UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Zynga Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00156
`
`US. Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 Are Anticipated by Higgins (Pat. No. 5,270,922)
`
`2
`
`A.
`
`Higgins discloses “storing programming .. . comprising a computer
`program and a portion to be completed” ................................................. 2
`
`Higgins discloses a “computer program [] operative to complete
`said portion” .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Higgins discloses “prestored data” used to complete the
`programming......................................................................................... 6
`
`Higgins discloses a computer program operative to “select a
`specific datum from said prestored data and place information,
`which results from a processing of said selected datum, into said
`portion to be completed” ...................................................................... 8
`
`Higgins discloses a computer program Operative to “place
`information
`into said portion to be completed” ............................... 9
`
`Higgins discloses a “control signal Operative to cause said
`execution of said computer program” .................................................. 9
`
`Higgins discloses “storing in said control signal two or more
`control instructions with information designating a time period”
`(Claim 4) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`H.
`
`Higgins discloses “said portion to be completed comprises
`generally applicable information” (Claim 6) ..................................... 12
`
`III.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 Are Anticipated by Hedges (Pat. No. 4,33 9,798) .. 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Hedges discloses “prestored data” used to complete the
`programming ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Hedges discloses a “computer program [] operative to complete
`said portion” ........................................................................................ 14
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,860,131 (“the ‘131 patent”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`In
`
`initiating the trial, the Board correctly found that, unless rebutted by the Patent
`
`Owner, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”),
`
`the
`
`applied
`
`references invalidate these claims of the ‘131 patent.
`
`In response, PMC filed a
`
`Motion to Amend the claims of the ‘ 131 patent and a Patent Owner Response.
`
`PMC’s Motion to Amend should be denied as PMC has failed to meet its
`
`burden of showing that the amended claims are patentable over the prior art of
`
`record and those not of record but known to PMC. Further details of the Motion’s
`
`shortcomings are detailed in Petitioner’s Response to PMC’s Motion to Amend.
`
`With respect to the Patent Owner Response, PMC repeatedly argues for
`
`overly narrow claim constructions, unrelated to its Motion to Amend, that are
`
`inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to be applied in
`
`this inter partes review proceeding. In effect, PMC asks the Board to treat the claims
`
`as if they had been amended Without PMC having done so itself. But if PMC had
`
`wanted the claims to be construed more narrowly, then it should have included claim
`
`language in accordance with its narrow claim constructions in its Motion to Amend. As
`
`explained by the Federal Circuit, a Patent Owner’s ability to amend claims to avoid
`
`prior art A which exists in these proceedings pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. §42.121 —
`
`

`

`distinguishes Office proceedings from district court proceedings and justifies the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1572
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`The Board should reject PMC’s requests to improperly import limitations into
`
`the claims via its proposed overly narrow claim constructions. Accordingly, because
`
`PMC has failed to distinguish the claims as written from the cited prior art, the Board’s
`
`institution decision was correct and claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 should be invalidated.
`
`II.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 Are Anticipated by Higgins (Pat. N0. 5,270,922)
`
`A.
`
`Higgins discloses “storing programming
`program and a portion to be completed”
`
`comprising a computer
`
`Higgins discloses a workstation controlled by a computer program for generating
`
`and displaying personalized stock information.
`
`(See Exhibit 1007, Abstract.) An
`
`example of the display is depicted in Figure 2 of Higgins, which contains multiple fields
`
`(e.g., labels 142, 147, 149, 151, 153, and 157), populated with stock data received fi‘om
`
`remote sources (9g, ticker plant 35). The fields are populated under the control of a
`
`computer program stored in ROM 109 or RAM 111 (which may store “programs or
`
`program portions”). (See Exhibit 1007 at 2:18-26, 6:16—24, 8:16-24, Figs. 3—4; Ex. 1012
`
`at W 6-13.)
`
`PMC argues, however,
`
`that Higgins does not disclose the “storing
`
`programming” limitation.
`
`PMC begins by providing an overly narrow construction that would require the
`
`programming be completed “as stored.” (See Response at p. 18). Claim 1 has no such
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`restriction, however, as it merely specifies a step of storing the programming and a
`
`computer program’s operability to “place information
`
`into said portion to be
`
`completed” when executed.
`
`(See Exhibit 1001, Claim 1). Nothing in the claim
`
`language suggests that the “programming” and its “portion to be completed” must
`
`remain “as stored” when being completed by the computer program. PMC’s own
`
`citation to the specification (£26., Exhibit 1001 at 252:11—253:55) shows that the step of
`
`“completing” can be performed as the “programming” and the “information” used for
`
`completing the programming are being outputted.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the specification
`
`describes placing selected audio segments into audio RAM (see Exhibit 1001 at 252:1 l-
`
`14) and calculated prices into video RAM (see id. at 250:54—58), and outputting the
`
`
`stored audio and video while programming Q is simultaneously being outputted (see id.
`
`at 253:17-23, 254:5-17). Thus, absent an explicit amendment to the claim, PMC has no
`
`basis to construe the claim to require the programming be completed “as stored.”
`
`Based on its faulty claim construction, PMC next mischaracterizes Petitioner’s
`
`reading of the “programming” limitation to be confined to I-Iiggins’ display 107 itself
`
`and argues that the display cannot “be a portion of this alleged programming as it is
`
`stored
`
`(See Response at pp. 19-20, emphasis original.) First, as discussed supra,
`
`the claim does not require the programming to be completed “as stored.” Second, the
`
`display itself is the Visual manifestation evidencing a portion of Higgins’ computer
`
`program (“programming”) being completed. (See Ex. 1012 at 1111 8-13.)
`
`

`

`As specifically defined in the ‘131 patent, “[t]he term ‘programming’ refers to
`
`everything that is transmitted electronically to entertain, instruct or inform, including
`
`television, radio, broadcast print, and computer programming as well as combined
`
`medium programming.” (Exhibit 1001 at 6:31-34, emphasis added.) Under this broad
`
`definition, Higgins’ “program or program portions” stored in memory falls squarely
`
`under the definition of “programming.” (See, ag, Exhibit 1007 at 2:18-26.) Higgins’
`
`computer program has the logic and data for producing the empty fields (e.g, field titles
`
`like “Monitor” and “Limit” and the lines separating fields), but requires stock data from
`
`the ticker plant 35 and other sources to populate the fields. To the extent that the fields
`
`in the display are completed using stock data, so too is the computer program that
`
`produces the display being completed. (See Ex. 1012 at W 6-7.)
`
`Moreover, the way Higgins’ computer program satisfies this limitation mirrors
`
`precisely PMC’s infringement read against Zynga. There, PMC asserted the ‘131
`
`patent claims against Zynga’s mobile device games.
`
`(See, e.g., Exhibit 1002 (part 1 of
`
`8) at pgs.
`
`1—3, see also, Exhibit 1013 at pgs. 110-114.) As alleged evidence of
`
`infiingement, PMC took and annotated the following screen shot from a game:
`
`

`

`
`
`(See Exhibit 1002 (part 1 of 8) at pg. 2, see also, Exhibit 1013 at pg. 111.) PMC
`
`explains: “The area highlighted in red indicates the computer program (and portion
`
`to be completed)
`
`stored on the iPod.” (Exhibit 1013 at pgs 110-111.) This is no
`
`different from the computer program (and portion to be completed) stored on
`
`Higgins’ workstation.
`
`B.
`
`Higgins discloses a “computer program [] operative to complete
`said portion”
`
`Higgins discloses a computer program operative to provide user-requested
`
`stock information in the multiple fields shown in Figure 2.
`
`(See, e.g., Exhibit 1007
`
`at 4:60-55, Figs. 3—4.) PMC argues that Higgins only discloses data fields being
`
`“updated,” rather than being “completed.” (See Response at pp. 20-21.) But this
`
`argument is based on an overly narrow interpretation of the term “complete.”
`
`Because the subject being completed in the claim is the “programming” -- which
`
`the specification defines as “everything that is transmitted electronically to entertain,
`
`instruct or inform” (Exhibit 1001 at 6:31-34) — a POSITA reading the claim would
`
`

