IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-804
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 7,334,720 §
`Formerly Application No.: 11/336,758 §
`Issue Date: February 26, 2008
`§
`Filing Date: January 19, 2006
`§
`Former Group Art Unit: 2876
`§
`Former Examiner: Steven S. Paik
`§
`
`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. 7,334,720
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Smartflash - Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Smartflash
`CBM2015-00029
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-804
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 7,334,720 §
`Formerly Application No.: 11/336,758 §
`Issue Date: February 26, 2008
`§
`Filing Date: January 19, 2006
`§
`Former Group Art Unit: 2876
`§
`Former Examiner: Steven S. Paik
`§
`
`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. 7,334,720
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Smartflash - Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Smartflash
`CBM2015-00029
`
`
`
`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, declare as follows:
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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. 7,334,720 (“the
`
`’720 patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1, 3,
`
`11, 13, 14, and 15 of the ’720 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. 7,334,720
`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
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`interactive and client-server technologies, such as those used in broadband and
`
`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.
`
`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 STBs 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`In conjunction with this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief Technology
`
`
`
`8.
`
`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”), 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 and management. My current work
`
`involves both traditional and newly developing architectures and distribution
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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 distribution entities in those areas.
`
`10. The technologies of the ’720 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
`
`1 See: http://www.dcimovies.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`or source), distribute and deliver content to consumers, who interact with supplied
`
`information and supporting network infrastructure in real time. My experience with
`
`interactive broadband systems and technologies stretches from the late 1970s until
`
`today, inclusive of similar network architectures, 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
`
`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 five 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
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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 ’720 PATENT
`15. The ’720 patent, entitled “Data Storage and Access Systems,” issued on
`
`February 26, 2008, to assignee Smart-Flash Limited and named inventors Hermen-ard
`
`Hulst and Patrick Sandor Racz. The ’720 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. 1101, the ’720 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 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, 3, 11, 13, 14, and 15 of the ’720 patent and
`
`reviewed the File History of the ’720 patent (Ex. 1109).
`
`17. The ’720 patent issued from application number 11/336,758, which was
`
`filed on January 19, 2006. This application issued from a chain of applications
`
`claiming priority to United Kingdom application no. 9925227.2, filed October 25,
`
`1999.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`18. During prosecution of the ’720 patent, the Examiner considering the
`
`
`
`application leading to the ’720 patent issued a Restriction Requirement on August 29,
`
`2006. The Examiner stated that the filed claims were drawn to four inventions that
`
`are “related as product and process of use.” (Ex. 1109, 8/29/2006 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 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. 1109, 8/29/2006 OA at 2).
`
`19. Applicants filed an amendment responsive to the Restriction
`
`Requirement on September 29, 2006. Applicants elected to prosecute the claims
`
`designated as Group III in the Restriction Requirement (claims 22-23, 35-50, and 59-
`
`62) and cancelled the remaining claims (1-21, 24-34, 51-58, and 63-74) without
`
`traverse. (Ex. 1109, 9/29/2006 Amend. at 7).
`
`20. The Examiner issued a first non-final office action on November 6,
`
`2006. The Examiner objected to application claims 41 and 44 for informalities and
`
`rejected claims 35 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 for insufficient antecedent basis
`
`because the term “a processor” was recited twice in application claim 35, and the term
`
`“the card” lacked antecedent basis in application claim 40. (Ex. 1109, 11/6/2006 OA
`
`at 2-33). The Examiner also rejected claims 22, 23, 35-50, and 59-62 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,754,654 (“the Hiroya patent”).
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`21. On February 6, 2007, Applicants filed a reply to the office action
`
`
`
`correcting the informalities and antecedent basis and amending the claims to
`
`overcome the Hiroya patent. Applicants argued that the limitations of amended claim
`
`22 emphasized below are not disclosed by Hiroya:
`
` - receiving a data access request from a user for at least one content item of the
`
`content data stored in the non-volatile data memory;
`
` - reading the use status data and use rules from the parameter memory that
`
`pertain to use of the at least one requested content item;
`
` - reading the use status data and use rules from the parameter memory that
`
`pertain to use of the at least one requested content item;
`
` - reading the use status data and use rules from the parameter memory that
`
`pertain to use of the at least one requested content item;
`
`(Ex. 1109, 2/6/2007 Amend. at 9). With regard to claim 22, Applicants argued that
`
`“Hiroya does not disclose use status data stored separately from associated content
`
`data” and that “as Hiroya discloses only ticket information that can be redeemed, and
`
`not content that can be accessed multiple times, partially used, used at different times,
`
`etc., such that there would be no motivation to include use data with the device of
`
`Hiroya.” (Ex. 1109, 2/6/2007 Amend. at 9-10).
`
`22.
`
`In that same response, Applicants also argued that Hiroya does not
`
`disclose the following emphasized limitations of amended claim 35:
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
` - code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data
`
`supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier; and
`
` - code responsive to the payment validation data to receive at least one
`
`access rule from the data supplier and to write the at least one access rule into
`
`the data carrier, the at least one access rule specifying at least one condition for
`
`accessing the retrieved data written into the data carrier, the at least one
`
`condition being dependent upon the amount of payment associated with the
`
`payment data forwarded to the payment validation system.
