id. ¶¶ 32, 40–45, Figs. 3, 4. Users may identify multiple clipping
regions on the guide bar by repeating this process. Id. ¶ 55.
To instigate clipping of previously stored programs (for example, to
delete advertisements, see id.), Son describes “while normally watching the
reproduced file, the user can designate the start point and completion point
[on the guide bar] using the recording key whenever contents he wants to
clip are displayed, thereby setting at least one clipping region.” Id. ¶ 56.
File system 104 generally tracks stored clipping regions by giving different
regions a file name or grouping regions together under a single file name.
See id. ¶¶ 50, 51, 55, 58. “The set clipping region is indicated in a color
different from the original color of the guide bar to allow the user to easily
recognize the clipping region.” Id. ¶ 57; see id. at Fig. 4 (annotated by
Petitioner and reproduced below in Section III.E.4).
Son states “the engine 103 displays a broadcasting signal received in
real time on the TV screen under the control of the application 101 or stores
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

17
it in the HDD 106.” Id. ¶ 48. Son does not indicate specifically whether the
(buffer) storage described in the previous sentence occurs automatically.5
In addition to clipping, Son indicates that HDD storage (i.e., recording
of different types) occurs manually due to previous program steps or user
prompts with respect to at least two different recording options. For
example, “in the event of [1] reservation recording or [2] prompt recording
or according to the time shift function,” the system “stores the broadcasting
signal as a file.” Id. ¶ 51.6 Son indicates that the HDD acts as a temporary
storage buffer except in cases of clipping or reservation recording, because
the system “automatically delete[s]” content from the HDD if “reproduced
[for viewing] in case of the time shift.” See id. ¶ 53, Fig. 3. Also, “when the
completion key [for the clipping function] is inputted, only the broadcasting
signal of the clipping region designated by the user is stored in the HDD 106
and broadcasting signals excluded from the clipping region are deleted from
the HDD.” Id. ¶ 58. In other words, the system stores broadcast signals set
into clipping regions long term in the HDD after the user presses the

5 As discussed in this Final Written Decision, the parties assume that Son
only discloses manual buffering and not automatic buffering, with Petitioner
turning to Jung and Logan to suggest automatic buffering of real time
broadcasting. See Ex. 1202 ¶ 6 (“[W]hen [a user] pushes a button for time
shift of a remote control (for example, pause button), broadcasting streams
received after he pushes the button are stored in a [buffer portion of the]
HDD.”).
6 As indicated above, Son appears to treat the time-shift function as a type of
“prompt recording.” See Ex. 1202 ¶ 6 (“[W]hen [a user] pushes a button for
time shift of a remote control (for example, pause button), broadcasting
streams received after he pushes the button are stored in a HDD.”); see also
Fig. 3 (flow chart).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

18
completion key, but stores broadcast signals temporarily (i.e., in a buffer
region of the HDD) before a user presses the completion key. See id.7
A user also initiates a time shift (i.e., manually) to record “real-time”
broadcasts (see id. ¶ 39) temporarily in the HDD, and then using the guide
bar “while he is continuously watching the program,” clips any desired time
shifted regions selectively into the HDD for permanent storage. See id. ¶ 61.
In any case, the guide bar generally displays “different colors” so a
user “can easily recognize the difference between” stored clipped regions
and other regions such as temporarily stored regions in the HDD. See id.
¶ 53, ¶¶ 53–58, 61. The “guide bar indicates the display states of video
signals of a reproduction file selected by a user using different colors. If the
length of the reproduction file is two-hour[s] long, the guide bar has its
length corresponding to 120 minutes.” Id. ¶ 42. In general, “[t]he set
clipping region is indicated in a color different from the original color of the
guide bar to allow the user to easily recognize the clipping region.” Id. ¶ 57.
2. Overview of Jung
Similar to Son, Jung discloses a PVR that allows simultaneous
playback and recording for digital television. Ex. 1205, Abstract. Jung
refers to providing users “time-shifting playback within the buffered area as
long as possible” implemented by “always” buffering data in the HDD so
that a user will not miss program material. Id. at 5. In other words, “[t]o

7 Completing the designation of the clipping region (e.g., by pressing a
completion key) causes the system to delete regions “excluded from the
clipping region.” Id. ¶¶ 58, 61. Or as noted above, the system also deletes
reproduced regions of time-shifted recordings (regardless of clipping). Id.
¶ 53.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

19
achieve time-shifting playback that is PVRs’ key feature, TV programs
should always be stored in the HDD.” Id. (emphasis added).
Similar to Son’s system described above, users implement a clipping
function to store previously buffered video in the HDD long term in the
HDD. Id. Also, “[t]he current status of the buffered and recorded area is
displayed on screen using a progress bar” as depicted in Figure 7. Id.
Jung’s Figure 7 appears below:

Figure 7 above depicts time information (4:35 PM – 6 PM) for a
currently viewed program (“Autumn in New York”) and also depicts a
progress bar that indicates distinctions between buffered and permanently
“[r]ecorded” or clipped areas of programming. Id. “The current status of
the buffered and recorded area is displayed on screen using a progress bar.”
Id. A moving pointer indicates “the current playing position.” Id.
Jung describes the prior art problem of missing portions of desired
programs and describes solving that problem by using time shifting circuitry
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

20
to implement buffering “always” as described above and as set forth further
below:
General TV sets show TV programs that are provided by
broadcasting companies. Therefore, if the user leaves the TV
room for a while or changes the channel, the program that he/she
has been watching will be lost. However, the developed PVRs
can record a live program in the hard disk and play it again
whenever the user wants.
In other words, although the user pauses in the middle of a
live program, he/she can still watch the entire program. In this
paper, the device that performs this time-shifting function
mentioned above, and other functions that are going to be
mentioned later, will be called the “Time-Shifter.”
Id. at 1–2 (emphases added).
3. Overview of Logan
Logan generally discloses video and audio broadcast recording to
allow a user “to pause, replay and fast-forward the broadcast programming.”
Ex. 1222, 1:7–13. A “principle [sic] feature” of Logan’s invention involves
“continuously” storing “incoming audio or video signals” into a “circular
buffer” “without attention from the user”:
In accordance with a princip[al] feature of the invention,
one or more incoming audio or video signals are continuously
digitized, compressed and stored in a buffer memory whenever
the invention is in operation whereby, without attention from the
user, the invention maintains a “circular buffer” which stores
programming received during a preceding time interval of pre-
determined duration.
Id. at 1:45–53 (emphases added).
Logan further describes the “‘circular buffer’ which constantly
records one or more incoming audio or video program signals and a
microprocessor for accessing the memory to read a playback signal from the
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

21
circular buffer to display programming material delayed from its receipt by a
selectable delay interval.” Id. at code (57) (emphasis added). Logan
describes using prior art digital recording systems that employ RAM
(random access memory), which “permit[s] a desired programming segment
to be immediately accessed and viewed without the time consuming fast-
forward and fast-reverse tape motion required in conventional video cassette
recorders.” Id. at 1:28–33. Other benefits of Logan’s system include
“instant replay,” “zapped” “commercials,” and temporary pausing with
respect to live broadcast programs. Id. at 1:38–45.
4. Claims 1 and 11
Petitioner’s showing for system claim 11 mimics its showing for
materially similar method claim 1. Pet. 53–55. Petitioner relies on Son to
teach most of the limitations of claim 1, “except (arguably) the limitations
requiring that the transport control interface ‘indicates a time length of the
video program’ and that ‘the video program . . . is automatically recorded
into buffer memory.’” Id. at 34 (second emphasis added).
With respect to the preamble of claim 1, “[a] method for providing
information about a video program, the method comprising,” Petitioner
relies on Son’s OSD unit 102 as displaying a guide bar “linked with a video
signal being reproduced or a real-time broadcasting video signal to display
the state of the signal.” Pet. 37 (quoting Ex. 1202 ¶ 32). Petitioner also
points to Son’s Figure 4 as showing a guide bar that provides information
after the system extracts program guide information from a broadcasting
signal. Id. (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32, 38, Figs. 3–4; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 119–120, 210).
Claim 1 also recites “generating for display, using control circuitry,
the video program and a transport control interface that indicates a time
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

22
length of the video program.” Petitioner relies on Son’s engine 103 under
control of application 101, which includes video processor 202, as the
claimed “control circuitry” for generating the display of the claimed “video
program,” namely Son’s broadcasting signal on a television. See Pet. 38
(citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 37, 40, 43, Figs. 3–4; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 121–122, 210). For
the claimed “transport control interface” (TCI), Petitioner relies partially on
Son’s on-screen interface that includes a guide bar as depicted in Figure 4 of
Son. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32–33, 38, 42, 43, Fig. 4; Ex. 1211
¶¶ 126–127, 210).
A reproduction of Petitioner’s annotation of Son’s Figure 4 follows
(Pet. 40):

Figure 4, as annotated by Petitioner, indicates relative lengths in time of
programs and clipping regions (for example, MBC news and a mini-series)
relative to the overall length of the guide bar. Id. (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 42–43;
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

23
Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 126–127). Petitioner contends Son’s segmented guide bar
numerically and visually indicates a time length of the video program to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. See id. (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 126–127).
To the extent Son’s TCI does not indicate the time length of the video
program, Petitioner turns to Jung, which indicates the time span of a
buffered program in Figure 7 (e.g., 4:35PM–6:00PM), and notes that Jung
generally discloses a PVR system that buffers programs automatically and
provides PVR functions for navigating programs. See id. at 40–41 (citing
Ex. 1205, 2, 4, 5, Fig. 7; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 144, 146). According to Petitioner, it
would have been obvious to employ Jung’s time length indication with
Son’s guide bar “to improve Son’s system and advantageously expand the
program specific information displayed to users when making
viewing/recording decisions, even while navigating stored programs.” Id. at
42 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 165, 171–172, 187, 205, 210). Petitioner adds “[t]his
enhanced functionality would be desirable to viewers.” Id. (citing Ex. 1211
¶¶ 165, 171–172, 187, 205, 210).
Claim 1 also recites that the TCI “indicates” a “first . . . time segment”
and “second . . . time segment” respectively for manually recorded and
automatically buffered “visually distinguished” portions of the “video
program”:
a first stored time segment of the video program which is
recorded in response to a specific user command, and
a second stored time segment of the video program which
is automatically recorded into buffer memory,
wherein the first stored time segment and the second
stored time segment are visually distinguished.
Ex. 1201, 39:37–43.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

24
Addressing the first stored time (manual) segment, Petitioner notes
“Son’s system provides a clipping function that allows the user to selectively
record buffered program(s) in a reproduction file by defining (on the guide
bar) a clipping region using remote control 100.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1202
¶¶ 32, 42–46, 54–60; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 122–123, 210[1D]). Petitioner notes that
Son’s guide bar visually indicates viewer selected clipping regions as
distinct from other regions “to allow the user to easily recognize the clipping
region.” Id. at 35 (quoting Ex. 1202 ¶ 57 (“The set clipping region is
indicated in a color different from the original color of the guide bar to allow
the user to easily recognize the clipping region.”)), 44 (similar contentions).
Addressing the second time segment, Petitioner concedes Son teaches
a manual buffer storage for live broadcasts, and indicates the status thereof
relative to user-initiated clipped regions, but does not teach automatic
buffering. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 6, 15–16, 32, 36–39, 51–53, 57,
59, Fig. 4; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 114, 128–129, 210[1E]). Petitioner relies on the
combination of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, to include Jung’s or
Logan’s automatic buffering to supplement or partially replace Son’s manual
buffering, and to modify Son’s time-distinction features, as suggested by
Jung. See id. at 46–51 (citations omitted).
Petitioner contends Jung recognizes a drawback of Son’s manual time
shift system, where Jung includes a key feature of time shifting playback as
including automatic buffering of TV programs so a user will not miss
programming by relying on manual buffering. See id. at 46–47 (citing
Ex. 1205, 2–5; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 140–141, 156–157).
To support its showing, Petitioner provides the following annotated
version of Jung’s Figure 7 to illustrate the interaction between displayed
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

25
automatic buffered portions of a film and user-initiated storage (red) of the
same film (Pet. 41):

In annotated Figure 7 above, Petitioner contends “Jung’s PVR
provides an interface (blue) and progress bar (yellow) that displays program-
specific metadata (purple, yellow) indicating a ‘time length’ of one or more
programs under BRC, and visually distinguishes automatically buffered
program segments (green) from other segments indicating user-initiated
program recordings (red).” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1205, 4–5; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 140–
141, 144).
In other words, Petitioner contends Jung teaches or suggests
automatically buffering programs such as, for example, the film “Autumn in
New York” film (green) and indicating the time length thereof with a
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

26
progress bar. See Pet. 40–51; Ex. 1205, 5. As noted above, Petitioner
proposes replacing Son’s manual buffering feature (initiated, e.g., by a pause
button) with Jung’s automatic buffering feature. See Pet. 45–51.
Petitioner adds that even if a buffer memory does not encompass
storage in HDDs, “it would have been obvious to use—in Son-Jung—a
RAM buffer memory that automatically stores programs ‘whenever the
invention is in operation . . . without attention from the user,’ as taught by
Logan.” Id. at 46 (quoting Ex. 1222, 1:48–49; citing id. at 1:45–52, 3:11–
15, 5:22–27; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 149, 210). Petitioner explains that using the
modified system of automatic buffering as suggested by Jung and Logan
would have provided benefits such as an expanded control of the buffered
programming without requiring a manual input by the user, thereby
preventing user error and missed program recordings by automatically
storing programs to buffer memory. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1205, 5; Ex. 1222,
1:35–52, 4:3–6; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 163, 169–172, 203). Petitioner adds that
Jung/Logan’s teachings for automatic buffering would have expanded the
ability of Son’s system to implement rewind, fast-forward and recording
(clipping). Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1205, 5; Ex. 1222, 1:35–52, 4:3–6; Ex. 1211
¶¶ 163, 169–172, 203); see also id. at 48–49 (“Jung’s/Logan’s automatic
buffering techniques would improve Son’s system, and provide the user with
enhanced recording flexibility.” (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 168, 182–184, 198,
203–204)).
Petitioner provides other related reasons to combine the teachings, for
example, noting “Son and Jung/Logan share similar components and
features,” including “use [of] on-screen interfaces and input controls for
controlling and accessing programs.” Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 38–43,
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

