IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner

v.

ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date: August 26, 2004 Issue Date: October 25, 2011

Title: INTERACTIVE TELEVISION PROGRAM GUIDE WITH REMOTE ACCESS

________________

Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned

________________

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

Petition 2 of 3

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I.  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ........ 1 

 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related Matters ........................................................................................................ 1 

  37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service Information ................................................................................................. 3 

II.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................................................. 4 

 Payment of Fees ......................................................................................... 4 

  Grounds for Standing ................................................................................. 4 

III.  SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 4 

IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’801 PATENT ......................................................... 6 

 Brief Description of the Alleged Invention ................................................ 6 

  Prosecution History and Litigation ............................................................. 6 

  Claims 5 and 7-54 Stand or Fall Together with Claims 1-4 and 6 ............. 8 

V.  IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED ....... 11 

 Claims for Which Review is Requested and Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based ............................................................................. 11 

  How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................... 13 

  How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable ......................................... 17 

 Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge ............................................ 17 

  The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ................................................ 19 

VI.  CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SATO IN VIEW OF HUMPLEMAN ............................................................................................ 19 

  Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................. 26 

  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 35 

  Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 36 

 Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 36 

ii

  Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 36 

  Claims 5 and 7-54 ..................................................................................... 37 

VII.  CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER WOO IN VIEW OF MIZUNO 37 

  Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................. 42 

  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 53 

  Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 54 

 Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 54 

  Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 55 

  Claims 5 and 7-54 ..................................................................................... 55 

VIII.  TABLE 1 – CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CLAIMS 5, 7-54 AND CLAIMS 1-4, 6 ............................................................................................. 56 

IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 77 

CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................ 80 

iii

EXHIBITS

Ex-1101: U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801 (“the ’801 Patent”)

Ex-1102: Expert Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden

Ex-1103: Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary Tjaden

Ex-1104: U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093,292 (“the ’292 Provisional”)

Ex-1105: U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/097,527 (“the ’527 Provisional”)

Ex-1106: Humpleman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,094

Ex-1107: Humpleman Provisional, U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499

[Ex-1108 – Ex-1114 omitted]

Ex-1115: Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435

Ex-1116: Woo, U.S. Pat. No. 5,485,219

Ex-1117: Mizuno, WIPO Publication WO 97/18636

[Ex-1118 – Ex-1130 omitted]

Ex-1131: Final Office Action Mailed February 7, 2008, in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 10/927,814 (“the ’814 Application”)

Ex-1132: Applicant’s Response to the Final Office Action, dated June 6, 2008, in the ’814 Application

Ex-1133: Applicant’s Response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated January 26, 2009, in the ’814 Application

Ex-1134: Applicant-Submitted Expert Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, dated October 6, 2010, in the ’814 Application

Ex-1135: Notice of Allowance, dated June 21, 2011, in the ’814 Application

[Ex-1136 – Ex-1144 omitted]

iv

Ex-1145: Excerpts from Transcript of Day 1 of Hearing in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001, December 14, 2016, pp. 214-229

Ex-1146: Excerpts from Transcript of Day 4 of Hearing in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001, December 19, 2016, pp. 1110-1153

Ex-1147: Declaration of Michael Murray in Support of Ex-1145 and Ex-1146

1

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for

inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et

seq. of claims 1-54 of U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801 (“the ’801 Patent”), attached as

Ex-1101. This petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden,

attached as Ex-1102.

I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)

37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related Matters

The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Comcast Corporation, (ii)

Comcast Business Communications, LLC, (iii) Comcast Cable Communications

Management, LLC, (iv) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (v) Comcast

Financial Agency Corporation, (vi) Comcast Holdings Corporation, (vii) Comcast

of Houston, LLC, (viii) Comcast Shared Services, LLC, and (ix) Comcast STB

Software I, LLC. These entities are referenced below as “Comcast entity __” or as

“Comcast entities __,” where “__” is one or more of (i) through (ix).

No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for inter

partes review of the ’801 Patent, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or

direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting IPR.

The ’801 Patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (iv) and (vi)

- (viii), as well as other defendants, in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation,

et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:16-cv-

2

00322 (“EDTX litigation”). The earliest date of service on any of the Comcast

entities named in the EDTX litigation was April 4, 2016.

The EDTX litigation has been transferred to the Southern District of New

York, and is now pending as Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation et al., U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:16-cv-09826.

The ’801 Patent has been asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (iv), (vi),

and (viii) in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1001,

styled In the Matter of Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and

Software Components Thereof (“ITC Investigation”).

The ’801 Patent is at issue in Comcast Corporation, et al. v. Rovi

Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

Case No. 1:16-cv-03852 (“SDNY litigation”). The SDNY litigation was brought

by Comcast entities (i) - (iv) and (vi) - (ix). The SDNY litigation does not

challenge the validity of a claim of the ’801 Patent.

According to the Office’s records from the PAIR system, the ’801 Patent is a

continuation of application no. 09/354,344 (abandoned), and claims priority based

on application nos. 60/093,292 (expired) and 60/097,527 (expired). According to

the PAIR system, application nos. 11/246,392 (U.S. Patent 8,006,263), 11/820,587

(U.S. Patent 7,913,278), 11/894,646 (abandoned), 11/894,800 (U.S. Patent

8,578,423), 13/195,678 (U.S. Patent 9,204,184), 13/233,655 (abandoned),

3

13/275,049 (U.S. Patent 8,584,172), 13/310,262 (abandoned), 14/716,273

(pending), 13/275,565 (U.S. Patent 8,578,413), 13/952,381 (U.S. Patent

8,768,148), and 13/952,404 (U.S. Patent 8,755,666) claim priority to the

application that became the ’801 Patent.

This is Petitioner’s second of three petitions for inter partes review against

the ’801 Patent. Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review against

related U.S. Patents 8,006,263, 8,755,666, and 8,578,413.

37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service Information

Petitioner designates counsel listed below and consents to electronic service.

A power of attorney for counsel is being filed with this Petition.

Lead Counsel Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282) fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com

Back-Up Counsel

Bradley C. Wright (Reg. No. 38,061) bwright@bannerwitcoff.com

Banner and Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001

Additional Back-Up Counsel Scott M. Kelly (Reg. No. 65,121) skelly@bannerwitcoff.com

Azuka C. Dike (Reg. No. 68,497) adike@bannerwitcoff.com

Joshua Davenport (Reg. No. 72,756) jdavenport@bannerwitcoff.com

Jared Radkiewicz (Reg. No. 70,713) jradkiewicz@bannerwitcoff.com

Camille Sauer (Reg. No. 71,866) csauer@bannerwitcoff.com

Banner and Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001

4

Please address all correspondence to counsel at the addresses shown above.

Petitioners further consent to electronic service by email at the following address:

ComcastIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com.

II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

Payment of Fees

The undersigned authorizes the charge of any necessary fees to Deposit

Account No. 19-0733.

Grounds for Standing

Petitioner certifies that the ’801 Patent is available for inter partes review

and that Petitioner is not estopped from challenging claims 1-54 on the grounds in

this Petition.

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The alleged invention relates to a remotely accessible television program

guide that schedules recordings on local hardware by communicating with a local

program guide over the Internet. The remote guide receives user input selecting a

program for recording by the local guide, and sends a communication to the local

guide over the Internet instructing the local guide to record the program using local

equipment. The remote guide is generated based on “program guide information”

received from the local guide.

5

Similarly, Sato (Ex-1115) discloses an Internet-enabled program guide

system where program listings are provided on web pages that allow a remote user

to select a program for recording on local equipment over the Internet via a local

PC. Sato’s remote guide receives its guide data from the same Internet server that

provides guide data to the local guide. Humpleman (Ex-1106), which teaches a

similar system, provides features for generating the remote guide based on user

preference information from the local guide. As explained further herein, Claims

1-54 would have been obvious over Sato in combination with Humpleman. (Sec.

VI, infra).

And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to improve then-

existing local guide systems having remote access features, such as those disclosed

in Woo (Ex-1116), with a remote access guide interface, such as those disclosed in

Mizuno (Ex-1117). This would be done to automate processes previously

performed by human operators and to facilitate easy remote scheduling of

recordings. As also explained further herein, Claims 1-54 would have been

obvious over Woo in combination with Mizuno. (Sec. VII, infra).

Sato and Mizuno were not cited during prosecution of the ’801 Patent.

Humpleman and Woo were cited, but were never relied on in rejecting the claims.

6

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’801 PATENT

Brief Description of the Alleged Invention

The claims generally require a local guide on user equipment

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

communication to the local guide identifying a user-selected program and

instructing the local guide to record the program. The remote guide display is

generated based on program guide information received from the local guide. (Ex-

1101, claim 1).

Prosecution History and Litigation

The ’801 Patent was filed as App. No. 10/927,814 (“the ’814 Application”)

on August 26, 2004, as the second in a chain of applications claiming priority to

two provisional applications that thinly described features related to networked

electronic program guides. (App. No. 60/093,292, Ex-1104 (“the ’292

Provisional”); App. No. 60/097,527, Ex-1105 (“the ’527 Provisional”)). Each

provisional is barely a page long and neither supports the lengthy claims in the

’801 Patent. (Ex-1102, ¶¶42-52). For example, neither provisional discloses or

enables “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide

identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the

Internet” as recited in the independent claims. (Ex-1102, ¶¶45-48). Yet such

guide-to-guide communication was argued as a primary point of novelty during

prosecution.

7

The ’814 Application was filed as a continuation of App. No. 09/354,344

(“the ’344 Application”). The ’801 Patent is at best entitled to the ’344

Application’s filing date of July 16, 1999. (Ex-1102, ¶53).

