Unified Patents, Inc.v.Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

08234727 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 64
571-272-7822 Entered: February 5, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444
____________

Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, STACEY G. WHITE, and J. JOHN LEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
partes review of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No.
5,930,444 (Ex. 1001, “the ’444 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Dragon
Intellectual Property, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
Paper 14. As we authorized in Paper 15, Petitioner filed a Reply Brief.
Papers 18, 20. Based on our review of these submissions, we instituted inter
partes review of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’444 patent on the
proposed ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goldwasser1
and Ulmer2.
After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response
(Paper 47, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 51, “Reply”).
An oral hearing was conducted October 13, 2015. A transcript of the oral
hearing is included in the record. Paper 57 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
as to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14. For the reasons
discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner has asserted the ’444 patent in
ten district court cases in the District of Delaware. Pet. 4. In addition, the
’444 patent is at issue in IPR2015-00499, which is pending. PO Resp. 1.

1 U.S. Patent No. 5,241,428, filed Mar. 12, 1991, issued Aug. 31, 1993
(“Goldwasser”) (Ex. 1005).

2 PCT Pub. WO 89/12896, published Dec. 28, 1989 (“Ulmer”) (Ex. 1018).
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

3
B. The ’444 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’444 patent discusses disadvantages in regards to known video
cassette recorders’ (“VCRs”) inability to record and playback
simultaneously. Ex. 1001, 1:47–2:35. The ’444 patent notes that a person
may encounter interruptions such as telephone calls while viewing a
program. Id. at 1:47–49. The ’444 patent explains that known VCRs allow
a user to record the portion of the program starting at the time of the
interruption for later viewing. Id. at 1:50–58. Such VCRs, however, did not
allow the user to watch immediately the remainder of the program from the
point of the interruption to the end of the program. Id. at 1:50–2:14.
The ’444 patent addresses these issues with an audiovisual recording
and playback device that provides substantially simultaneous recording and
playback, allowing user-controlled programming delay. Id. at Abstract. An
embodiment of such a recording and playback device is depicted in Figure 3
of the ’444 patent, reproduced below.

IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

4
Figure 3 depicts recorder 10 and its components, including memory unit 12;
control circuit 14; inputs 22a, 22v, and 22m; outputs 24a, 24v, and 24m;
tuner 26; modulator 32; and receiver 42. Id. at 3:54–64, 4:35–53, 4:59–5:4,
6:7–18. An embodiment of a remote control unit for use with recorder 10 is
depicted in Figure 5, reproduced below.

Figure 5 shows remote control unit 46 and its components, including
keyboard 16 and transmitter 44. Id. at 6:7–12, 6:25–28. Transmitter 44 of
remote control unit 46 and receiver 42 of recorder 10 provide
communication between remote control unit 46 and recorder 10. Id. at 6:8–
19, 6:25–28. Keyboard 16 has a number of keys, including record key 18
and playback key 20. Id. at 3:65–67.
A user may actuate record key 18, for example, when a telephone call
interrupts a program. Id. at 5:20–24. In response, control circuit 14 begins
storing within memory unit 12 information received via input 22. Id. at
5:24–25. When the interruption ends, the user may actuate playback key 20.
Id. at 5:25–27. In response, the system retrieves and displays the recorded
information, starting from the point of the interruption, while simultaneously
continuing to store information from input 22. Id. at 5:25–36.
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

5
C. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’444
patent. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, and 13 depend,
directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
1. A recording and playback apparatus for the
substantially immediate and seamless resumption
of interrupted perception of broadcast3 program
information based upon audio or video signals, or
both, without missing the program information
presented during the interruption, comprising:
means for powering the apparatus;
a keyboard having a record key and a playback
key;
a control circuit coupled responsively to said
keyboard;
a memory unit coupled responsively to said control
circuit, said memory unit having a medium for
storage of information, said storage medium
having structure which enables substantially
random access to information stored in said
medium for retrieval of the stored information
from said storage medium;
at least one input, said input being connected to a
user’s audio/video program signal source and
also being coupled to said memory unit so as to
enable program information presented by the
signal source to be transferred to and stored in
said memory unit; and

