`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-815
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 8,061,598 §
`Formerly Application No.: 13/012,541 §
`Issue Date: November 22, 2011
`§
`Filing Date: January 24, 2011
`§
`Former Group Art Unit: 2887
`§
`Former Examiner: Thien M. Le
`§
`
`For: Data Storage and Access Systems
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD
`PATENT REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,061,598
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1219 Page 00001
`
`
`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, declare as follows:
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Anthony Wechselberger. I am the President of Entropy
`
`Management Solutions (EMS), a consulting company I founded in 1999. I have been
`
`retained by Apple Inc. to provide assistance regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 (“the
`
`’598 patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1, 2, 7,
`
`15, and 31 of the ’598 patent (“the challenged claims”). I have personal knowledge of
`
`the facts and opinions set forth in this declaration, and, if called upon to do so, I
`
`would testify competently thereto.
`
`2. My areas of expertise include broadcast and broadband content
`
`distribution networks and communications infrastructures (Internet, broadcast, cable,
`
`satellite and wireless mediums) including one-way and two-way interactive
`
`architectures, computer networks, communications systems technologies and
`
`equipment, various content and information distribution and merchandizing channels,
`
`digital television, digital cinema, interactive media/multimedia systems, Internet
`
`technologies (including but not limited to delivering content via the Internet,
`
`communications standards and protocols), digital rights management (DRM), physical
`
`media and file based and streaming content delivery, and other areas of expertise
`
`relevant to the technologies of this matter. Attached hereto as Appendix A is a true
`
`and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae describing my background and experience.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions
`
`3.
`
`(“EMS”), a position I have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this
`
`capacity I perform consulting services related to technology and business
`
`development, content management, distribution and merchandizing, systems
`
`engineering and product design in the areas of industrial and consumer broadband
`
`and multimedia technologies and associated commercial systems.
`
`4.
`
`I have forty years of experience working with high technology systems
`
`related to military, commercial, and consumer communication systems and networks.
`
`I have held various design, leadership and executive positions in, for example,
`
`engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and product management at leading
`
`companies in those fields, such as TV/COM International, Inc. (TV/COM) and Oak
`
`Communications, Inc. Over many years I have published and/or presented a number
`
`of articles and papers related to content/information creation,
`
`transmission/distribution and reception/consumption in various media sectors,
`
`including cable, satellite, broadcast/wireless, Internet and digital cinema. Attached as
`
`part of Appendix A is a list of my publications.
`
`5.
`
`I specialize in the areas of digital communications technologies, systems
`
`and networks, including infrastructures, signal processing, network management and
`
`command and control, and information security as used for content management,
`
`merchandizing and delivery. My background includes much experience with
`
`interactive and client-server technologies, such as those used in broadband and
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`Internet networks. “Network management and command and control” refers to the
`
`technical oversight and management of communication systems and equipment
`
`within a distribution system to direct both the transmission equipment (e.g., network
`
`infrastructures, servers, hubs, nodes, head ends and uplinks etc.) and receiving
`
`equipment (e.g., personal computer, television, set top box, handset/mobile device or
`
`other consumer appliance) as to communications, applications and set-up and
`
`operation in order to perform required features and functions. The “required features
`
`and functions” of course includes the managed delivery of content over a network
`
`from content suppliers to content consumers according to specified constraints—
`
`which in digital delivery systems is commonly referred to as Digital Rights
`
`Management (DRM).
`
`6.
`
`As a Vice President at Oak Communications (1980s) and Chief
`
`Technology Officer at TV/COM (1990s), I was involved in the development of
`
`terrestrial broadcast, satellite uplink and cable head end industrial equipment for
`
`television transmissions, as well as consumer appliance equipment such as set top
`
`boxes (STB) and other home based or home networked devices. All of these
`
`architectures included computer control systems for network and associated network
`
`device command and control, and for management of content distribution and
`
`consumer appliance functions. These systems are all “addressable,” meaning that the
`
`STB is controlled by a head end management computer, which executes so called
`
`“conditional access system” (CAS) computer programs, as to which content
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`(programs and/or networks) is accessible by the consumer via the STB. CAS
`
`technology is a form of DRM applied to real-time content delivery and consumption
`
`systems such as those used in the pay television industries.