Throughout prosecution, the applicant attempted to distinguish over prior art

systems having remote guides that allegedly communicated directly with a local

VCR, rather than with a local guide. A final office action mailed February 7, 2008,

rejected the claims as obvious over Blake, WO 98/10589. (Ex-1131, pp.4-8). The

applicant argued that Blake did not describe two guides in communication, even if

it did show scheduling a local recording using a remote access guide. (Ex-1132,

pp.7-10). The applicant argued that Blake’s system communicated remote

recording requests to a central processing system which then instructed local

recording equipment to record a selected program. (Id.). The two-guide nature of

the claims continued to be argued as the primary point of novelty throughout

prosecution. (See, e.g., Ex-1133, pp.18-19). The applicant even submitted an

expert declaration characterizing the “two guide approach” as a primary point of

distinction over the prior art. (Ex-1134). In an examiner’s amendment allowing

the claims, the examiner referred to the applicant’s prior argument that the prior art

did not teach a two-guide system. (Ex-1135, p.21).

Despite the narrow interpretation during prosecution, Patent Owner now

relied on a broader interpretation of the claims in the ITC Investigation. Patent

8

Owner argued that the local guide limitations cover software implemented in part

on equipment located outside the user premises. (See, e.g., Ex-1145, p.56, 219:13-

220:13). Under this construction, the local guide equipment could include a

central server that provides information underlying a local guide displayed at user

premises. (Ex-1102, ¶36).

Claims 5 and 7-54 Stand or Fall Together with Claims 1-4 and 6

The ’801 Patent includes 54 claims, of which 12 are independent. Although

the independent claims alternatively recite systems and methods, each recites

substantially identical device elements and functionality. (Ex-1102, ¶¶63-76). All

of the limitations in claim 1 are present in each independent claim, although the

language and sequence of limitations differs slightly. Both the system claims (10,

15, 28, 33, 46, and 51) and method claims (1, 5, 19, 23, 37, and 41) recite the same

devices performing the same steps. Therefore, the nature of a claim as “a system”

or “a method,” and all other differences, is insubstantial for purposes of invalidity.

(Id.).

Independent claims 5, 10, and 15 recite substantially the same limitations as

claim 1. (Ex-1102, ¶¶64-67).

Independent claims 19, 23, 28, and 33 recite substantially the same

limitations as claim 1 from the perspective of the remote guide. (Ex-1102, ¶¶68-

71).

9

Independent claims 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially the same

limitations as claim 1 from the perspective of the local guide. (Ex-1102, ¶¶72-75).

The minor language variations in the independent claims include:

Internet – Claims 1, 15, 19, 33, 37, and 51 recite “via the Internet,”

whereas claims 5, 10, and 28 recite “via an Internet connection to a

remote server” and claims 23, 41, and 46 recite “via an Internet

connection with a remote server.”

Recording – Claims 1 and 5 recite “recording,” whereas claims 10, 15,

19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite “recording . . . at the appropriate

time.”

User Equipment – Claims 1, 5, 19, 23, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite “user

equipment,” whereas claims 10, 15, 28, and 33 recite “television

equipment.”

User Equipment Location – Claims 1, 5, 19, and 23 recite “wherein the

user equipment is remote to the remote device,” whereas claims 10, 15,

28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 do not.

Selected from the Display – Claims 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite “the user

selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the

remote guide,” whereas claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, and 33 do not.

10

These differences are insubstantial for purposes of unpatentability. (Ex-1102,

¶¶63-75).

Claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 depend on claims 5, 10,

15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, respectively, and are substantially identical

to claim 2. (Ex-1102, ¶76).

Claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 depend on claims 5, 10,

15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, respectively, and are substantially identical

to claim 3. (Id.).

Claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 depend on claims 5, 10,

15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, respectively, and are substantially identical

to claim 4. (Id.).

Claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47 depend on claims 10, 23, 28, 41, and 46,

respectively, and are substantially identical to claim 6. (Id.).

Table 1 in Section VIII, infra, shows where each limitation of claims 5 and

7-54 is discussed in this petition regarding the corresponding limitations in claims

1-4 and 6. To any extent there are differences between independent claim 1 and

independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51, the differences are

insubstantial or render the other claims broader than claim 1. (Ex-1102, ¶¶63-75).

Accordingly:

11

Independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 stand or

fall together with independent claim 1.

Claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 stand or fall together

with claim 2.

Claims 8, 13, 17, 21, 26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 stand or fall together

with claim 3.

Claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 stand or fall together

with claim 4.

Claims 11, 24, 29, 42, and 47 stand or fall together with claim 6.

V. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED

Claims for Which Review is Requested and Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based

Petitioner requests inter partes review on these non-redundant grounds:

Claims Grounds Sec.

1-54 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sato in view of

Humpleman

VI

1-54 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Woo in view of

Mizuno.

VII

Grounds based on Sato in view of Humpleman (Sec. VI) present a prior art

system where remote and local devices are able to schedule recordings via program

12

listing web pages. Sato was not made of record during prosecution. Although

Humpleman was cited, it was never used to reject the claims.

Grounds based on Woo in view of Mizuno (Sec. VII) present prior art

systems that allowed users to remotely interact with local guides, and have priority

dates several years earlier than the ’801 Patent. Mizuno was not made of record

during prosecution. Although Woo was cited, it was never used to reject the

claims.

These grounds are not redundant over grounds based on Humpleman as a

primary reference. (Petition 1 of 3). Humpleman presents an extensible system

allowing remote control of any home device by generating HTML pages by

controlled home devices, including a set-top box.

Nor are these grounds redundant over grounds based on Kondo (Jap. Pat.

App. Pub. No. H10-155131), Killian (U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,316), and Kawamura

(Jap. Pat. App. Pub. No. H09-102827). (Petition 1 of 3). Kondo presents a system

for using a remote terminal to obtain a program guide and schedule a recording on

a videotape recorder attached to a local terminal. Killian and Kawamura provide

additional evidence regarding conventional features that would be used to

implement local and remote displays of the program guide.

13

These grounds are also not redundant over grounds based on Blake, WO

98/10589. (Petition 3 of 3). Blake’s two-guide system incorporates a central

processing system allowing users to schedule recordings from a remote device.

How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged

invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical

engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and two years of

experience with interactive program guides, set-top boxes, mobile computer

devices, and techniques for delivering content or program guides over

communication networks, such as a cable system, a local-area network, and the

Internet. (Ex-1102, ¶¶27-29). Alternatively, a POSA could have had equivalent

experience in industry or research, such as designing, developing, evaluating,

testing, or implementing these technologies. (Id.).

2. How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed

An unexpired claim subject to inter partes review “shall be given its

broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which

it appears.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Consistent with this standard, the terms

below should be construed as follows. All other claim terms should be given their

plain and ordinary meaning.

14

i. “Guide” and “Electronic Program Guide”

“Guide” and “electronic program guide” find no clear definition in the ’801

Patent. A POSA would understand the broadest reasonable construction (“BRC”)

of these terms is software operative at least in part to generate a display of

television program listings. (Ex-1102, ¶¶32-34). The ’801 Patent describes at least

two different types of “guides:” “interactive television program guides” (“IPGs”)

and “on-line program guides,” each with different characteristics. (Ex-1102, ¶32).

Because the ’801 Patent describes different types of program guides but only

claims the generic term “guide,” a POSA would understand that “guide” includes,

but is not limited to, interactive television program guides. (Id.).

“Electronic program guide” (claim 3, et al.) also does not appear in the ’801

Patent specification. Under a BRC standard, a POSA would understand this to be

software that is operative at least in part to generate a display of television program

listings. (Ex-1102, ¶33). Interactive television program guides are one type of

“electronic program guide.” (Id.).

To any extent the terms “guide” or “electronic program guide” are limited to

“interactive” program guides, an “interactive” program guide allows a user to

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

A reference may disclose an interactive television program guide despite

characterizing it as an “electronic program guide.” (Ex-1102, ¶34).

15

ii. “Local Guide”

The BRC of “local guide” is a guide that generates a display of television

program listings for use at the user premises. (Ex-1102, ¶36). In the ITC

Investigation, Patent Owner argued that the local guide could be implemented on

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

(Attached are redacted excerpts from the trial in the ITC Investigation, including

Ex-1145 (Day 1) and Ex-1146 (Day 4), along with a declaration regarding their

authenticity (Ex-1147)). The full, unredacted, transcripts were entered into the

court record in the ITC Investigation. In discussing the local guide in the context

of Petitioner’s system, Patent Owner argued that a data server, located away from

the user premises, providing guide information or guide functionality, including

recording commands, was part of the local guide. (See, e.g., Ex-1145, p. 56,

219:13-220:13). Similarly, in discussing Sato, U.S. Pat. No. 6,408,435, Patent

Owner agreed that Sato’s local computer and external broadcast station could

collectively form the local guide. (Ex-1146, p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2). Under a

BRC standard and using Patent Owner’s construction, the local guide may be

implemented at least in part on a server or other device outside the user’s home.

16

(Ex-1102, ¶36). For this proceeding, the Patent Owner’s interpretation of “local

guide” from the ITC Investigation should be adopted as the BRC of this term.1

iii. “Remote Guide”

Under a BRC standard, a POSA would understand a “remote guide” is a

guide that generates a display of television program listings for use on a remote

access device, such as a mobile device. (Ex-1102, ¶37).

iv.“User Equipment” and “Television Equipment”

“User equipment” and “television equipment” find no clear definition in the

’801 Patent. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate arrangements of “user television equipment”

including a set-top box, storage device, remote control, and television coupled

together. Under a BRC standard, a POSA would understand “user television

equipment” to include typical components of a home television system, such as a

set-top box, remote control, secondary storage device, a television, or any of these

alone or coupled together with other devices. (Ex-1101, 5:41-43, 10:15-28, 11:51-

62; Ex-1102, ¶¶38-39). A POSA, under a BRC standard, would further understand

1 Patent Owner’s construction of this term in the ITC Investigation is broader than

that argued by the applicant in distinguishing over Blake during prosecution. (See

Sec. IV.B, supra).