3 A Certificate of Correction was issued March 5, 2013, replacing
“perception of program information” with “perception of broadcast program
information.” Ex. 1001, 14.
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

6
at least one output, said output being connected to
a user’s audio or video display device or both,
said output further being connected to said
memory unit so as to enable the transfer of
program information from said memory unit to
the user’s display device, said control circuit
being configured so that substantially
simultaneous recording and playback of
program information is achieved when said
record key is first actuated to begin a recording
by initiating storage of the broadcast program
information in said memory unit, and said
playback key is subsequently and solely
actuated to begin time delay playback of the
recording from the beginning thereof by
initiating retrieval of the stored program
information in said memory unit, with the
interval of the time delay being the same as the
time elapsed between the actuation of said
record key and the subsequent actuation of said
playback key.
Ex. 1001, 8:29–64.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
Petitioner proffers constructions for a number of claim terms.
Pet. 18–24. No claim terms require express construction for purposes of this
Decision.
B. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 over Ulmer and
Goldwasser
Petitioner alleges that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’444
patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goldwasser and Ulmer.
Pet. 24–35, 57–59. Petitioner relies on claim charts showing how these
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

7
references teach the claimed subject matter. Id. at 35–57. Petitioner further
relies on a Declaration from Dr. Sheila S. Hemami. Ex. 1013.
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Petitioner has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13,
and 14 would have been obvious over Goldwasser and Ulmer.
1. Overview of Ulmer (Ex. 1018)
Ulmer discloses a “[d]evice for simultaneous recording and playback
of television images” and a method of operating such a device. Ex. 1018, 1.
Ulmer’s device “comprises a playback mechanism and a recording
mechanism, the playback mechanism and recording mechanism being
separate and independent, with the possibility of operating simultaneously.”
Id. at Abstract. Ulmer discloses that by providing a device and method for
recording television images and playing them back after a short delay, its
invention serves to eliminate advertising segments and other sequences from
a television program. Id.
Ulmer teaches that its device “uses a recording medium of the direct-
access memory type.” Id. at 3. Ulmer teaches that “[t]he direct-access
memory of the recording medium comprises a double-gate linear memory of
semiconductor or other type, permitting simultaneous write and read
access.” Id. at 4.
Ulmer further teaches that its devices use a playback mechanism that
is separate and independent of its recorder mechanism. Id. at 3. The
playback and recorder mechanisms can operate simultaneously, and can be
positioned and moved independently on the recording medium. Id.
In one instance, Ulmer describes a method that includes the following
five steps:
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

8
- recording a television broadcast on the recording
medium;
- waiting for a time T that corresponds almost to the
duration of all of the advertising breaks that it is wished
to eliminate from the broadcast that it is desired to watch;
- starting playback of the recording medium in order to
reproduce the recorded images on a television screen;
- at the beginning of each advertising break, reproducing
the images by playback at accelerated speed so that the
end of the advertising break can be identified;
- at the end of the advertising break, reproducing the
recorded images at normal speed.
Id. at 2.
Ulmer also discloses that:
[In addition, i]t is pointed out that it is the television
viewer himself or herself who identifies the start and end
of the advertising break that he or she wishes to
eliminate, and that it is he or she who controls the device
of the invention, for example with a remote.
Id. at 1.
2. Overview of Goldwasser (Ex. 1003)
Goldwasser is a United States Patent titled “Variable-Delay Video
Recorder” that issued August 31, 1993 from an application filed March 12,
1991. Ex. 1005, at [22], [45], [54]. Goldwasser describes “[a] video
recorder and playback device allowing simultaneous recording and playback
of program material.” Id. at Abstract. One of the problems that Goldwasser
purports to solve is the inconvenience that arises from the inability of
conventional VCRs to allow a user to view material as it is being recorded.
Id. at 1:29–42. For example, “often one will be watching a particular
program when one must temporarily cease watching it, for example to take a
telephone call or the like. It would obviously be convenient to be able to
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