27
Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 4–5; Ex. 1222, 1:64–2:2, 4:3–13, 5:7–11, 5:27–6:15;
Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 160, 172, 180–181). Petitioner also quotes Logan as teaching
its “invention is ‘useful, and indeed simplified when used with high
definition television signals,’” thereby suggesting Logan’s use of automatic
buffering techniques in Son’s system. Id. at 50 (quoting Ex. 1222, 2:52–56).
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the first stored time segment and the
second stored time segment are visually distinguished.” As noted above,
Petitioner relies on Son’s system to teach storing a first time segment via its
clipping function. See Pet. 44; supra note 4. As also noted above, Petitioner
relies on a combination of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, to teach
“a second stored time segment of the video program which is automatically
recorded into buffer memory.” Pet. 45.
Addressing the “visually distinguished” limitation, Petitioner explains
“while Son teaches that the guide bar distinguishes a buffered program
segment (green) and a recorded program segment (red) (Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 128–
132, 210[1F]), it does not disclose that the buffered program segment was
automatically buffered.” Id. at 52 (annotating Figure 4 of Son). In other
words, Petitioner contends Son’s system visually distinguishes manually
buffered storage regions (i.e., “first stored time segment”) from clipping
storage regions (i.e., “second stored time segment”). See id. at 51–53. By
replacing that manually buffered feature of Son with the automatic buffering
as suggested by Jung and Logan for the reasons outlined above, Petitioner
contends “the resulting combined system would visually distinguish—via
the guide bar—the clipping region (the ‘first stored time segment’) and the
automatically buffered program segment (the ‘second stored time
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

28
segment’).” Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 38, 43, 53, 57; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 126,
129–133, 210).
Petitioner contends that displaying automatically buffered regions
would have improved Son’s system by facilitating recording of the
automatically buffered segments. See id. at 48–49. In other words, similar
to the reasons for providing automatic buffering, providing a visual
distinction showing automatic buffering regions as distinct from clipped
regions provides a flexible and simple process for allowing a user to record
entire programs or segments while minimizing user error and missed
programs. See id. at 48–49, 52–53. As noted above, Petitioner also
generally contends that providing the time information as Jung suggests
“would have improved Son’s system, by providing users with additional
program-specific information for making viewing/recording decisions (e.g.,
clipping).” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 165, 171–172, 205). This rationale
also applies to providing a visual distinction between automatic buffering
and user-initiated clipping––i.e., the visual distinction provides additional
program information. See id. at 41–42 (“Son’s system—modified based on
Jung’s teachings—would improve Son’s system and advantageously expand
the program specific information displayed to users when making
viewing/recording decisions, even while navigating stored programs.”
(citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 165, 171–172, 187, 205, 210)); id. at 43 (“Jung’s display
techniques would have improved Son’s system, by providing users with
additional program-specific information for making viewing/recording
decisions (e.g., clipping).”). Petitioner provides a similar showing regarding
system claim 11, primarily relying on the above-discussed showing for
method claim 1. See id. at 53–55.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

29
Addressing claims 1 and 11 together, Patent Owner asserts “Son-
Jung-Logan does not disclose ‘a second stored time segment of the video
program which is automatically recorded into buffer memory.’” PO
Resp. 26. Patent Owner and Petitioner agree “that in Son ‘the time shift
function is user-initiated’ [e.g., via a pause button] and that, accordingly,
Son does not disclose a time segment of the video program which is
automatically recorded.” Id. at 22 (quoting Pet. 45–46). The parties also
agree that Petitioner “pivots to Jung-Logan to supply this missing feature.”
See id.
Patent Owner contends “neither Jung nor Logan supplies the missing
limitation—a time segment of a video program which is ‘automatically
recorded.’” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 127–138). Regarding Jung,
Patent Owner contends “[n]owhere does Jung mention ‘automatically’
recording as the term is used by the ’956 patent, e.g., in response to a user
tuning to a channel.” Id. at 25. According to Patent Owner, “[a] reasonable
interpretation of Jung’s disclosure is that Jung’s Time-Shifter mode is user
initiated (similar to Son) and that once the time-slip mode is entered, Jung’s
system always stores programs into HDD, as opposed to storing the
programs in other memory, such as system memory or SDRAM.” Id. (citing
Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 133–134). Patent Owner relies on Jung’s statement that Son’s
time-shifter “stores streams that the user wants to save in the hard disk” and
“[i]f HDD performance decreases, overflow may occur on the temporary
buffer of SDRAM.” Id. at 25–26 (quoting Ex. 1205, 3, 5) (emphasis by
Patent Owner).
Petitioner replies that “Jung does not condition ‘always’ buffering
programs based on user initiated commands or the operation of playing
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

30
modes, as PO appears to acknowledge.” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶ 17).
Petitioner explains “Jung’s PVR ‘always’ stores programs regardless of
mode change, and the Time-Shifter stores programs to system memory
before buffering programs to HDD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 18–19;
Ex. 1205, 1–2, 4–5). Petitioner also contends Jung does not employ a
“Time-Shifter mode” or “time-slip mode,” rather, Jung discloses a “‘Time-
Shifter’ [device] to perform time-shifting functions and implement various
‘playing mode[s]’ or VCR-like functions (e.g., rewind, fast-forward).” See
id. (citing Ex. 1205, 1–2, 4–5; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 12–19).
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that “Jung’s ‘always’ buffering
operation is not ‘automatic’ because the Time-Shifter “stores streams that
the user wants to save,” (Reply 3 (quoting PO Resp. 25)), Petitioner
contends Patent Owner “conflates user desire to save content with user
action.” Id. (citing Ex. 1233 ¶ 18).
We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments,
Jung’s system always buffers input streams using its key time-shifter device,
as opposed to employing a time-shifting mode that a user selects. See supra
Section III.E.2 (describing Son); Ex. 1205, 1, 5; Reply 3 (“Jung does not
require the user to affirmatively initiate the automatic buffering.” (citing
Ex. 1233 ¶ 18)); Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 140–141 (testifying Son teaches automatic
buffering of broadcasts). At the main disputed portion of Jung, Jung states
as follows:
To achieve time-shifting playback that is PVRs’ key
feature, TV programs should always be stored in the HDD. In
our PVR, unlike conventional ones, programs are buffered until
HDD reaches its full capacity so that users can experience time-
shifting playback within the buffered area as long as possible.
So, the buffered stream is kept in HDD until power is off.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

31
Ex. 1205, 5 (emphasis added).
The quoted passage in Jung indicates that Jung’s system (i.e., not a
user) ensures that programs “should always be stored in the HDD,” in other
words, at all times when the PVR operates. See Ex. 1205, 5; Ex. 1211
¶¶140–141 (testifying Jung teaches automatic buffering of live broadcasts).
Jung explains why: The feature allows a user to “watch the entire [live]
program” (Ex. 1205 at 1) and allows “time-shifting playback within the
buffered area as long as possible” (id. at 5). Jung also states “[o]f course,
input streams should always be stored in HDD, regardless of mode change.”
Id. at 4 (emphasis added); Ex. 1211 ¶ 140 (testifying Jung teaches automatic
buffering regardless of the PVR mode).
Accordingly, Jung supports Petitioner’s argument that Jung “always”
stores programs in the HDD “regardless of mode change” or other “user-
initiated commands.” See Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶18–19; Ex. 1205, 1–2,
4–5); Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 140–141. In other words, Jung implies that buffering
initiates on power up (i.e., “always” after power up) and continues even with
a “mode change” or other user-initiated commands, including a “program
change.” See Ex. 1205, 5 (describing “a progress bar that moves with time
[indicating program titles] as a continuous flow of programs not restricted to
program change” as opposed to a prior art “static bar”; noting “[t]he current
status of the buffered and recorded area is displayed on screen using a
progress bar”), Fig. 7 (showing a “Buffered” segment on a progress bar for a
channel that includes “Autumn in New York” up through the current time at
5:13 pm followed by HeadLine News at 6:00 pm); Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 12–14
(testifying Jung always buffers even with a channel change, which allows a
user to watch an entirety of a program). As Petitioner argues, and contrary
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

32
to Patent Owner’s arguments, Jung nowhere describes any manual action
required by a user to buffer programs by entering into a time-shifting
playback mode. See Ex. 1205, 5 (“To achieve time-shifting playback that is
PVR’s key feature, TV programs should always be stored in the HDD.”);
Ex. 1233 ¶ 17 (testifying “[n]or does Jung condition the storing of input
streams (e.g., video programs) to the HDD based on whether the PVR or
‘Time-Shifter’ is implementing any of these various playing modes”).
As Dr. Rhyne explains in both of his declarations, Jung’s “‘key
feature’ of automatic and continuous buffering enables a user to pause a live
TV program midway through viewing the program and, yet, still permit the
user to watch the entirety of said program, e.g., from the point where the
user first began watching the program.” Ex. 1233 ¶ 14 (citing Ex. 1211
¶¶ 139–140) (emphasis added); accord Ex. 1211 ¶ 139 (citing Ex. 1205, 1).
In his first declaration, Dr. Rhyne explains as follows:
Using conventional PVR systems, Jung notes that “if the
user leaves the TV room for a while or changes the channel, the
program that he/she has been watching will be lost.” Ex. 1205,
p. 1 (article p. 915). To overcome this problem, Jung teaches that
the improved PVR “can record a live program in the hard disk
and play it again whenever the user wants. In other words,
although the user pauses in the middle of a live program, he/she
can still watch the entire program.” Ex. 1205, p. 1 (article p.
915). Thus, Jung teaches that the improved PVR allows a user
to record the entirety of a program after viewing it for some time,
even if the user decides to pause the program in the middle of the
live program. A PHOSITA would have understood based on this
disclosure, that providing such functionality for the improved
PVR, would ultimately require the improved PVR to store a
portion of the incoming video program to a hard disk drive for
later retrieval and reproduction to the user.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

33
Ex. 1211 ¶ 139 (quoting Ex. 1205, 1) (emphasis added). Jung supports Dr.
Rhyme: As Jung states, by recording live programs automatically in the
HDD buffer, the user “can still watch the entire program” even if “the user
pauses in the middle of [the] live program”––in contrast to prior art systems
in which “if the user leaves the room for a while or changes the channel, the
program that he/she has been watching will be lost.” Ex. 1205, 1 (emphasis
added). Assuming for example the user pauses in the middle of the program
and leaves the room, when the user returns, she can go right to the pause
point and continue watching, or rewind prior to the pause point to the
beginning to “watch the entire program.” See id. (emphasis added);
Ex. 1233 ¶ 14 (“e.g., from the point where the user first began watching the
program”).
In contrast to Jung’s system, which improves upon conventional
systems like Son’s system, Son discloses a user only can watch “scenes
following the pause scene”:
For example, in case that the user has a phone call while he is
watching a broadcasting program, when he pushes a button for
time shift of a remote control (for example, pause button),
broadcasting streams received after he pushes the button are
stored in a HDD. When the user pushes a play button after he
hangs up, he can watch scenes following the pause scene, which
are stored in the HDD.
Ex. 1202 ¶ 6 (emphasis added).8
So unlike Son, Jung refers to providing the ability to “watch the entire
program” after a pause as a result of the key feature of “always” buffering,

8 Son and Jung include a common inventor/author: Eunsam Kim/Eun-Sam
Kim. Compare Ex. 1202, code (76), with Ex. 1205, 1; see Ex. 1211 ¶ 145
(noting same).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

34
i.e., describing automatic buffering. In context, Jung’s passages show that
what “the user wants to save” in Jung’s system refers to user desire instead
of user action, as Petitioner argues and contrary to Patent Owner’s
arguments. See Reply 3; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 12–14, 16–19; PO Resp. 25; Ex. 1205,
1–2, 4–5. As Dr. Rhyne also credibly testifies, the isolated sentence in Jung
about “what the user wants to save” appears in context with “encryption and
decryption capabilities of the PVR,” and it does not refer to any user-
initiated action. See Ex. 1233 ¶ 18 (discussing Ex. 1205, 3). As Dr. Rhyne
also testifies, “a PHOSITA would have understood that Jung’s disclosure of
always storing input streams to the HDD would result in the PVR
automatically buffering incoming TV programs to the HDD, including upon
the user tuning to a particular channel or first powering-on the PVR.” Id.
¶ 16. Dr. Rhyne’s testimony lends further context to “what a user wants to
save”––channels watched recently by the user––i.e., stored “within the
[circular] buffered area as long as possible.” See Ex. 1205, 5. Jung’s system
buffers the user-selected programs as indicated on Jung’s progress bar. See
id. (“The current status of the buffered and recorded area is displayed on
screen using a progress bar”); Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 14, 16–17 (describing tuning and
other user-initiated actions in the context of “always” buffering); Ex. 1211
¶¶ 140, 157 (“Jung thus recognized that by automatically and continuously
storing the system memory and then to the HDD [Ex. 1205, 4], the PVR
would be able to provide enhanced time-shifting playback functionality ‘so
that users can experience time-shifting playback within the buffered area as
long as possible.’ [Id. at 5]. This was a ‘key feature’ for Jung’s improved
PVR.” (quoting Ex. 1205, 4–5)).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

35
Jung further supports Dr. Rhyne by describing buffering “always . . .
in HDD, regardless of the mode change” (Ex. 1205, 4 (emphasis added))
and implementing “a progress bar” to show the buffering (id. at 5)––i.e.,
“always” buffering even if the user changes a channel or mode: “So, we
devised a progress bar that moves with time so that it can represent a
continuous flow of programs not restricted to program change. It also
presents the program titles, as a brief EPG, [which] move forward and
backward according to the time-shifting functions.” Ex. 1205, 5 (emphasis
added).
Patent Owner also argues that Jung does not explicitly disclose
automatic buffering of broadcast television signals upon tuning to a channel.
PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 132)). Citing Jung, Dr. Rhyne testifies “a
PHOSITA would have understood that Jung’s disclosure of always storing
input streams to the HDD would result in the PVR automatically buffering
incoming TV programs to the HDD, including upon the user tuning to a
particular channel or first powering-on the PVR.” Ex. 1233 ¶ 16 (citing
Ex. 1205, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 139–141).
In context of the discussion above, the testimony shows that Jung
always automatically buffers tuned broadcasts as displayed on Jung’s time
bar even if the channel changes subsequent to powering on the PVR for
television viewing. See Ex. 1205, Fig. 7 (showing “Buffered” region
spanning from left to right). In other words, in context of Jung’s
descriptions of “input streams always . . . stored in HDD regardless of the
mode change” (id. at 4), and similarly, “TV programs always . . . stored in
HDD” (id. at 5), with the status bar indicating “a continuous flow of
programs” and “program titles,” Jung’s Figure 7 further indicates buffering
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