17

“user equipment” and “television equipment” to have the same meaning as “user

television equipment” as used in the specification. (Ex-1102, ¶39).

v. “Program Guide Information”

The BRC of “program guide information” is “reminder information, listings

information, recording information, message information, status information,

parental control settings, audio and video, status or polling information, user

information, favorites settings, or any other information necessary for remotely

providing program guide functionality.” (Ex-1101, 15:33-41; see also 15:42-16:5,

16:55-17:9, 21:1-10, 24:62-25:7; Ex-1102, ¶40).

How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable

Sections VI and VII below explain how the claims are unpatentable under 35

U.S.C. § 103, including identification of where each limitation is taught by the

prior art and rationales for combining those teachings.

Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge

The evidence supporting Petitioner’s challenge is identified in the list of

Exhibits above, including the Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden (Ex-1102). Dr.

Tjaden has considerable experience in the fields of television program guides,

home theater control systems, and Internet communications between software.

(Ex-1102, ¶¶5-16; Ex-1103). His declaration provides evidence of the level of

18

skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and explains why the claimed

inventions would have been obvious.

As discussed above in Sec. IV.B, supra, the ’801 Patent is not entitled to a

priority date earlier than July 16, 1999, the filing date of the ’344 Application.

Even if it were entitled to an earlier date, every reference relied on herein would

remain prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e).

Sato (Ex-1115) issued June 18, 2002 on an application filed April 29, 1997.

Sato is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Humpleman (Ex-1106) issued January 30, 2001, on an application filed June

24, 1998, before the earliest claimed priority in the ’801 Patent. Humpleman is

prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Humpleman claims priority to and incorporates by reference Humpleman

Provisional, U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/059,499 (Ex-1107), filed September 22, 1997.

Humpleman Provisional fully supports at least claim 1 of Humpleman. (See Ex-

1102, ¶¶83-84, citing Ex-1107, pp. 2-3, 10-12, 21-22, 25-26, B-5, and Figs. 8-9,

13). Accordingly, Humpleman Provisional is prior art both as part of Humpleman

and on its own.

Woo (Ex-1116) issued January 16, 1996. Woo is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §

102(b).

19

Mizuno (Ex-1117) published in English on May 22, 1997. Mizuno is prior

art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable

A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood

that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims

challenged in the petition.” (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). This Petition meets the

reasonable likelihood threshold with respect to claims 1-54.

The grounds discussed below demonstrate that the claims are unpatentable

for obviousness. Each ground is discussed in turn below, and relies on the

teachings of the references as would have been understood by a POSA. Each

ground explains the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the

claimed invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. (See

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)). Taking into

account the knowledge, experience, and creativity of a POSA, such a person would

have found the challenged claims to be “a predictable use of prior art elements

according to their established functions,” and therefore obvious in view of this

prior art. (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).

VI. CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SATO IN VIEW OF HUMPLEMAN

The claims recite a “remote guide” on a remote device communicating via

the Internet with a “local guide” on user equipment. The remote guide display is

20

generated based on program guide information received from the local guide. The

remote guide receives a user selection of a program listing for recording by the

local guide, and transmits a communication to the local guide via the Internet

instructing the local guide to record the program using the user equipment.

Similarly, Sato discloses an Internet-enabled program guide system for

setting recordings on a multimedia system, where program listings are provided

over the Internet with embedded commands for allowing a user to select a program

for recording on local equipment. (Ex-1115, 4:40-45, 9:8-17; Ex-1102, ¶96). Sato

discloses a local PC 21 that is able to control a wide range of home devices using

an interface box 25, as shown in Fig. 1:

21

(Ex-1115, 4:40-58, Fig. 1). In particular, Sato discloses that users can schedule

programs for recording on a local VTR (e.g., VTR 11) using interactive guide web

pages on their local PC (e.g., PC 21). (Ex-1115, 5:45-54, Fig. 2). Sato discloses

that users click a title of a desired program displayed in the HTML program guide,

and that the system will responsively cause a record command to be sent to local

hardware. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25; Ex-1102, ¶96).

Sato also discloses an external portable computer that allows a remote user

to control devices within the home by communicating with the local PC over the

Internet. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶97). Fig. 17 shows Sato’s system

architecture, illustrating the local PC in communication with an external portable

computer over the Internet:

22

(Ex-1115, Fig. 17, annotated to show remote guide access device in red, local

guide device in blue). In addition to the example electronic devices shown in Fig.

17 (i.e., television 101 and lamp 102), the external portable computer is able to

control “any other electronic device” within the home via the local PC, including

VTR 11 and PC21 of Fig. 1. (Ex-1115, 9:51-55; Ex-1102, ¶98). Sato’s disclosed

methods for controlling a TV receiver and VTR involve use of the web program

guide pages to schedule recordings, as explained above. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25, 5:45-

54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶98). Since the external portable computer is also described

as being able to control these same home devices, a POSA would have understood

that the external portable computer presents a program guide to allow the remote

user to select a program for recording, as that is how Sato’s system receives

selections of programs. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶98). The external

portable computer sends an HTML command to the local PC which sets up the

recording on the local multimedia equipment. (Id.).

Sato’s browsers, in presenting the program guide web pages, meet the

broadest reasonable interpretation of “guide” because the browser, in displaying

and executing the HTML code, is control software that generates a display of

television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the listings, make

selections, and control functions of the software (e.g., scheduling a recording on

local equipment). (Ex-1115, 5:8-25; Ex-1102, ¶98).

23

A POSA would have understood that Sato discloses the claimed “local

guide” and the “remote guide.” To any extent Sato may fail to disclose additional

details regarding the act of “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user

of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display

on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based

on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user

equipment via the Internet,” it would have been obvious that the remote device

would require a useful user interface allowing users to select programs, as is done

on the local device. (Ex-1115, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶99). It would have been further

obvious that the remote guide would be generated based on program guide

information from the local guide. (Ex-1102, ¶99). Further evidence regarding the

obviousness of these limitations is provided by Humpleman.

Humpleman discloses an improved home network wherein controlled

devices make available HTML control pages for access by other browser enabled

devices elsewhere in the network or located externally over the Internet. (Ex-1106,

1:15-19, 2:31-47, 20:31-51; Ex-1102, ¶100). Any browser-equipped device can

access the HTML guide, including a device located remotely from the home

network via the Internet. (Ex-1106, 6:1-18, 20:31-51; Ex-1102, ¶100). A user at

work (away from home) can access an HTML program guide from his home

television equipment using his work PC, display the program guide, and remotely

24

schedule a recording. (Ex-1106, 20:31-51). Humpleman’s system generates an

HTML program guide having a subset of program information based on user

preferences, such as by removing certain channels disfavored by the user. (Ex-

1106, 22:31-47). This would allow a user to avoid display of a disfavored channel

or content, for example. (Ex-1106, 22:42-47; Ex-1102, ¶101).

As explained below, it would have been obvious to incorporate

Humpleman’s remote HTML program guide, which is generated locally, in Sato’s

remote control system to provide users with improved access to their desired

content. (Ex-1102, ¶¶104). A POSA would have been motivated to improve Sato

in this manner under many of the rationales in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550

U.S. 398, 415-21 (2007).

First, it would have been nothing more than using known techniques

(Humpleman’s remote display of locally customized HTML program guide pages)

to improve a similar device (Sato’s TV control system) to obtain a predictable

result (allowing users to better identify and select desired content). (Ex-1102,

¶105). In Sato’s system, a local PC and an external PC can access HTML program

listings to schedule recordings. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65). The external PC can send

recording commands to the local PC based on selections in a displayed guide.

(Id.). Humpleman discloses serving HTML program guide pages from local

devices, including processed and filtered guide data from external sources. (Ex-

25

1115, 22:31-47, 22:61-66). It would have been obvious to improve Sato’s remote

access recording control system with the known feature of Humpleman’s locally

generated and customized HTML control pages. (Ex-1102, ¶105). This would

provide predictable results such as providing users with better access to desired

information and limiting the amount of data that needs to be transferred over the

Internet to the external PC. (Id.).

Second, it would have been a simple substitution of one known, closely-

related feature (Humpleman’s generation of customized HTML program guide

pages served by local equipment) for another (Sato’s WWW pages) that produces

predictable results (avoiding display of a disfavored channel or content). (Ex-

1115, 4:60-5:2; Ex-1106, 22:31-47; Ex-1102, ¶106).

Third, Humpleman expressly teaches that its invention improves control of

multimedia devices by generating a program guide based on information provided

by the multimedia device. (Ex-1106, 2:23-28; Ex-1102, ¶107). A POSA would

have been motivated to use Humpleman’s generation of customized program

guides to improve Sato’s program guide web pages to provide a complete picture

of the content available on the user’s local television receiver. (Ex-1102, ¶107).

This would provide the benefit of allowing the user to view available programs on

multiple channels. (Id.).

26

Independent Claim 1

The limitations of claim 1 appear in the Claims Listing Appendix, labeled as

Limitations [1A]-[1F]. The following explains how claim 1 is obvious over Sato

in view of Humpleman.

1. Limitation [1A]

Sato teaches the claimed “method of enabling a user to perform recordings.”

(Ex-1115, 9:51-65, 5:18-25, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶¶111-112). Sato discloses

that an external portable computer allows a remote user to communicate with a

local PC over the Internet to control devices within the home. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65).