9
record the program from that point forward, complete the telephone call, and
simply watch the remainder delayed by the length of time of the
interruption.” Id. at 1:43–49.
One embodiment disclosed by Goldwasser is a “‘random access’
embodiment” whereby the video signal is converted to a digital signal and
recorded in random access memory, which could include magnetic or optical
media or solid state memory. Id. at 2:16–21. This random access
embodiment is depicted in Figure 3 of Goldwasser, reproduced below.

Goldwasser’s Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of its random access
embodiment. Id. at 3:49–50. The recording device depicted in Figure 3
includes signal sampling circuit 51 and analog-to-digital converter 52, which
are used together to create digital samples of the video signal being record.
Id. at 6:25–28. These samples are stored in random access memory 53. Id.
at 6:28–29. The storage of these digitized video samples is controlled by
address controller 58, which is responsive to commands from user control
panel 50. Id. at 6:44–48. Playback can take place from any portion of the
memory at any speed without impacting the recording. Id. at 6:38–40.
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

10
3. Claims 1 and 2
Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious over
Ulmer and Goldwasser. Pet. 35–51. We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed
explanation identifying where each limitation allegedly would have been
taught by Ulmer and Goldwasser, along with the testimony of Petitioner’s
declarant, Dr. Hemani. See id.; Ex. 1013; Reply 12–24. We also have
reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions and evidence as to why Petitioner’s
explanations and evidence are deficient. PO Resp. 17–49; Ex. 2022
(Declaration of Adam Goldberg). On this record, we are persuaded that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulmer and
Goldwasser teach each limitation of claims 1 and 2.
Petitioner asserts that Ulmer discloses a recording and playback
apparatus for audio or video signals, as recited in the preamble of
independent claim 1. Pet. 35–36. In addition, Petitioner notes that
Goldwasser also discloses a recording and playback apparatus for audio or
video signals. Id. at 36. Further addressing the preamble of claim 1,
Petitioner asserts that “Goldwasser provides for the substantially immediate
and seamless resumption of interrupted perception of program information
without missing the program information presented during the interruption.”
Id. at 36–37.
Patent Owner argues that Ulmer does not disclose an “interruption” as
recited in the preamble. PO Resp. 14. According to Patent Owner, Ulmer
does not deal with unplanned interruptions; instead it only allows users to
time shift for a planned amount of time in order to avoid commercials. Id.
Petitioner responds by arguing that the preamble is not limiting. Reply 6.
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

11
We need not decide whether the preamble is limiting because we find that
the prior art relied upon teaches the recited interruption. Goldwasser recites:
Similarly, often one will be watching a particular program
when one must temporarily cease watching it, for example, to
take a telephone call or the like. It would obviously be
convenient to be able to record the program from that point
forward, complete the telephone call, and simply watch the
remainder delayed by length of time of the interruption.
Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:43–49). We find that this passage teaches the
recited interruption.
As to the body of claim 1, Petitioner asserts that the combination of
Ulmer and Goldwasser teaches a keyboard having a record and a playback
key. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 59). Petitioner argues that Ulmer necessarily
teaches the recited keyboard because it has a remote control that controls the
operation of Ulmer’s device. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:37–41; Ex. 1018, 1, 3;
Ex. 1013 ¶ 60). According to Petitioner, “[t]he purpose of remotes at this
time was to allow for the control of the device, be it a television or a VCR,
using buttons and/or keys to input functions.” Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1013
¶¶ 59–60). Petitioner provides evidence that it contends shows that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of VCR remote controls
with such keys. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 25, 27–28; Ex. 1004); Tr. 10–11
(citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 28; Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1008, 2:29–34). For example,
Exhibit 1004 is a March 1992 article that describes reviewing VCRs based
on the logical arrangement of the keys on the remote control. Id. at 11; see
Pet. 8. In addition, Exhibit 1008 is patent issued in 1989 that discloses a
remote control with buttons for record and playback. Tr. 11; see Pet. 13.
Petitioner also argues that the specification of the ’444 patent acknowledges
that VCRs operated by remote control were well-known in the art. Pet. 28
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