`

`understand that the programming is completed when every intended information to
`
`“entertain, instruct or inform” is ready to be supplied.
`
`(See Ex. 1012 at W 14-16.)
`
`Using PMC’s example, regardless of whether an out—dated stock price had been
`
`provided at time T1, the current price at time T2 is what the system intends to inform
`
`the user of, and thus the supplying of the current price completes the intended
`
`programing at time T2.
`
`Furthermore, PMC’s reliance on the operations performed at time T2, not T1, to
`
`show “updating” highlights a major flaw in its argument — what happens at time T1,
`
`when no prior stock price was provided? In other words, PMC ignores all the first time
`
`operations, such as the first time a user uses the system, turns on the machine, or
`
`requests for data relating to a new stock.
`
`In each scenario there is no prior data to be
`
`“updated,” so the newly populated data fields must be “completed,” as defined by
`
`PMC. Thus, PMC’s argument is flawed. (See Ex. 1012 at W 17-19.)
`
`C.
`
`Higgins discloses “prestored data” used to complete the
`programming
`
`As depicted in the flow diagram of Figure 4, Higgins’ computer program
`
`accesses “prestored data” such as user limits (at label 312) and ticker criteria (at
`
`label 320) when deciding whether or not to display a particular stock data. PMC
`
`argues, however, that such data is not “prestored” relative to the storing of the
`
`programming.
`
`(See Response at pp. 21-22.) This is again an overly narrow
`
`construction that is not required by the claim. Claim 1 states: “storing programming
`
`

`

`..., said programming comprising
`
`a portion to be completed by accessing
`
`prestored data ....” (Emphasis added.) Because “prestored data” is used in the
`
`immediate context of completing the portion of programming,
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable construction would afford the temporal relation of “prestored data” to be
`
`tied relative to the act of completing the portion of programming.
`
`In other words, a
`
`data is “prestored” if it is stored prior to being used to perform the completion. The
`
`previously mentioned user data (e.g., limits and criteria) are all stored prior to being
`
`used by Higgins’ computer program and therefore are “prestored data.”
`
`(See Ex.
`
`1012 at W 20-21.)
`
`Based on its overly narrow construction, PMC makes the argument that “a
`
`
`user cannot define a user ‘criteria’ before the computer program is stored in
`
`memory and executed.”
`
`(Re5ponse at p. 22, emphasis added.) But during its
`
`litigation against Zynga, PMC broadly interpreted “prestored data” to encompass
`
`data stored after the computer program is stored. Referring to the CityVille screen
`
`shot annotated by PMC, supra, PMC explained: “The area highlighted in green
`
`indicates prestored data...” (Exhibit 1013, pgs. 110-111.) That data, however, can
`
`only be stored on the user’s device after CityVille has been stored. Thus, PMC
`
`itself had more broadly construed this term than it is preposing now.
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Higgins discloses a computer program operative to “select a
`specific datum from said prestored data and place information,
`which results from a processing of said selected datum, into said
`portion to be completed”
`
`In order to deliver the display (ag, Figure 2), Higgins’ computer program
`
`accesses multiple user-created preferences, processes each to determine which stock
`
`information to display, and places the stock information of interest into the display.
`
`(See, e.g., Exhibit 1007 at 8:38—51, Fig. 4; see Ex. 1012 at 111] 22-24.) PMC argues,
`
`however, that Higgins“ process does not
`
`involve selecting and processing of a
`
`“specific datum,” which must not be the entire “prestored data.”
`
`First, the claim does not specify that the selection cannot encompass the
`
`entire prestored data. A POSITA would understand that a subset of a set can be the
`
`entire set.
`
`If PMC wants to add this limitation it should have amended the claim.
`
`(See Ex. 1012 at 11 25.)
`
`Second, PMC forgets that Higgins explicitly states that “m separate display
`
`application (FIG. 2 field or window) has an associated list in RAM ..., i.e., there
`
`
`exists a first list (LRU table) for the 300 most recently requested quotations, a
`
`second list for those securities for whom limits are being maintained, further lists
`
`
`for the ticker presentations, and so forth.”
`
`(Exhibit 1007 at 8:24—33, emphasis
`
`added.) There is also a “limit table” (Exhibit 1007 at 8:64-65) and a set of “criteria”
`
`(Exhibit 1007 at 9:18-22).
`
`All of these lists are the “prestored data,” and
`
`depending on which test is being performed (e.g, step 303, 312, or 320 in Figure 4),
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Higgins “select[s]” and “process[es]” the specific relevant list to determine which
`
`stocks to display. (See Ex. 1012 at 1111 26-29.)
`
`E.
`
`Higgins discloses a computer program operative to “place
`information
`into said portion to be completed”
`
`Higgins” system generates a display with multiple fields, each containing
`
`stock information of interest to the user.
`
`(See, e.g., Exhibit 1007 at 4:60-5:15, Fig.
`
`2.) PMC argues, as it did before, that the claim requires the information to be
`
`“placed into the incomplete portion of the programming in memory.” (Response at
`
`p. 29, emphasis added.) But as discussed in Section ILA supra, neither the claim
`
`language nor the specification supports such claim construction. Moreover, Section
`
`ILA also makes clear that the Petition is not relying only on the outputted display as
`
`the “portion to be completed,” but also the display itself as evidence of the
`
`underlying computer program operations. (See EX. 1012 at 11 30.)
`
`F.
`
`Higgins discloses a “control signal operative to cause said
`execution of said computer program”
`
`Higgins’ computer program can be triggered by either an incoming message
`
`(see, e.g., Figure 4 at label 301) or a keyboard entry (see, e.g., Figure 3 at label
`
`201). With respect to the incoming message being the control signal, PMC argues
`
`that the message cannot be both the “control signal” and “information” used for
`
`completing the programming.
`
`(See Response at p. 30.) But the claim in no way
`
`requires the two functionalities be performed by distinct entities.
`
`(See Ex. 1012 at
`
`