36
tuned channels (as indicated by several TV programs) with the status bar
showing “Buffered” regions versus clipped regions from initial PVR power-
up to the current point in time. See id. (“The current status of the buffered
and recorded area is displayed on screen using a progress bar.”). As just
noted, Jung indicates continuing buffering “always”––i.e., even if the
channel or mode changes and otherwise “always” during PVC operation.
See id. at 4, 5; see also id. at 5 (“[W]e devised a progress bar that moves
with time so that it can represent a continuous flow of programs not
restricted to program change.” “[T]he buffered stream is kept in HDD until
power is off”), Fig. 7 (showing “Buffered” regions), Fig. 1 (“PVR Hardware
Block Diagram” with “Time-Shifter” in input path); Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 139–141.
Further, in contrasting how a user “can still watch the entire program” in
Jung’s system, Jung states that in prior art systems, “if the user leaves the
TV room for a while or changes the channel, the program that he/she has
been watching will be lost.” Ex. 1205, 1 (emphases added).
Dr. Almeroth narrowly testifies about “the express disclosure of Jung”
and relies on what it “does not state” (see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 132, 133–134),
whereas Dr. Rhyne considers what a person of ordinary skill would have
understood Jung to teach (see Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 139–140; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 12–14, 16–
19). The testimony by Dr. Almeroth refers to Jung’s disclosure that a user
“can still watch the entire program” after a pause. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 131
(citing Ex. 1205, 1). But Dr. Almeroth does not provide a reasoned
explanation supported by the record that describes how a user of Jung’s
system “can still watch the entire program” without automatic buffering
occurring before a user pauses. See id. ¶¶ 127–135. Rather, Dr. Almeroth
relies on the alleged theory that in Jung, “once the time-slip mode is
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

37
entered,” then “Jung’s system always store[s] programs into HDD.” Id.
¶ 133. This theory assumes Jung’s user somehow entered a time-slip or like
mode before the user implemented the described pause. See id. But Dr.
Almeroth’s citations to Jung do not support this theory. See id. ¶¶ 127–135.
As Dr. Rhyne testifies and as discussed above, Jung does not disclose a user
initiating a time-slip, time-shifting, or any like mode, and Jung teaches
automatic buffering regardless of the mode during PVR operation using a
time-shifter as a key feature of the system. See Ex. 1205, 1, Fig. 1 (showing
“Time-Shifter” in the input path in the “PVR Hardware Block Diagram”), 4,
5).
With respect to Logan, Patent Owner contends “Petitioner does not
offer Logan to cure the automatic recording Son and Jung deficiencies, nor
does Logan do so.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 137–138). Patent
Owner explains that “Petitioner offers Logan solely for ‘buffer memory’ and
does not assert that Logan teaches a time segment of the video program
which is automatically recorded.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 137–138). Patent
Owner also contends Logan does not discuss a time segment of
automatically recorded content nor distinguish between time segments in an
interface at all.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 137–138) (emphasis omitted).
At paragraph 136 of his declaration, Dr. Almeroth contends
“Petitioner offers Logan solely for Logan’s disclosure of ‘buffer memory’
and does not assert that Logan teaches a time segment of the video program
which is automatically recorded. Nor does Logan describe recording
content without receiving a specific user command.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 136. Dr.
Almeroth does not support the testimony with a citation to the record. See
id. The record does not support it, as discussed further below.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

38
At paragraph 137, Dr. Almeroth quotes Logan as describing a
“‘circular buffer’ in the memory system 23 in which the incoming video
signal is continuously written to a continuously advancing memory location,
writing over the oldest recorded data in the memory system as it advances
the writing location.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 137 (quoting Ex. 1222, 5:22–27).
Dr. Almeroth explains “in Logan, a broadcast recording is monitored as it is
broadcast (i.e., live) and the viewer can ‘pause, replay, and fast-forward the
broadcast programming.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1222, code (57), 1:10–14).
Dr. Almeroth also explains “Logan does not employ a buffer-memory
system outside of the monitoring and recording of a broadcast program, i.e.,
a time-slip mode, nor does Logan distinguish automatically recorded time
segments.” Id. (emphasis added).
Hence, Dr. Almeroth agrees that Logan discloses a circular buffer in
the context of pause, replay, fast-forward and other PVR functionality–
similar to the system of Son and Jung. As Dr. Almeroth agrees Logan
discloses pause, Dr. Almeroth’s testimony regarding a lack of disclosure of a
“time-slip mode” does not address a point at issue. The statement
characterizing automatically recorded time segments as not “distinguish[ed]”
in Logan does not dispute that Logan discloses automatic buffering. See Ex.
2003 ¶ 137.
In any event, the arguments and testimony largely attack Logan
individually for what it does not disclose such as not explicitly describing a
“time-slip mode,” or as not “distinguish[ing]” automatically recorded time
segments in an interface. See PO Resp. 26; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 137–138.
Petitioner does not employ Logan to distinguish time segments in an
interface or to teach a “time-slip mode.”
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

39
And contrary to Dr. Almeroth’s testimony and Patent Owner’s
arguments, Petitioner does not use Logan merely to teach buffering in
general. Rather, Petitioner cites “Jung and Logan” to teach that a “program
is automatically recorded into buffer memory.” Pet. 45–46. Petitioner
specifically asserts “Logan recognized the benefit of continuously storing
programs to buffer memory, automatically and without requiring user
intervention.” Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1222, 1:45–52, 2:35–41, 5:22–27;
Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 158–159, 163 (emphasis added)). Petitioner also employs
“Jung’s/Logan’s teachings” to modify Son’s system, “advantageously
expand[ing] the buffered programming available for the viewer to control
(e.g., rewind, fast-forward) or record (e.g., clipping function).” Id.
Petitioner adds that “the modified system would also prevent some user error
(and missed program recordings) by automatically storing programs to
buffer memory.” Id. (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 163–165, 170).
Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth do not persuasively address
Petitioner’s reliance on Logan as teaching “continuously storing programs to
buffer memory, automatically and without requiring user intervention.” See
Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1222, 1:45–52, 2:35–41, 5:22–27; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 158–159,
163) (emphasis added). Logan supports Petitioner and Dr. Almeroth. Logan
describes the following at the first passage cited by Petitioner:
In accordance with a princip[al] feature of the invention,
one or more incoming audio or video signals are continuously
digitized, compressed and stored in a buffer memory whenever
the invention is in operation whereby, without attention from the
user, the invention maintains a “circular buffer” which stores
programming received during a preceding time interval of
predetermined duration.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

40
Ex. 1222, 1:45–52 (emphasis added). This “princip[al] feature” of
“continuous[]” recording “in a buffer memory whenever the invention is in
operation . . . without attention from the user” teaches and suggests
automatic recording into a buffer memory for PVR systems. See id.
(emphasis added). In other words, similar to the teaching in Jung, Logan’s
user does not do anything or otherwise manually prompt continuous
recording of video and audio into the buffer memory. See Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 149–
150, 159 (testifying an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that
Logan teaches advantages of continuous automatic buffering with a circular
buffer, including to provide immediate VCR-like control over buffered
memory). In the sentence preceding the “princip[al] feature of the
invention,” Logan describes “monitoring the programming concurrently
with its reception” so that the broadcast program “can be reviewed for an
‘instant replay’” and other “benefit[s]” such as “fast forward” and “pause[]”
(Ex. 1222, 1:39–45) as Petitioner argues. See Pet 46 (arguing Jung/Logan
provide such benefits to advantageously expand Son’s system).
Patent Owner contends that even if Jung/Logan teaches automatic
buffering, Petitioner’s rationales for combining the two references with Son
“are undermined by Son’s express teachings,” and “the motivations to
combine these references amount to mere generalizations and unsupported
conclusions that do not demonstrate that a POSA would have been
motivated to combine Jung-Logan with Son.” PO Resp. 27–28.
Patent Owner repeats its unpersuasive argument addressed above that
“Jung does not disclose an ‘automatically recorded time segment.’” PO
Resp. 30. Patent Owner contends, “[e]ven so, to the extent that the Board
finds that Jung does disclose such a feature, a POSA would have understood
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

41
that incorporating any ‘always recording’ feature from Jung into Son would
actually make Son less efficient and error prone—by creating extra work for
users to perform via the clipping function.” Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 2003
¶ 157). Patent Owner explains “users would be left clipping out numerous,
unwanted, extra portions of a broadcasting signal.” Id. at 31. Patent Owner
also contends this “work[s] against usability principles” in Son and amounts
to “wasting space in contravention with Son’s express teachings,” rendering
the system “less usable and more frustrating to users.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003
¶ 157).
The record does not support these arguments. In Son’s system, users
do not “clip[] out” portions; rather, users select portions to clip into the HDD
for permanent storage (e.g., while watching a live broadcast), as discussed
further below. See, e.g., Ex. 1202 ¶ 61 (“[O]nly the broadcasting signals of
the clipping region are stored in the HDD 106.”); supra Section III.E.1
(discussing Son’s clipping features). In other words, Son’s system
automatically discards broadcast segments from HDD buffer storage after a
user selects clipped regions in the buffer to store into long term HDD
storage, as Petitioner shows. See Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 8, 53, 58;
Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 85, 89, 90–91; Pet. 16–17); Pet. 16–18, 44–45.
Similarly, Jung teaches deleting non-clipped data from the HDD’s
buffer memory, whereas Logan similarly suggests overwriting that data via a
“circular buffer.” See Reply Br. 13–14; Ex. 1205, 5 (“[P]rograms are
buffered until HDD reaches its full capacity so that users can experience
time-shifting playback within the buffered area as long as possible. So, the
buffered stream is kept in HDD until power is off.”); Ex. 1222, 1:45–60
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

42
(“circular buffer”). As Dr. Rhyne testifies, Jung also discloses a “circular
buffer.” Ex. 1211 ¶ 140 & n.1;9 Ex. 1233 ¶ 12 (citing Ex. 1205, 4).
As Petitioner persuasively argues, Patent Owner’s arguments conflate
Son’s HDD pause-initiated buffer storage teachings with Son’s clipping-
initiated HDD long term storage teachings. See Reply 13–14; PO Sur-reply
17 (alleging “storage requirements would increase” even though “Petitioner
argues that . . . Son and Jung do not store buffered programming to the HDD
in perpetuity”).10 As to the latter, as noted above, Son’s user selects the
desired data to be clipped into long-term HDD storage. See Pet. 44–45
(“Son’s system provides a clipping function that allows the user to
selectively record buffered program(s) in a reproduction file by defining (on
the guide bar) a clipping region using remote control 100.” (citing Ex. 1202
¶¶ 32, 42–46, 54-–60; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 122–123, 210[1D])); Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 60–61.
At the cited passages, Dr. Rhyne testifies that Son’s system records clipped
real-time broadcast regions into the HDD and the system creates a file
system for the stored programs. See Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 122–123 (citing Ex. 1202
¶¶ 60–61).
As to the former, automatic buffering as Jung or Logan suggests
would not “be . . . wasteful of [Son’s] HDD,” contrary to Patent Owner’s
arguments. See PO Resp. 31; PO Sur-reply 16–18. As found above, the
circular buffer simply writes over old data with new data. See, e.g., supra

9 Explaining “[a] circular buffer is a storage area that, once it is filled,
continues storing from the start of the buffer, thereby overwriting the date
that was previously stored there.” Id. ¶ 140 n.1.
10 This Sur-reply argument recognizes without refuting Petitioner’s showing
that the circular buffer in Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, “does not
store buffered programming to the HDD in perpetuity.” PO Sur-Reply 17.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

43
note 9. Nevertheless, relying on Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, Patent Owner
contends that automatically recording data in Son’s buffer “would require
increased storage and waste HDD space” and contravene Son’s teachings.
PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 153, 166–167). But Dr. Almeroth’s
testimony does not support this argument, because as just described, the
buffer systems at issue here, including circular buffers, delete older data.
Also, Dr. Almeroth relies on clipping functions to support the buffer
arguments. For example, Dr. Almeroth contends “Son provides a clipping
function that users may engage to conserve space in an HDD,” and “[t]his
prevents the HDD from being unnecessarily wasted.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 153 (citing
Ex. 1202, code (57)) (emphasis modified). Dr. Almeroth further testifies
“Son provides a clipping function for ‘selectively storing only a part of
recorded data or time-shifted data’ in an effort to allow users to conserve
space on an HDD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 10). So Dr. Almeroth testifies
that clipping conserves long term HDD memory space, but this does not
show that automatic buffering wastes HDD buffer space, contrary to Patent
Owner’s arguments that it does. As Son describes and as Dr. Almeroth
testifies, “clipping” stores “only the selected portion in the HDD” and this
“prevents the HDD from being unnecessar[il]y wasted.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 64.
In other words, Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Almeroth’s
testimony about creating extra work and filling up Son’s HDD memory
confuse the function of clipping and conflate Son’s teachings about clipping
to conserve space for long-term storage HDD storage with Son’s teachings
about HDD buffering. See Reply 13–14 (“Son teaches that buffered
programs are only stored temporarily because they are subsequently deleted
from the HDD.”); Ex. 2003 ¶ 153 (“[I]t is evident that Son provides a
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

44
clipping function for ‘selectively storing only a part of recorded data or time-
shifted data’ in an effort to allow users to conserve space on an HDD.”
(emphasis added)). Even if some systems might designate more buffer
memory to store larger amounts of data temporarily in an automatic versus a
manual system, as noted above, Son’s system deletes buffered (non-clipped
or reproduced) data as Petitioner argues. See Reply 12–14 (citing Ex. 1202
¶¶ 8, 53, 58; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 85, 89–91). Similarly, Logan’s “circular buffer”
system, like Jung’s, simply overwrites the buffered data with new data as the
buffer fills so it operates on a set amount of storage space. See Ex. 1222,
1:45–60; Ex. 1205, 4; Ex. 1211 ¶ 140 n.1. Generally, whether the system
automatically or manually stores data in the buffer does not dictate the
buffer size. See id.; note 9.
Considering these record teachings from the perspective of an
ordinarily skilled artisan and the respective positions of the parties, Son does
not discourage users from automatically buffering data. As discussed above,
Son’s system allows users to record a live broadcast (e.g., a football game or
opera) in the HDD buffer manually and clip portions of the live broadcast
either as it occurs or after it records. See Ex. 1202 ¶ 7 (describing
“reservation recording or prompt recording” of a one hour program,
including “advertisements or a part of another program the user does not
want to record”), ¶¶ 12–15 (clipping recorded data, time-shifted data, or
“real-time broadcasting data”), ¶¶ 60–61 (clipping time-shifted broadcasts
and clipping “broadcasting in real time” “while . . . watching it”). Teaching
the manual storage of large blocks of HDD buffer data using a time-shift or
pause feature does not discourage the automatic buffer storage thereof.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

