throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued: December 28, 2010
`Filed: June 7, 1995
`Inventors: John Christopher Harvey, et al.
`Assignee: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, Ph.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R.§ 1.68
`
`I, Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Zynga, Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 (“the ‘131 Patent.”)
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $375 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`(a) U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 to Harvey (“Harvey ‘131) (Exhibit
`
`1001);
`
`
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 5,470,922 to Higgins (“Higgins”) (Exhibit
`
`1007);
`
`

`

`
`
`(c) U.S. Patent No. 4,339,798 to Hedges (“Hedges”) (Exhibit
`
`1008); and
`
`
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 4,572,509 to Sitrick (“Sitrick”) (Exhibit 1009).
`
`I.
`
`Professional Background
`
`4.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. My current CV is
`
`attached at Exhibit 1011. I was awarded the degree of BSEE from the University
`
`of Notre Dame in 1968. Directly after graduating I was employed by Bell
`
`Telephone Laboratories (now Alcatel-Lucent) as a Member of the Technical Staff.
`
`In this capacity I worked on the specification, testing and development of computer
`
`controlled data and telephone switching systems for deployment in telephone
`
`central offices. While I was at Bell Telephone Laboratories I received my MSEE
`
`from Northwestern University under a company sponsored program.
`
`5.
`
`In 1971 I left Bell Telephone Laboratories to pursue a PhD in a newly
`
`formed CS/EE program at the Johns Hopkins University. My degree was awarded
`
`in 1980 based on my research into the use of emulation techniques in the
`
`evaluation of computer architectures.
`
`6.
`
`In 1974 while working on my Ph.D. research I joined the Digital
`
`Systems team at Stanford University as a research associate where I worked on the
`
`development of an emulation system used for architectural research. From about
`
`1972 I also worked part-time with Palyn Associates, Inc. (later Palyn-Gould
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Group) (“Palyn) as a Member of the Technical Staff. At Palyn I worked initially
`
`on the development of a range of commercial products based on emulation
`
`concepts.
`
`7.
`
`In 1980 I joined Palyn full time as a member of their technical staff
`
`and later as Director of Engineering and by 1985 as Vice President of Engineering.
`
`Palyn was a consulting company with a range of international clients in the general
`
`field of computer technology. My responsibilities at Palyn related to two broad
`
`areas. First, I was responsible for directing product development on behalf of our
`
`clients, and second, I consulted directly with clients on issues related to processor
`
`and peripheral design. My work here related to main-frame processors, mini-
`
`computers, micro-computers and systems that used such components.
`
`8.
`
`In my role directing product development I was responsible for the
`
`specification, design, testing and debugging of a wide range of devices including
`
`mini-computers, microprocessors and peripheral controllers, such as printers,
`
`communications and printer interfaces. Work on these systems involved both
`
`hardware and software development.
`
`9.
`
`In 1994 I began working as an independent consultant first doing
`
`business as CTCS and later as Neuhauser Associates, Inc. Since that time my
`
`professional work has focused on technical analysis of system primarily in the
`
`support of litigation or potential litigation. I have worked extensively in the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`analysis of patent claims both with respect to determining infringement and
`
`invalidity. I also have experience in software copyright and technical trade secret
`
`matters. From time to time I lead teams of engineers in testing and technical
`
`evaluations.
`
`10. At this time I have nearly 45 years of continuous professional
`
`experience in the field of processors and systems controlled by such processors.
`
`The Harvey ‘131 patent relates to system level interconnection of communication
`
`and computer devices. It also relates to their control by computers in response to
`
`signals. Over my engineering career I have designed many such computer
`
`controlled systems.
`
`11. Since 1972 I have had extensive experience with microprocessors and
`
`systems controlled by such devices. In addition to the specification, design,
`
`implementation, testing, debugging and deployment of such hardware systems, I
`
`have also developed the support software for many such systems. Commonly, I or
`
`the engineers I directed made use of microprocessor based systems to implement
`
`communications functions or to control larger processors systems. This included
`
`responding to certain protocols or developing our own protocols.
`
`12.