Sato’s disclosed methods for controlling a TV receiver and VTR involve use of the

web program guide pages to schedule recordings, as explained above. (Ex-1115,

5:18-25, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶111). Since the external portable computer is

also disclosed as being able to control these same home devices, a POSA would

have understood that the external portable computer presents a program guide to

allow the remote user to select a program for recording, as that is how Sato’s

system receives selections of programs. (Ex-1102, ¶112).

2. Limitation [1B]

Sato teaches “generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a

remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on

the remote device.” (Ex-1115, 9:56-65, 5:45-54, 4:60-5:2, Fig. 17; Ex-1102,

¶¶114-120). Sato discloses, with respect to Fig. 1, a local personal computer that

27

can access program listings web pages and schedule recordings on a local VTR by

selecting program titles from the web pages. (Ex-1115, 4:59-66, 4:40-45, Figs. 1,

2, 5:21-23, 9:9-18, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶114). These HTML program guide pages,

received from the broadcast station web sites, include program lists that correspond

to available programs that the user can record and are rendered by a browser to

generate a display of the program guide. (Ex-1115, 5:45-54). Fig. 2 shows this

program guide display:

Sato also discloses an external portable computer that allows a remote user

to control devices within the home by communicating with the local PC over the

Internet. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶115). The external portable computer can

control electronic devices shown in Fig. 17 (i.e., television 101 and lamp 102) and

“any other electronic device” within the home via the local PC, which would

include VTR 11 and PC 21. (Ex-1115, 9:51-55; Ex-1102, ¶¶115, 119). Sato’s

28

disclosed methods for controlling a TV receiver and VTR involve use of the web

program guide pages to schedule recordings. (Ex-1115, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102,

¶116). Since the external portable computer also controls the same home devices

as the local PC, a POSA would have understood that the external portable

computer similarly would access and present the program guide web pages to

allow the remote user to select a program for recording, as that is how Sato’s

system receives selections of programs. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶¶116-117).

Sato’s local and remote browsers, in presenting the program guide web pages, are

“interactive” guides because they are control software that generates a display of

television program listings and allows a user to navigate through the listings, make

selections, and control functions of the software (e.g., scheduling a recording on

local equipment). (Ex-1115, 5:8-25; Ex-1102, ¶¶114, 117).

Sato discloses that external portable computer 107 of Fig. 17 can control a

local PC 105. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65). To any extent local PC 105 (Fig. 17) and local

PC 21 (Fig. 1) are not expressly described as the same element, it would have at

least been obvious that the external portable computer can control local PC 21 of

Fig. 1, as the external portable computer controls any electronic device in the

home. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶¶118-119).

Sato also discloses a “local guide implemented on user equipment,” and

“wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for

29

display on a display device at the user site” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 4:46-5:2, 5:45-

54, 9:29-37, Figs. 2, 5, 17; Ex-1102, ¶¶121-122, 134-136). As discussed above,

the local PC includes a browser which displays program guide web pages at the

user’s home and controls components of the family’s audio/visual system using an

infrared interface box. (Ex-1115, 4:61-66, 4:1-9, 451-58, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102,

¶¶121, 135). Sato’s local PC in combination with the interface box, TV receiver,

and VTR is “user equipment” because each are typical components of a home

television system. (See Sec. V.B.2.iv, supra; Ex-1102, ¶122). And in the ITC

Investigation, Patent Owner admitted that Sato disclosed a local IPG under its

argued construction of the term, and that this limitation was met by the

combination of Sato’s local PC and external broadcast station, such as station 1 in

Fig. 1. (Ex-1146, p. 42, 1116:13-16; p. 43, 1117:14-1118:2).

Sato further teaches “wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote

device” and “wherein the user equipment is located at a user site” as claimed.

(Ex-1115, 4:46-58, Fig. 1, 4:1-9; Ex-1102, ¶¶133-134). Sato discloses an “external

portable computer 107” that accesses and displays the HTML program guide to

send instructions over the Internet to the local PC to set recordings at the user’s

home. (Ex-1115, 9:51-55). Portable computer 107 is “external” relative to the

location of the “personal computer 105” which is in the user’s home (“user site”).

(Ex-1115, 4:46-58, Fig. 1, 4:1-9, Fig. 17; Ex-1102, ¶133).

30

Sato also teaches “wherein the [remote guide] display is generated by the

remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide

implemented on user equipment via the Internet.” (Ex-1115, 9:51-65, Ex-1102,

¶¶121-123). Under Patent Owner’s construction in the ITC Investigation, “local

guide” includes devices outside the user’s home such as a server providing

program guide information. (Sec. V.B.2.ii, supra, citing Ex-1146, p. 43, 1117:14-

1118:2). Specifically, Patent Owner admitted that Sato’s broadcast station 1 and

the local personal computer 21 were collectively a “local guide” under Patent

Owner’s construction. (Id.). As explained above, a POSA would have understood

that the local guide would access a broadcast station to retrieve program guide

data, and the external portable computer would access the same broadcast station

to retrieve its program guide pages in order to allow a user to remotely schedule

recordings. (See Ex-1115, 9:51-65; Ex-1102, ¶123). Since the broadcast station,

as a source of program guide information, is part of the local guide under Patent

Owner’s construction, the remote guide display is generated “based on program

guide information received from a local guide” when the external portable

computer accesses the broadcast station and generates the display of the guide.

(Ex-1102, ¶123).

If “local guide” were narrowly construed to be limited to software located

within the user premises, excluding an external listings server (contrary to Patent

31

Owner’s position), a POSA would nevertheless find this this limitation obvious in

view of Humpleman’s remote display of locally customized HTML program

guides. (Ex-1102, ¶¶124-131). It would have been obvious to generate the remote

guide based on program guide information from the local guide, such as the EPG

data or the user preference information stored at the DSS in Humpleman. (Ex-

1102, ¶¶124-125, 129-131).

Humpleman discloses generating a remote control HTML program guide

based on program listings information (“program guide information”) underlying

an EPG displayed by a television receiver (“a local guide implemented on user

equipment”). (Ex-1106, 22:31-47; Ex-1102, ¶124). Once generated by the DSS

control software, the HTML program guide is accessed and displayed on any

browser-equipped device, including a remote PC. (Ex-1106, 22:48-60, 7:25-35;

Ex-1102, ¶128). One example disclosed in Humpleman is using a work computer

to access the home network program guide to set a recording on a home DVCR.

(Ex-1106, 20:47-51). Humpleman generates the HTML program guide including a

subset of the content of the full EPG based on user preferences (another example

of “program guide information”). (Ex-1106, 22:31-47; Ex-1102, ¶125).

Humpleman also discloses that the program guide information is “received

from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet” as claimed.

(Ex-1102, ¶126). The EPG information used to generate the HTML program guide

32

is stored at the DSS (“user equipment”). (Ex-1106, 22:31-47). Further, the system

generates the customized HTML control pages, such as the customized HTML

program guide, and stores the HTML page in accessible memory on the DSS. (Ex-

1106, 22:33-47; see also Ex-1107, p. 21, Fig. 13; Ex-1102, ¶126).

A POSA would have understood that Sato discloses displaying the HTML

program guide on an external portable computer (i.e., as a “remote guide”). (Ex-

1102, ¶129). This is further reinforced by Humpleman, which teaches that a

remote access system should display a program guide user interface to allow users

to select from available content. (Id.). It would have been obvious to incorporate

Humpleman’s local generation of customized HTML guides for display by a

remote device in Sato’s remote control system to provide users with efficient

access to their desired content. (Id.).

A POSA would have been motivated to improve Sato’s remote program

guide web pages using Humpleman’s customized program guides to provide the

user with a complete picture of the content available on the user’s local television

receiver. (Ex-1102, ¶¶129-131). Humpleman expressly teaches that its invention

improves control of multimedia devices by generating a consolidated program

guide based on information provided by multiple multimedia devices. (Ex-1106,

2:23-28; Ex-1102, ¶131). This would provide the benefit of allowing the user to

view available programs on multiple channels. (Ex-1102, ¶131).

33

As explained above, this would be nothing more than using known

techniques (Humpleman’s remote display of locally customized HTML program

guide pages) to improve a similar device (Sato’s control system) to obtain a

predictable result (allowing users to better identify and select desired content).

(Ex-1102, ¶129). This also would have been a simple substitution of one known

feature (Humpleman’s locally stored customized guides) for another, closely-

related feature (Sato’s broadcast station pages), obtaining predictable results

(viewing listings for multiple channels and avoiding display of a disfavored

channel or content). (Ex-1102, ¶130).

3. Limitation [1C]

Sato teaches “receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a

program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user selection

identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording

by the local guide” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25, 9:56-65, 9:8-17; Ex-1102,

¶¶137-138). Sato discloses that users can click a title of a desired program

displayed in the HTML program guide, and that the system will responsively cause

a record command to be sent to local hardware. (Ex-1115, 5:18-25; Ex-1102,

¶137). Although the program guide is discussed with respect to the local PC, as

explained above, Sato’s external portable computer controls “any” electronic

device in the home, which a POSA would have understood to include the local PC,

34

TV receiver, and VTR of Fig. 1, and would similarly do so through the HTML

program guide. (Ex-1115, 5:45-54, Fig. 2; Ex-1102, ¶137).

4. Limitation [1D]

Sato teaches “transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the

local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing

via the Internet” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65, 6:10-17; Ex-1102, ¶¶139-140).

When the user selects an operation (e.g., a program to be recorded), the external

portable computer sends a hypertext formatted command to the local PC. (Ex-

1115, 9:51-65). In the case of a scheduled recording, the command includes a

representation of a “G code” associated with the selected program. (Ex-1115,

6:10-17).

5. Limitation [1E]

Sato teaches “receiving the communication with the local guide” as claimed.