`

`{[1] 31-34.)
`
`Indeed, the ‘131 patent is centered around the use of a single “SPAM
`
`message” to relay both command and information, as depicted in Figure 2E of the
`
`‘131 patent:
`
`rm
`men-mantra?
`EXEcunm
`weaving”
`scanner
`new: war
`rm...
`f—t—r—A__Y—rg.._____‘
`OIOIOOHOIOOOHJH053:00010
`
`COWND
`
`PfiflfllflG
`BITS
`
`Therefore, PMC’S improper claim construction lacks support and merit.
`
`Like SPAM messages, an incoming message in Higgins causes a responsive
`
`action (“control signal”)
`
`in the computer program to perform a number of
`
`operations to determine whether the content of the message (“information”) ought
`
`to be displayed.
`
`(See, eg, Exhibit 1007 at 8:38-93, Fig. 4.) This process enables
`
`the “dynamically updating” of the presentation. (Exhibit 1007 at 8:16-20, emphasis
`
`added.) Thus, the disclosed incoming message performs the role ofa control signal
`
`and contains the information content to be displayed.
`
`PMC next offers several theories as to why keyboard commands (e. g, a
`
`criteria or request for stock information) are not “control signals.” With respect to a
`
`user-entered criterion being the “control signal,” PMC argues that the new criteria is
`
`not “prestored” because it is stored after the storing of the programming.
`
`(See
`
`Response at p. 31.) But as discussed in Section II.C supra, when reasonably
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`construed, the claim is not so limiting—the claim only requires that the data be
`
`stored before being used to complete the programming. (See Ex. 1012 at 1[ 35.)
`
`PMC further argues that Higgins’ embodiment relating to the user-defined
`
`criteria, when applied to claim 1 of the ‘131 patent, would result in the criteria
`
`being both the “control signal” and “prestored data.” That is not the case. The
`
`Board correctly recognized that the user criteria are the claimed “control signal” and
`
`the list(s) of securities identified by the criteria is the claimed “prestored data.”
`
`
`(See Decision at 14.) As Higgins points out, the “criteria, stored in RAM 111, may
`
`specify trades in only a specific enumerated list of securities, trades from specific
`
`exchange! 5), and/or so forth.” (Exhibit 1007 at 4:67—5:1, emphasis added.) Higgins
`
`further makes clear that “[o]ther criteria will be readily apparent. ...” (Exhibit 1007
`
`at 9:29-30.) Thus, a criteria is a “control signal” requiring incoming stocks to
`
`belong to, for example, (1) a list of securities or (2) a list of exchanges, and the
`
`particular enumerated list of securities or exchange is the “prestored data.” The
`
`criteria embodiment, therefore, satisfies both limitations.
`
`(See Ex. 1012 at 111] 36-3 7.)
`
`With respect to the “control signal” being a quote request made through the
`
`keyboard, PMC argues that Higgins does not disclose such a keyboard entry
`
`causing the computer program to execute. To the contrary, such a fiinction is
`
`explicitly disclosed as one of the primary embodiments of Higgins, as depicted in
`
`Figure 3. At step 201,
`
`the user enters a stock symbol of interest, which the
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`computer program treats as a “command message.” (See Exhibit 1007 6:49—61.) In
`
`response to the command, the computer program at step 205 checks the LRU list to
`
`see whether the requested data is locally available, and at step 215 displays the data.
`
`(See id. at 6:52-72.)
`
`Thus, the user keyboard command causes the computer
`
`program to operate as claimed. (See Ex. 1012 at W 38-39.)
`
`G.
`
`Higgins discloses “storing in said control signal two or more
`control instructions with information designating a time period”
`(Claim 4)
`
`Higgins discloses a “QUICK—QUOTE field” that “provides a Quotation for a
`
`particular stock,” which includes “the ti_me_: of the last trade.” (Exhibit 1007 at 5:23—
`
`36, Fig. 2, emphasis added.)
`
`PMC argues that Higgins “does not expressly,
`
`implicitly, or by inherency disclose that
`
`the trading message includes time.”
`
`(Response at p. 37.) But the “QUICK-QUOTE” provides a quotation, which
`
`Higgins explicitly says “is retrieved from the branch RAM 96 (or higher order
`
`computer if necessary....”
`
`(Exhibit 1007 at 7:8-10; see also Abstract, 2:44-47.)
`
`Since the “time of the last trade” is part of the quotation, it must be included in the
`
`trading message. The received quotations are then stored in RAM 111.
`
`(See
`
`Exhibit 1007 at 2:21-25, 3:43-51.) Higgins, therefore, discloses this limitation of
`
`claim 4. (See Ex. 1012 at 111] 40—42.)
`
`H.
`
`Higgins discloses “said portion to be completed comprises
`generally applicable information” (Claim 6)
`
`The display shown in Higgins’ Figure 2 shows multiple instances of
