Rovi Guides, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 2020IPR2019-00281 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation