Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-816
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 7,942,317 §
`Formerly Application No.: 12/014,558 §
`Issue Date: May 17, 2011
`§
`Filing Date: January 15, 2008
`§
`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. 7,942,317
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1217 Page 00001
`
`
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-816
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 7,942,317 §
`Formerly Application No.: 12/014,558 §
`Issue Date: May 17, 2011
`§
`Filing Date: January 15, 2008
`§
`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. 7,942,317
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1217 Page 00001
`
`
`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, declare as follows:
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`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. 7,942,317 (“the
`
`’317 patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to consider the validity of claim 18 of
`
`the ’317 patent (“the challenged claim”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 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. 7,942,317
` 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. 7,942,317
`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. 7,942,317
`(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. 7,942,317
`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. 7,942,317
`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 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. 7,942,317
`distribution entities in those areas. Attached as a part of Appendix A are further
`
`details about relevant projects.
`
`10. The technologies of the ’317 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, 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
`
`University in 1979, respectively. I also completed the Executive Program for
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`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 ’317 PATENT
`15. The ’317 patent, entitled “Data Storage and Access Systems,” issued on
`
`May 17, 2011, to assignee Smartflash Technologies Limited and named inventors
`
`Patrick Racz and Hermen-ard Hulst. The ’317 patent purports to cover “[d]ata
`
`storage and access systems . . . for 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 ’317
`
`patent, at Abstract. The alleged invention applies classical client-server models in a
`
`multi-stage architecture that revolves around appliances and methods for loading data
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`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 claim 18 of the ’317 patent and reviewed the File History
`
`of the ’317 patent (Ex. 1207). That claim is drawn to “[a] method of providing data to
`
`a data requester” and recites the steps of:
`
`receiving a request for a data item from the requester;
`
`receiving payment data from the requester relating to payment for the
`requested data;
`
`transmitting the requested data to the requester; and
`
`transmitting data access rule data to requester with the read data.
`
`See Ex. 1201 at cl. 18.
`17. The ’317 patent issued from application number 12/014,558 which was
`
`filed on January 15, 2008. This application issued from a chain of applications
`
`claiming priority to United Kingdom application no. 9925227.2, filed October 25,
`
`1999.
`
`18. Applicants filed a preliminary amendment on September 5, 2008 to
`
`remove multiple dependencies. (Ex. 1207, 9/5/2008 Amend., at 16).
`
`19. The Examiner considering the application leading to the ’317 patent
`
`issued a Restriction Requirement on January 21, 2010. The Examiner stated that the
`
`filed claims were drawn to four inventions that were “related as product and process
`
`of use.” (Ex. 1207, 1/21/2010 OA, at 2). The Examiner defined Group I as “drawn
`
`to a method of providing portable data,” Group II as “drawn to a portable data
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`carrier,” Group III as “drawn to a method and an apparatus of controlling access to
`
`data,” and Group IV as “drawn to a system controlled by data bearing records.” (Ex.
`
`1207, 1/21/2010 OA, at 2).
`
`20. Applicants
`
`filed an amendment
`
`responsive
`
`to
`
`the Restriction
`
`Requirement on June 18, 2010. Applicants elected to prosecute the claims designated
`
`as Group IV in the Restriction Requirement (claims 24-34, 63-66, and 69-72) and
`
`cancelled the remaining claims (1-23, 35-57, 59-62, and 67-68) without traverse. (Ex.
`
`1207, 6/18/2010 Amend., at 7).
`
`21. On July 27, 2010, Applicants filed a Request for Correction of Inventive
`
`Entity under 37 CFR 1.48(b). Applicants removed named inventor Hermen-ard
`
`Hulst, stating that he was “originally properly included as an inventor in the parent
`
`application,” but his “contribution...is not being claimed in this application (Ex. 1207,
`
`7/27/2010 Request, at 1).
`
`22. The Examiner issued a non-final office action on September 1, 2010.
`
`The Examiner rejected application claims 31, 33-34, 63, 65-66, and 71-72 on the
`
`ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims of U.S. Patent
`
`7,334,720. (Ex. 1207, 9/1/2010 OA, at 3). The Examiner recited application claim 3
`
`of the ’720 patent to reject pending claim 31, cited to claim 3 of the ’720 patent to
`
`reject pending claims 33, 62, 65, and 72, and cited to claims 2-3 of the ’720 patent to
`
`reject pending claims 34 and 66. (Ex. 1207, 9/1/2010 OA, at 3-4). The Examiner
`
`allowed application claims 24-30 and 69-71 and objected to claims 32 and 64 as being
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`dependent upon a rejected base claim. (Ex. 1207, 9/1/2010 OA, at 6-7). In allowing
`
`these claims, the Examiner stated that “The prior art fails to disclose a computer
`
`system for providing data to a data requester comprising: (i) a computer interface, (ii)
`
`a data access data store; (iii) a program store; (iv) a processor; (vi) a code to receive a
`
`request; (vii) a code to receive payment data; (viii) a code to read data; (ix) a code to
`
`transmit the read data; and having the functions and characteristics as recited in claim
`
`24.” (Ex. 1207, 9/1/2010 OA, at 7).
`
`23. On November 8, 2010, Applicants filed a reply to the office action along
`
`with a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection. Applicants
`
`also amended claims 63, 69, and 70 “to correct non-substantive typographical errors.”
`
`(Ex. 1207, 11/8/2010 Amend., at 7).
`
`24. On November 8, 2010, Applicants also filed a Petition to Change Order
`
`of Names of Joint Inventors in the Heading of the Patent Application under 37 CFR
`
`1.182. Applicants stated that “based on the pending claims” both Patrick S. Racz and
`
`Hermen-ard Hulst “should be listed as inventors on the present application. Only the
`
`order of inventors should be changed.” The order of the inventors was changed to
`
`list Patrick S. Racz first, followed by Hermen-ard Hulst. (Ex. 1207, 11/8/2010
`
`Petition, at 1-2). The Office of Petitions granted the petition to change the order of
`
`the names of the inventors on February 24, 2011. (Ex. 1207, 2/24/2011 Decision of
`
`Petition).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`25. On December 8, 2010, the previously-filed Terminal Disclaimer was
`
`disapproved because the individual who signed the terminal disclaimer did not have
`
`power of attorney. Applicants filed a second terminal disclaimer, along with a Power
`
`of Attorney and Statement under 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(b), on January 14, 2011.
`
`26. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on March 29, 2011. The
`
`Examiner provided the same reasons for allowance as provided in the non-final office
`
`action (Ex. 1207, 3/29/2011 Notice, at 2).
`
`III. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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 (’317 patent) at col. 1, lns. 18-21)—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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`29. 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.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume
`
`30.
`
`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 18)
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“data representing payment made for
`requested content data” and distinct from
`“access control data”
`
`V.
`STATE OF THE ART
`31. By Smartflash’s claimed priority date of October 25, 1999, the elements
`
`of the challenged claim were all well-known in the art 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`32. Years before the October 25, 1999 priority date claimed by Smartflash,
`
`the electronic sale and distribution of digital products, as well as content protection
`
`for digital products were well-known. Further, the concept of providing access to
`
`data in exchange for payment as well-known.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`1204, 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
`
`
`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. 7,942,317
`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
`
`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. 1204 Abstract; col. 2, ln. 65-
`
`col. 3, ln. 23.
`
`34. 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. 1219, 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.”).
`
`35. 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
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`of digital audio and digital video. See, e.g., Ex. 1205, 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
`
`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.”).
`
`36.
`
`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. 1209, 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
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`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
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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. 1213,
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`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
`
`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. And like Stefik—described below—Poggio receives and process
`
`data requests from client devices and execute the requests in cooperation with
`
`payment and billing servers that charge users for the requested data. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1213, the Poggio patent application, at Abstract (“The virtual vending machine
`
`provides vendors with the capability of establishing a particular vending service that
`
`includes point-of-sale electronic payment and a means to communicate with the client
`
`computers to which licensed electronic data has been distributed.”); col. 2, lns. 17-20
`
`(“The present invention pertains to a virtual vending machine which manages a
`
`comprehensive electronic vending service for the distribution of licensed electronic
`
`data over a distributed computer system.”); col. 2, lns. 32-36 (“The virtual vending
`
`machine provides the vendors with a mechanism to market, to distribute, to receive
`
`payment for the vendors electronic data, and to communicate with the users of the
`
`vendor’s electronic data with minimal intervention by the vendor.”).
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`Similarly, a 1997 IEEE article, “The Secure Distribution of Digital
`
`38.
`
`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 software or multimedia
`
`data have to couple the use of the provided digital goods with a prior payment for the
`
`goods in a way which cannot be bypassed.” See Ex. 1216, the von Faber article, at 1.
`
`The von Faber article sets forth a proposal for a system in which encrypted contents
`
`are distributed and customers purchase keys required to utilize that encrypted content.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1216, the von Faber article, at 7 (“The basic idea of one possible solution
`
`is to distribute the contents in encrypted form, and to have the customer pay for the
`
`key which he needs to trans
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