45
Also, as discussed above (e.g., Section III.E.1), Son’s system saves
permanent HDD storage space by providing at least three types of clipping:
“selectively storing only a part of the real-time broadcasting data in the
HDD, selectively storing only a part of the recorded data in the HDD; and
selectively storing only a part of the time-shifted data” in the HDD.
Ex. 1202 ¶ 13. But Son does not discourage automatic buffering of live
broadcasting simply by teaching manual buffering of same or by teaching
clipping. See id. ¶¶ 60–61. In summary, Son’s clipping operates on video
data after it manually buffers the data (or otherwise stores it long term), and
Son teaches that clipping saves HDD long term memory space by selecting
only desired data to save in that long term HDD memory space.
Patent Owner similarly argues that with automatic buffering, Son’s
“users would be left clipping out numerous, unwanted, extra portions of a
broadcasting signal,” so that “the resulting system would be less usable and
more frustrating to users.” See PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 157).
Contrary to this argument, Son specifically contemplates storing data “the
user does not want to record” (Ex. 1202 ¶ 7) and then clipping it to save
HDD space (id. ¶¶ 53, 56, 58). As discussed above, Son’s system deletes
unwanted data from the HDD buffer after the user presses the “completion
key” that defines the clipped regions for permanent HDD storage. See
Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 58, 60, 61, 64. So Son’s user already peruses time-shifted
buffered programming including unwanted portions (e.g., commercials) to
determine what to clip into the HDD. See id. Providing or adding an
automatic buffering feature for broadcasted programming does not alter this
clipping process negatively and it provides more options. Therefore,
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

46
clipping automatically buffered regions requires no extra work relative to
clipping manually buffered regions.
For example, like a manual system, an automatic buffering feature
simply includes typical PVR functions like fast-forward or rewind features
to find a start point to clip the buffered portions into permanent memory.
See, e.g., Ex. 1202 ¶ 6; Ex. 1205, Abstract, 1 (section 2.1). Contrary to
Patent Owner’s arguments, an automatic buffering feature does not require a
user to start clipping buffered regions (into HDD permanent memory) at any
particular point demarcated by Son-Jung’s TCI. See, e.g., Ex. 1202, Fig. 4
(showing clipping regions), Ex. 1205, Abstract, 1, Fig. 7 (clipping or
“Recorded” regions defined after regions of automatic buffering begin);
Pet. 35–36, 40–41 (annotating Son and Jung to show clipping regions).
Stated differently, Patent Owner overstates any detriment to Son’s
system. The combined system results in temporarily buffering any
additional undesired data prior to the time in an incoming broadcast that a
user of Son’s unmodified system otherwise decides to manually buffer the
data with a pause or other feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 60–61 (viewing
broadcast programs while clipping data). Accordingly, contrary to Patent
Owner’s arguments, and as Petitioner shows, the user need not waste time
and effort by looking at any such undesired data, but retains the option to do
so, rewinding the live program in the modified system in case the user
missed part of the live program. See Pet. 47 (“[T]he modified system would
. . . prevent some user error (and missed program recordings by
automatically storing programs to buffer memory.” “Jung’s/Logan’s
teachings . . . would have advantageously expanded the buffered
programming available for the viewer to control (e.g., rewind, fast-forward)
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

47
or record (e.g., clipping function), including program segments stored to
buffer memory automatically and prior to the user deciding to manually
initiate the time-shift function.” (emphasis added)).
Therefore, automatically storing undesired data temporarily in a
buffer does not undermine Son’s system, contrary to Patent Owner’s
arguments. See PO Resp. 30–31 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 157). In addition to
teaching manual storage of unwanted video regions (e.g., commercials), Son
also specifically teaches the use of clipping “when the user wants to record a
portion of the real-time broadcasting program while . . . watching it,” so that
“only the broadcasting signals of the clipping region are stored in the HDD
106.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 61. Clipping real time broadcast programs in Son’s
system occurs agnostically to whether Son’s system otherwise automatically
or manually buffers regions for such subsequent clipping into long term
HDD memory.
Even if the automatic recording feature somehow requires a user to
peruse through more buffered video data to select to clip into long term
HDD memory relative to a manual recording feature, the proposed
modification amounts at most to a trade-off. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp.
v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should
not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with
the teachings of another.”). As Petitioner shows and as discussed above, the
automatic buffering feature suggested by Jung and/or Logan allows users to
avoid missing desired programs, and also, select features to clip for long
term HDD storage. See Pet. 52–53.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

48
Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner relies upon a “contrived
single-program embodiment” that relates to “clipping a previously recorded
program” instead of “automatic recordings.” PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner
contends “a POSA could not have successfully combined the single-program
embodiment with Jung.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 158–159). Patent
Owner further explains “[f]or the entire program to be recorded, Son would
be operating against a previously recorded video program, as opposed to live
television or in a time-slip mode.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 158). According to
Patent Owner, “[a] POSA examining Son operating against such a
previously recorded video program would have zero reason to then
incorporate any alleged ‘automatically recording’ feature from Jung to
record any additional programs simultaneously.” Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex.
2003 ¶ 159).
These arguments do not address the combined teachings relied upon
by Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Rhyne’s cited
testimony, Petitioner does not rely on a “single-program embodiment” of a
stored video program to address the claim limitation of “indicat[ing] a time
length of the video program” (or any other related limitation). See PO Resp.
31 (citing Pet. 40). Rather, as discussed above, Petitioner contends it would
have been obvious to employ Son’s time bar as modified by Jung to indicate
the time length of an automatically recorded live program in HDD buffer
memory to distinguish that region from clipped regions stored long term in
Son’s HDD. See Pet. 39–43 (addressing combined system to show claimed
time length), 52–53 (arguing the resulting combined system’s time bar
visually distinguishes the two claimed regions); 45–47 (discussing, inter
alia, Son’s pause button as initiating a time-shift function versus automatic
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

49
buffering in Jung/Son); Ex. 1205, 5 (describing a clipping function to store
items “permanently” as compared to automatically buffering regions “until
HDD reaches its full capacity”). Stated differently, Petitioner relies on the
combined teachings of Son’s and Jung’s TCIs, and also Jung’s and Logan’s
automatic buffering techniques, to suggest the claimed “visual[] distinction”
between the first and second time segments as recited in claims 1 and 11.
See, e.g., Pet. 40–44 (showing visually indicated program time length
segments and program length in Son and alternatively relying on Jung), 45–
51 (discussing second automatically stored time segment, relying on Son,
Jung, and alternatively on Logan). The record supports Petitioner as
summarized above.11
Patent Owner also contends “Petitioner provides no reason to combine
all three references relied upon for the claimed features.” PO Resp. 33.
According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner does not address how Logan would
be incorporated into a resultant Son-Jung system or how Jung would be
incorporated into a resultant Son-Logan system.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003

11 In a footnote, Patent Owner “contests Petitioner’s construction of the term
time length and Petitioner’s argument that Son-Jung-Logan discloses this
claimed feature.” PO Resp. 27 n.3 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does
not explain why it contests the combined teachings as set forth by Petitioner
under the claim construction of the “time length” term adopted here. See
supra Section III.D. To the extent this issue requires further analysis, we
addressed Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response arguments related to “time
length” in the Decision to Institute. We adopt and incorporate by reference
our previous findings and analysis here with respect to that issue as
supported by the current record. See Inst. Dec. 26–28.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

50
¶ 146). Patent Owner also contends “Petitioner selectively grabs features
from these secondary references—again, out of context—and compiles them
in manners not contemplated by the references.” Id.
Contrary to these arguments, Petitioner provides persuasive rationale
as discussed above. Providing persuasive rationale does not require
specifying how to incorporate bodily teachings of one reference into another
reference or group of references. As also discussed above, Petitioner
explains how using Jung’s and/or Logan’s automatic buffering techniques
would have improved Son’s user’s recording options by, inter alia,
preventing a user from mistakenly missing desired programming. See, e.g.,
Pet. 47. Petitioner also persuasively shows that Jung discloses a similar
progress bar interface system to that of Son. See id. at 41–42. Petitioner
persuasively explains “Jung recognized a drawback of prior progress bars,
like Son’s bar,” providing “enhanced functionality” with “an interface that
continuously displays program metadata in a manner not constrained by
user-initiated commands.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1205, 4–5; Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 164–
165, 167). Petitioner also persuasively explains that the modification
merely involves combining known elements (Son’s system and
interface indicating program status information, and Jung’s
interface providing program-specific timing information ([Ex.
1211] ¶¶ 126–127, 164, 192–193)) according to known methods
(enabling continuous display of program-specific and EPG
information) to yield predictable results (a recording system and
interface for indicating program start/end time information).
Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 187–188, 195, 206, 208; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416).
Petitioner provides other factors and rationale supported by the record
to buttress its showing including a reasonable expectation of success based
partly on similar components and features in Jung and Son, including the
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

51
similar clipping feature in both references “to selectively record buffered
program[s].” See Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 36, Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 5,
Fig. 7; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 145, 181).
In addition to relying on the above-discussed rationale for avoiding
the missing of desirable programs, Petitioner provides other supporting
factors for combining Logan’s automatic buffering system, including using
known methods to obtain predictable results:
The known method is automating a manual process through a
software modification—in this case—causing the recording
system to automatically store a program to buffer memory, as
expressly taught by Jung and Logan, and indicating this program
via the guide bar. Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 161–162, 197. The predictable
results include a recording system displaying a guide bar
indicating buffered program segments that are automatically
buffered. Id., ¶¶ 188, 202–203, 208. A PHOSITA would have
had the skills, knowledge, and motivation to carry out the
combination.
Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 163, 172, 175–176, 189, 200–201). Petitioner
also persuasively shows “both Jung and Logan teach using a central
processing system to control program buffering.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1205,
5; Ex. 1222, 1:60–63, 3:24–28, 3:53–56, 5:22–27; Ex. 1211 ¶ 189).
Petitioner persuasively relies on other similar elements and functionality to
support its showing: “Son, Jung, and Logan all use on-screen interfaces and
input controls for controlling and accessing programs, thus Son’s system
provides suitable mechanisms (e.g., on-screen guide bar, key input unit 100)
for accessing and navigating automatically buffered programs.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 38–43, Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 4–5; Ex. 1222, 1:64–2:2, 4:3–13, 5:7–
11, 5:27–6:15; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 160, 172, 180–181).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

52
Although not required to support obviousness, Petitioner also
persuasively shows generally how to bodily incorporate Logan’s memory
system in Son’s memory system. See Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 175).
Petitioner relies partly on Logan’s teaching that its “invention is ‘useful, and
indeed simplified when used with high definition television signals.’” Id.
(citing Ex. 1222, 2:52–56). Petitioner explains “this modification would
have involved a simple modification to the software of Son’s application 101
to buffer programs automatically, rather than in response to a user
command.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 6; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 174–175, 205).
Nevertheless, Patent Owner also argues that Dr. Rhyne’s “three
similar rationales” “further illustrate Petitioner’s hindsight bias.” PO Resp.
34. Patent Owner lists the following rationales:
(1) “to experience time-shifting playback within the
buffered video program for as long as possible”; and (2) “store a
portion of a broadcast video program prior to the user actively
deciding to store the program”; (3) to allow “a viewer to more
easily digest/ascertain the continuous flow/progression of
program data being stored to the digital TV system.”
PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 157–208; Ex. 2003 ¶ 165).
Regarding the first two of Dr. Rhyne’s listed rationales, Patent Owner
repeats its unpersuasive arguments addressed above, contending Son’s
teachings contravene automatic buffering because Son “aim[s] to conserve
HDD space,” and automatic buffering “require[s] increased storage and
waste[s] HDD space.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 153, 166–167). In
addition, with respect to Dr. Rhyne’s second listed rationale, Patent Owner
contends that Son teaches storing “only a part of recorded data . . . that a
user requires.” Id. at 34–35 (quoting Ex. 1202 ¶ 10) (emphasis by Patent
Owner). As discussed above, these arguments by Patent Owner obfuscate
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

53
Son’s teachings about HDD buffering of all data following a manual
selection to record everything thereafter temporarily (including unwanted
advertisements), with its teachings about clipping that data to store only
clipped desired data long term or more permanently into long term HDD
storage. Moreover, the buffer size does not depend on how the system
employs it (i.e., manual or automatic buffering). See, e.g., supra note 9.
Regarding the third of Dr. Rhyne’s listed rationales, Patent Owner
contends Dr. Rhyne “is vague.” PO Resp. 35. Patent Owner contends “Dr.
Rhyne does not describe how Son’s interface could be modified to include a
‘continuous flow . . . of program data.’ [citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 170]. And he does
not address how or why Jung’s interface, a different interface serving a
different purpose, could be implemented in Son’s interface.” Id. Patent
Owner explains “Jung’s interface covers the entire screen, while Son’s
interface is a guide bar that facilitates a clipping function.” Id. Patent
Owner maintains “[i]nterface design is not as trivial as Dr. Rhyne asserts,”
and in any case, “known and desirable [goals] within hypothetical systems
. . . could be accomplished in many ways.” Id. at 35–36.
Contrary to these arguments, as discussed above, Petitioner provides a
persuasive rationale to combine the automatic buffering and time display
teachings of Jung with the teachings of Son in the manner claimed. A
showing of obviousness does not require a bodily incorporation of Jung’s
interface (including time indications) with Son’s system. Moreover, Jung
and Son disclose similar time bars in similar systems with similar features as
Petitioner shows and as discussed above. See, e.g., Pet. 35–36, 40–41, 44
(annotating Son’s and Jung’s similar control bars). For the reasons
discussed above, Petitioner shows persuasively that a hypothetical person of
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

54
ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Son,
Jung, and Logan, and would have possessed the requisite skill and a
reasonable expectation of success to combine familiar elements such as
memory buffers, guide bars, and displays, using familiar techniques, to
obtain a predictable output of automatic buffering and indication of program
times. See id. at 45–51.
Automating the manual buffering of Son, as Jung and Logan teach or
suggest, independently and together, would have been obvious. Addressing
obviousness involves “an expansive and flexible approach.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 415. Automating such a manual process represents a technology-
independent “more desirable” improvement and motivation. See DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen the ‘improvement’ is technology-
independent and the combination of references results in a product or
process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the
desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or
process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there
exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.”).
Accordingly, after considering the record evidence and arguments of
the parties, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of
evidence that the combination of Son and Jung, or the combination of Son,
Jung, and Logan, render claims 1 and 11 obvious.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