12
(citing Ex. 1001, 6:37–41). Ulmer’s remote control is capable of “recording
a television broadcast” and “starting playback of a recording medium”; thus,
Petitioner argues it necessarily has keys on its remote control corresponding
to these functions. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1018, 2). In addition to the
teachings of Ulmer, Petitioner also cites Goldwasser’s discussion of a user
control panel by which a user can control the apparatus. Pet. 28. (citing Ex.
1013 ¶ 58). In the alternative, Petitioner argues that it would have been an
obvious design choice to use a remote control with play and record buttons
to control Ulmer’s device. Reply 20; Tr. 10:7–14. Petitioner contends that
“[a] person of ordinary skill was well aware of these features, and in
designing a digital VCR, they would select these features readily and with
ease to suit their design goals.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 38).
Petitioner also asserts that Ulmer discloses a “memory unit,” “at least
one input,” “at least one output,” and “substantially simultaneous recording
and playback of program information,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 29–31,
41–42, 45–47. Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that Ulmer’s system includes the claim 1 limitation
that
substantially simultaneous recording and playback of
program information is achieved when said record key is
first actuated to begin a recording by initiating storage of
the broadcast program information in said memory unit,
and said playback key is subsequently and solely
actuated to begin time delay playback of the recording
from the beginning thereof by initiating retrieval of the
stored program information in said memory unit.
Id. at 48–49.
Because this claim language recites “said playback key is
subsequently and solely actuated to begin time delay playback,” Petitioner
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

13
describes claim 1 as requiring “‘one button playback.’” See, e.g., id. at 1–2,
15–16, 31–32. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would
understand that Ulmer’s system includes this limitation. Id. at 31–32, 48–
49.
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the step of starting playback in Ulmer involves pressing the
playback key only. Pet. 32. Petitioner explains that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand as much because Ulmer’s system allows
simultaneous recording and playback, such that starting playback would not
require stopping, pausing, or otherwise disturbing the pausing operation. Id.
(citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 68–69).
Relying on the testimony of Dr. Hemami, Petitioner also asserts that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Ulmer’s system
includes a “control circuit coupled responsively to said keyboard,” as recited
in claim 1. Id. at 29, 38–41. Dr. Hemami explains that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that any remote-controlled/keyboard-
controlled device needs a control circuit to execute commands entered at the
keyboard. Ex. 1013 ¶ 61; Pet. 29. Additionally, given that Ulmer discloses
control of the apparatus with the remote control, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that the control circuit is coupled responsively to
the keyboard, Dr. Hemami explains. Ex. 1013 ¶ 62; Pet. 29.
Petitioner further asserts that the functional diagram illustrated in
Figure 3 of Goldwasser could be used to implement the details of Ulmer’s
apparatus and control circuit (id. at 25). Petitioner explains that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Goldwasser’s
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