`
`In my current capacity as an independent consultant I have reviewed
`
`and verified the operation of a wide variety of technical systems, including
`
`processors, personal computers, television devices, peripherals and bus systems.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`13.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this report I have relied upon my
`
`education and my 45 years of professional experience.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1, 3, 4,
`
`6, 9 and 11 of the ‘131 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the
`
`prior art.
`
`15.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this report involve the application of my engineering knowledge and
`
`experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the Harvey ‘131
`
`patent. My knowledge of patent law is no different than that of any lay person.
`
`Therefore, I have requested the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Zynga, to
`
`provide me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The
`
`paragraphs below express my understanding of how I must apply current principles
`
`related to patent validity to my analysis.
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must construe the
`
`claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification. For the purposes of this review, I have construed each claim term in
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand
`
`that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`19.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`20. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`21.
`
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`III.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`22.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the Harvey
`
`‘131 patent I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant priority date. My understanding is that the priority date of the
`
`Harvey ‘131 patent is September 1987.
`
`23. The Harvey ‘131 patent describes the interconnection and operation of
`
`very well-known components. These components include television receivers,
`
`radio receivers, amplifiers, micro-computers (“personal computers”), audio
`
`recorders and video recorders, among other things. In addition, the Harvey ‘131
`
`patent discusses at a general level various types of “signal decoders”, such as
`
`television line decoders, used to decode radio and television signals, and switches
`
`to direct these types of signals between various components. The Harvey ‘131
`
`patent also describes simple signal and message formats.
`
`24. The technology scope of the Harvey ‘131 patent may be discerned
`
`easily by a simple review of the figures. These figures show components that were
`
`very well known in 1987. What they do not show is any unusual circuitry or
`
`interconnection of components. This is also true of the text of the Harvey ‘131
`
`patent. Although the text of patent is extensive it does not describe the use of any
`
`unusual technology beyond what is shown in the figures. For example, there are
`
`no formulae, computer programs, descriptions of circuitry or the like. Basically,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`the Harvey ‘131 patent relates to the interconnection of well-known components
`
`and their control using widely known and understood techniques.
`
`25. Based on my review of the specification of the Harvey ‘131 patent, it
`
`is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be an engineer with a
`
`Bachelor’s of Science in Electrical Engineering or a closely related field1. This
`
`person would have between three and five years of experience beyond graduation
`
`in the implementation of communications systems and controlling these systems
`
`(or similar types of systems) through the use of computer technology. Someone
`
`would be equally qualified if they had a Master’s of Science degree and somewhat
`
`less practical experience.
`
`26.
`
`I am able to make this assessment because by 1987 I worked with,
`
`supervised and hired engineers with these types of qualifications. These engineers
`
`had the requisite knowledge to make and use systems as described in the claims of
`
`the Harvey ‘131. Because I have worked with and supervised engineers with this
`
`background I know very well what their capabilities were in September 1987 and
`
`
`1 By the 1980’s most Electrical Engineer students took courses in communications
`and computer programming. Even in college these students would likely have had
`practical experience building systems based techniques similar to those described
`in the Harvey ‘131 patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`how they would interpret the claims of the Harvey ‘131 patent and the disclosures
`
`of the applicable prior art.
`
`IV. Summary of the ‘131 Patent
`
`27. The Harvey ‘131 patent contains nearly 300 columns of text and 22
`
`drawing sheets. For brevity, I have limited my summary of the Harvey ‘131 patent
`
`to one example embodiment described in the patent’s specification. I will do this
`
`not from today’s perspective over 25 years after the priority date, but rather from
`
`the perspective of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood in
`
`1987.
`
`28. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize various commonly
`
`used terms in the Harvey ‘131 patent, such as “control signal”, “device”, “storage”,
`
`“computer program” and so forth. Other terminology, such as “complete
`
`programming” can be interpreted based on the plain meaning of the words.
