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
TABLE OF CONTENTS i Page I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)... 1 II. 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 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 VI. 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 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
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 ii
EXHIBITS Ex-1101: Ex-1102: Ex-1103: Ex-1104: Ex-1105: U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801 ( the 801 Patent ) Expert Declaration of Dr. Gary Tjaden Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary Tjaden U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/093,292 ( the 292 Provisional ) 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] iii
Ex-1145: Ex-1146: Ex-1147: 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 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 Declaration of Michael Murray in Support of Ex-1145 and Ex- 1146 iv
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- 1
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), 2
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 13 th 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 13 th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001 3
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. 4
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 thenexisting 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. 5
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. 6
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 7
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). 8
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. 9
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: 10
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 1-54 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Woo in view of Mizuno. VI 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 11
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. 12
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. 13
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). 14
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. 15
(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). 16
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 17
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). 18
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 19
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: 20
(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: 21
(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). 22
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 23
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- 24
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, closelyrelated 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.). 25
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 26
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 27
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 28
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). 29
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 30
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 31
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). 32
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, closelyrelated 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, 33
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 34
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). 35
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). 36
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. 37
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: 38
(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: 39
(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.). 40