14
disclosure with Ulmer’s because of the strong similarities in the purpose and
configuration of the systems. Id. at 25–27 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 51–52).
Patent Owner argues that the combination of Ulmer and Goldwasser
does not teach the ’444 patent’s “a keyboard having a record key and a
playback key” or the recited “control circuit.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner
also argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Ulmer
and Goldwasser. Id. at 42. We address each of Patent Owner’s arguments
in turn.
According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s inherency argument fails
because Ulmer does not necessarily disclose the recited keyboard. Patent
Owner notes that the focus of Ulmer’s device is commercial skipping and
not the manner in which recording or playback is achieved. Id. at 22. As
such, it provides no specifics as to what keys may exist on its remote
control. Id. (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner contends that
(1) Ulmer may be controlled via something other than a keypad, and (2)
even if Ulmer has a keypad, that keypad may only need a key to eliminate
commercials. Id. at 23.
As to the first argument, Patent Owner cites VCR Plus as a system
known at the time of the invention that could be used to control a VCR
without the use of a keyboard. Ex. 2022 ¶ 39. Using VCR Plus, a VCR
could record a program by entering a code found in a television newspaper
listing. Id. Another possibility that Patent Owner cites are VCRs that are
programmed to record shows by using a bar code scanning wand. Id. ¶ 40.
As to the second argument, Patent Owner asserts that commercials could be
skipped via a “fast forward” key. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶ 36).
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

15
In an obviousness analysis, it is proper to use inherency to account for
a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed by the prior art. PAR
Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–1195 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see also In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirming a
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the
references). Our reviewing court, however, has limited the application of
inherency in obviousness analysis to situations where the limitation at issue
is the “natural result” of the combination of prior art elements. Id. at 1195.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments against inherency
because they are premised upon a very limited view of Ulmer’s device.
Specifically, Patent Owner takes the view that Ulmer’s device is only for
commercial skipping and, as such, its remote control would only need to
handle that one function. This is not consistent with Ulmer’s specification.
As described in Ulmer the “[user] controls the device of the invention, for
example with a remote.” Ex. 1018, 2 (emphasis added). This statement
indicates that the remote control is used to control “the device of the
invention” and not just a single function performed by the device. Ulmer’s
device is described expressly as having both record and playback
functionality. Id. at Abstract, 2 (noting the separate record and playback
mechanisms). Thus, Ulmer’s remote control must be able to control both
recording and playback. Therefore, we find that the use of buttons to control
Ulmer’s device is not based on mere probabilities or possibilities, but on the
requirement that it must have such buttons to control the device. See PAR
Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195 (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA
1981)). As Petitioner correctly notes, Patent Owner’s proposed alternative
methods for controlling Ulmer’s device only provide for recording
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

16
functionality and do not address playback. Reply 19–20. As to Patent
Owner’s argument that Ulmer’s functionality could be achieved via a fast
forward key, Ulmer describes the use of a fast forward key as a prior art
mechanism, and Ulmer states that its device provides a mechanism superior
to the prior art’s use of fast forward to eliminate commercials. Ex. 1018, 1–
2. Thus, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments and find that Ulmer’s device
cannot be implemented by using only a fast forward key.
In addition, we also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that it
would have been an obvious design choice to use play and record buttons on
a remote control to control Ulmer’s device. See Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶
38). Petitioner has provided evidence that such remote controls were well
known at the time of the application for the ’444 patent. See Reply 15
(citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 25, 27–28; Ex. 1004); Tr. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 28;
Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1008, 2:29–34). Based on this evidence, we are persuaded
it would have been within the knowledge and abilities of one of ordinary
skill in the art to control Ulmer’s device with a remote control that includes
play and record buttons.
Patent Owner also argues that the asserted combination does not teach
the recited control circuit. As recited in claim 1, the control circuit is
coupled responsively to the keyboard and the memory and it is “configured
so that substantially simultaneous recording and playback of program
information is achieved when said record key is first actuated to begin a
recording by initiating storage of the broadcast program information in said
memory unit.” Ex. 1001, 8:29–64. According to Patent Owner’s declarant,
“Ulmer requires only that the device of Ulmer perform simultaneous
recording and playback, and that it enable a user to ‘eliminate’ commercials
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