`
`(Ex. 1109, 2/6/2007 Amend. at 10). Applicants argued that these limitations are not
`
`disclosed because “Hiroya does not disclose writing separate access rules to an
`
`electronic ticket storage device, particularly where the access rules contain conditions
`
`that are dependent upon an amount of payment. As a ticket is either purchased or
`
`not purchased, and thus validly present or not present on the device, there is no need
`
`to store access rules including conditions based on an amount of payment.” (Ex.
`
`1109, 2/6/2007 Amend. at 10)
`
`23. The Examiner issued a final office action on May 3, 2007. The
`
`Examiner allowed claims 22, 23, and 35-50, and rejected claims 59-62 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the Hiroya patent.
`
`24. On September 4, 2007, Applicants filed a reply to the office action,
`
`canceling claims 59-62 to expedite issuance of the allowed claims. (Ex. 1109,
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`9/4/2007 Amend. at 7-8). Applicant noted that an Examiner interview was
`
`conducted on May 16, 2007, during which the declaration and claims 59-62 were
`
`discussed. (Ex. 1109, 9/4/2007 Amend. at 7).
`
`25. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability on October 5, 2007. The
`
`Examiner stated that the prior art is “silent about the step of evaluating the use status
`
`data using the use rules to determine whether access to the at least one requested
`
`content item stored in the content memory is permitted and displaying to the user
`
`whether access is permitted for each of the at least one requested content item stored
`
`in the data memory.” (Ex. 1109, 10/5/2007 Notice at 2-3). The Examiner further
`
`stated that Hiroya “fails to teach the step of writing at lest [sic] one access rule into
`
`the data carrier, particularly where the access rules contain conditions that are
`
`dependent upon an amount of payment associated.” (Ex. 1109, 10/5/2007 Notice at
`
`3).
`
`III. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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. 1101(the ’720 patent) at col. 1, lns. 5-9)—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.
`
`28. As I described in the discussion of my background beginning at
`
`paragraph 2 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
`
`29.
`
`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
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“payment data”
`(Claims 3, 11, and 13-15)
`
`“supplementary data”
`(Claim 11)
`
`“data representing payment made for
`requested content data” and distinct from
`“access control data”
`
`“advertising data, customer reward
`management data, and hot links to web
`sites”
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`V.
`STATE OF THE ART
`30. 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 also well-known or at minimum obvious to a person of ordinary skill.2
`
`31. Years before the October 25, 1999 priority date claimed by Smartflash,
`
`the 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 was well known.
`
`32.
`
`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 (“the Chernow patent”), discloses a system and method for the
`
`sale and distribution of digital data by telephone, including content protection for the
`
`purchased content. See, e.g., Ex. 1106, 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
`
`
`2 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. 7,334,720
`
`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.”).
`
`33. 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. (“the Bradley patent”), discloses a system for pay
`
`television. See, e.g., Ex. 1107, 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.”).
`
`34. 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
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`Arthur R. Hair (“the Hair patent”), discloses a method for electronic sales of digital
`
`audio and digital video. See, e.g., Ex. 1105, 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.”).
`
`35.
`
`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 (“the Mori patent”), discloses a method for storing
`
`information about customer use so that a customer can be charged according to that
`
`use and in accordance with that customer’s credit. See, e.g., Ex. 1112, 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
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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 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.”).
`
`36.
`
`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 (“the
`
`Poggio patent application”), likewise discloses a content distribution system that
`
`provides for secure transactions and content protection. See, e.g., Ex. 1116, 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
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`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.”). The Poggio patent
`
`application will be discussed in more detail below and in Appendix D, and that
`
`discussion is incorporated here by reference.
`
`37.
`
`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 “Electronic 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. 1120, 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. 1120, the von Faber article, at 1 (“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 transform the encrypted content in an usable form. The
`
`security problem can in this way be transformed into a problem of key distribution.”);
`
`(“The Content Provider provides digital contents in encrypted form being distributed
`
`by the Content Distributor. The Key Management System holds the keys for the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`contents to be decrypted. The Authorisation System permits the distribution of the
`
`appropriate key after settling of the fees payable by the Customer, who will enjoy the
`
`decrypted digital contents. The role of the Content Distributor is not essential for the
`
`subsequent discussion but, of course, for the business to take place.”); see also Ex.
`
`1120, the von Faber article, Fig. 1.
`
`38. The von Faber article recognizes that its system could be used for
`
`different content distribution methods and different payment methods known in the
`
`art. See, e.g., Ex. 1120, the von Faber article, at 22 (“The outlined system has the
`
`following characteristics: Different methods can be used to distribute the encrypted
`
`contents (standard techniques). This includes broadcasting, point-to-point
`
`networking, as well as offering disks. Different electronic payment methods can be
`
`integrated independent from the number of protocol steps needed. This includes
`
`credit card based systems as well as electronic purses. This flexibility leads to the fact
`
`that totally different authorisation methods can be integrated.”).
`
`39.
`
`Further, the von Faber article recognized that the issue of payment
`
`distribution to content providers, such as, royalties, would also need to be addressed.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1120, the von Faber article, at 22 (“The system will support re-selling in a
`
`simple way. Re-sellers can integrate other manufacturer’s products into own packages
`
`without the need of signing any extra contract. The system automatically divides the
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 00020
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 7,334
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