`
`7.
`
`I was involved from the start with the development and evolution of
`
`modern consumer digital audio and video communications systems and technologies.
`
`In 1991, my employer, TV/COM, and I began to participate in the International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO) MPEG-2 digital television standards
`
`initiatives, and in the following year, in both the both the European Digital Video
`
`Broadcast (DVB) and U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) forums
`
`(which were based upon MPEG-2). I was an active participant and contributor to the
`
`first two standard-setting bodies, and was a voting member of the ATSC. As Chief
`
`Technology Officer of TV/COM, I developed a business strategy based on
`
`supporting open international standards for digital television (DTV). In the mid
`
`1990s, as the technologies and standards in support of DTV moved towards
`
`implementation, the dawn of the Internet age arrived. This had a dramatic impact on
`
`the way broadband systems engineers like me began to plan for the future. This is
`
`because the concept of convergence—the melding of traditional broadband
`
`communications systems and equipment, computers and computer networks, and the
`
`telecommunications worlds—was changing the communications infrastructure and
`
`technology landscape. When television distribution went all-digital, the information
`
`of television became simply “data”— and it became possible for the technologies of
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`digital television, computers and computer networks and the telephony industry
`
`(which was in the midst of its transition to digital infrastructure that began in the
`
`1970s) to coalesce. Support for on-line and Internet services demanded a high
`
`performance two-way data transmission capability, and so broadband network
`
`providers began to upgrade their distribution infrastructures accordingly.
`
`8.
`
`In conjunction with this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief Technology
`
`Officer I directed the expansion of our network products into broadband data
`
`communications generally, from an initial focus on digital television. Networks
`
`became more advanced in order to support real-time interaction between consumers
`
`and information sources within the network. Interactive and on-line applications led
`
`to rapid adoption of client-server information access approaches (typical of the
`
`computer industry) in the products and technologies I worked with for content
`
`delivery and network command and control functions. Starting in the early 1990s the
`
`ubiquitous set top box began to evolve from a minimalist appliance towards its
`
`current status as a communications hub of the consumer’s media room. In this same
`
`time period, the PC had also become a ubiquitous consumer appliance, and with the
`
`Internet age came much innovation in electronic information distribution and
`
`electronic merchandizing – that is, technology related to complementing physical
`
`information media and brick and mortar institutions with all-electronic digital
`
`alternatives. This was an explosive period of so called digital rights management
`
`(“DRM”) —the management and control of the distribution and consumption of
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`digital content in electronic systems, which I will discuss in more detail below. I and
`
`TV/COM were part of this evolution until TV/COM was purchased in 1999.
`
`9.
`
`In my consulting work I have continued to work with technologies,
`
`systems, and network infrastructures for content distribution, management, and
`
`control, i.e., DRM. My current work involves both traditional and newly developing
`
`architectures and distribution channels. As an example of the latter, I am the chief
`
`security systems architect on behalf of the six major Hollywood studios for their
`
`“Digital Cinema Initiatives” (DCI) consortium.1 DCI develops and evolves the
`
`specifications for transitioning first run theatrical movie releases from film to digital
`
`for distribution and exhibition display. I am responsible for all elements of command
`
`and control and digital rights management (DRM) for digital cinema system design
`
`and implementation. I also represent DCI at the Society of Motion Picture and
`
`Television Engineers (SMPTE), which is developing the set of internationally
`
`recognized standards for global adoption of digital cinema. The migration to all-
`
`digital distribution impacts other content distribution channels such as early window
`
`release for hospitality, airplane and cable/satellite video-on-demand (VOD), as well as
`
`newer so called “over-the-top” distribution channels based on Internet distribution. I
`
`have also been a strategy and technology consultant to content management and
`
`
`1 See: http://www.dcimovies.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`distribution entities in those areas. Attached as a part of Appendix A are further
`
`details about relevant projects.
`
`10. The technologies of the ’598 patent and its family relate generally to
`
`apparatus, systems and methods to download content over a network from a source
`
`location to a data carrier storage device via an intermediary device called a data access
`
`terminal. The terminal serves the role of qualifying the downloading to confirmation
`
`of a payment process, after which content on the data carrier can be consumed by a
`
`user via a rendering device. This involves methods and technologies to collect (select
`
`or source), distribute and deliver content to consumers, who interact with supplied
`
`information and supporting network infrastructure in real time. My experience with
`
`these types of systems and technologies for conditioned distribution and access to
`
`content stretches from the late 1970s (long before the term “DRM” was coined) until
`
`today, inclusive of similar network architectures, interactive systems and equipment,
`
`and associated consumer appliances.
