NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROVI GUIDES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1309

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

00942.

______________________

Decided: January 13, 2020

______________________

JASON DANIEL EISENBERG, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & 

Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, for appellant. Also represented by PAULINE PELLETIER, BYRON LEROY PICKARD. 

 FREDERIC MEEKER, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, DC, for appellee. Also represented by JOHN HARRIS 

CURRY, JOHN R. HUTCHINS, CRAIG KRONENTHAL, BLAIR A.

SILVER, BRADLEY CHARLES WRIGHT; GINGER ANDERS,

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC; BRIAN 

JAMES SPRINGER, Los Angeles, CA. 
2 ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

 ______________________

Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that 

claims 1–33 of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,871 (“the ’871 patent”) 

are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’871 patent, owned by Rovi, concerns electronic 

program guides that provide television (“TV”) program 

schedule information. The ’871 patent claims improved 

methods and systems for allowing users to interact with 

program guides. It describes the guides as “interactive program guides,” also referred to as “IPGs.” For example, using an interactive program guide, the user can engage in 

various activities such as (i) searching for TV programs by 

time or theme, (ii) obtaining plot, actor, or ratings information, and (iii) scheduling recordings. 

The claimed invention is directed to a system using 

multiple interactive program guides. The ’871 patent explains that there was a need for a multiple interactive program guide system that could be used in a single set-top 

box or computer and in which the multiple guides share 

data. Such a system would allow different users to configure each interactive program guide to his or her own preferences while avoiding conflicting requests (e.g., 

overlapping recordings) by various users.

On March 10, 2017, Comcast Cable Communications, 

LLC (“Comcast”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”)

of the ’871 patent, and the Board instituted IPR. In its final written decision, the Board held claims 1–33 of the 

’871 patent unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art. 

Rovi now appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 3

DISCUSSION

When an IPR is instituted from a petition filed before 

November 13, 2018, as here, the claims are given the 

“broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the specification. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 

2142 (2016); Changes to the Claim Construction Standard 

for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 

2018). 

The Board held independent claims 1, 12, and 23 obvious in view of Browne (PCT Pub. No. WO 92/22983) and 

LaJoie (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,443).1

Browne discloses a multi-source recorder player that 

provides multiple video outputs and describes “virtual control screens” that can be used by several users to interact 

with the system. LaJoie discloses an interactive program 

guide that allows the user to create favorite channel lists, 

block certain channels, record select programs, and thus 

customize the guide. The Board reasoned that it would 

have been obvious to “modif[y] the teachings of Browne to 

use two instances of an interactive program guide like the 

one taught by LaJoie (rather than the multiple control 

screens as taught in Browne) to record and set reminders 

of different programs displayed on different televisions.” 

J.A. 20. The modified system would have “two instances of 

an interactive program guide” that would be available for 

 1 The Board also held those claims obvious in view of 

(i) Browne and Alexander (PCT Pub. No. WO 99/04561) 

and (ii) Browne and Knudson (U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 

US 2005/0240968). We need not reach these alternative 

grounds because we affirm the Board’s decision based on 

Browne and LaJoie. We need not separately address the 

dependent claims because Rovi does not provide any argument based on limitations recited only in those claims. 
4 ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

“different users on different output [TV] devices.” J.A. 20, 

23–24.

On appeal, Rovi argues that the Board erred in construing the claim limitation “first and second interactive 

electronic program guides,” a phrase that is recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 23.2 Rovi contends that the

 2 For example, claim 1 recites:

1. A method for displaying first and second interactive electronic program guides that are accessible 

from a plurality of user television equipment devices located in a household, the method comprising:

receiving, from the first interactive electronic program guide, a first event of a first 

type scheduled with the first interactive 

electronic program guide;

receiving, from the second interactive electronic program guide, a second event of a 

second type scheduled with the second interactive electronic program guide;

storing the received first and second events 

in a memory accessible to the first and second interactive electronic program guides; 

and

generating a list of scheduled events of the 

first and second types by aggregating the

first and second scheduled events received 

from the first and second interactive electronic program guides, wherein the list of 

scheduled events is accessible for display 

from any of the first and the second interactive electronic program guides in the 

household.
ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 5

“first and second interactive electronic program guides” 

must be “different from one another,” Appellant’s Br. 10, 

and that this requires “the ‘first and second’ IPGs . . . be 

separate and distinct IPG applications[] . . ., i.e., computer 

programs,” Reply Br. 2. Rovi asserts that the claim language, specification, and prosecution history of the ’871 patent support its construction, and argues that LaJoie does 

not disclose two different guides with different computer 

programs. 

We conclude that the Board did not err in rejecting 

Rovi’s argument that the “first and second” IPGs must be 

different computer programs. Rovi points out that various 

portions of the specification refer to “different IPGs.” Appellant Br. 24–25. But the requirement that the IPGs be 

“different” does not mean that “different” guides must be

different computer programs. Rovi also points to Figure 1C 

that shows “IPG data . . . shared between the three IPG applications 22–24.” Reply Br. 21 (citing ’871 patent, col. 7, 

ll. 55–61). But even if this figure shows one embodiment 

with “separate applications,” the specification describes 

other embodiments that use “multiple . . . instances” or “independent instances” of the interactive program guide for

the multiple IPG system and thus do not require different

computer programs. ’871 patent, col. 5, ll. 39–43, col. 8, ll. 

49–52. We conclude that under the broadest reasonable 

interpretation standard the claims do not require different 

computer programs for the “first and second interactive 

electronic program guides.” The Board did not err in concluding that the resulting “two instances” of the IPG as disclosed in the combination of Browne and LaJoie would 

satisfy the disputed limitation. 

Rovi also asserts that the prosecution history concerning LaJoie and an Ellis reference shows that the claimed 

guides must use different computer programs. We disa-

 

’871 patent at col. 25, ll. 43–62 (emphasis added). 
6 ROVI GUIDES, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

gree. No prosecution history statements distinguished LaJoie and Ellis based on the use of different computer programs. 

Rovi further claims that the Board erred by requiring 

it to present expert testimony. The Board imposed no such 

requirement, merely pointing out that Rovi failed to provide expert testimony that supported a contrary decision. 

The inclusion of such a statement is not error. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1320 

(Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by Aqua 

Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Comcast.