`
`29. Basically, the Harvey ‘131 patent is related to the reception,
`
`distribution, storage and presentation of information carried on various types of
`
`electrical signals. Much of the discussion and many of the examples shown in the
`
`Harvey ‘131 relate to performing these activities on standard radio and television
`
`signals. The Harvey ‘131 patent also assumes at places that such signals can
`
`include embedded control signals using what were well-known techniques in 1987.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`30. Most of the discussion in the Harvey ‘131 patent and the examples
`
`given as preferred embodiments would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to be system descriptions at a very high “block diagram” level. Block
`
`diagrams are well-known representations used by engineers when they want to
`
`convey general relationships between known components without having to give
`
`details of their internal operation. This person would understand that the basic
`
`technology of the Harvey ‘131 patent is the interconnection and control of various
`
`building blocks, such as television receivers, computers, matrix switches and so
`
`forth.
`
`31. The exemplary figure of the Harvey ‘131 patent is the rather
`
`formidable Figure 7, which show a very complex embodiment. However, the
`
`basics of the Harvey system can be understood more easily from the much simpler
`
`Figure 1 shown below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`32. What is shown in this figure is a basic system that might make use of
`
`the concepts expressed in the Harvey ‘131 patent. In this case the basic notion is to
`
`generate a presentation on the TV monitor 202M that is a composite of broadcast
`
`information (i.e. information that is available at every receiver) and information
`
`that is specific to a particular receiver. The components of Figure 1 are all
`
`conventional and include a television tuner 215, microcomputer 205, TV signal
`
`decoder 203 and TV monitor 202M. The Harvey ‘131 patent characterizes this
`
`arrangement as an example of a “subscriber station” [10:41-42]2. A basic
`
`
`2 In this section all references are to the Harvey ‘131 patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`description of this system and some examples of its operation are provided,
`
`generally, at 10:41-15:12.
`
`33. Briefly, it is assumed that the signal received by the TV tuner 215
`
`includes embedded control signals. Although not described explicitly in the
`
`Harvey ‘131 patent, one such transmission protocol for embedding control signals
`
`and other information in a television signal might have been the Teletext protocol
`
`or one of its variants. These techniques have been widely used since the early
`
`1970s. Basically, Teletext3 and similar protocols allow the television station to
`
`transmit digital data in an “unused” portion of the television signal. Television
`
`tuner receives the TV signal, which includes the embedded data, and provides a
`
`video and audio signal. Divider 4 serves to split the received video signal into two
`
`copies. One copy of the video signal is sent to TV signal decoder 203 where the
`
`embedded data, which is not visible in the signal, is extracted. The line labeled
`
`“signals only” represents the extracted data [10:53-63].
`
`34. Both the extracted data and the second copy of the video signal from
`
`divider 4 are sent to the microcomputer 205. This microcomputer is an IBM
`
`Personal Computer, a device that was widely known in 1987 because it or a
`
`compatible variant was used in many homes and businesses. Although not shown
`
`
`3 Closed captioning is another such technique, which is more widely used in the
`United States.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`in Figure 1, the microcomputer 205 contains a specialized graphic overlay card
`
`[11:6-10]. This card serves two purposes. First, under control of program code in
`
`microcomputer 205 it can generate graphic letters and symbols. Second, these
`
`generated graphics can be combined or overlaid on the video signal to produce an
`
`output signal that is sent to the TV monitor 202M [11:15-18]. This combined
`
`video signal presents the viewer with the general TV picture received from the
`
`television tuner 215, but overlaid with whatever graphics was generated by the
`
`graphics overlay card in the microcomputer 205.
`
`35. Because microcomputer 205 is a general purpose computer it offers
`
`the opportunity for the overlay information presented on TV monitor 202M to
`
`reflect
`
`information
`
`that
`
`is particular
`
`to each viewer.
`
` This
`
`is because
`
`microcomputer 205 may hold data that is specific to that viewer and an embedded
`
`signal received on the general television transmission that is sent to all viewers
`
`may trigger the presentation of this user-specific information in a way that is
`
`different or unique to each viewer.
`
`36. One simple example of how this technique might be applied is given
`
`at 11:23-14:16 and involves the program “Wall Street Week in Review”. The
`
`basic objective of the example is to provide a combined video display that shows
`
`the TV program with an overlay of how the viewer’s particular portfolio did with
`
`respect to the market during the week. This is done using control signals sent
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`along with the television signal. Figure 2 shown below illustrates the example
`
`operation of the system from the perspective of a particular viewer.