17
during playback by controlling the rate of playback.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 56. Mr.
Goldberg maintains that the claims of the ’444 patent require more.
Specifically, he states that the claims require “that the device contain a
control circuit that achieves simultaneous recording and playback when the
user first actuates the ‘record key,’ and then subsequently and solely actuates
the ‘playback key.’” Id. Petitioner maintains that Ulmer describes separate
record and playback mechanisms that allow for simultaneous recording and
playback and that, as such, Ulmer must necessarily have the recited control
circuit. Pet. 29–31. Patent Owner argues that Ulmer does not necessarily
include a control circuit. PO Resp. 35–36. We, however, do not find this
argument persuasive. Ulmer describes an electronic device and, as such, it
has circuitry to control its functions. We find that Petitioner has provided
sufficient evidence to show that Ulmer teaches the recited simultaneous
recording and playback. Thus, we find that Ulmer must have a circuit to
control this functionality. As we have discussed above, Ulmer must have
record and playback buttons as well. Therefore, we find that Ulmer
inherently includes the recited control circuit.
In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner raised the argument that
there was no motivation to combine Ulmer and Goldwasser. PO Resp. 42–
47. At the Oral Hearing, however, Patent Owner withdrew this argument.
Tr. 32:4–11. Regardless, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficient
evidence of a motivation to combine. Petitioner explains that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Goldwasser’s
disclosure with Ulmer’s because both references “address the same problem:
providing simultaneous recording and playback as a mechanism to allow a
viewer to skip commercials.” Pet. 25. Petitioner elaborates that due to
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

18
extensive overlap between the systems of Ulmer and Goldwasser, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use various design details
from Goldwasser’s teachings in a combination of Ulmer’s and Goldwasser’s
systems. Id. at 25–26
We find that Petitioner’s assertions and evidence provide rational
underpinning for a conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine
the teachings of Ulmer and Goldwasser. And we are persuaded Petitioner’s
assertions and evidence show sufficiently that the resulting system would
include each of the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim
2. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the claimed apparatus
“further compris[es] a remote control unit, and wherein said keyboard is
housed in said remote control unit.” Petitioner notes that Ulmer explicitly
discloses that its system includes a remote control unit. Id. at 28, 37, 51.
We agree with Petitioner’s analysis of the recited art’s disclosures as applied
to claim 2. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of independent claim
1 and dependent claim 2 over Ulmer and Goldwasser.
4. Claims 7, 8, and 10
Petitioner asserts that Ulmer’s system includes the limitations of
dependent claims 7, 8, and 10. Pet. 34–35, 51–56. With respect to the
additional limitations of each of these claims, Petitioner asserts either that
Ulmer explicitly discloses the limitation, or that a person of ordinary skill
would understand that Ulmer’s system includes the limitation. Id. Patent
Owner makes no additional argument as to the patentability of these
dependent claims. PO Resp. 49. We have reviewed Petitioner’s argument
and evidence, and we find them to be sufficient to establish the
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

19
unpatentability of these dependent claims. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s
analysis of these claims and find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of dependent claims 7, 8,
and 10 over Ulmer and Goldwasser.
5. Claim 13
Regarding the recitation in dependent claim 13 of “a timer circuit
adapted to enable the preprogrammed unattended initiation of recording,”
Petitioner asserts that Goldwasser discloses such a timer circuit. Pet. 27, 56–
57. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Hemami, Petitioner argues that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Ulmer’s system
to include Goldwasser’s timer circuit “to provide the benefit of delayed
recording,” asserting that “[t]his was a common and important feature of
VCRs in 1992, and users would simply demand such functionality if it were
not already provided.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 53). Patent Owner makes
no additional argument as to the patentability of this dependent claim. PO
Resp. 49. We have reviewed Petitioner’s argument and evidence, and we
find them to be sufficient to establish the unpatentability of claim 13. Thus,
we adopt Petitioner’s analysis of this claim and find that Petitioner’s
assertions and evidence establish by a preponderance of the evidence the
unpatentability of dependent claim 13 over Ulmer and Goldwasser.
6. Claim 14
Patent Owner contends that its arguments regarding claim 1 also apply
to claim 14. PO Resp. 47. For reasons discussed above, we do not find
those arguments to be persuasive. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner
did not put forth sufficient evidence to show that one would use Ulmer’s
device to perform the steps of claim 14. Id. We disagree and find that
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