`
`11. My consulting practice today includes a balance of technology and
`
`systems engineering services and assistance to the legal community as a technology
`
`consultant and/or expert witness. I have been accepted to provide, and have
`
`provided expert testimony in the areas of multimedia technologies and associated
`
`networks as used for content management and delivery on many occasions.
`
`12.
`
`I have a Bachelors degree and a Master’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, conferred by the University of Arizona in 1974 and San Diego State
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`University in 1979, respectively. I also completed the Executive Program for
`
`Scientists and Engineers at the University of California at San Diego in 1984. I am a
`
`named inventor on two patents, U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020, “Multi-layer Encryption
`
`System for the Broadcast of Encrypted Information,” and U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440,
`
`“Universal Decoder.”
`
`13. A listing of testimony that I have provided in the last six years is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix B. I am being compensated for my time spent in
`
`connection with this case at a flat rate of $325 per hour (plus expenses). I am being
`
`paid regardless of the facts I know or discover and/or the conclusions or opinions I
`
`reach. I have no personal interest or financial stake in the outcome of this case.
`
`14.
`
`In preparing my opinions I have considered the materials itemized in
`
`Appendix C.
`
`II. THE ’598 PATENT
`15. The ’598 patent, entitled “Data Storage and Access Systems,” issued on
`
`November 22, 2011, to assignee Smartflash Technologies Limited and named
`
`inventors Patrick Racz and Hermen-ard Hulst. The ’598 patent purports to cover
`
`“[d]ata storage and access systems [that] enable downloading and paying for data such
`
`as audio and video data, text, software, games and other types of data.” See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1201, the ’598 patent, at Abstract. The alleged invention applies classical client-server
`
`models in a multi-stage architecture that revolves around appliances and methods for
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`loading data into a memory storage device generally referred to as a data carrier. The
`
`user can then access the data subject to certain conditions.
`
`16.
`
`I have analyzed claims 1, 2, 7, 15, and 31 of the ’598 patent and reviewed
`
`the File History of the ’598 patent (Ex. 1224).
`
`17. The ’598 patent issued from application number 13/012,541, which was
`
`filed on January 24, 2011. This application issued from a chain of applications
`
`claiming priority to United Kingdom application no. 9925227.2, filed October 25,
`
`1999.
`
`18. Along with the application, Applicants also filed remarks noting that
`
`“[t]his continuation application presents claims that are substantially similar in scope
`
`to claims originally presented in parent case 11/336,758, and in some cases presented
`
`again in parent case 12/014,558.” Applicants further stated that “the Examiner
`
`should be aware that the claims presented herein may be similar to at least some of
`
`the claims prosecuted in the parent cases, and the Examiner might want to consider
`
`art cited in the parent for relevance” and also “might want to look to the Office
`
`Actions in the parent cases.” (Ex. 1224, 1/24/2011 Comm., at 2).
`
`19. On February 24, 2011, Applicants filed a preliminary amendment “to
`
`correct a minor typographical error,” changing the word “mobile” to “module” in
`
`several claims. (Ex. 1224, 2/24/2011 Amend., at 9).
`
`20. The Examiner issued a non-final office action rejecting application
`
`claims 1-9, 11, 15-18, and 21-41, and objecting to claims 10, 12-14, 19, and 20 on
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`April 14, 2011. The Examiner rejected claims application 1-8, 21-22, and 31-37 on
`
`the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims of U.S.
`
`Patent 7,334,720. (Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 3). The examiner rejected application
`
`claims 1, 21, and 31-37 in view of claims 1 and 3 of the ’720 patent, stating that “they
`
`collectively recit[e] all essential elements of [these] claims:
`
` (i) an interface for reading and writing data (see claim 3 of the ’720 patent)
`
` (ii) content data memory (claim 1)
`
` (iii) use rule memory to store one or more rules (claim 1)
`
` (iv) a program store storing code (claim 3)”
`
`(Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 3). The other pending claims were rejected in view of
`
`claims 1, 2, 3, and/or 7 of the ’720 patent. (Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 4-5).