(Ex-1115, 9:56-65, 6:10-17; Ex-1102, ¶¶141-142). Control software on the local

PC (which includes the browser displaying the local guide) receives the hypertext

command from the external portable computer and issues appropriate commands to

local hardware. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65; Ex-1102, ¶¶141-142). When the user selects

an operation (e.g., a program to be recorded), the external portable computer sends

a hypertext formatted command to the local PC (part of the “local guide”), which

35

has control software to receive and process the command. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65; Ex-

1102, ¶142).

6. Limitation [1F]

Sato teaches “responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local

guide, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by

the user equipment” as claimed. (Ex-1115, 9:56-65, 5:18-25; Ex-1102, ¶¶143-

145). In the case of a recording command, as is described with respect to Sato’s

local PC of Fig. 1, “an infrared signal instructing the VTR 11 to record the

program at the indicated time is output from the interface box 25 in FIG. 1. Thus,

the VTR 11 is set in the reserved mode for recording the program at the reserved

time by the infrared signal.” (Ex-1115, 5:18-25).

Claim 2

Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the user equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem.” As discussed above with respect

to claim 1, Sato in view of Humpleman teaches communication between a remote

device and user equipment over “the internet.” (Ex-1115, 9:56-65; Ex-1102,

¶¶146-147). A POSA would have understood or at least found it obvious that

content and devices accessible over the Internet are “accessible . . . over a

modem.” (Ex-1102, ¶146).

36

Claim 3

Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein scheduling the recording

comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on

the remote device.” Sato’s remote guide (see Sec. VI.A.2, supra) is an “electronic

program guide” as properly construed because it is control software that is

operative at least in part to generate a display of television program listings. (See

Sec. V.B.2.i, supra; Ex-1102, ¶148).

Claim 4

Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein a web site is accessible to

the user from a computing device of the user.” This claim merely recites the

existence of any web site that is accessible from a previously unrecited computing

device of the user, and has no relationship to the rest of the claim. Sato discloses

that the local PC can access web sites and web pages. (Ex-1115, 4:33-39, 5:8-17;

Ex-1102, ¶¶150-152).

Claim 6

Claim 6 depends on claim 5 (see below) and recites “wherein the user

equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.” Sato teaches this

feature. (Ex-1102, ¶¶153-154). Sato teaches that an external PC receives a user

selection of a program on a displayed page, and sends a recording command over

“the Internet” to a local PC to schedule a recording of the selected program in

communication with a TV receiver. (Ex-1115, 9:51-65).

37

Claims 5 and 7-54

As established above in Section IV.C, independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23,

28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially identical limitations to those in claim

1 for validity purposes, and they stand or fall together.

Similarly, claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 recite

substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21,

26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 recite substantially identical limitations to those

recited in claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 recite

substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 4; claims 11, 24, 29, 42,

and 47 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 6; and they

respectively stand or fall together.

Table 1, infra at Section VIII, shows where each limitation of claims 5 and

7-54 are discussed with respect to claims 1-4 and 6.

Accordingly, claims 5 and 7-54 would have been obvious over Sato in view

of Humpleman. (Ex-1102, ¶¶155-158).

VII. CLAIMS 1-54 ARE OBVIOUS OVER WOO IN VIEW OF MIZUNO

As explained above, the claims recite scheduling recordings using a remote

guide in communication via the Internet with a local guide, where the remote guide

is implemented on a remote device and where user program guide information

from the local guide is used to generate the remote guide.

38

Woo discloses a system for scheduling recordings on a home receiver

comprising a local guide from a remote location. (Ex-1116, 1:43-50, 2:9-30, 9:56-

63, 3:7-18; Ex-1102, ¶¶86-88, 161-162). Woo’s local processor generates a

display of a program schedule table and allows users to interactively schedule

recordings on local hardware. (Ex-1116, 6:50-7:1, Fig. 4). If a user is away from

home, the user can call in to a central control station to schedule recordings on the

user’s local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21). The control station sends a command

initiating the recording on local hardware via a broadcast or modem connection

(Ex-1116, 9:57-61, 2:9-21, 7:50-65, 8:24-31). Figs. 1 and 4 show Woo’s system

architecture:

39

(Ex-1116, Figs. 1 and 4, annotated to show local processor in blue, local guide in

green [callout Fig. 4], local recording equipment in purple, and remote control

station in red).

In other words, Woo discloses a “local guide” that allows users to schedule

recordings from a remote location. (Ex-1102, ¶¶161-165). This is disclosed as

accomplished through a manual call-in process where the user calls an operator at a

central station. (Id.).

Woo does not expressly disclose scheduling recordings from “a remote

guide accessible by a user of a remote device.” However, replacing the manual

call-in process of Woo with a “remote guide” on a “remote device” would have

been obvious, as shown at least by Mizuno. (Ex-1102, ¶¶165-174).

Mizuno discloses a controller that serves HTML pages to remote user

computers allowing control of a number of home devices, such as TVs and VCRs.

(Ex-1117, Fig. 1, 1:24-2:12; Ex-1102, ¶166). Mizuno’s controller generates a

program guide web page allowing remote users to select a program for recording

on their local system. (Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-11:3). Remote users access the

remote guide page using an HTML browser on any suitable device. (Ex-1117, 3:4-

18). The user selects a program for recording, and the server transmits suitable

commands to local hardware to effect the desired recording. (Ex-1117, 10:18-

11:3). Fig. 1 shows Mizuno’s system architecture:

40

(Ex-1117, Fig. 1, annotated to illustrate remote guide device in red, remote guide

in orange, local control device in blue, and local user television equipment in

purple).

Mizuno further teaches generating a display based on “program guide

information” received from the local guide. Mizuno teaches that software on the

local controller (i.e., the “local guide” in the combination of Woo and Mizuno)

polls TV listing web sites to obtain program listing information. (Ex-1117, 10:18-

22; Ex-1102, ¶167). Mizuno uses this program listing information to generate the

HTML pages including the program listings (“program guide information”), and

provides these pages to the remote device. (Ex-1117, 10:22-29). The remote

device generates a display of the “remote guide” based on these HTML pages from

the local controller. (Id.).

41

It would have been obvious to automate Woo’s manual call-in scheduling

process by using Mizuno’s remote access guide pages. (Ex-1102, ¶¶169-174). A

POSA would have been motivated to use Mizuno’s remote access program guide

in Woo’s centralized call-in system for many reasons, including many of the

rationales cited in KSR.

First, merely automating a manual process has long been recognized as

insufficient to distinguish over prior art systems. (See MPEP § 2144.04, citing In

re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Woo’s central

call center allows users to call in to schedule recordings on their local hardware if

they are not present to set a recording directly on their device. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21).

Mizuno discloses that it would be advantageous to provide a remote access HTML

guide so that users can schedule recordings while away from home. (Ex-1117,

10:18-11:3; Ex-1102, ¶171). It would have been obvious to replace or supplement

the manual call-in process of Woo with the remote access guide pages of Mizuno

to allow users more control over the setting of recordings and to obviate the

expense and inconvenience of a call center and human operators. (Ex-1102, ¶171).

Second, combining Mizuno with Woo would be nothing more than using

known techniques to improve similar devices, obtaining a predictable result. (Ex-

1102, ¶172). The known improvement of Mizuno’s remote access guide pages

42

could be used to improve Woo’s similar call-in process. (Id.). This would obtain

the predictable benefits associated with automation described above. (Id.).

Third, combining Mizuno with Woo would be a simple substitution of the

remote guide of Mizuno for the human operator of Woo to obtain a predictable

result. (Ex-1102, ¶173). Woo’s central call-in system sends recording instructions

to the user’s local processor, including information that controls the local processor

to record a selected program. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21). Woo’s system receives the

selection of the program by receiving a call from the user indicating a desired

program. (Id.). It would have been obvious to substitute Mizuno’s remote

program guide pages for the manual call-in process, as both allow a user to

communicate their selection of a program. (Ex-1102, ¶173). This substitution

would not significantly alter how Woo operates, as Woo’s system would instruct

the local processor to record the identified program in the same manner regardless

of how it receives the selection. (Id.). This would provide the predictable benefits

associated with automation described above. (Id.).

Independent Claim 1

The limitations of claim 1 appear in the Claims Listing Appendix, labeled as

Limitations [1A]-[1F]. The following explains how claim 1 is obvious over Woo

in view of Mizuno.

43

1. Limitation [1A]

Woo teaches “method of enabling a user to perform recordings.” (See, e.g.,

Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 1:42-44; Ex-1102, ¶¶178-179). Woo allows users to select

programs from a local display of program listings for recording. (Ex-1116, 1:42-

44). Woo also teaches that a central control station operator receives user selection

of a program and instructs that user’s local hardware to record the program. (Ex-

1116, 2:9-21).

2. Limitation [1B]

Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “generating, with a remote guide accessible

by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings

for display on the remote device.” (Ex-1102, ¶181). Woo provides a remote

access service that allows users to schedule recordings while away from home by

calling in to a central control station. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 5:12-26; Ex-1102, ¶181).

The remote access service is provided by a central control station that serves

devices in a plurality of user’s homes. (Ex-1116, 2:63-3:27, 3:29-41). Each home

has a local processor that implements a “local guide.” (Ex-1116, 6:50-7:1, Fig. 4).

Woo’s local guide, as generated by control software on the local processor,

generates a display of television program listings and allows a user to navigate

through the listings, make selections, and control functions of the software. (Ex-

1116, 6:46-60; Ex-1102, ¶181).

44

Woo does not expressly describe “a remote guide accessible by a user of a

remote device” or “generating . . . a display comprising a plurality of program

listings for display on the remote device.” However, replacing the manual call-in

process of Woo with a remote device and remote guide, as shown by Mizuno,

would have been obvious. (Ex-1102, ¶¶182-187).