`
`
`
`37. Using the system of Figure 1 a viewer would tune to the “Wall Street
`
`Week in Review” program, which would be a conventional TV program, but with
`
`embedded signals for use in controlling microcomputer 205. The television station
`
`transmitting the programs sends embedded signals to all viewers along with the
`
`television program. In this example, the particular signals sent are coordinated in
`
`time with the program itself. There are, in this particular example, three general
`
`groups of signals. The first set of signals is used to initialize all the receiving
`
`equipment associated with each viewer [12:6-12]. These signals are interpreted by
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`each viewer’s microcomputer 205 and used to turn any graphics overlay currently
`
`in progress at all viewer devices. [12:31-50].
`
`38. Next a second set of signals is sent to all viewers tuned to the
`
`program. These instructions are in the form of computer program code and are
`
`loaded into microcomputer 205 and executed [13:5-25]. In this example, the
`
`loaded program proceeds to calculate the performance of the viewer’s stock
`
`portfolio using the current week’s prices and the particular stock portfolio held by
`
`the viewer. This user-specific information (i.e. the type and quantity of stock
`
`holdings) has been previously stored in the user’s microcomputer 205. Thus, each
`
`viewer’s microcomputer 205 contains individual portfolio information. At this
`
`point the microcomputer has computed a graph that is similar to that shown in
`
`Figure 1A below. This graph of the stock portfolio will be different for each
`
`viewer because presumably their individual stock holdings vary. [13:47-52].
`
`However, this personalized graphic has not yet been presented to the user.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`39.
`
`In a final step the television station transmits a third sequence of
`
`signals [14:2-16] in coordination with the television program. In the example, the
`
`program host shows a graphic depicting how the overall market did during the
`
`current week (see Figure 1B). All viewers see this graphic and it is the same for all
`
`viewers. The host then announces that you will see your portfolio compared to the
`
`general stock average [13:60-14:3]. At this point the television transmits the third
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`sequence of signals. This sequence causes the microcomputer 205 to enable the
`
`graphic overlay and the viewer is presented with a picture that combines the
`
`general performance of the market as seen by every viewer with a graphic of the
`
`performance of his or her particular portfolio (see Figure 1C) [13:2-16].
`
`40. The Harvey ‘131 patent shows a number of other preferred
`
`embodiments and describes other similar examples of personalized program
`
`presentation. In general, they are just elaborations of this simple example. The
`
`exemplary figure is Figure 7. While more complex than the simple example
`
`above, it is simply an extended application of the basic principles that I have
`
`described above. That is, it makes use of embedded control signals to manipulate
`
`data and control hardware in ways that are specific to each viewer (or “station”)
`
`based on information peculiar to that viewer.
`
`
`V. Anticipation in View of Higgins
`
`41.
`
` It is my opinion that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the ‘131 patent are
`
`anticipated by Higgins (U.S. Patent No. 5,270,922) for the following reasons.
`
`Background of Higgins
`
`42.
`
` U.S. patent 5,270,922 (“Higgins”) issued to Gerard M. Higgins and
`
`titled “System for Distributing, Processing and Displaying Financial Information”
`
`was filed on June 27, 1991. It is a continuation of application number 626,399
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`from June 29, 1984. It is my understanding that Higgins has a priority date of June
`
`29, 1984. Thus it is prior art to the Harvey ‘131 patent.
`
`Technical Summary of Higgins
`
`43. Briefly, the preferred embodiment of Higgins describes a system for
`
`presenting financial information to stockbrokers and other financial industry agents
`
`[Higgins Abstract, 1:9-124; 1:17-24]. Figure 1, which is composed of figures 1A
`
`and 1B, provides an overall view of the system.