`
`21. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 11, 15-17, 18, 23-30, and 38-41 on the
`
`ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims of U.S. Patent
`
`7,334,720 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,156 (“the Stademann patent”). (Ex. 1224,
`
`4/14/2011 OA, at 7). The Examiner stated that these claims differ from claim 1 “in
`
`calling for the SIM module” but that “this claim limitation is not new. Reference to
`
`Stademann is cited an evident [sic] for using a SIM card and a mobile phone unit as a
`
`payment transaction device.” (Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 7). The Examiner noted
`
`that “[t]he modification merely extends the applications of ’720 patent invention to
`
`other environments wherein a SIM module is required; and thus also improve [sic]
`
`versatility of the mobile device.” (Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 7). In rejecting claims
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`15-17, the Examiner further noted that “Stademann teaches the use of PIN,
`
`encryption for protecting the credit transactions.” (Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 8).
`
`22. Claims 10, 12-14, and 19-20 were deemed allowable but objected to as
`
`being dependent upon a rejected base claim. (Ex. 1224, 4/14/2011 OA, at 8). The
`
`Examiner remarked that the prior art did not disclose “a portable data carrier
`
`comprising a rule memory, a status memory, content data memory and further
`
`comprising the features of claims 10, 12-14, and 19-10.”
`
`23. On May 20, 2011, Applicants filed a reply to the non-office action along
`
`with a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
`
`24. Applicants filed a Petition to Change Order of Names of Joint Inventors
`
`in the Heading of the Patent Application under 37 CFR 1.182 on June 8, 2011. The
`
`order of the inventors was changed to list Patrick S. Racz first, followed by Hermen-
`
`ard Hulst. (Ex. 1224, 6/8/2011 Petition, at 1). The Office of Petitions granted the
`
`petition to change the order of the names of the inventors on June 21, 2011. (Ex.
`
`1224, 6/21/2011 Decision on Petition).
`
`25. On August 5, 2011, the Examiner issued a final rejection rejecting claims
`
`1-9, 11, 15-18, and 21-41, and objecting to claims 10, 12-14, 19, and 20. The
`
`previously-filed Terminal Disclaimer was disapproved because the person who signed
`
`the terminal disclaimer did not have power of attorney. (Ex. 1224, 8/5/2011 OA, at
`
`2). The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11, 15-18, and 21-41, and objected to claims 10,
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`12-14, 19, and 20, for the same reasons provided in the non-final office action issued
`
`on April 14, 2011. (Ex. 1224, 8/5/2011 OA, at 3-8).
`
`26. Also on August 5, 2011, Applicants filed a Power of Attorney and
`
`Statement under 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(b).
`
`27.
`
`In response to the final office action, Applicants filed an amendment
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 and a second terminal disclaimer on August 16, 2011.
`
`Applicants noted the previously-filed Power of Attorney and Statement under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 3.73(b). (Ex. 1224, 8/16/2011 Amend., at 2).
`
`28. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on September 12, 2011.
`
`The Examiner stated that “[t]he prior art fails to disclose a portable data carrier
`
`comprising: (i) an interface for reading and writing data; (ii) a content data memory;
`
`(iii) a use rule memory; (iv) a program store; and having the functions and
`
`characteristics as recited in claim 1. The prior art also fails to disclose the limitations
`
`of claims 18, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31 and 35.” (Ex. 1224, 9/12/2011 Notice, at 2).
`
`29. On September 20, 2011, Applicants filed an Amendment After
`
`Allowance Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312. Claim 26 was amended “to correct the
`
`inadvertent typographical errors of reciting a semicolon instead of a period at the end
`
`of the claim, and improperly formatting the claim such that the word ‘and’
`
`inadvertently appeared at the beginning of the last element instead of at the end of the
`
`prior element.” (Ex. 1224, 9/20/2011 Amend., at 9). Claim 29 was amended “to
`
`correct the inadvertent typographical error of failing to recite the word ‘and’ between
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`the last to elements to formally tie the elements together.” (Ex. 1224, 9/20/2011
`
`Amend., at 9). These amendments were entered on October 19, 2011.
`
`III. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`30.