Mizuno discloses a controller that serves HTML pages to remote user

computers allowing control of a number of home devices, such as TVs and VCRs.

(Ex-1117, Fig. 1, 1:24-2:12; Ex-1102, ¶183). Remote users access the remote

guide page using an HTML browser on any suitable device. (Ex-1117, 3:15-18).

Mizuno further teaches that a user controls a TV or a VCR through the HTML

browser on the remote computer and that selections made using the browser are

sent to local equipment for recording. (Ex-1117, 10:18-11:3, 1:24-2:12, 9:20-

10:8). Mizuno’s browser, in presenting the remote access guide pages on a

browser-enabled computer (“remote device”), is a “remote guide” because it is

control software that generates a display of television program listings. (See Sec.

V.B.2.i, supra; Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-11:3; Ex-1102, ¶184). It is also an

“interactive” guide. (Ex-1102, ¶184). That is, Mizuno’s system creates a “remote

guide,” and Mizuno’s remote client renders a display of this “remote guide.” (Ex-

1102, ¶184).

45

As explained above, it would have been obvious to automate Woo’s manual

call-in process by using Mizuno’s remote access guide pages. (Ex-1102, ¶185).

Mizuno teaches that any suitable computer running a web browser may provide a

remote access guide allowing users to schedule recordings on their local hardware.

(Ex-1117, 3:4-18). A POSA would utilize Mizuno’s remote computers and remote

access guides in Woo’s centralized control system to automate the process of

scheduling a recording without requiring human call center operators to manually

enter the user’s selection. (Ex-1102, ¶185).

This combination would be motivated by at least the reasons described

above. First, it has long been recognized that merely automating a manual process

is insufficient to distinguish over prior art systems, as noted above. (See MPEP §

2144.04, citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958);

Ex-1102, ¶185). Second, combining Mizuno with Woo would be nothing more

than using a known technique (Mizuno’s remote access guide pages) to improve a

similar device (Woo’s centralized recording controls) to obtain the known benefits

of automating a manual process. (Ex-1102, ¶187). Third, this would be a simple

substitution of Mizuno’s remote guide for Woo’s human operator to obtain these

benefits of automation. (Ex-1102, ¶186).

The combination of Woo in view of Mizuno further teaches “wherein the

display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information

46

received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet” as

claimed. (Ex-1102, ¶¶189-195).

Mizuno teaches that software on the local controller (i.e., the “local guide”

in the combination of Woo and Mizuno) polls TV listing web sites to obtain

program listing information (“program guide information”). (Ex-1117, 10:18-22;

Ex-1102, ¶191). Mizuno uses this program listing information to generate the

HTML pages including the program listings, and provides these pages to the

remote device. (Ex-1117, 10:22-29). The remote device generates a display of the

“remote guide” based on these HTML pages from the local controller. (Id.). This

process is shown in Fig. 5:

47

(Ex-1117, Fig. 5 (annotated to show relevant steps 510 (HTML data generated

based on “program guide information”), 517 (HTML page provided to “remote

device” by local controller), and 520 (“remote device” generates a display of the

“remote guide”)).

Mizuno also teaches that the controlled devices (e.g., TV/VCR) send status

information back to the controller. (Ex-1117, 5:19-30; Ex-1102, ¶¶192-193). This

status information is also “program guide information” as construed in Sec.

V.B.2.iii, above. (Ex-1102, ¶192). This status information would be included in

Mizuno’s remote access HTML pages, as shown in Fig. 3:

48

(Ex-1117, Fig. 3 (annotated to show the status information received on the

controller in red, and the transfer to the remote client for display in blue); Ex-1102,

¶¶192-193).

As explained above, it would have been obvious to automate Woo’s manual

call-in process with Mizuno’s remote access guide. Mizuno’s remote guide is

generated based on program listing information stored and processed by the local

controller. (Ex-1102, ¶191). It would also have been obvious to use Mizuno’s

display of status information on the remote guide in the combination of Woo and

Mizuno. (Ex-1102, ¶194). This would obtain the predictable result of informing

the user of the result of requested operations. (Id.).

The combination of Woo and Mizuno teaches wherein “the user equipment

is remote to the remote device” and “the user equipment is located at a user site”

as claimed. (Ex-1116, Abstract, 2:9-21, 5:12-26; Ex-1102, ¶¶196-198). Woo

teaches that the local processors and VCRs (i.e., “user equipment”) are “located in

the homes of users,” which is the claimed “user site.” (Ex-1116, Abstract). And

Mizuno discloses that its methods provide “control of remote devices at remote

locations via the internet.” (Ex-1117, 1:4-8).

Woo teaches wherein “the local guide generates a display of one or more

program listings for display on a display device at the user site.” (Ex-1116, Fig. 1,

Fig. 4, 6:50-7:10; Ex-1102, ¶¶199-201). Woo’s local processor generates a display

49

that “includes a number of fields for accessing the TV program schedule table” and

“pairs of buttons to cycle through different entries in the TV program schedule

table.” (Ex-1116, 6:50-7:10). This is shown by Fig. 4:

(Ex-1116, Fig. 4).

3. Limitation [1C]

Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “receiving, with the remote guide, a user

selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the

user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing

for recording by the local guide” as claimed. (Ex-1102, ¶¶202-204). Woo’s

operator at the central control station receives user input identifying a program to

be recorded by a user’s local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 5:12-26). The operator

uses the user’s input to look up the corresponding program, and the operator causes

the local hardware to record the corresponding program using a special broadcast

command. (Id.). Woo discloses that recording commands identify programs using

date, channel, and time information. (Ex-1116, 6:38-43).

50

Mizuno teaches that the controller serves an HTML guide page comprising

interactive program listings to remote user computers, and that users select a

program listing from the displayed page. (Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-11:3, Fig. 1,

Fig. 5 (steps 514, 517, 520), 3:26-4:14). As explained above, it would have been

obvious to replace Woo’s manual remote access process with Mizuno’s remote

guide displays. (Sec. VII.A.2, supra; Ex-1102, ¶203). It would have been

apparent that a selection of a program from Mizuno’s HTML guide would identify

the corresponding program in a suitable fashion, such as using the date, channel,

and time recording information disclosed in Woo. (Ex-1102, ¶203).

4. Limitation [1D]

Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “transmitting, with the remote guide, a

communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the

selected program listing via the Internet.” (Ex-1102, ¶¶205-209). Woo discloses

that an indication of a recording selected by an operator is transmitted via a modem

to the local processor for recording by local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 6:38-45,

9:57-61, 6:57-63, 1:43-50; Ex-1102, ¶¶205-206).

To any extent Woo may fail to expressly disclose transmitting the program

selection “with the remote guide . . . via the Internet,” Mizuno discloses that user

selections on the rendered HTML guide on the remote device are sent to the local

controller and local hardware via the Internet. (Ex-1117, 1:4-8; 4:26-28, Ex-1102,

51

¶207-208). Mizuno discloses that, in response to “the user input to the WWW

browser . . . the program effects remote command transmission.” (Ex-1117, 3:26-

4:14; 10:27-29). This is shown in Fig. 3:

(Ex-1117, Fig. 3 (annotated); see also 3:27-4:14).

As explained above, it would have been obvious to utilize Mizuno’s remote

access guide and Internet communication techniques to improve Woo’s recording

control system, thereby automating the manual process and improving user

experience. (Ex-1102, ¶208).

5. Limitation [1E]

Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “receiving the communication with the local

guide” as claimed. (Ex-1102, ¶¶210-214). Woo’s operator at the control station

remotely programs the user’s local processor to record the selected program using

52

remote programming codes broadcast to the local processor. (Ex-1116, 5:22-26,

6:32-45, 8:24-32). Thus, Woo discloses using broadcast data received by control

software of a local processor (the same device that is recited as generating a local

guide display) to record content on local interactive television program guide

equipment (e.g., “VCR 190”). (Ex-1102, ¶¶210-211).

To any extent Woo may fail to teach receiving the communication as

transmitted from a “remote device,” this would have been obvious in view of

Mizuno as already discussed above. (Ex-1102, ¶¶212-213). Mizuno discloses that,

“[u]pon the receipt of the command from http clients (web browser), the controller

sends infra-red or electromagnetic signals to the targets TAl.” (Ex-1117, 5:12-22).

6. Limitation [1F]

Woo in view of Mizuno teaches “responsive to the communication,

scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the selected

program listing for recording by the user equipment.” (Ex-1102, ¶¶215-219).

Woo discloses that the local processor effects the recording of the television

program using an associated VCR, which a POSA would have understood would

be accomplished through control software on the local processor. (Ex-1116, 3:42-

46; Ex-1102, ¶¶215-216). Woo discloses a local processor incorporated into a

VCR. (Ex-1116, 1:42-50, Fig. 1). Woo’s recording unit, including a local

processor and a local VCR that coordinate to schedule recordings, is “user

53

equipment” as construed above. (See Sec. V.B.2.ii; Ex-1102, ¶216). Similarly,

Mizuno discloses that, “[u]pon the receipt of the command from http clients (web

browser), the controller sends infra-red or electromagnetic signals to the targets

TAl.” (Ex-1117, 5:12-22; Ex-1102, ¶217). Mizuno discloses the targets as

including VCRs, and Fig. 5 indicates that the controller causes local hardware to

show a channel or schedule a recording. (Id.; Ex-1117, 3:26-4:14, 6:1-3, 10:18-

11:3).

Claim 2

Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the user equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem.” Woo discloses that an indication

of a recording selected by an operator is transmitted via a modem to the local

processor for recording by local hardware. (Ex-1116, 2:9-21, 6:38-45, 9:57-61,

1:43-50; Ex-1102, ¶221).