20
Petitioner’s analysis of claim 14 is sufficient to establish the unpatentability
of this claim.
Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to claim 14 may be
summarized as follows. Petitioner asserts that the limitations of claim 14 are
nearly identical to those of independent claim 1. Pet. 57; see also PO Resp.
47 (noting that “[t]he method of Claim 14 includes providing a device
substantially according to the invention of Claim 1”). Petitioner notes that
claim 14 differs from claim 1 because claim 14 includes the language “begin
playback of the stored program information by initiating retrieval of the
program information stored in said memory unit from the beginning
thereof.” Pet. 57. Petitioner states that “[t]his limitation basically requires
starting playback from the beginning of the recording.” Id. Petitioner cites
Ulmer’s disclosure that “[f]or reading, the RAR is initialized: - to zero if
image reproduction is to start at the beginning of the memory” (Ex. 1018, 4)
as teaching playback from the beginning of the recording. Id.
Petitioner also notes that claim 14 recites “actuating said record key
upon the beginning of the interruption to initiate storage of the broadcast
program information in said memory unit” and “actuating said playback key
upon the conclusion of the interruption to initiate retrieval and display of the
program information stored in said memory unit from the beginning thereof,
while continuing to store the broadcast program information.” Id. at 57–58.
Petitioner refers to these portions of claim 14 as the “actuating elements.”
Id.
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the actuating elements necessarily are present in Ulmer. Id.
at 58 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 56). Petitioner notes that Ulmer describes an
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

21
example of a person starting to record a program and later starting to watch
the program, in order that the person may fast forward through commercial
breaks. Id. Given this, Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that Ulmer’s delayed playback feature would lend
itself to use during an interruption, and that users naturally would operate the
device in this manner. Id.
Additionally, Petitioner notes that Goldwasser expressly teaches using
its apparatus in the manner recited in the actuating elements of claim 14. Id.
Petitioner further argues that the overlap between Goldwasser’s and Ulmer’s
recorders provides strong evidence that users and those of skill in the art
would use Ulmer’s apparatus for the same purpose, asserting that common
sense requires the same result. Id. at 58–59 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 55–57).
As such, we adopt Petitioner’s analysis of claim 14 and find that
Petitioner’s assertions and evidence demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that of independent claim 14 is unpatentable over Ulmer and
Goldwasser.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the arguments in the Petition, as well as the evidence of
record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of the
’444 patent.
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’444 patent are
held unpatentable;
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

22
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
Certain materials have been sealed in this proceeding, but have not
been relied upon in this Decision. See Paper 40. The record will be
maintained undisturbed pending the outcome of any appeal taken from this
Decision. At the conclusion of any appeal proceeding, or if no appeal is
taken, the materials will be made public. See Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760-61 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, either
party may file a motion to expunge the sealed materials from the record
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56. Any such motion will be decided after the
conclusion of any appeal proceeding or the expiration of the time period for
appealing.
IPR2014-01252
Patent 5,930,444

23
PETITIONER:

Michael L. Kiklis
Scott McKeown
Katherine D. Cappaert
Oblon Spivak
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
cpdocketcappaert@oblon.com

Jonathan Stroud
Unified Patents Inc.
171 Main St. #106, Los Altos, CA, 94022
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com

PATENT OWNER:

Kai Zhu
60 Cody Ln
Los Altos, CA 94022
kz@dragonipllc.com

Timothy Devlin
Devlin Law Firm LLC
1306 N. Broom Street, Suite 1
Wilmington, DE 19806
tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com