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`“generally applicable information,” such as field headings (9g, “Monitor” or
`
`“Quick = Quote”) and NYSE news in field 142. PMC argues that these cannot be
`
`part of the “portion to be completed” because they are not the result of “processing
`
`of the selected datum.” (See Response at p. 38.) PMC appears to have confused the
`
`claim requirements for “portion to be completed” with that of “information,” which
`
`is what “results from a processing of said selected datum.” (See Exhibit 1001 at
`
`Claim 1.) There is no requirement that the “portion be completed” be processed.
`
`(See Ex. 1012 at 1111 43-44.)
`
`III. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 Are Anticipated by Hedges (Pat. No. 4,339,798)
`
`A.
`
`Hedges discloses “prestored data” used to complete the
`programming
`
`The “program modules” of Hedges’ gaming terminal generate the user
`
`playboard by processing prestored data, such as the “display descriptive table 163”
`
`and “status table 164.” (Exhibit 1008 at 9:10—14, 9:54-57, 9:60-66.) PMC argues
`
`— as it did with Higgins — that the claim requires the “prestored data” to be
`
`“stored prior to the storing of the alleged programming.’
`
`(Response at p. 42,
`
`1
`
`original emphasis.) But as discussed in Section ILC supra, the more reasonable
`
`and broader interpretation of the claim is that the “prestored data” must be stored
`
`prior to being used to complete the programming, which is the interpretation that
`
`PMC adepted in litigation.
`
`If PMC wanted the claim to be narrower in scope, it
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`should have amended the claim to reflect the desired limitations.
`
`(See Ex. 1012 at
`
`W 45—47.)
`
`B.
`
`Hedges discloses a “computer program [] operative to complete
`said portion”
`
`Hedges discloses “program modules” that generate the playboard using data
`
`stored in “status tables 164 which defines the current status of the 'RGT....”
`
`(Exhibit 1008 at 9:60-66.) PMC argues -- as it did with Higgins — that Hedges
`
`does not satisfy the claimed “complete” limitation because the Hedges playboard is
`
`only being updated, and the “process of updating the display
`
`is not completing a
`
`portion of programming...” (Response at p. 43, original emphasis.) PMC further
`
`reasoned that Hedges does not disclose any completion because the displayed
`
`gameboard “is not incomplete at any particular point
`
`in time.”
`
`(Id, emphasis
`
`added.) But under this logic, claim 1 of the ‘ 131 patent would have no specification
`
`support because all the displayed programming (3.3., “Exotic Meals of India”) is
`
`similarly “not incomplete at any particular point in time.
`
`Every viewer of those
`
`33
`
`programming sees the intended completed programming at every instant. Thus, as
`
`discussed in Section II.B supra, the claim language cannot be so limiting as PMC
`
`suggests. (See Ex. 1012 at llll 48-49.)
`
`Rather, a “programming,” which is defined as “everything that is transmitted
`
`electronically to entertain, instruct or inform,” is complete when all the intended content
`
`is present. (Exhibit 1001 at 6:31—34.) What is intended could change at any time. For
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`example, prior to the dice being rolled, a craps playboard is “complete” because it
`
`accurately reflects the intended game state; but the same playboard would no longer be
`
`“complete” after the rolling of the dice since the intended information to be conveyed
`
`has changed. Once the numbers have been rolled, new content reflecting those numbers
`
`must be presented in order for the craps playboard to be complete at that instant.
`
`Without the new dice—roll results, the playboard would be incomplete — whether it was
`
`complete a moment ago is irrelevant. Hedges does so by using “status tables 164
`
`which defines the current status of the RGT....” (Exhibit 1008 at 9:60—66.) Thus,
`
`Hedges’ gaming terminal is constantly “completing” the playboard to reflect the current
`
`game status.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`In view of the above, Petitioner requests that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the
`
`‘ 131 patent be declared invalid.
`
` Date: Janugy 24, 2014
`
`David B. Cochran, Reg. No. 39,142
`Joseph M. Sauer, Reg. No. 47,919
`JONES DAY
`
`North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 441 14
`
`(216) 586-3939
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patth Owner’s Response, along with all exhibits supporting and filed with
`
`the Reply, were served on January 24, 2014 via email to:
`
`Thomas J. Scott, Jr.
`tscott@.goodwinprocter.com
`and
`
`Stephen Schreiner
`sschreiner
`. oodwin roctereo:
`
` Dated: January 24, 2014
`
`