55
5. Claims 2, 4–6, 12, and 14–16
Petitioner contends that claims 2 and 4–6, which depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1, and claims 12 and 14–16, which depend directly or
indirectly from claim 11, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan. Pet. 55–60. Petitioner
primarily relies on Son as teaching the additional limitations of these
dependent claims. Id.
Claims 2 and 12 each recite “wherein the video program is a broadcast
program.” Petitioner relies on Son’s teaching of “an engine 103 for
processing a broadcasting signal received through a channel (the air, a cable
or a satellite)” and also Son’s teaching of a guide bar “linked with a video
signal being reproduced or a real-time broadcasting video signal to display
the state of the signal.” Pet. 55–60 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32, 35, 38, 36, 39;
Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 214–218).
Claims 4 and 14 each recite “wherein generating for display the
transport control interface comprises generating for display a transport
control bar.” For these claims, Petitioner contends “Son’s OSD unit 102—
including OSD processor 102c—generates for display an on-screen interface
(‘transport control interface’) comprising ‘characters, graphic[s] and [a]
guide bar’ for displaying information and controlling the operation of Son’s
system.” Pet. 56–57 (quoting Ex. 1202 ¶ 33; citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32, 47, 51,
60, 62, Figs. 4–5).
Claims 5 and 15 require “control circuitry” used to “receiv[e] . . .
instructions to record a second video program,” and further require
“recording the second video program.” To address these claims, Petitioner
points to Son’s application 101 and engine 103 as control circuitry with
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

56
program instructions for controlling a guide bar to display the status of
buffered programs and for recording same, and providing commands from
key input 100 to define a clipping region for recording a number of
programs, including the mini-series represented at Figure 4. See Pet. 57–58
(citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 7, 13–15, 33, 36–38, 42–46, 49, 51, 54–56, Fig. 4;
Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 226, 208, 224–229).
Claims 6 and 16 require “the transport control bar” to “cover[] a time
period longer than the video program.” Petitioner relies on Son’s teaching
of the guide bar represented in Figure 4 as spanning 120 minutes and
comprise several shows, including “prince Ondal,” “MBC news” and “mini-
series,” each of which span times less than the full 120 minutes of the guide
bar. See Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 38, 42–43, 51–52, Fig. 4).
Petitioner also points out “Jung similarly provides a progress bar that covers
a time period longer than one program.” Id. (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 233–234).
As discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 11, Petitioner
provides persuasive reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the
references. Petitioner’s rationale with respect to combining the teachings of
the prior art with respect to claims 1 and 11 applies to the dependent claims,
because Petitioner primarily relies on Son to teach the added limitations of
the dependent claims or further alternatively points to similarities in Jung, as
summarized above. Patent Owner does not respond specifically to
Petitioner’s contentions regarding claims 2, 4–6, 12, and 14–16. For
example, Patent Owner contends “[c]laims 5 and 15 are patentable over Son-
Jung-Logan-Safadi for at least the reasons discussed above for claims 1 and
11.” PO Resp. 66 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 275).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

57
We determine after a further review of the record that Petitioner
shows persuasively that the combination of Son and Jung or Son, Jung, and
Logan, teaches or suggests the subject matter of these dependent claims.
Accordingly, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence that claims 2,
4–6, 12, and 14–16 would have been obvious.
F. Obviousness—Dependent Claims 3 and 13
Petitioner contends that claims 3 and 13, which respectively depend
from claims 1 and 11, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, further in view of Horowitz.
Pet. 60–64.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “receiving a change in
running time of the video program” and “modifying the transport control
interface to indicate a second time length of the video program based on the
change in running time.” Claim 13 depends from claim 11 and recites
materially similar limitations.
Petitioner contends Son’s system modifies a TCI to indicate the status
of a displayed program, but does not disclose “receiving a change in running
time of the video program” and modifying the guide bar “based on the
change in running time.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32, 35, 42, 43, 49,
Fig. 4; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 123, 125–126, 250–252). Petitioner contends Horowitz
“shows that it was known to receive and display—via an on-screen program
guide—updated start/end time information for video programs.” Id. at 61
(citing Ex. 1207 ¶¶ 18–20, 23, 28–31, 35–36, Figs. 4–5).
Son’s system generally teaches a guide bar “that allows a user to
recognize the state of an image currently being displayed on the TV screen.”
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

58
Ex. 1202 ¶ 40. Petitioner contends Horowitz explains the benefits of
providing the display of accurate information including updated broadcast
time and schedule changes, and that it in view of Horowitz’s teachings, it
would have been obvious to update the system of Son and Jung, or Son,
Jung, and Logan, to provide accurate time information to ensure the full
recording of desired programs in a flexible manner while also providing for
an efficient storage of desired programs. See Pet. 61–65 (citing Ex. 1202
¶¶ 32, 35, 48–52, Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 4–5; Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 19–20, 61–62; Ex. 1207
¶¶ 1, 3–8, 20–23, 28–31, 33–38, 47–48, 55–65, 68, 72–73, Figs. 4–5; Ex.
1211 ¶¶ 249–276).
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed modification of the
combined system of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, based on
Horowitz, relies on impermissible hindsight. PO Resp. 36–39. According
to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not provide a reason to combine all four
references and “eliminates any context” from features combined from the
references. See id. at 36.
Contrary to these arguments, as discussed above in connection with
claims 1 and 11, Petitioner persuasively provides reasons to combine the
teachings of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan. As Patent Owner
recognizes, Petitioner also provides the following reasons to combine
Horowitz to the combined systems of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and
Logan: Horowitz’s teachings “(1) would advantageously provide the user
with more accurate program information and recording flexibility” and (2)
“would provide the user with enhanced recording accuracy and more
efficient use of storage.” See PO Resp. 38 (quoting Pet. 62, 64).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

59
Patent Owner contests the first rationale as “vague” and not
supported, because Petitioner does not define “more flexible” and “Son does
not convey program information that is capable of being updated or made
more ‘accurate.’” See PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner contests the second
rationale because the combined system would require “additional system
resources” and “in Son’s reproduction file, the content was recorded
previously and any past-occurring program updates are completely
inapplicable to the already recorded file.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 186).
Therefore, according to Patent Owner, “it is not clear how incorporating
‘program updates’ into Son’s system would result in ‘more efficient use
storage’ or ‘enhanced recording accuracy.’” Id.
In addition, Patent Owner argues that Jung’s system “always records
content” so the combined system “would not conserve space by informing
viewers about program updates because the system would always record
content regardless of any updates.” PO Resp. 39.12 Patent Owner repeats its
argument addressed above in connection with claims 1 and 11 that Petitioner
relies on a “single-program embodiment” involving a “previously recorded
video program.” Id. at 40. Based on this argument, Patent Owner contends
“a POSA would have zero reason to include any generalized ‘updated
program times’ feature from Horowitz because updated program times
would be inapplicable to a previously recorded stream.” Id.
Patent Owner also argues that EPGs (electronic programming guides)
“such as Horowitz’s operate under fundamentally different principles than a

12 Patent Owner’s argument here that Jung always records content appears to
conflict with its arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 that Jung does
not automatically (i.e., always) store content.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

60
TCI [(transport control interface)]” of Son or Jung. See id. at 40 (citing
Ex. 2003 ¶ 192). Patent Owner contends Horowitz’s “table of [program]
updates” serve as an addendum to Horowitz’s EPG, which “fills the entire
screen,” so Horowitz’s updates would be incompatible with Son’s TCI. Id.
at 40–41 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 191–192).
Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. As
Petitioner contends, “Horowitz describes problems in conventional
recording systems, including failing to accurately record and notify users of
programs that vary from an announced broadcast schedule.” Reply 17
(citing Ex. 1207 ¶¶ 2–8; Ex. 1233 ¶ 102); Ex 1207 ¶ 3 (noting in prior art
systems, “[c]lient devices are . . . unable to account for this type of [breaking
news] event and as a result, some of the program will not be recorded for the
viewer”), ¶¶ 8–9 (describing an “updated event schedule” “to advance . . .
the art to further the objective of recording an announced program in its
actual entirety”). Petitioner persuasively contends that Horowitz’s solution
complements Son’s system because it allows “for the client device to detect
changes in broadcast schedules ‘at any time before, after, or during the
airing of a . . . program.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1207 ¶ 28; citing Ex. 1211
¶ 254).
As Petitioner persuasively argues, Horowitz suggests displaying
updated start times to the combined system of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung,
and Logan “via the interface when there are changes in broadcast
schedules.” See Reply 17–18. As Petitioner shows, viewing this updated
status information on a TCI allows users to make recording decisions
efficiently, accurately, and with more flexibility. See id. at 18–19 (citing
Pet. 62–64; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 260–263; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 113–115). As Petitioner also
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

61
shows, Son’s system already provides program “information capable of
being updated” (such as television broadcast information) with “past
occurring program updates” and current updates. See id. (citing Pet. 62–65;
Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 106, 112; 1202 ¶¶ 14, 35–38, 49–51, Fig. 4); Pet 31, 62 (citing
Ex. 1207 ¶ 28). Horowitz supports Dr. Rhyne as it states its program
updates “can occur at any time, i.e., ‘before, after, or during the airing of a
television program on a channel of a broadcast network.’” See Ex. 1233
¶ 122 (quoting Ex. 1207 ¶ 28; citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 247); Pet. 62 (quoting
same). Dr. Rhyne also persuasively relies on Horowitz’s teaching “that
notification of program schedule changes may occur ‘at the time that the
programs are demanded to be recorded by a viewer.’” Id. (quoting 1207
¶ 23).
As Dr. Rhyne explains in his first declaration,
modifying Son’s digital TV system to receive updated start/end
times for video programs and indicating a change in the start or
end time of a video program on the guide bar to notify/assist the
user when making a recording decision would be desirable to the
end-user. . . . Additionally, “[g]iven that the amount of time that
is available for storage in the client device might be somewhat
limited . . . making the scheduled program somewhat precisely
as it is broadcast, and just in time to the actual beginning and
ending of its airing, presents an efficient use of the storage
available in client device” and, further, that this use of efficient
storage space on the recording system would be desirable to
users.”
Ex. 1211 ¶ 262 (citing Ex. 1207 ¶¶ 18, 28, Fig. 4; quoting Ex. 1207 ¶ 37
(emphasis by Dr. Rhyne)). So even though the combined system
automatically buffers TV programs always as Patent Owner argues (see PO
Resp. 39; supra note 12), providing updates about past, current, or future
schedule changes allows a user to schedule recordings accurately and also to
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

62
find accurate clipping positions quickly. See, e.g., Ex. 1233 ¶ 113
(“Horowitz’s teachings would provide the user of the resulting system with
up-to-date program information when clipping programs, thereby enabling
the user to: ‘(i) record a segment of a video program that may air before an
initially scheduled start time or after an initially scheduled end time; and (ii)
not record unnecessary content which may waste an excessive amount of
storage space available on the disk drive.’” (quoting Ex. 1211 ¶ 261)
(citations omitted)).
Such notifications provide other advantages in efficiency or
flexibility, as Petitioner argues. As a simple example, if a user wants to clip
an upcoming basketball game, but notices an upcoming breaking news delay
via Horowitz’s updating notification system, the user can turn the television
off, perform other errands, and return to automatically buffer and clip the
basketball game without wasting time. Or the user can watch the updated
news program and then start clipping after that using the updated TCI
information to narrow the rewind efforts to find the start of the basketball
game.13 See id. (“By providing the user with up-to-date program schedule
information and/or program start/end times via the on-screen interface, the
user can designate a desired clipping region more accurately, thereby
reducing the likelihood that extraneous program segments are recorded to
HDD when using the clipping function.”). As noted above, Son’s system
also provides for clipping broadcast programs into long term HDD storage in

13 To the extent Patent Owner argues that Son-Jung’s system already stores
any updated TCI programming information when it automatically buffers the
breaking news story, such an argument implies Horowitz’s teachings would
not be needed to show obviousness. See PO Resp. 39.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

63
“real time” (while being recorded in the modified Son-Jung or Son-Jung-
Logan buffer). See Ex. 1202 ¶ 61.
As discussed above in connection with claim 1, the record also does
not support Patent Owner’s arguments based on an alleged single-program
embodiment as involving only a previously recorded “single program [that]
spans the full time indicated in Figure 4.” See PO Sur-reply 20. As
discussed above in connection with claim 1, Patent Owner’s arguments do
not address Petitioner’s reliance on the combined teachings based on Son,
Jung, and Logan to suggest the required time length of a video program and
indicating first time segment information for clipped regions and second
time segment information for automatically buffered live broadcasted
programs. See Reply 13; Pet. 44–52.
Based on the above-discussed teachings, in addition to explaining the
benefits of providing program updates for modifying Son’s TCI in general to
display actual program start/end times (see Pet. 60–63), Dr. Rhyne contends,
inter alia,
a PHOSITA would have understood that updates to program
schedules may occur after a program has aired (or has been
buffered to the HDD), and would be performed by updating file
information stored in file system 104. (Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 265–266,
274). The PHOSITA would have also understood that such
updates may be reflected via the on-screen interface by using
OSD unit 102 to “modify the display of the guide bar on the TV
screen to indicate the updated state of the video program,
including updated start/end times of the program.” (Ex. 1211,
¶ 274).
Ex. 1233 ¶ 122. The record supports Dr. Rhyne’s testimony. In his first
declaration as cited above in his second declaration, Dr. Rhyne persuasively
cites to and relies on the reference teachings. See Ex. 1211 ¶ 274. For
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

64
example, he explains persuasively that Son’s file system, using controller
204, file system 104, and OSD unit 103 under control of application 101,
would have provided enhanced recording flexibility by extracting the
updated start/end times of a program as Horowitz suggests to update Son’s
file system and adjust the information on the TV screen’s guide bar to allow,
inter alia, accurate selective clipping beyond the originally scheduled air
times. See Ex. 1211 ¶ 275 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32, 35, 42–43, 49–51, 64);
1207 ¶¶ 18–20, 28–31, 33–36).
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments that the combined system would
require more resources to provide “enhanced recording accuracy” (PO Resp.
38–39), Petitioner persuasively argues that Jung’s system as combined with
Son’s system saves memory resources through clipping as discussed at
length above. See Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 117–110; Pet. 62–65).
Petitioner also persuasively reasons “[a] viewer would be aided by viewing
updated program information when making recording decisions, which PO
incorrectly assumes is not the case.” Id. (citing Pet. 62–64; Ex. 1211
¶¶ 260–261, 263; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 113–115). As Dr. Rhyne testifies and as
discussed above, the combined system provides accurate visual cues about
start and stop times to allow recordings of programs that shift in air time
with respect to initially scheduled start times, providing more accurate
clipping without requiring methodical surfing for the information and
without adding extraneous program segments that might otherwise
unnecessarily waste storage space. See Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 113–115, 118–119.
Even if the combined system would require additional resources to
implement, Petitioner persuasively shows a person of ordinary skill still
would be motivated to add any necessary resources to obtain the benefits of
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

