Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-818
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 8,336,772 §
`Formerly Application No.: 13/212,047 §
`Issue Date: December 25, 2012
`§
`Filing Date: August 17, 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. 8,336,772
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1219 Page 00001
`
`
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-818
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§
`Inventor: Hulst et al.
`United States Patent No.: 8,336,772 §
`Formerly Application No.: 13/212,047 §
`Issue Date: December 25, 2012
`§
`Filing Date: August 17, 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. 8,336,772
`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. 8,336,772
`
`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. 8,336,772 (“the
`
`’772 patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1, 5, 8,
`
`and 10 of the ’772 patent (“the challenged claims”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. 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. 8,336,772
`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. 8,336,772
`
`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. 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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`STB is controlled by a head end management computer, which executes so called
`
`“conditional access system” (CAS) computer programs, as to which content
`
`(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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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
`
`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
`
`1 See: http://www.dcimovies.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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. Attached as a part of Appendix A are further
`
`details about relevant projects.
`
`10. The technologies of the ’772 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
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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 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 ’772 PATENT
`15. The ’772 patent, entitled “Data Storage and Access Systems,” issued on
`
`December 25, 2012, to assignee Smartflash Technologies Limited and named
`
`inventors Patrick Racz and Hermen-ard Hulst. The ’772 patent purports to cover
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`“[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 ’772 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, 5, 8, and 10 of the ’772 patent and reviewed the
`
`File History of the ’772 patent (Ex. 1209).
`
`17. The ’772 patent issued from application number 13/212,047, which was
`
`filed on August 17, 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 a preliminary
`
`amendment noting that “[t]his continuation application presents claims that are
`
`similar in scope to claims originally presented in other cases in the family,” and stating
`
`that “the Examiner should be aware that the claims presented herein may be similar to
`
`at least some of the claims prosecuted in the related cases, and the Examiner might
`
`want to consider art cited in these cases for relevance.” (Ex. 1209, 8/17/2011
`
`Amend., at 2).
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`19. On March 16, 2012, Applicants filed a Petition to Change Order of
`
`
`
`Names of Joint Inventors in the Heading of the Patent Application under 37 CFR
`
`1.182. The order of the inventors was changed to list Patrick S. Racz first, followed
`
`by Hermen-ard Hulst. (Ex. 1209, 3/16/2012 Petition, at 1-2). The Office of
`
`Petitions granted the petition to change the order of the names of the inventors on
`
`May 23, 2012. (Ex. 1209, 5/23/2012 Decision on Petition).
`
`20. The Examiner considering the application leading to the ’772 patent
`
`issued a first non-final office action rejecting claims 1-39 on July 12, 2012. The
`
`Examiner rejected claims 1-36 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting over claims of U.S. Patent 7,334,720. (Ex. 1209, 7/12/2012 OA, at
`
`3). In rejecting these claims, the Examiner noted that the claims of the ’720 patent
`
`recite the following features:
`
`- a mobile data access terminal (claims 3, 12, and 13)
`
`- a non-volatile data memory (claim 1)
`
`- a program store (claim 3)
`
`- a processor (claim 3)
`
`- a user interface (claims 1, 3)
`
`- a display (displaying to the user, claim 1)
`
`- code to request identifier data (claims 1, 5, 7)
`
`- code to receive identifier data (claims 1, 5, 7, 18)
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`- code to display one or more item (claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 17)
`
`- code to receive user selection (user’s request for access to content data; user’s inputs;
`
`claims 1, 8, 11, 17)
`
`- code to receive payment validation (claims 3, 4, 14, 15)
`
`- code to control access data (claims 1, 8)
`
`(Ex. 1209, 7/12/2012 OA, at 3-4). The Examiner stated that “claims 1-35 [sic] of this
`
`instant application are the combination of various features that have been recited in
`
`the claims of the ’720 patent and would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in
`
`the art.” (Ex. 1209, 7/12/2012 OA, at 4).
`
`21. The Examiner also rejected subsequently cancelled application claims
`
`37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,682,027
`
`(“the Bertina patent”). (Ex. 1209, 7/12/2012 OA, at 6-7). Claims 37-39 related to a
`
`portable data carrier comprising at least an interface for reading and writing data from
`
`and to the carrier, a non-volatile data memory for storing data on the carrier, and a
`
`non-volatile payment data memory for providing payment data to an external device.
`
`22. On October 11, 2012, Applicants filed a reply to the office action
`
`canceling claims 37-39, along with a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double
`
`patenting rejection. Applicant noted that an Examiner interview was conducted on
`
`October 10, 2012, during which it was agreed that filing a terminal disclaimer and
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`cancelling application claims 37-39 would put the application in condition for
`
`allowance. (Ex. 1209, 10/11/2012 Amend., at 14).
`
`23. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability on October 30, 2012. The
`
`Examiner stated that “the prior art fails to disclose a handheld device having a
`
`memory, a program store, a processor, a user interface, a display and wherein
`
`processor control code comprises the codes having the functions and characteristics
`
`as recited in claim 1,” and also “fails to disclose the limitations of application claims 8,
`
`14, 19, 25, 30, 35, and 36.”
`
`III. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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. 1209, (’772 patent) at col. 1, lns. 23-25)—would have had
`
`at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`telecommunications related field, and at least three years of industry experience that
`
`included client-server data/information distribution and management architectures.
`
`26. 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
`
`27.
`
`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
`(claims 1, 5, 8, 10)
`
`“supplementary data”
`(claim 5)
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“data representing payment made for
`requested content data” and distinct from
`“access control data”
`
`“advertising data, customer reward
`management data, and/or hot links to web
`sites”
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`V.
`STATE OF THE ART
`28. 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
`
`29.
`
` 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.
`
`30.
`
`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
`
`
`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. 8,336,772
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`31. 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
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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.”).
`
`32. 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
`
`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.”).
`
`33.
`
`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.,
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`34. U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992, entitled “Assembly, distribution, and use of
`
`
`
`digital information” filed on September 23, 1993 and issued on July 8, 1997, to
`
`Ronald J. Subler and Thomas Mark Hastings and assigned to Digital Delivery, Inc.
`
`(“the Subler patent” or “Subler,” filed) discloses a system that provides an interactive
`
`graphical interface to a user to browse hierarchically organized items that are available
`
`for purchasing or installing. See Ex. 1236, col. 1, lns. 32-41. The system provides a
`
`user with a search functionality through which the user browses available content, for
`
`example content on a CD-ROM. See id. col. 12, lns. 40-46. When the user performs a
`
`search, the user’s device executes code to retrieve information regarding the available
`
`content items and present the retrieved information to the user in an interactive
`
`windowed graphical user interface. See id. col. 4, lns. 49-54; col. 5, lns. 26-30. The
`
`Subler patent will be discussed in more detail below and in Appendix D, and that
`
`discussion is incorporated here by reference.
`
`35.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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
`
`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. The Poggio patent application will be discussed in more detail
`
`below and in Appendix D, and that discussion is incorporated here by reference.
`
`36.
`
`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 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. 1218, 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.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 00020
`
`
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1218, 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.”);
`
`id. at 7 (“The Content Provider provides digital contents in encrypted form being
`
`distributed by the Content Distributor. The Key Management System holds
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