To any extent Woo may fail to expressly disclose accessing the user

equipment by “the remote device,” Mizuno discloses that user selections are sent to

the server and local hardware via the Internet. (Ex-1117, 1:4-8, 4:26-28; Ex-1102,

¶222). Mizuno teaches that this Internet connection is provided over a “modem.”

(Ex-1117, 4:26-28).

54

Claim 3

Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein scheduling the recording

comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on

the remote device.” As discussed above, it would have been obvious to use

Mizuno’s remote guide to automate the manual call-in process of Woo. (Ex-1102,

¶225). Remote users in Mizuno’s system access an HTML remote guide page, and

selections made on the remote guide page are sent to local equipment to schedule a

recording. (Ex-1117, 10:18-11:3, 1:24-2:12, 9:20-10:8). Mizuno’s remote access

guide pages are an “electronic program guide” because they are software that

generates a display of television program listings. (See Sec. V.B.2.i, supra; Ex-

1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:19-11:3; Ex-1102, ¶225).

Claim 4

Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and further recites “wherein a web site is

accessible to the user from a computing device of the user.”

Claim 4 merely recites the existence of any web site that is accessible from a

previously unrecited computing device of the user, and has no relationship to the

rest of the claim. It was well known that users access web sites from suitable

computing devices. (Ex-1102, ¶228). Further, Mizuno teaches an HTML guide

page web site accessed from a computing device. (Ex-1117, 9:20-10:8, 10:18-

11:3, Fig. 1, Fig. 5 (steps 514, 517, 520), 3:26-4:14; Ex-1102, ¶228).

55

Claim 6

Claim 6 depends on claim 5 (see below) and recites “wherein the user

equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.” Mizuno discloses

remote access HTML guide pages that are accessed over the Internet, and that user

recording selections are sent to the home server and local hardware via the

Internet. (Ex-1117, 1:4-8, 4:26-28, 5:12-24; Ex-1102, ¶¶230-231).

Claims 5 and 7-54

As established above in Section IV.C, independent claims 5, 10, 15, 19, 23,

28, 33, 37, 41, 46, and 51 recite substantially identical limitations to those in claim

1 for validity purposes, and they stand or fall together.

Similarly, claims 7, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 34, 38, 43, 48, and 52 recite

substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 2; claims 8, 13, 17, 21,

26, 31, 35, 39, 44, 49, and 53 recite substantially identical limitations to those

recited in claim 3; claims 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, 36, 40, 45, 50, and 54 recite

substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 4; claims 11, 24, 29, 42,

and 47 recite substantially identical limitations to those recited in claim 6; and they

respectively stand or fall together.

Table 1, infra at Section VIII, shows where each limitation of claims 5 and

7-54 are discussed with respect to claims 1-4 and 6.

56

Accordingly, claims 5 and 7-54 would have been obvious over Woo in view

of Mizuno. (Ex-1102, ¶¶233-236).

VIII. TABLE 1 – CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CLAIMS 5, 7-54 AND CLAIMS 1-4, 6

As explained above in Section IV.C, each independent claim recites the

same set of limitations. Although the language and sequencing of limitations in

the claims varies, every limitation of the other independent claims corresponds to

one or more limitations of claim 1.

Table 1 is a claim chart shows where each limitation of claims 5 and 7-54 is

discussed in this petition with respect to the corresponding limitation in claims 1-4

and 6, thereby establishing the obviousness of claims 5 and 7-54.

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 5

[5A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[5B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet connection to a remote server,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

57

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[5C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[5D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet connection to the remote server;

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

[5E] receiving the communication with the local guide; and VI.A.5 VII.A.5

[5F] responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 7 7 The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

58

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 8

8 The method of claim 5, wherein scheduling the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 9 9 The method of claim 5, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 10 [10A] A system comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[10B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, VI.A.2 VII.A.2

that generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; and VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[10C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[10D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

59

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via an Internet connection to a remote server;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[10E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide; and

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[10F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing using the Internet connection to the remote server;

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

[10G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and

VI.A.5 VII.A.5

[10H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 11 [11] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E

60

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 12

[12] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem.

VI.B VII.B

Claim 13 [13] The system of claim 10, wherein scheduling the recording comprises

scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 14 [14] The system of claim 10, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 15 [15A] A system comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[15B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, VI.A.2 VII.A.2

that generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; and VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[15C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2

61

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[15D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[15E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide; and

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[15F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet;

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

[15G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and

VI.A.5 VII.A.5

[15H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 16 [16] The system of claim 15, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

62

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 17

[17] The system of claim 15, wherein scheduling the recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 18 [18] The system of claim 15, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 19 [19A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising: VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[19B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

63

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[19C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[19D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing via the Internet; and

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

[19E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 20 [20] The method of claim 19, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

Claim 21 [21] The method of claim 19, wherein causing the local guide to schedule

the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 22 [22] The method of claim 19, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

64

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 23

[23A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[23B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet connection with a remote server,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is located at a user site, and VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[23C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program listing from the plurality of program listings,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the user selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

65

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[23D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program listing using the Internet connection with the remote server; and

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

[23E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 24 [24] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E

Claim 25 [25] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

Claim 26 [26] The method of claim 23, wherein causing the local guide to schedule

the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device. • VI.C • VII.C

Claim 27 [27] The method of claim 23, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 28 [28A] A system comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

66

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[28B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[28C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on television equipment via an Internet connection to a remote server,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site, and

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[28D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[28E] transmits a communication using the Internet connection to the remote server to the local guide indicating the selection of the program for recording; and

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

67

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[28F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television responsive equipment.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 29 [29] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E

Claim 30 [30] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

Claim 31 [31] The system of claim 28, wherein the remote guide further causes the

local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 32 [32] The system of claim 28, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 33 [33A] A system comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[33B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that: VI.A.2 VII.A.2

68

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[33C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from a local guide implemented on television equipment via the Internet,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site, and

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the television equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[33D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program listings,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[33E] transmits a communication via the Internet to the local guide indicating the selection of the program for recording; and

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

[33F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication, the program corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

69

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 34

[34] The system of claim 33, wherein the television equipment is accessible by the remote device over a modem.

VI.B VII.B

Claim 35 [35] The system of claim 33, wherein the remote guide further causes the

local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 36 [36] The system of claim 33, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 37 [37A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising: VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[37B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[37C] receiving a communication via the Internet from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

70

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet, and

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[37D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 38 [38] The method of claim 37, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

Claim 39 [39] The method of claim 37, wherein scheduling the recording

comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

71

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 40

[40] The method of claim 37, wherein a web site is accessible to the user from a computing device of the user.

VI.D VII.D

Claim 41 [41A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising: VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[41B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at a user site,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user equipment is located at the user site; VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[41C] receiving a communication via an Internet connection with a remote server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet connection with the remote server, and

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

72

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[41D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the received communication.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 42 [42] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over the Internet. VI.E VII.E

Claim 43 [43] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

Claim 44 [44] The method of claim 41, wherein scheduling the recording

comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 45 [45] The method of claim 41, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 46 [46A] A system comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

73

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[46B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site, that:

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[46C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[46D] receives a communication via an Internet connection with a remote server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet connection with the remote server, and

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[46E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

74

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 47

[47] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by the remote device over the Internet.

VI.E VII.E

Claim 48 [48] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

Claim 49 [49] The system of claim 46, wherein the local guide further schedules

the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 50 [50] The system of claim 46, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

Claim 51 [51A] A system comprising:

VI.A.1 VII.A.1

[51B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site, that:

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

[51C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a display device at the user site;

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

75

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section

[51D] receives a communication via the Internet from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide

VI.A.4 VII.A.4

identifying a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for recording by the local guide,

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

wherein the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of listings for display on the remote device,

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide information received from the local guide via the Internet, and

VI.A.2 VII.A.2

wherein the user selected program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and

VI.A.3 VII.A.3

[51E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time based on the communication.

VI.A.6 VII.A.6

Claim 52 [52] The system of claim 51, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem. VI.B VII.B

76

TABLE 1 Designation Limitation and Discussion Section Claim 53

[53] The system of claim 51, wherein the local guide further schedules the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

VI.C VII.C

Claim 54 [54] The system of claim 51, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user. VI.D VII.D

77

IX. CONCLUSION

Petitioners submit that inter partes review of claims 1-54 of the ’801 Patent

should be instituted on the grounds set forth herein.

BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD

Dated: March 23, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /

Frederic M. Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner & Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 824-3000 (202) 824-3001 fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com

78

CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies

that the word count for the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals

13,794, as counted by the Word Count feature of Microsoft Word, which is less

than the 14,000 allowed under 37 CFR § 42.24(a)(i).

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1), this count does not include the table of

contents, the table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8, the certificate of

service, this certification of word count, the claims listing appendix, or appendix of

exhibits.

BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD

Dated: March 23, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /

Frederic M. Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner & Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 824-3000 (202) 824-3001 fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com

79

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, I hereby certify that I caused a true and

correct copy of the Petition for Inter Partes Review in connection with U.S. Patent

No. 8,046,801 and supporting evidence to be served via FedEx Priority Overnight

on March 23, 2017, on the following:

ROPES & GRAY LLP PATENT DOCKETING 39/361 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK NY 10036-8704

BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD

Dated: March 23, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /

Frederic M. Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner & Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 824-3000 (202) 824-3001 fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com

80

CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX

U.S. Pat. No. 8,046,801

Designation Claim Language

Claim 1

[1A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising:

[1B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote

device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,

wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, wherein

the user equipment is located at a user site, and wherein the local

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

on a display device at the user site;

[1C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program

listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user

selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program

listing for recording by the local guide;

[1D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local

guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program

listing via the Internet;

[1E] receiving the communication with the local guide; and

[1F] responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide,

the program corresponding to the selected program listing for

recording by the user equipment.