`
`
`
`
`4 References in this declaration will be given as (“column number” : “line
`number”)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`44. Figure 1 shows a hierarchical organization of computer systems,
`
`including a corporate system 14, and area computer 50, branch computer 90 and
`
`work station 110. There may be more than one computer at each level in the
`
`hierarchy. Information is stored at various levels within the system hierarchy. For
`
`instance, customer information is stored in a database 12 attached to the corporate
`
`main frame 14. This information is available to all systems that are lower in the
`
`hierarchy. Similarly, historical information related to a stock is stored in historical
`
`information RAM 95 in each branch computer 90. The lowest level of the
`
`hierarchy is a work station 110, which may store information of current interest to
`
`the particular financial agent using that station. Such information is stored in
`
`RAM 111. Because the work station stores only information that is most relevant
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`to each broker the storage requirements of the work station (i.e. RAM 111) is
`
`reduced, but rapid access to relevant information is still supported [2:27-41].
`
`45. The system of Higgins also includes news wire source 24 and ticker
`
`plant 25, which represent a real time source of information transmissions. For
`
`example, the ticker plant 25 provides information about every stock trade, while
`
`news wire source provides current news related to stocks. This information from
`
`the news wire source 24 and the ticker plant 35 is transmitted to area, branch and
`
`work station computers either wirelessly (see, e.g. Fig. 1, items 28, 40, 80, 81) or
`
`via wire (see, e.g. Fig. 1, items 25, 103) [2:58-2:23].
`
`46. Below I will discuss why claims of the Harvey ‘131 patent are
`
`unpatentable. I will do this particularly with respect to the work station 110,
`
`whose operation Higgins describes in detail. One of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1987 would understand the structure of work station 110 to be very similar to that
`
`of the very widely used personal computers of that era. The usual computer
`
`peripherals and components, such as display 107, CPU (Central Processing Unit)
`
`103, ROM (Read Only Memory) 109, RAM (Random Access Memory) 111,
`
`keyboard 112 and Mux/Demux 105 are connected by a bus. CPU 103 controls
`
`overall workstation operation, which includes receiving commands from the user
`
`via the keyboard 112, executing programs stored in ROM 109 (or RAM 111) and
`
`displaying information to the user on display 107 [2:15-26]. In the preferred
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`embodiment the display 107 provides the user with current and historical
`
`information about particular financial instruments of interest to the use of each
`
`work station [3:66-4:10].
`
`47. Operation of the work station 110 is controlled by programs held in
`
`the ROM 109 or, alternatively, in RAM 111. [2:21-26]. The operation of each
`
`work station 110 is personalized by the agent that makes use of the station by
`
`entering commands and data from the keyboard 112. The actual information
`
`displayed at each work station 110 is updated in real time by information received
`
`from the branch computer receiver 70 or from the news wire source via line 103
`
`(also designated as line 25) and passed to the work station 110 via mux/demux
`
`105. Mux/demux 105 is under control of the CPU 103 via line 105c, which selects
`
`the input source as required [4:21-34].
`
`48. Figure 2, shown below, represents the display as seen by the user of a
`
`work station 110. This display will be unique to each work station user because
`
`the user is able to program the display to show that information that is relevant to
`
`their particular financial activities. For example, the user may monitor the current
`
`prices of a subset of all the stocks being traded. Figure 2 from Higgins is shown
`
`below. I have annotated this figure with rectangular shaded areas that represent the
`
`various windows that may be displayed by the user, which I will describe in detail
`
`below
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`49. This figure (above) shows a possible presentation on display 107 and
`
`provides the user a wide variety of information. This is done by showing relevant
`
`information in various “windows5” in the display 107, which is described as a
`
`“multi-window” display [1:17-24; 4:34-44]. In the preferred embodiment the
`
`display 107 presents several types of information, which I will summarize here.
`
`
`5 Higgins refers to areas of the display 107 screen as both “windows” and “fields”.
`[4:34-44]
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`On Higgins Figure 2, I have highlighted the areas of the display roughly
`
`corresponding to each of the following fields with dashed lines.