65
Horowitz’s teachings. See id. ¶¶ 113, 114, 121, 123; Pet. 63–64. Petitioner
persuasively shows that given the technical overlap in the similar systems of
Son-Jung and Son-Jung-Logan, Horowitz suggests its updates could have
been provided in “other systems, like Son’s digital TV system” to “ensure[]
the entirety of a program is recorded.” See Pet. 63–64 (citing Ex. 1207
¶¶ 38, 68, 72–73; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 259–260, 269; Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 35, 48–52, Fig. 4;
Ex. 1207 ¶¶ 1, 28–31, 37–38, 47–48, 68). Patent Owner’s arguments do not
undermine Petitioner’s showing or explain why any alleged requirement for
additional resources would have discouraged an artisan of ordinary skill
from implementing the benefits of Horowitz’s teachings.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding incompatible
systems for combination, Petitioner provides persuasive evidence showing
that the proposed modification
would have simply involved combining known prior art elements
(Son-Jung and Son-Jung-Logan systems that extract and display
program guide information via an interface and Horowitz’s client
device that detects/displays updated program running times (Ex.
1211, ¶¶ 255–258)) according to known methods (a simple
modification of the software to display the updated information,
(Id., ¶ 264–265, 273)) to yield predictable results e.g., a system
that receives and displays, via an interface, updated program
running times. Id., ¶¶ 260-261, 264. A PHOSITA would have
had the skills, knowledge, and motivation to carry out the
combination. Id., ¶¶ 256–257, 260, 263–265.
Pet. 62–63.
Petitioner further explains that Son’s and Jung’s systems already
process modifications to the interface with program guide information, so
that combining more updates as Horowitz suggests would have included
updating software to control processing and control via Son’s application
system. See Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 38, 42–43, Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 5, Fig.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

66
7; Ex. 1211 ¶ 210 (1C)), 64 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32, 35; Ex. 1207 ¶¶ 21, 38,
33–36, 55–65, 72–73; Ex. 1211¶¶ 264–265, 273).
Further regarding Patent Owner’s assertions about a lack of
combinability, including that Horowitz displays a full-screen EGP while Son
employs a TCI, and Horowitz employs an addendum to a table, Petitioner
persuasively explains that these assertions amount to an attack on Horowitz
individually. See Pet. 19–20. Moreover, as Petitioner explains, “Horowitz’s
EPG and program updates are not limited to full-screen displays,” and the
combination suggests providing such information in Son’s TCI based on the
reasons discussed above. See Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1207 ¶ 58, Fig. 7; Ex.
2002, 70:21–71:18; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 123–124; Ex. 1211
¶¶ 245, 249).
Having reviewed the record, we determine that Petitioner shows
persuasively that the combination of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan,
with Horowitz, renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claims 3 and
13. As summarized above, Petitioner provides persuasive reasoning with
rational underpinning for combining the references. Accordingly, Petitioner
shows by a preponderance of evidence claims 3 and 13 are unpatentable for
obviousness.
G. Obviousness––Dependent Claims 7–10 and 17–20
Petitioner contends that claims 7–10 and 17–20, which respectively
depend directly or indirectly from one of claims 4 and 5 or 14 and 15, and
indirectly from claims 1 and 11, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, further in view of
Tomita. Pet. 65–85.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

67
Claim 7 depends from claim 4, and recites “generating simultaneously
for display, using the control circuitry, a second video program, wherein the
[TCI] integrates information from the first and second video programs.”
Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and recites materially similar limitations.
We address claims 4 and 14 above. Supra Section III.E.5. Claims 4
and 14 recite “wherein generating for display the [TCI] comprises
generating for display a transport control bar.” Claims 7 and 17 do not
require interaction with the transport control bar.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Petitioner contends that Son and Jung
each teach a TCI that integrates information for at least two video programs.
Pet. 66–67 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 32–33, 42–43, Fig. 4; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 288–299).
Petitioner also contends Tomita teaches simultaneously displaying two parts
of a program via a picture-in-picture display and teaches control circuitry
and user editing features to perform that function. Id. at 67–68 (citing Ex.
1208 ¶¶ 69–71, 73, 75–76, 82, Fig. 7; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 285–286, 288).
Petitioner explains “[t]he Son-Jung and Son–Jung-Logan systems,
modified in view of Tomita to simultaneously generate for display video
from different portions of the buffer, would similarly show an entire buffer
with multiple programs,” and the modification would have provided an
advantage of allowing a user to navigate a cursor to desired portions of a
buffer for control. See id. at 72–73. As another reason to combine the
teachings, Petitioner contends “the combined system would enable a user to
view different programs at the same time, such as news, sports, or other
programs that a user wishes to monitor while also viewing previously stored
programming to identify desired clipping regions.” Id. at 69–70 (citing Ex.
1202, Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 5, Fig. 7; Ex. 1208 ¶ 77; Ex. 1211 ¶ 292).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

68
Regarding the limitation “wherein the [TCI] integrates information
from the first and second video programs,” Petitioner contends that Tomita’s
Figure 7 represents an integrated status bar with two pointers showing
information related to playback and recorded videos of different parts of the
program. Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 56, 73–74, 76, Fig. 7). According to
Petitioner, Tomita’s integrated status bar that displays a different pointer to
different memory locations of a video to display simultaneously displayed
parts of a video further suggests employing Tomita’s status bar techniques in
the integrated multi-program TCI of Son-Jung or Son-Jung-Logan to display
information about the two claimed simultaneously viewed video programs,
as those TCIs similarly provide access to different memory locations. Id. at
68–73 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 297–299).
Patent Owner contends “Tomita does not disclose simultaneously
generating first and second distinct and independent video programs.” PO
Resp. 42. Instead, according to Patent Owner, “Tomita . . . displays the
same video program at different runtime positions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1208
¶ 73; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 206–207).
Patent Owner reproduces Figure 7 of Tomita to illustrate its point, as
follows:
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

69

Patent Owner contends Figure 7 of Tomita above illustrates “the
record position [PICREC] and playback position [PICPB] of the same video
program. PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶ 73; Ex. 2003 ¶ 207). Patent
Owner also contends that “Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita” does not disclose
“simultaneous display of first and second separate and distinct programs
from different locations of a buffer, as Petitioner’s declarant alleges.” Id. at
44 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 294; Ex. 2003 ¶ 226).
Patent Owner’s unpersuasive arguments attack Tomita individually.
As summarized above, Petitioner persuasively relies on the fact that Son-
Jung and Tomita each teach displaying different portions of video data in
memory. See Pet. 66–70; Reply 4–6.
As Petitioner contends, Son’s reproduction file stores multiple video
programs and Tomita’s “optical disk is not limited to storing one program.”
See Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. [12]02, 49:23–50:24, Fig. 4; Ex. 1208 ¶ 77, Fig. 8;
Ex. 1211 ¶ 287; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 29–32, 36–37). As Petitioner explains, “by
modifying Son-Jung to implement Tomita’s techniques for simultaneously
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

70
displaying two videos from different locations of the same storage, the
resulting system would simultaneously display—using picture-in-picture
(‘P-I-P’)—a first program (e.g., “MBC news”) and a second program (e.g.,
‘mini-series’) stored in the same storage area, e.g., Son’s reproduction file.”
Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 31–32, 34); Pet. 67–69.
Responding to Patent Owner’s argument that the modification
requires additional hardware and that Tomita only “displays the same video
program at different runtime positions” (PO Resp. 42), Petitioner
persuasively states “Tomita does not limit its P-I-P to displaying one
program” as evidenced by storage of programming at different storage
locations, PPB, PREC. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 60–63, 73–75, Fig. 5; Ex.
1233 ¶ 28). Petitioner also persuasively contends “Tomita’s apparatus
simultaneously displays two videos and two status bars without
incorporating such allegedly required hardware.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 120[8]
¶ 76; Ex. 1233 ¶ 132), 25 (arguing “Tomita’s P-I-P functionality is not
confined to one program and may simultaneously display different
programs” (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 139–140, 153)); Ex. 1233 ¶ 153 (citing Ex.
1208 ¶ 77, Fig. 8).
The citations by Petitioner support Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne’s
testimony. Tomita’s teachings do not limit recording the same program into
the optical disc that it plays back. Rather, Tomita indicates that recording
and playback events with display thereof occur independently of one
another. See e.g., Ex. 1208 ¶ 58 (describing “simultaneous recording and
playback, independent of a recording” and vice versa), ¶ 63 (describing
playback position on the optical disk of the playback picture PICPB currently
displayed), ¶ 71 (“even if the playback is in progress, the user can operate
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

71
the record operation part 41A to start the recording from the arbitrary
position with no influence on the playback” and “even if the recording is in
progress” vice versa), ¶ 73 (the recording video PICREC corresponds to “a
picture under recording” displayed with the playback picture PICPB), ¶ 74
(independent display characters and pointers for playback and record
videos).
Even if Tomita somehow limits its display of playback and recording
areas to one program somehow, Petitioner persuasively relies on the
combined teachings. As indicated above, Petitioner contends that by
teaching the simultaneous display of video at two different memory
locations, Tomita does not limit the different locations to the same video
program, thereby suggesting the technique as applicable to different video
programs stored at different runtime positions as Son and Jung teach. See
Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 27–28, 32); Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 60–63, 73–75, Fig. 5).
For example, as Petitioner notes, Tomita teaches that users may select
simultaneous viewing positions of the record or playback positions as
“arbitrarily select[ed] viewing positions.” See Reply 5–6 (quoting Ex. 1208
¶ 71; citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 61–63, code (57); Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 35–36).
Patent Owner also contends Son’s “reproduction file refers to a single
file including multiple video programs” and “Son does not describe
splitting the reproduction file into multiple parts to be stored in different
parts of the buffer.” PO Resp. 44. Patent Owner also refers to Son’s system
as requiring a certain program order in each file. See id. Patent Owner also
contends Jung “also does not describe retrieving different video program
files from memory for simultaneous display.” Id. According to Patent
Owner, “[t]herefore, Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita . . . would not result in system
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

72
capable of simultaneously displaying different programs from different
locations of a buffer.” Id.
Many of Patent Owner’s arguments attack Son’s and Jung’s
individual teachings instead of addressing the combined teachings of Son,
Jung, and Tomita. Patent Owner’s other arguments do not explain why the
combination of teachings requires splitting a file in Son’s system or why
splitting such a file, even if required, undermines Petitioner’s showing of
obviousness. See id. Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine
Petitioner’s showing because they do not address the combined teachings
that Petitioner relies upon.
Petitioner relies on modifying Son’s display system by implementing
Son’s storage system, including Son-Jung or Son-Jung-Logan’s buffer. See
Pet. 68–69 (“It would have been obvious to modify the Son-Jung system—in
view of Tomita’s teachings—to simultaneously generate for display, using
engine 103 and application 101 (‘control circuitry’), video from different
portions of the same buffer (e.g., reproduction file), which, in the case of
Son and Jung, would entail the display of two different programs (e.g.,
‘prince Ondal’ and ‘MBC news’) (the ‘second video program’”); Reply 5–6;
Ex. 1211 ¶ 294 (“The result of modifying Son-Jung (and Logan) in view of
Tomita, a digital TV system that simultaneously displays programming from
different locations in a buffer, would have been predictable.”). For the
reasons explained in connection with claims 1 and 11, Son alone, or the
combined teachings of Son and Jung, teach or suggest providing multiple
programs in a buffer HDD and in long term HDD storage. See supra
Section III.E.4.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

73
The combination, relying on Son’s buffer, does not require relying on
a specific configuration of Son’s file system. In any case, Son generically
refers to a file system to include generating a file name for a reservation
recording, a clipped region, or “according to a time shift function.” Ex.
1202 ¶ 51. Son also teaches that a file name can be assigned to each clipped
region or to a group of clipped regions, suggesting different ways to record
and manage programs as files. See id.
Son’s reference to its “reproduced file” suggests it includes temporary
buffer storage of incoming broadcasts––e.g., prior to completing a clipping
function that involves multiple clipped regions. See Ex. 1202 ¶ 58 (“In case
that, after at least one clipping region is set in the current reproduced file,
the user does not want to set a clipping region any more, he just pushes a
completion key (step 305). When the completion key is inputted, only the
broadcasting signal of the clipping region designated by the user is stored in
the HDD 106 and broadcasting signals excluded from the clipping region are
deleted from the HDD 106 (step 306).” (emphasis added)).
But regardless of the filing system employed by Son for its buffer
storage, the combined teachings suggest playing back video stored at two
different memory locations. As noted, the Petition, and Dr. Rhyne,
generally rely on programs initially stored (automatically) in Son’s buffer
via the combination with Son and Jung (and/or Logan) and mention the
“reproduction file” as an example of automatic buffer storage. Pet. 68–69
(relying on “video from different portions of the same buffer (e.g.,
reproduction file)”), 72–73 (arguing “[t]he Son-Jung and Son-Jung-Logan
systems, modified in view of Tomita to simultaneously generate for display
video from different portions of the buffer, would similarly show an entire
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

74
buffer with multiple programs” (emphasis added)); Ex. 2011 ¶ 294
(testifying “predictable” “to simultaneously display[] programming from
different locations in a buffer”).
As also noted above, Tomita teaches that users may “arbitrarily”
select a “position” to record or playback video within a storage area of the
optical disc for simultaneous viewing of both. See Reply 5–6 (quoting Ex.
1208 ¶ 71; citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 61–63, 71, code (57); Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 35–36).14
Petitioner persuasively shows that Tomita’s storage area, as represented on
the status bars of Tomita’s embodiments of Figures 5 and 7, suggest
selecting programs from similar HDD storage areas of Son, including HDD
buffer storage, for viewing and storing incoming broadcasts (short-term or
long-term). See Pet. 69–70 (referring to different programs such as “news,
sports, or other programs that a user wishes to monitor”). A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered Tomita’s general teachings
for selecting different portions of memory for simultaneous viewing to be
agnostic regarding the content or number of programs stored at the two
memory locations. See Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 61–63, 71–78; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 296–297.
Patent Owner’s Sur-reply essentially agrees that Tomita’s general
teachings involve selecting different memory addresses. Patent Owner
asserts
to implement [Tomita’s] picture-in-picture, a POSA would have
to modify Son to store the memory addresses of a position in
memory where an individual program is stored. EX2003, ¶201.
This would require new hardware devices to be added to Son’s

14 The “record starting positions” in Tomita include “all recording areas of
said recording medium” according to claim 8 of Tomita. Ex. 1208, 14.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