`
`level of skill in the art include the level of education and experience of persons
`
`working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; and the
`
`sophistication of the technology.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the
`
`technology of the asserted patents at the time at which the patents were filed —the
`
`field of “data storage and access systems,” including the use of a “portable data carrier
`
`for storing and paying for data and to computer systems for providing access to data
`
`to be stored” (see, e.g.¸ Ex. 1201 at col. 1, lns. 20-23)—would have had at least a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a
`
`telecommunications related field, and at least three years of industry experience that
`
`included client-server data/information distribution and management architectures.
`
`32. As I described in the discussion of my background beginning at
`
`paragraph 3 above, I have had decades of experience with computer based content/
`
`information distribution networks, which included mixtures of consumer and
`
`industrial equipment. As of October 25, 1999, I would have qualified as one of skill
`
`in art according to the above definition.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume
`
`33.
`
`constructions for certain claim terms as presented in the following table. For all
`
`remaining claim terms, I have assumed their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Claim term
`
`“payment data”2
`(Claim 7)
`
`“use rule(s)”
`(Claims 1 and 31)
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“data representing payment made for
`requested content data” and distinct from
`“access control data”
`
`“a rule specifying a condition under which
`access to content is permitted”
`
`V.
`STATE OF THE ART
`34. By Smartflash’s claimed priority date of October 25, 1999, the elements
`
`of the challenged claims were all well-known in the art, and their combination as
`
`claimed was at minimum obvious to a person of ordinary skill.3
`
`2 I understand that the district court construed “payment data” to mean “data that can
`
`be used to make payment for content.” My conclusions regarding invalidity would
`
`not be changed if the Board adopted that construction here.
`
`3 At various points in this declaration I refer to my opinions about the knowledge or
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. All of these opinions should be
`
`understood to refer to the knowledge or understanding of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of October 25, 1999, unless specifically noted otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 00015
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`35. Years before the October 25, 1999 priority date claimed by Smartflash,
`
`the electronic sale and distribution of digital products and content protection for
`
`digital products were well-known. Further, the concept of providing access to data in
`
`exchange for payment as well known.
`
`36.
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806, entitled “Software Distribution
`
`System,” filed on September 4, 1987 and issued on March 12, 1991, to Fred Chernow
`
`and Randy J. Peterson (“Chernow” or “the Chernow patent”), discloses a system and
`
`method for the sale and distribution of digital products by telephone, with a focus on
`
`software, and also discloses content protection for those digital products. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1206, the Chernow patent at Abstract (“A central station distributes software by
`
`telephone. The central station accepts credit card information, transmits an
`
`acceptance code to a caller and then terminates the call. After verifying the credit card
`
`information, the station calls the purchaser back and continues with the transaction
`
`only after receiving the acceptance code.”); col. 1, ln. 67-col. 2, ln. 9 (“It is an object
`
`of this invention to provide a means for selling and distributing protected software
`
`using standard telephone lines for transferring the software from the seller to the
`
`purchaser. Another object of this invention is to permit the purchaser to rent the
`
`protected software for a period of time after which it will self destruct. Another
`
`object of this invention is to permit the purchaser to rent the protected software for a
`
`specific number of runs which would be useful, e.g., if the software were a game.”).
`
`As illustrated above, the Chernow patent also discloses making different types of
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`access available, such as purchase versus rental. Further, the Chernow patent
`
`discloses a Control Transfer Program and a Primary Protection Program that ensure
`
`the computer receiving a downloaded program does not have another program
`
`present that could create unauthorized copies. See Ex. 1206 Abstract; col. 2, ln. 65-col.
`
`3, ln. 23.
`
`37. U.S. Patent No. 4, 878,245, entitled “Control and Metering System for
`
`Pay Television Over a Cable Network,” filed January 22, 1987 and issued October 31,
`
`1989, to Graham C. Bradley et al. (“Bradley” or “the Bradley patent”), discloses a
`
`system for pay television. See, e.g., Ex. 1208, the Bradley patent, at Abstract, col. 4 lns.
`
`27-35 (“This apparatus can permit programming to be sold to the subscriber by the
`
`month, by the program, and by the hour of any portion thereof. Payment by the
`
`month is known as Subscription Television. Payment by the program is known as
`
`Pay-per-View. Payment by viewing time is known as Pay-for-Use (PFU) television. It
`
`also permits the Cable Operator to share revenues with independent programming
`
`suppliers sharing some portion of the cable TV distribution system.”).