`

`APPENDIX 0F EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`NO.
`
`TITLE
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 (“the Harvey ‘131 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Infringement Contention Claim Charts against Zynga for the
`Harvey ‘131 Patent, Personalized Media Communications, LLC v.
`Zynga, Inc, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-68 (ED. Texas)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpt from the file history of the Harvey ‘ 131 Patent: March 15,
`1999 Supplemental Amendment
`
`Excerpt fiom the file history of the Harvey ‘ 131 Patent: September
`3, 2002 Office Action
`
`Excerpt from the file history of the Harvey ‘ 131 Patent: March 3,
`2003 Amendment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions, Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga,
`Ina, Civil Action No. 2: 12-cv-68 (ED. Texas)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,270,922 (“Higgins”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,339,798 (“Hedges”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,572,509 (“Sitrick”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in
`Su - ort of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`

`

`101 1
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`Appendix to the Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser: Dr.
`Neuhauser’s current curriculum vitae
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Charles J. Neuhauser, PhD. Under 3 7
`C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Excerpt from Expert Report of Mark Claypool, Ph.D., July 19,
`2013, Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Ina,
`Civil Action No. 2: lZ—cv—68 (ED. Texas)
`
`Deposition transcript of Samuel H. Russ, Ph.D. (January 10, 2014)
`
`
`
`