75
system, e.g., having the capability to store memory addresses.
Id.
PO Sur-reply 24. This simple modification involving storing and tracking
memory addresses to obtain the advantages of simultaneous program
viewing as alleged by Petitioner supports Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner’s Sur-reply also alleges that Tomita’s Figures 4 and 8
do not support a second video program. PO Sur-reply 9. For example,
Patent Owner alleges “Tomita’s Figure 8 references only Tomita’s
disclosure in Figure 5, not Figure 7.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007 (second Rhyne
deposition), 30:8–10; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 75–77). As discussed herein, Petitioner
shows obviousness without reliance on specific teachings related to Tomita’s
Figures 4 and 8. Moreover, Patent Owner’s arguments improperly restrict
and cabin general teachings about accessing video in memory locations in
Tomita to isolated teachings based on the allegation that Tomita does not
specifically describe the teachings as related. See id. at 8–9. Tomita
specifically contemplates not limiting features of Figure 5, including mixing
features of Figures 5 and 7. See Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 73–74. Teaching the arbitrary
selection of different portions of video in memory and other generic
teachings in Tomita generally includes selecting different programs in
memory. See id.; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 27–37; Ex. 1211 ¶ 287; Ex. 1208, code (57),
¶¶ 71–78, 85–86 (not restricting teachings to any specific embodiment or
single video program).
Accordingly, Petitioner persuasively shows that Tomita and Son/Jung
or Son/Jung/Logan render obvious viewing two different portions of a buffer
memory including two different programs at the same time to allow a user to
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

76
monitor two different events at the same time. See Pet. 68, 69–70; Ex. 1211
¶¶ 294–298.15
Patent Owner contends “Son and Jung’s guide bars include
information about programs that are consecutively displayed, not
simultaneously displayed.” PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner also contends that
“Tomita does not disclose a TCI as described in the ’956 patent.” Id. at 47.
Patent Owner contends further that Tomita’s “status bars do not provide
information or control for video programming,” and the status bars “indicate
information about the optical disk rather than the video program being
displayed.” Id. (citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 61–63; Ex. 2003 ¶ 218).
These arguments unpersuasively attack the references individually
and mischaracterize what Tomita’s status bars indicate and suggest. See
Reply 7. To address the claimed integrated TCI, the Petition relies on the
combination of teachings, for example, wherein “Son-Jung/Son-Jung-Logan
display a guide bar that integrates information from multiple programs
stored in Son’s reproduction file and—when modified in view of Tomita—
would simultaneously display the programs using picture-in-picture.” See
id. (citing Pet. 71–73; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 37–38, 40); Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 296–297. As
Petitioner also persuasively argues, Tomita’s status bars provide position
information (related to timing) with pointers to indicate and control user-
selectable playback and recording positions for different video portions

15 As indicated above (note 12), Tomita specifically describes accessing
different programs. Tomita’s system includes labeling a program as
Program A, Program B, etc. based on setting record stop positions. See Ex.
1208 ¶ 77, Fig. 8. As Dr. Rhyne testifies, users can select from any of the
programs as desired viewing positions. Ex. 1211 ¶ 287 (citing Ex. 1208
¶ 77, Fig. 8).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

77
within the optical disc, at least suggesting TCIs to allow a user ready control
for viewing different events and perform other PVR functionality on
different videos including clipping. See Reply 8 (discussing Ex. 1208, Figs.
5, 7; citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 282–283; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 44–45); Pet. 27–30, 68–75;
Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 73–77.
Supporting Petitioner, Tomita’s Figure 7 embodiment discloses an
integrated status bar for selectively accessing and controlling different
portions of memory to view desired portions thereof simultaneously in a
“picture-in-picture” format. Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 74–77, Fig. 7; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 286–
287, 297; Pet. 29–30, 72–74; Reply 7–8. Accordingly, and for the reasons
discussed above, Tomita’s status bar suggests an integrated TCI for
simultaneously viewed first and second video programs when combined
with the TCI of Son and Jung or Son, Jung, and Logan. See Pet. 29–30, 72–
74; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 296, 297.
Like claims 7 and 17, claims 8 and 18 also respectively depend from
claims 4 and 14 and do not relate to the “transport control bar” as recited in
the latter claims. Also similar to claims 7 and 17, claim 8 requires
“generating simultaneously for display, using the control circuitry, a second
video program.” Unlike claims 7 and 17, claim 8 does not require the
integrated TCI and instead requires “generating for display . . . a second
[TCI] that indicates a second time length of the second video program.”
Claim 18, a system claim, recites materially similar language in “configured
to” language.
Petitioner generally relies on the teachings described above in
connection with the overlapping limitations in claims 7 and 17 and also on
other or similar combined teachings in Tomita and Son to address the added
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

78
limitation in claims 8 and 18 directed to a TCI indicating the second time
length of the second video program. Pet. 74–81. For example, Petitioner
relies on its showing with respect to claims 1 and 11 that “the Son-Jung and
Son-Jung-Logan systems provide an on-screen interface ([TCI]) and guide
bar that indicate a ‘time length’ of the video program.” Id. at 78.
Petitioner also relies on combined teachings surrounding Tomita’s
Figure 5, which displays two status bars with one video, and Tomita’s
Figure 7, which displays two video portions with one status bar. See Pet.
77–78. Petitioner contends “Tomita expressly indicates that two status bars
are displayed with two videos.” Id. at 78 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶ 76; Ex. 1211
¶ 304). Petitioner also contends “Tomita teaches that features of Figures 5
and 7 may be combined so that two videos are simultaneously displayed, via
picture-in-picture format, with corresponding status bars.” Id. at 83 (citing
Ex. 1208 ¶ 76; Ex. 1211 ¶ 304). Petitioner generally contends based on the
above teachings (e.g., a TCI indicating time status and relative bar or buffer
position for one or more video programs in Son-Jung and Son-Jung-Logan
and two similar status bars for each video program portion in Tomita) that
mere duplication of parts of Son or Son-Jung’s TCI would have been
obvious and that providing separate status bars for videos would provide
flexibility and independent control of recording features for different
programs and buffered information as desired by a user for watching and
storing or other PVR functionality. See id. at 78–81.
Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s characterization of the TCIs
required in claims 8 and 18 as corresponding to a “mere duplication of an
element.” See PO Resp. 48–49. Patent Owner contends “by generating a
second TCI the ’956 patent is not merely a duplication of parts.” Id. at 49
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

79
(citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 235). According to Patent Owner, in “In re Harza, the
court noted that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance
‘unless a new and unexpected result is produced.’ In re Harza, 274 F.2d
669, 671 (C.C.P.A. 1960).” Id. Patent Owner contends “[b]y providing a
second control interface, the ’956 patent provides a dual-stream editing
system, thereby providing an unexpected result.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 2003
¶ 235).
Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner does not describe any new and unexpected result arising from
a second claimed TCI that mimics the functions of a first claimed TCI. See
PO Resp. 48–50. As Petitioner shows, an artisan of ordinary skill would
have expected that similar elements provide similar functionality. As one
example, Patent Owner acknowledges that the two disclosed TCIs provide
the same functionality for different video programs. See id. at 50 (“The ’956
patent provides that the first TCI provides information and control over a
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

80
first video program and the second TCI provides information and control
over a second video program, simultaneously.”).16
Patent Owner also argues “Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita does not disclose
simultaneously displaying separate and distinct video programs.” PO Resp.
50. But Petitioner alleges obviousness, not a “disclos[ure]” of the expected
duplicated feature. Also, claims 9 and 19 do not require a “dual-stream
editing feature” even if the ’956 patent discloses that feature and even if that
feature represents a new and unexpected result instead of a mere duplication
of parts. See id. at 50–51.
Patent Owner’s argument that the disclosed first and second TCIs
respectively provide information and control over first and second video
programs also does not undermine Petitioner’s showing or show that the
claimed second TCI represents more than a mere duplication of parts. See
PO Resp. 50. As Petitioner shows and as discussed at length with respect to
claims 1 and 11 above, Son’s TCI, and Jung’s TCI, like any typical PVR

16 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues the two claimed TCIs recite different
functionality so they do not involve a duplication. PO Sur-reply 12–13.
This argument contradicts Patent Owner’s argument above that the two
disclosed TCIs provide the same functionality––i.e., wherein the disclosure
supports the claims. The argument also does not address Petitioner’s
showing that it would have been obvious to implement both TCIs with time
length information about respective video programs as set forth in the
claims. As determined herein, duplicating Son’s or Son/Jung’s first TCI to
include information about first and second stored time segments reads on
and renders obvious the claimed second TCI. In any case, as also
determined herein, Petitioner shows the obviousness of modifying Son’s or
Son-Jung’s to include a similar TCI based on Tomita’s teachings to control a
second video regardless of whether the modification represents a mere
duplication.
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

81
control, each provide editing control and information over multiple
programs. See, e.g., Ex. 1202, Fig. 5; Ex. 1205, Abstract, Fig. 7. Tomita’s
status bars provide control to allow a user to select different portions of
video to view simultaneously. See Ex. 1208, Figs. 5, 7, ¶¶ 76–78; Reply 25
(citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 139–140, 153). Duplicating Son’s or Son-Jung’s TCI
for the simultaneously viewed program or modifying (i.e., without
necessarily “duplicating” exactly) Son’s or Son-Jung’s system to include
another TCI, as Tomita suggests, provides added flexibility and ability to
control either of the two programs with PVR functionality relatively easily
with helpful program information, as Petitioner persuasively reasons. See
Pet. 67–74.
Patent Owner also argues that Tomita’s CAPB and CAREC status bars
respectively indicate playback and record statuses of the same video and
“are not TCIs.” PO Resp. 51. As discussed above in connection with claims
7 and 17, these arguments unpersuasively attack Tomita individually. As
Petitioner contends, “Petitioner does not rely solely on Tomita to disclose
the second TCI. Rather, the Petition shows that it would have been obvious
to modify Son-Jung-Tomita/Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita—in view of Tomita’s
techniques for simultaneously displaying two status bars—to display a
second TCI for the second program.” Reply 9–10 (citing Pet. 77–81; Ex.
1233 ¶¶ 54–55, 57). In addition, as Petitioner argues and as discussed
above, like Son’s TCIs, Tomita’s status bars provide information and control
related to the displayed video, such as playback and recording status
positions, at least suggesting TCIs. See Ex. 1208, Figs. 5, 7, ¶¶ 32, 38, 50,
60–63, 73, 76; Pet. 67–71, 75. Tomita’s bars also similarly provide control
of the indicated status positions on the status bars for selectively viewing
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

82
different portions of video. See id. ¶¶ 57, 71–78. These similarities further
support obviousness. As Petitioner persuasively shows, “Tomita’s separate
status bar for each displayed video would have suggested to a PHOSITA
that the Son-Jung and Son-Jung-Logan guide bars for one displayed video
should be advantageously reproduced for a second displayed video.” Pet. 79
(citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 305). In addition to reasons to combine addressed above,
Petitioner persuasively details other related advantages with separate TCIs:
“Separate Son-Jung (and Son-Jung-Logan) progress bars for simultaneous
videos would provide greater flexibility (e.g., clipping) and information
(e.g., size of a program relative to a buffer and/or other buffered programs)
than the status bars of Tomita.” Id. at 79–80 (citing Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 32, 61–63,
73, 76, Fig. 5; Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 43–45, Fig. 4; Ex. 1205, 5, Fig. 7).
Claims 9 and 19 respectively depend from claims 5 and 15, which we
address above. Supra Section III.E.5. Similar to claim 8, claim 9 requires
the limitation directed to a second TCI that indicates a time length for the
second video program. Unlike claim 8, method claim 9 recites “the second
transport control interface indicating at least one recorded time segment of
the second time length of the second video program.” System claim 19
recites materially similar limitations to claim 9. Claims 10 and 20
respectively depend from claims 9 and 19 and require simultaneous display
of the two TCIs “over the video program.”
Petitioner partly relies upon its showing with respect to claims 7, 8,
17, and 18. See Pet. 82–85. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Petitioner notes the
second video program refers to the second video program recited in parent
claims 5 and 15. Id. at 82. Petitioner contends “the clipping function of the
Son-Jung and Son-Jung-Logan systems, as further modified in view of
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

83
Tomita for claim 9, is used to instruct recording of the second video
program.” Id. at 83 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 226, 228). Petitioner further
contends “[t]he Son-Jung-Tomita (or Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita) progress bar
for the second program (the “second transport control interface”) would
indicate the recorded time segment of the second program by showing the
clipped portion in the progress bar.” Id. (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 45, 53, Fig. 4;
Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 312, 316).
Claims 10 and 20 respectively depend from claims 9 and 19, and
require the two TCIs to be “displayed simultaneously over the video
program.” Petitioner relies mainly on its showing with respect to claims 8
and 18, including Tomita’s picture-in-picture format and Tomita’s teaching
related to combining features of status bars for Figures 5 and 7, thereby
teaching or suggesting separate status bars for separate video frames. See
Pet. 83–85. Based on these teachings and TCI teachings in Son and Tomita,
and relying on its relevant showings (including motivation) as discussed
above relative to claims 7–9 and 17–19, Petitioner contends that
“simultaneously displaying separate [TCIs] for simultaneously-displayed
programs would have been obvious in view of Son-Jung-Tomita and Son-
Jung-Logan-Tomita.” Id. at 84 (citing Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 32–33, 37–38, Fig. 4;
Ex. 1205, 5, Fig. 7; Ex. 1208 ¶¶ 73, 76, Figs. 5, 7; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 300, 303–
309, 311, 319).
Patent Owner does not separately address Petitioner’s showing
regarding elements of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. See PO Resp. 41–58.
Rather, Patent Owner groups claims 7–10 and 17–20 together. See id. We
address Patent Owner’s arguments related to separate elements of claims 7
and 8 above (grouping claims 17 and 18 respectively therewith).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

84
Grouping claims 7–10 and 17–20 together, Patent Owner responds to
Petitioner’s stated motivation to modify Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and
Logan, with Tomita. See PO Resp. 52–59. Most of Patent Owner’s
arguments repackage, restate, or repeat its unpersuasive arguments
addressed above in the discussion of claims 7 and 8. See id.
For example, Patent Owner generally characterizes Dr. Rhyne’s
“rationales” as “overly simplistic and based on hindsight.” PO Resp. 52.
Patent Owner contends “Petitioner’s declarant’s conclusions are erroneous
because a POSA could not have arrived at the claimed features by merely
modifying Son’s application 101.” Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 227–229,
242–244. Patent Owner contends all manner of hardware would have
required integration and redesign, including TCIs, input controls,
programming, “tuners, decompression systems, graphics cards, displays,
etc.,” and “Tomita does not disclose these elements.” See id. at 53–55
(citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 227–229, 242–244). According to Patent Owner, “[a]t
the relevant time frame assembling and programming these additional
hardware elements to arrive at the claimed invention would involve a great
level difficulty and add a substantive amount of cost for a POSA.” Id. at 54.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, “Petitioner relies on
modifying application 101 and other components (e.g., engine 103, OSD
102) to arrive at Son-Jung-Tomita/Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita.” Reply 20
(citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 129–131; Pet. 70; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 288[7A], 296, 309); see,
e.g., Pet. 70 (discussing “modifying Son’s engine 103 and application 101”),
78–79 (discussing “modify[ing] the Son-Jung-Tomita and Son-Jung-Logan-
Tomita systems, in view of Tomita’s teachings, to generate for display,
using Son’s application 101 and OSD unit 102” to create a second TCI).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