`
`38. U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734, entitled “Method for Transmitting a Desired
`
`Digital Video or Audio Signal,” filed September 18, 1990 and issued March 2, 1993, to
`
`Arthur R. Hair (“Hair” or “the Hair patent”), discloses a method for electronic sales
`
`of digital audio and digital video. See, e.g., Ex. 1207, the Hair patent, at Abstract (“A
`
`method for transferring desired digital video of digital audio signals”), col. 1, lns. 15-
`
`20 (“The present invention is related to a system and associated method for the
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`electronic sales and distribution of digital audio or digital video signals, and more
`
`particularly, to a system and method which a user may purchase and receive digital
`
`audio or digital video signals from any location which the user has access to
`
`telecommunications lines.”).
`
`39.
`
`In addition, U.S. Patent No. 5,103,392, entitled “System for Storing
`
`History of Use of Programs Including User Credit Data and Having Access by the
`
`Proprietor,” filed on December 5, 1990 and issued on April 7, 1991, to Ryoichi Mori
`
`and assigned to Fujitsu Limited (“Mori” or “the Mori patent”), discloses a method for
`
`storing information about customer use of digital products so that a customer can be
`
`charged according to that use and in accordance with that customer’s credit. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1211, the Mori Patent at col. 1, ln. 64-col. 2, ln. 17 (“In accordance with a
`
`fundamental aspect of the present invention, there is provided a system for storing
`
`data on the history of use of programs, including a data processing apparatus used by
`
`a user and program storage means for storing a program acquired from a proprietor
`
`and program-specific data. The data processing apparatus includes user-specific credit
`
`data storage means for storing data identifying the user of the data processing
`
`apparatus and indicating credit for payment capacity, use time length, or the like of
`
`the user of the data processing apparatus. Also included is use decision means for
`
`determining permission to use the program on the data processing apparatus on the
`
`basis of program-specific data supplied from the program storage means or user-
`
`specific credit data supplied from the user-specific credit data storage means, the use
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`decision means delivering either an affirmative or negative signal corresponding to
`
`results of the decision. Also included is program use history storage means connected
`
`to the use decision means for storing program use history data derived from the
`
`program-specific data or the user-specific credit data.”). The Mori patent’s emphasis
`
`on determining whether a user has permission to access a program and making sure
`
`program providers are compensated for the use of their programs underscores this
`
`existing focus in the art on digital rights management (“DRM”), over eight years
`
`before Smartflash’s claimed October 25, 1999 priority date.
`
`40.
`
`Further, European Patent Application, Publication No. EP0809221A2,
`
`entitled “Virtual vending system and method for managing the distribution, licensing
`
`and rental of electronic data,” listing applicant Sun Microsystems, Inc. and inventors
`
`Andrew A. Poggio and Leo A. Hejza, and published on November 26, 1997
`
`(“Poggio” or “the Poggio patent application”), likewise discloses a “virtual vending
`
`machine” system for the sale and distribution of digital products. See, e.g., Ex. 1215,
`
`the Poggio patent application at Abstract (“A virtual vending machine manages a
`
`comprehensive vending service for the distribution of licensed electronic data (i.e.,
`
`products) over a distributed computer system. . . The virtual vending machine
`
`distributes licenses for the electronic data for the complete product or for
`
`components thereof and for a variety of time frames, including permanent licenses
`
`and rental period licenses. The virtual vending machine provides client computers
`
`with the capability to obtain information regarding the available products and the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`associated license fees and rental periods, to receive the product upon receipt of a
`
`corresponding electronic payment, and to reload the product during the term of the
`
`license.”). Like the Chernow patent, the Poggio patent application discloses different
`
`types of access, including rentals, and re-download capabilities for already-purchased
`
`content. See, e.g., id.
`
`41.
`
`Similarly, a 1997 IEEE article, “The Secure Distribution of Digital
`
`Contents,” by Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Franz-Peter Heider
`
`(“the von Faber article”), recognized in its Introduction that “[e]lectronic commerce
`
`systems dealing with the distribution of digital contents like softw