81

Designation Claim Language

Claim 2

[2] The method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem.

Claim 3

[3] The method of claim 1, wherein scheduling the recording comprises

scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running

on the remote device.

Claim 4

[4] The method of claim 1, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 5

[5A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising:

[5B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote

device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet

connection to a remote server, wherein the user equipment is remote

to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located at a user

site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more

program listings for display on a display device at the user site;

82

Designation Claim Language

[5C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program

listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user

selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program

listing for recording by the local guide;

[5D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local

guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program

listing using the Internet connection to the remote server;

[5E] receiving the communication with the local guide; and

[5F] responsive to the communication, scheduling, with the local guide,

the program corresponding to the selected program listing for

recording by the user equipment.

Claim 6

[6] The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over the Internet.

Claim 7

[7] The method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem.

Claim 8

[8] The method of claim 5, wherein scheduling the recording comprises

scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running

on the remote device.

Claim 9

[9] The method of claim 5, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

83

Designation Claim Language

Claim 10

[10A] A system comprising:

[10B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, that generates a

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

device at a user site, wherein the television equipment is located at

the user site; and

[10C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:

[10D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

the local guide via an Internet connection to a remote server;

[10E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of

program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a program

corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the

local guide; and

[10F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the

program corresponding to the selected program listing using the

Internet connection to the remote server;

[10G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and

[10H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program

corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the

appropriate time using the television equipment.

Claim 11

[11] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over the Internet.

84

Designation Claim Language

Claim 12

[12] The system of claim 10, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem.

Claim 13

[13] The system of claim 10, wherein scheduling the recording comprises

scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running

on the remote device.

Claim 14

[14] The system of claim 10, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 15

[15A] A system comprising:

[15B] a local guide, implemented on television equipment, that generates a

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

device at a user site, wherein the television equipment is located at

the user site; and

[15C] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:

[15D] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

the local guide via the Internet;

[15E] receives a user selection of a program listing of the plurality of

program listings, wherein the user selection identifies a program

corresponding to the selected program listing for recording by the

local guide; and

85

Designation Claim Language

[15F] transmits a communication to the local guide identifying the

program corresponding to the selected program listing via the

Internet;

[15G] wherein the local guide: receives the communication; and

[15H] responsive to the communication, schedules the program

corresponding to the selected program listing for recording at the

appropriate time using the television equipment.

Claim 16

[16] The system of claim 15, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem.

Claim 17

[17] The system of claim 15, wherein scheduling the recording comprises

scheduling the recording from an electronic program guide running

on the remote device.

Claim 18

[18] The system of claim 15, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 19

[19A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising:

86

Designation Claim Language

[19B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote

device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on user equipment via the Internet,

wherein the user equipment is remote to the remote device, wherein

the user equipment is located at a user site, and wherein the local

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

on a display device at the user site;

[19C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program

listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user

selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program

listing for recording by the local guide;

[19D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local

guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program

listing via the Internet; and

[19E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the

selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the

appropriate time based on the communication.

Claim 20

[20] The method of claim 19, wherein the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over a modem.

87

Designation Claim Language

Claim 21

[21] The method of claim 19, wherein causing the local guide to schedule

the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from

an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

Claim 22

[22] The method of claim 19, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 23

[23A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising:

[23B] generating, with a remote guide accessible by a user of a remote

device, a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on user equipment via an Internet

connection with a remote server, wherein the user equipment is

remote to the remote device, wherein the user equipment is located

at a user site, and wherein the local guide generates a display of one

or more program listings for display on a display device at the user

site;

[23C] receiving, with the remote guide, a user selection of a program

listing from the plurality of program listings, wherein the user

selection identifies a program corresponding to the selected program

listing for recording by the local guide;

88

Designation Claim Language

[23D] transmitting, with the remote guide, a communication to the local

guide identifying the program corresponding to the selected program

listing using the Internet connection with the remote server; and

[23E] causing the local guide to schedule the program corresponding to the

selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at the

appropriate time based on the communication.

Claim 24

[24] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over the Internet.

Claim 25

[25] The method of claim 23, wherein the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over a modem.

Claim 26

[26] The method of claim 23, wherein causing the local guide to schedule

the program for recording comprises scheduling the recording from

an electronic program guide running on the remote device.

Claim 27

[27] The method of claim 23, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 28

[28A] A system comprising:

[28B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:

89

Designation Claim Language

[28C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on television equipment via an Internet

connection to a remote server, wherein the local guide generates a

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

device at a user site, and wherein the television equipment is located

at the user site;

[28D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program

listings, wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to

the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

[28E] transmits a communication using the Internet connection to the

remote server to the local guide indicating the selection of the

program for recording; and

[28F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication,

the program corresponding to the selected program listing for

recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.

Claim 29

[29] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over the Internet.

Claim 30

[30] The system of claim 28, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem.

90

Designation Claim Language

Claim 31

[31] The system of claim 28, wherein the remote guide further causes the

local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an

electronic program guide running on the remote device.

Claim 32

[32] The system of claim 28, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 33

[33A] A system comprising:

[33B] a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device, that:

[33C] generates a display comprising a plurality of program listings for

display on the remote device, wherein the display is generated by

the remote guide based on program guide information received from

a local guide implemented on television equipment via the Internet,

wherein the local guide generates a display of one or more program

listings for display on a display device at a user site, and where the

television equipment is located at the user site;

[33D] receives a selection of a program listing of the plurality of program

listings, wherein the selection identifies a program corresponding to

the selected program listing for recording by the local guide;

[33E] transmits a communication via the Internet to the local guide

indicating the selection of the program for recording; and

[33F] causes the local guide to schedule, responsive to the communication,

the program corresponding to the selected program listing for

recording at the appropriate time using the television equipment.

91

Designation Claim Language

Claim 34

[34] The system of claim 33, wherein the television equipment is

accessible by the remote device over a modem.

Claim 35

[35] The system of claim 33, wherein the remote guide further causes the

local guide to schedule by scheduling the recording from an

electronic program guide running on the remote device.

Claim 36

[36] The system of claim 33, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 37

[37A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising:

[37B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a

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

device at a user site, wherein the user equipment is located at the

user site;

92

Designation Claim Language

[37C] receiving a communication via the Internet from a remote guide,

accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide identifying

a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for

recording by the local guide, wherein the remote guide generates a

display comprising a plurality of program listings for display on the

remote device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide

based on program guide information received from the local guide

via the Internet, and wherein the user selected program listing is

selected from the display generated by the remote guide; and

[37D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the

user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at

the appropriate time based on the communication.

Claim 38

[38] The method of claim 37, wherein the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over a modem.

Claim 39

[39] The method of claim 37, wherein scheduling the recording

comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program

guide running on the remote device.

Claim 40

[40] The method of claim 37, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 41

[41A] A method of enabling a user to perform recordings, the method

comprising:

93

Designation Claim Language

[41B] generating, with a local guide implemented on user equipment, a

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

device at a user site, wherein the user equipment is located at the

user site;

[41C] receiving a communication via an Internet connection with a remote

server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device,

at the local guide identifying a program corresponding to a user

selected program listing for recording by the local guide, wherein

the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of

program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the

display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide

information received from the local guide via the Internet

connection with the remote server, and wherein the user selected

program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote

guide; and

[41D] scheduling, with the local guide, the program corresponding to the

user selected program listing for recording by the user equipment at

the appropriate time based on the received communication.

Claim 42

[42] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over the Internet.

Claim 43

[43] The method of claim 41, wherein the user equipment is accessible

by the remote device over a modem.

94

Designation Claim Language

Claim 44

[44] The method of claim 41, wherein scheduling the recording

comprises scheduling the recording from an electronic program

guide running on the remote device.

Claim 45

[45] The method of claim 41, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 46

[46A] A system comprising:

[46B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site,

that:

[46C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a

display device at the user site;

[46D] receives a communication via an Internet connection with a remote

server from a remote guide, accessible by a user of a remote device,

at the local guide identifying a program corresponding to a user

selected program listing for recording by the local guide, wherein

the remote guide generates a display comprising a plurality of

program listings for display on the remote device, wherein the

display is generated by the remote guide based on program guide

information received from the local guide via the Internet

connection with the remote server, and wherein the user selected

program listing is selected from the display generated by the remote

guide; and

95

Designation Claim Language

[46E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program

listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time

based on the communication.

Claim 47

[47] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over the Internet.

Claim 48

[48] The system of claim 46, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem.

Claim 49

[49] The system of claim 46, wherein the local guide further schedules

the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic

program guide running on the remote device.

Claim 50

[50] The system of claim 46, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.

Claim 51

[51A] A system comprising:

[51B] a local guide, implemented on user equipment located at a user site,

that:

[51C] generates a display of one or more program listings for display on a

display device at the user site;

96

Designation Claim Language

[51D] receives a communication via the Internet from a remote guide,

accessible by a user of a remote device, at the local guide identifying

a program corresponding to a user selected program listing for

recording by the local guide, wherein the remote guide generates a

display comprising a plurality of listings for display on the remote

device, wherein the display is generated by the remote guide based

on program guide information received from the local guide via the

Internet, and wherein the user selected program listing is selected

from the display generated by the remote guide; and

[51E] schedules the program corresponding to the user selected program

listing for recording by the user equipment at the appropriate time

based on the communication.

Claim 52

[52] The system of claim 51, wherein the user equipment is accessible by

the remote device over a modem.

Claim 53

[53] The system of claim 51, wherein the local guide further schedules

the recording by scheduling the recording from an electronic

program guide running on the remote device.

Claim 54

[54] The system of claim 51, wherein a web site is accessible to the user

from a computing device of the user.