85
Also, as Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne also explain, a person of ordinary skill in
the art reasonably would have expected success in modifying the systems of
Son-Jung or Son-Jung-Logan based on the teachings of Tomita without
requiring all the additional hardware noted by Patent Owner or by adding
any required hardware or software. See Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 295–
296, 309; Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 133–136; Pet. 70, 80–81).
As another example of describing modifications, after persuasively
describing similarities in the Son, Jung, Logan, and Tomita video systems
based on record citations to the references, at one paragraph cited by
Petitioner, Dr. Rhyne explains how to modify application 101 and signifies
other modifications by coordinating with the OSD processor and its
memory:
In my opinion, therefore, a PHOSITA would have been
successful, and would have had a reasonable expectation of
success, in combining the teachings of Tomita with the Son-Jung
(and Logan) digital TV system in light of the complementary
disclosures of these references, and further, in view of the
hardware and software described by Son. For example, Son
describes an OSD unit 102, controlled by application 101, for
displaying characters, graphic, and the like on the TV screen. Ex.
1202, ¶¶ [0032]–[0033], [0037], [0047]. In my opinion, a
PHOSITA would therefore understand, in view of these
disclosures by Son, that the OSD unit 102 could display a first
interface (e.g., guide bar) to permit viewing of content from
different portions of the buffer (e.g., reproduction file).
Additionally, by modifying application 101, for example,
updating application 101 to program the graphics library 102a of
the OSD unit 102 to output values (to OSD processor 102c) to
depict 228, a second guide bar, the OSD processor 102c would
set the outputted value in the OSD memory to depict an
additional guide bar. Ex. 1202, ¶¶ [0032], [0033], [0047].
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

86
Ex. 1211 ¶ 295. Dr. Rhyne also testifies persuasively that application
software 101 controls other aspects of the system, including OSD unit 102,
engine 103, and file system 104, and also ties that to similar operations in
Tomita’s controller 43. Id. ¶ 296.
The ’956 patent specification involves a lack of hardware detail and
the claims similarly embrace a high level of generality and functionality.
See Ex. 1201, Figs. 1–3, 5, 6, 28, 40 (showing high level block hardware
block diagrams and flow charts). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s and Dr.
Almeroth’s reliance on a requirement for specifying exact hardware or
software modifications fails to undermine Dr. Rhyne’s testimony and
Petitioner’s showing that an artisan of ordinary skill would have been able to
implement the modification with a reasonable expectation of success using
predictable techniques. See Pet. 79–81; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 294–296. In addition,
Petitioner need not show how to incorporate the reference systems bodily
into one another to show obviousness here where the claims recite generic
“control circuitry” and other limitations for providing “display” of “video
program” “time length” indications in highly generic fashion.
In summary, Petitioner provides persuasive evidence, rationale, and
motivation showing that combining Tomita’s TCI and simultaneous video
viewing teachings with Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, would not
be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at
the time of the invention. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, Patent Owner’s allegations about cost, difficulty, and other
concerns about required guidance do not undermine the showing of
obviousness here. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

87
(that “a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic
reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the
combination because of some technological incompatibility”); see also Grit
Energy Solutions LLC v. Oren Techs. LLC, 957 F.3d 1309, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (same).
Also, the prior art and specification indicate an ordinary degree of
skill requisite with the modifications advanced by Petitioner. Each of the
references involved in the grounds at issue here provide a level of detail at a
high level of generality, including by way of block diagrams and functional
descriptions. See supra Sections III.E.1–3 (overviews of Son, Jung, Logan);
Ex. 1208, Figs. 2–8 (Tomita’s block diagrams, flow diagrams, and system
representations). This high level of generality of teachings in the prior art
references generally tracks the level of generality of description in the ’956
patent, which involves virtually no description of hardware or specific
software beyond functional block diagrams or a flow chart. See Ex. 1201,
Figs. 1–3, 5, 6, 28, 40 (showing high level block hardware block diagrams
and flow charts). Accordingly, the record shows that contrary to Patent
Owner’s arguments, an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized
readily how to implement the modifications proposed by Petitioner without
Petitioner specifically describing how to incorporate the teachings bodily.
Patent Owner also contends “Son-Jung-Logan does not disclose
simultaneously recording two different video programs, and when combined
with Tomita, the resultant status bars would still not indicate a second video
program.” PO Resp. 55 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 240, 250–255). Patent Owner
similarly argues “Son-Jung-Logan does not disclose simultaneously
recording two different video programs or indicating a recorded segment of
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

88
a second video program on a TCI any more than Tomita alone.” Id. (citing
Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 225, 240, 250–255).
But Patent Owner does not describe the relevance of “simultaneously
recording two different video programs.” See PO Resp. 55. As Petitioner
explains, none of the claims at issue here require “simultaneous recording.”
Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶ 139). Patent Owner fails to explain how the
alleged lack of such a disclosure of “simultaneous recording” relates to
Petitioner’s showing.
Regarding Patent Owner’s allegation that the combined teachings fail
to “disclose indicating a recorded segment of a second video program on a
TCI,” Patent Owner’s mere denial about what the references “disclose” does
not undermine Petitioner’s showing or address the combined teachings. See
PO Resp. 55. As found and determined above, Petitioner persuasively
contends that Son indicates the time length of a first video program and also
time lengths for other video programs, and Tomita suggests two status bars
or an integrated status bar providing similar information for a second video
program, including time length. See Pet. 71–81 (addressing second video
program in claims 7 and 8).
Patent Owner also contends that “modifying Son-Jung-Logan with
Tomita would not allow a user to clip portions of video programs on two
separate status bars.” PO Resp. 55. Patent Owner also alleges that Dr.
Rhyne “is wrong” in testifying “that in a Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita system, a
user would be able [to] use clipping functionality described by Son and Jung
to clip portions of a video program on multiple status bars described by
Tomita.” Id. (citing Ex. 1211 ¶ 307; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 240, 250–255).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

89
Patent Owner fails to explain why Dr. Rhyne “is wrong.” Patent
Owner interweaves its allegations about the lack of a disclosure of
“simultaneous recording” with its “clipping functionality” allegations, but
Patent Owner does not explain how a lack of “simultaneous recording”
functionality precludes the “clipping functionality” that Dr. Rhyne partly
relies on for motivation. See PO Resp. 55. Also, Dr. Rhyne’s testimony
cited by Patent Owner does not require simultaneous clipping functionality
or simultaneous recording. See Ex. 1211 ¶ 307 (“A separate progress bar for
each displayed program would also permit a user to more easily clip portions
of each of those programs and/or to independently pause, fast forward, or
rewind those programs.”). Claims 7–10 and 17–20 require simultaneous
display. Assuming for the sake of argument that Patent Owner correctly
characterizes Tomita as not disclosing simultaneous recording of separate
video portions, then simultaneous display thereof, which Tomita does
disclose (and suggests in Son’s system), logically does not require
simultaneous recording under Patent Owner’s theory.
Patent Owner also argues “Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita” does not
“describe extracting, receiving, or capturing data needed to provide
information [about] two different video programs to be displayed
simultaneously.” PO Resp. 55 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 225, 240, 250–255). This
argument attacks the references separately. As discussed above, Son’s
system records necessary information for two programs, and Tomita
suggests the simultaneous display thereof. In addition, as discussed above,
Tomita does not limit its teachings of simultaneous display of video and
status information to a single video program. See, e.g., Ex. 1208, Fig. 7
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

90
(simultaneous display showing REC and PB positions for the different video
portions).
Patent Owner also argues that “Son-Jung-Logan would have [to] be
modified to receive [and then combine] separate video and audio streams” to
implement Tomita’s picture-in-picture functionality.” PO Resp. 58. Patent
Owner similarly argues that Tomita’s “usability” improvement “relates to
combining a separate video stream with an audio stream.” Id. at 56.
These arguments fail to undermine Petitioner’s showing. As
Petitioner argues, Tomita’s system combines audio and video signals prior to
storing them. See Reply 24–25 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 157–158). As Petitioner
also argues, the combining of audio and video does not substantively alter
the teachings and advantages of Tomita’s P-I-P functionality as proposed by
Petitioner in modifying the Son-Jung system. See id. (citing Ex. 1233
¶¶ 157–158).
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner shows persuasively that the
combination of Son and Jung, or Son, Jung, and Logan, further in view of
Tomita, teaches or suggests the subject matter of claims 7–10 and 17–20.
Accordingly, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence that claims
7–10 and 17–20 would have been obvious.
H. Obviousness––Dependent Claims 5, 7–10, 15, and 17–20
Under an alternative analysis with respect to claims 7–10 and 17–20,
Petitioner relies on Safadi (Ex. 1206), “to modify the Son-Jung-Tomita and
Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita systems to simultaneously display and record
programs from different sources using additional tuners, as taught by
Safadi.” Pet. 86 (citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 6, 12, 39–45). Petitioner also relies on
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

91
Safadi in combination with Son and Jung or Son, Jung, and Logan with
respect to claims 5 and 15. Id. In other words, to the extent claims 5, 7–10,
15, and 17–20 require additional tuners, according to Petitioner, “Safadi
proposed using two tuners to simultaneously display and record programs
from different sources.” Id. (citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 6, 12, 39–45; Ex. 1211
¶¶ 327, 330, 334).
Patent Owner argues that Safadi does not disclose a TCI and that
Tomita’s status bars cannot receive or indicate information about two
separate, simultaneously-displayed programs. PO Resp. 62–65. These
arguments either unpersuasively attack Safadi or Tomita individually or else
unpersuasively repackage arguments addressed above regarding Tomita.
See supra Section III.G.
Patent Owner also argues that Son’s and Jung’s respective TCIs and
clipping functions would not work with Safadi. PO Resp. 61–62, 65. These
arguments mischaracterize Petitioner’s rationale and improperly focuses on
the teachings of individual references, rather than the combined system
(discussed further below). See Reply 26 (citing Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 164–165, 175–
176, 178); Pet. 85–87.
Patent Owner also argues “Tomita cannot receive data from two
tuners simultaneously, and thus Tomita’s status bar cannot indicate
information about two separate and distinct video programs.” PO Resp. 62.
Patent Owner presents similar additional arguments related to the feasibility
of combining the systems. See id. at 62–65.
These arguments fail to directly address and undermine Petitioner’s
showing that “Safadi proposed using two tuners to simultaneously display
and record programs from different sources.” Pet. 86 (citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 6,
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

92
12, 39–45; Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 327, 330, 334). The Petition explains the
modification further as follows:
This modification simply involves combining prior art
elements (Son-Jung-Tomita’s or Son-Jung--Logan-Tomita’s
multiple program recording and simultaneous display system
(Grounds G and H) or Son-Jung’s / Son-Jung-Logan’s video
recording system (Grounds I and J), and Safadi’s two tuners to
simultaneously display programs (Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 335-340))
according to known methods (doubling the number of
components or tuners to double the functionality (Id.)) to yield
predictable results, i.e., a recording system that allows the user
to simultaneously watch programming from different tuners.
Pet. 86. In other words, Petitioner persuasively shows that an artisan of
ordinary skill readily would have been able to implement the changes to the
video systems of Son, Jung, Logan, and Tomita with a reasonable
expectation of success, simply either by doubling the input sources, displays,
and other required circuitry to match the two tuners and/or by implementing
any necessary switching and logic circuitry to share some of the resources.
See id. Petitioner also explains that an artisan of ordinary skill would have
implemented ready modifications to Son’s software application to handle the
two tuners as part of the combined systems involving Son-Jung-Tomita or
Son-Jung-Logan-Tomita. See id. at 86 (citing Ex. 1211 ¶¶ 335–340).
Doubling the tuners for the most part suggests doubling the memory and
control systems of the combined systems (one per tuner) in a predictable
fashion, even if the combination requires other minor predictable
adjustments. See id. (“known methods” include “doubling the number of
components or tuners to double the functionality . . . to yield predictable
results, i.e., a recording system that allows the user to simultaneously watch
programming from different tuners”).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

93
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner persuasively shows that the
asserted combinations with Safadi teach or suggest the subject matter of
claims 5, 7–10, 15, and 17–20. Petitioner also provides sufficient reasoning
with some rational underpinning for combining the references. Accordingly,
Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence that claims 5, 7–10, 15,
and 17–20 would have been obvious.
I. Summary
In view of the record as summarized above, Petitioner shows by a
preponderance of evidence that claims 1–20 would have been obvious.
IV. CONCLUSION
The outcome for the challenged claims of this Final Written Decision
follows.17 In summary:
Claims 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatent-
able
Claims
Not
shown
Unpatent
-able
1, 2, 4–6, 11–12,
14–16

103(a)
Son, Jung
1, 2, 4–6, 11–
12, 14–16

17 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).
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

94
Claims 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatent-
able
Claims
Not
shown
Unpatent
-able
1, 2, 4–6, 11–12,
14–16

103(a)
Son, Jung,
Logan
1, 2, 4–6, 11–
12, 14–16

3, 13 103(a)
Son, Jung,
Horowitz
3, 13
3, 13
103(a)
Son, Jung,
Horowitz,
Logan
3, 13
7–10, 17–20 103(a)
Son, Jung,
Tomita,
7–10, 17–20
7–10, 17–20
103(a)
Son, Jung,
Tomita,
Logan
7–10, 17–20
7–10, 17–20
103(a)
Son, Jung,
Tomita,
Safadi
7–10, 17–20
7–10, 17–20
103(a)
Son, Jung,
Tomita,
Safadi, Logan
7–10, 17–20
5, 15 103(a)
Son, Jung,
Safadi
5, 15
5, 15 103(a)
Son, Jung,
Safadi, Logan
5, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20
IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

95
V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that claims 1–20 of the ’956 patent are unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2019-00281
Patent 9,621,956 B2

96
For PETITIONER:
Frederic Meeker
Bradley Wright
Christopher McKee
Harry Porter
John Hutchins
Blair Silver
Tom Pratt
Azuka Dike
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
bwright@bannerwitcoff.com
cmckee@bannerwitcoff.com
wporter@bannerwitcoff.com
jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
bsilver@bannerwitcoff.com
tpratt@bannerwitcoff.com
adike@bannerwitcoff.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Jason Eisenberg
Lestin Kenton
Todd Thurheimer
Naveed Hasan
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
jasone-ptab@sternekessler.com
lkenton-ptab@sternekessler.com
tthurheimer-ptab@sternekessler.com
nhasan-ptab@sternekessler.com