`
`Item Function
`142 New York Stock Exchange Ticker
`147
`“TICKER 2”
`149 News from News Wire Service 24
`151 Limit Exceeding Information
`153
`“MONITOR”
`157
`“QUICK-QUOTE”
`
`Reference
`[4:45-59]
`[4:60-5:5]
`[5:6-9]
`[5:6-15]
`[5:16-23]
`[5:23-36]
`
`
`
`50. The particular window arrangement and content shown in Figure 2 is
`
`but one example, and Higgins suggests that other arrangements are possible as
`
`alternatives to the arrangement of Figure 2, or as modifications to Figure 2. [5:37-
`
`40]
`
`51. Briefly, the windows of Figure 2 have the following characteristics:
`
` New York Stock Exchange Ticker – shows “the complete New York Stock
`
`Exchange ticker (a “series of stock exchange transaction messages for stock
`
`executions on that exchange)” [4:48-50].
`
` “TICKER 2” is a user specific ticker. This window shows only those
`
`transaction messages received from the ticker plant that match a criteria
`
`established by the work station user. This criteria is stored in RAM 111.
`
`[4:60-5:5]
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

` News – This window “forms a scrolling presentation of the news reported
`
`via the source 24” [5:6-7]. Source 24 is a news wire service. [4:10-14]
`
` Limit Exceeding Information identifies security that traded outside a bound
`
`(in this case a lower bound) that is stored in RAM 111. [5:6-11]
`
` MONITOR is a window that “contains price information for a
`
`predetermined population of securities of interest to that particular broker”.
`
`[5:16-18]
`
` “QUICK-QUOTE” provides a current quote for a particular stock. The
`
`particular stock of interest is entered at the keyboard 112. [5:23-25]
`
`52. The presentation on a particular workstation is a combination of
`
`information that is general and provided to all users (e.g. New York Stock
`
`Exchange Ticker and News windows 142 149) and information that is tailored to
`
`the particular user based on criteria is stored in RAM 111 via the keyboard 112.
`
`[4:34-44].
`
`53. The presentation shown on display 107 is particular to each
`
`workstation and is generated in real time based on general information received by
`
`the work station via mux/demux 105. Each user of a work station 110 defines a
`
`particular subset of all stock transactions that that particular user is interested in.
`
`This is done through keyboard 112. In the preferred embodiment a user may store
`
`the identification symbols for up to 300 securities in RAM 111. [5:48-59; 6:24-29]
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`As information about all security transactions arrives at the work station 110 line
`
`103 and mux/demux 105 the current price information for those specific securities
`
`identified in RAM 111 is captured and stored in RAM 111. Simultaneously, the
`
`presentation on display 107 is updated to reflect the new trade information just
`
`received. [5:65-6:5] Higgins gives an example of where a change to the price of
`
`security “ABC” causes a change to the New York Stock Exchange ticker window
`
`142, the Monitor window 154 and the Quick-Quote window 157. [6:5-15].
`
`54. Higgins provides an example of the interaction of the user with the
`
`work station 110 and other computers in the hierarchy, such as branch computer
`
`90. [Fig. 3; 6:46-7:61] A user may request a quote for a particular stock. There
`
`are two types of quotes: a “quick-quote” which is based on information that may
`
`be currently stored in the work station 107 or a “full quote” that will require
`
`historical or derived information from the branch computer 90. [6:54-64] If the
`
`Quick-Quote relates to a security of particular interest to the workstation user its
`
`current price will be stored in RAM 111. Otherwise, the branch computer 90 will
`
`need to be consulted. Similarly, requests for full quotes will require accessing
`
`historical information RAM 95 in the branch computer 90.
`
`55. RAM 111 contains a list of stock symbols that the user of the work
`
`station 110 is currently interested in. The particular list of stock symbols will
`
`differ from station to station [8:3-8]. Thus, the RAM 111 of each workstation
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`contains symbols and associated price information particular to each work station
`
`user. This technique usually allows a quick response to a user quote request
`
`because the request can be fulfilled directly from the RAM 111 of work station 110
`
`and does not required accessing the branch computer 90 [8:9-15].
`
`56. Higgins Figure 4 illustrates the dynamic updating of the presentation
`
`on display 107 as new ticker information is received from the ticker plant 35 [8:16-
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`20]. Each separate field or window shown in Figure 2 has associated with it a
`
`particular list of symbols in the RAM 111 [8:24-31]. During operat

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket