`
`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
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`On behalf of Zynga Inc. (“Zynga” or “Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review is respectfully requested
`
`for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 (“the Harvey ‘131
`
`Patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1001.
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to
`
`charge the $27,200 Petition Fee, along with any additional fees, to Deposit
`
`Account 501432, ref: 479204-620003. Six claims are being reviewed, so no excess
`
`claim fees are required.
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ....... 2
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE HARVEY ‘131 Patent ................................................ 2
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`IV.
`§ 42.104(b) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`E.
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review is
`Requested…………………………………………………………..…9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds
`on Which the Challenge is Based………………………………….....9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): How the Challenged Claims Are to Be
`Construed……………………………………………………………10
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable Under the Statutory Grounds Identified……………...11
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s
`Challenge……………………………………………………………11
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 AND 11 OF THE HARVEY ‘131 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 AND 11 ARE ANTICIPATED
`BY HIGGINS……………………………………………………..…12
`
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, AND 11 ARE ANTICIPATED
`BY HEDGES………………………………………………………..25
`
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 6, 9 AND 11 ARE ANTICIPATED
`BY SITRICK………………………………………………………...41
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`CLAIM 4 IS OBVIOUS OVER HIGGINS IN VIEW
`OF HEDGES………………………………………………………...52
`
`CLAIM 4 IS OBVIOUS OVER SITRICK IN VIEW
`OF HEDGES………………………………………………………...54
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`E.
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......... 56
`
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest………………………56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters…………………………….56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and
`Service Information………………………………………………….57
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Harvey ‘131 Patent is currently being wielded by the patent owner,
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”), in an attempt to cover long-
`
`known computer programming and networking techniques that are far afield from
`
`the alleged invention described in the patent. (See, Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-68-JRG) PMC’s aggressive litigation campaign is
`
`made possible by an overly-expansive claim scope that results from a long and
`
`tortured prosecution history dating back to an original filing in November 1981,
`
`and includes approximately 300 related applications filed in 1995 in an effort to
`
`extend the patent term well beyond what is justifiable.
`
`Most of the near 300 applications filed in 1995, including the application
`
`that matured into the Harvey ‘131 Patent, were directed to television and radio
`
`technology, as described in the specification of the Harvey ‘131 Patent. Also
`
`related to television technology were most of the thousands of prior art references
`
`cited by the patent owner during prosecution, including a single IDS citing over
`
`700 references.
`
`The allowed claims, first added by amendment nearly four years after the
`
`Harvey ‘131 Patent was filed in 1995 and almost 12 years after its 1987 priority
`
`date, are being asserted against online computer gaming technology, in a way that
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`extends far beyond the television technology disclosed in the specification of the
`
`Harvey ‘131 Patent and the prior art considered by the Patent Office. (See, e.g.,
`
`PMC Infringement Contentions against Zynga, attached as Exhibit 1002.) This
`
`type of computer technology was well known before the 1987 priority date of the
`
`Harvey ‘131 Patent, however, as demonstrated by the teachings of the Higgins,
`
`Hedges and Sitrick references cited herein. Petitioner submits that had these more-
`
`relevant references been considered by the Patent Office during prosecution, at
`
`least claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Harvey ‘131 Patent would not have issued,
`
`and therefore this petition for inter partes review should be granted.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the Harvey ‘131 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE HARVEY ‘131 PATENT
`
`The Harvey ‘131 Patent was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on December
`
`28, 2010. The patent claims priority to a series of continuation and continuation-
`
`in-part applications dating back to November 3, 1981, but, as detailed below, is
`
`only entitled to an effective filing date of no earlier than September 11, 1987 (the
`
`filing date of U.S. Patent No. 4,965,825.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`
`The Harvey ‘131 Patent includes 286 columns of specification, all detailing
`
`various examples of a system for adding personalized content to a television or
`
`radio broadcast. For instance, with reference to Figs. 1A-1C, the Harvey ‘131
`
`Patent describes an example system for broadcasting a television program about
`
`stock market investing, “Wall Street Week.” In this example, the Harvey ‘131
`
`Patent describes the use of a microprocessor at a subscriber station (i.e., the station
`
`where a subscriber views the Wall Street Week program) to store a file containing
`
`information on the subscriber’s stock portfolio. Then, during the broadcast of the
`
`Wall Street Week program, the microprocessor generates a graphic relating to the
`
`performance of the subscriber’s stock portfolio and displays the graphic on the
`
`television monitor along with images from the Wall Street Week television
`
`program. (See, Harvey ‘131 Patent, col. 13, line 53 – col. 14, line 17.)
`
` Similarly, the claims that were originally filed with the Harvey ‘131 Patent
`
`in 1995, as well as the claims added by amendment in 1996 and 1997, were also
`
`directed to television and radio broadcast technology. It was not until the addition
`
`of claims 57-74 by amendment in 1999 that claims bearing resemblance to the
`
`issued claims were first introduced in the application. (See, ‘131 File History,
`
`Supplemental Amendment, received Mar. 15, 1999, attached at Exhibit 1003.)
`
`In an Office Action issued on September 3, 2002, all of the pending claims
`
`were rejected by the Patent Office. Claim 57 (which ultimately issued as
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`independent claim 1) and its dependent claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over “delayed TV programming transmission
`
`systems, e.g., as exemplified in the publication ‘Vertical Interval Signal
`
`Applications’ by Etkin, in view of conventional automated TV program recording
`
`systems as exemplified [by] Vikene [WO 80/02093], further in view of Corey [US
`
`Patent # 4,199,791] and the publication ‘The Vertical Interval: A General-Purpose
`
`Transmission Path’ by Anderson.” (See, ‘131 File History, Office Action,
`
`September 3, 2002, attached at Exhibit 1004.) The Office Action, however,
`
`focused its sixty-nine page analysis almost entirely on the other pending claims,
`
`which relate to methods of storing programming and are not at issue in this
`
`petition. Independent claim 57 was simply rejected “for the same reasons that
`
`were discussed for claim 51 and claim 55” without specifically addressing any of
`
`the limitations of claim 57 or its dependent claims. (See, Id.)
`
`In a response filed on April 28, 2003, the patent owner generally objected to
`
`the Office Action as failing to address any of the particular limitations of
`
`independent claim 57. (See, ‘131 File History, Amendment and Request for
`
`Reconsideration, March 3, 2003, attached at Exhibit 1005.) In addition, the patent
`
`owner argued that none of the cited references teach “storing programming at said
`
`storage device, said programming comprising a computer program and a portion to
`
`be completed by accessing prestored data at said location of a particular kind” and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`“storing a control signal, which is operative at at least one particular kind of
`
`station, said control signal operative to cause said execution of said computer
`
`program.” (See, Id. at page 45.)
`
`More than seven years later, following a telephone interview with the
`
`Examiner, a Notice of Allowance and Examiner’s Amendment were issued on
`
`September 30, 2010, allowing claims 57-64, 68, 73 and 74 and cancelling the
`
`remaining claims. Claims 57-64, 68, 73 and 74 were then renumbered and issued
`
`as claims 1-11 of the Harvey ‘131 Patent. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11, as issued,
`
`are reproduced below.
`
`1. A method of enabling a station of a particular kind to deliver
`complete programming, said station including a storage device, and
`said method comprising the steps of:
`
`storing programming at said storage device, said programming
`comprising a computer program and a portion to be completed by
`accessing prestored data at said station of a particular kind,
`
`wherein said computer program is operative to complete said
`portion when executed at said station of a particular kind, said
`execution of said computer program enabling a processor at said
`station of a particular kind 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, thereby
`completing said programming; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`
`storing a control signal, which is operative at at least one particular
`kind of station, said control signal operative to cause said execution of
`said computer program,
`
`whereby said station of a particular kind is enabled to deliver
`complete programming.
`
`3. The method of claim 1, wherein said prestored data designates
`subscriber data, said method further comprising the step of storing
`subscriber data.
`
`4. The method of claim 1, wherein said control signal comprises a
`series or stream of sequentially transmitted control instructions, said
`method further comprising the step of storing in said control signal
`two or more control instructions in a specific order with information
`designating a time period.
`
`6. The method of claim 1, wherein said portion to be completed
`comprises generally applicable information.
`
`9. The method of claim 1, wherein a control signal causes a
`controller operatively connected to said storage station to control a
`peripheral device, said method further comprising the step of
`
`storing said control signal.
`
`11. The method of claim 1, wherein said storage device is an
`ultimate receiver station.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`Priority Date of the Harvey ‘131 Patent
`
`The patent owner has conceded that the Harvey ‘131 Patent is only entitled
`
`to priority to U.S. Application No. 07/096,096 (Patent No. 4,965,825) filed as a
`
`continuation-in-part on September 11, 1987 and not to the earlier priority date of
`
`November 3, 1981. In the co-pending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas (identified below in Section VI), the patent owner has
`
`acknowledged the September 11, 1987 priority date for the Harvey ‘131 Patent.
`
`Specifically, in the Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions (attached here as Exhibit 1006), PMC has admitted that “[t]he priority
`
`date for Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 from U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131… is
`
`September 11, 1987.” (See, Exhibit 1006, page 3.) Accordingly, there is no
`
`dispute that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Harvey ‘131 Patent should be
`
`afforded a priority date no earlier than September 11, 1987 for the purpose of
`
`assessing patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`The September 11, 1987 priority date is also supported by patent owner
`
`admissions made during prosecution of the Harvey ‘131 Patent. Specifically, in an
`
`Office Action Response filed on April 28, 2003, the patent owner responded to a
`
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of specification support for claims 57-64,
`
`68, 73 and 74 (which ultimately issued as claims 1-11 of the Harvey ‘131 Patent).
`
`In this response, the patent owner cited for support to pages 356-360 of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`specification. (See, Exhibit 1005, pages 33-34.) These pages of the specification
`
`were not included in any of the applications filed earlier than U.S. Application No.
`
`07/096,096. The patent owner acknowledged this in the March 3, 2003 Office
`
`Action Response, indicating that “Applicants respectfully submit that the
`
`specification filed in 1987 demonstrates that applicants possessed the invention
`
`defined by claim 57, as shown by the specific citations in Appendix B and the
`
`general discussion above.” (See, Exhibit 1005, page 34 .)
`
`Moreover, counsel for Petitioner has reviewed the specifications of the
`
`Harvey applications filed prior to September 11, 1987, and these earlier
`
`specifications do not support the claims of the Harvey ‘131 Patent. For example,
`
`the 1981 specification does not provide support for at least the following elements
`
`of independent claim 1: “storing programming at said storage device, said
`
`programming comprising a computer program”, “wherein said computer program
`
`is operative to complete said portion when executed at said station of a particular
`
`kind,” and “storing a control signal…said control signal operative to cause said
`
`execution of said computer program.”
`
`For at least these reasons, the Harvey ‘131 Patent should be given a priority
`
`date of no earlier than September 11, 1987.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes Review
`Is Requested
`Inter Partes review is requested for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Harvey
`
`‘131 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,270,922 to Higgins (“Higgins”) (Exhibit 1007).
`
`Higgins was filed on June 27, 1991, claiming priority as a continuation of
`
`U.S. Application No. 626,339, filed on June 29, 1984. As detailed above
`
`in Section III, the Harvey ‘131 Patent is only entitled to a priority date of
`
`September 11, 1987. Higgins is therefore prior art to the Harvey ‘131
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,339,798 to Hedges, et al. (“Hedges”) (Exhibit 1008).
`
`Hedges was filed on December 17, 1979 and issued on July 13, 1982.
`
`Hedges is therefore prior art to the Harvey ‘131 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). Hedges was cited in an IDS by the applicant during
`
`prosecution of the Harvey ‘131 Patent, along with 1000s of other
`
`references, but was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,572,509 to Sitrick (“Sitrick”) (Exhibit 1009). Sitrick
`
`was filed on September 30, 1982 and issued on February 25, 1986.
`
`Sitrick is therefore prior art to the Harvey ‘131 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`The specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 on which the
`
`challenge to the claims is based and the patents relied upon for each ground are as
`
`follows:
`
`a) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 are anticipated by Higgins under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e);
`
`b) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 are anticipated by Hedges under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b);
`
`c) Claims 1, 3, 6, 9 and 11 are anticipated by Sitrick under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b); and
`
`d) Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Higgins in view
`
`of Hedges.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and solely for the purposes of this
`
`review, Petitioner construes the claim language such that the claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the Harvey ‘131
`
`Patent. Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this review, each claim should
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Because the standard for claim construction at
`
`the Patent Office is different than that used during a U.S. District Court litigation,
`
`see In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d. 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
`
`MPEP § 2111, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to argue a different claim
`
`construction in litigation for any term of the Harvey ‘131 Patent as appropriate in
`
`that proceeding.
`
`D.
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`
`
`A detailed explanation of how claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 are unpatentable,
`
`including the identification of how each claim element is found in the prior art, is
`
`set forth below at Section V.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1010 is a Declaration of Charles J. Neuhauser, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.68. In addition, the relevance of the evidence to the challenged claims,
`
`including an identification of the specific portions of the evidence supporting the
`
`challenge, is included in Section V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE HARVEY ‘131 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 are Anticipated by Higgins
`
`(US 5,270,922)
`
`
`
`
`
`The Higgins patent (Exhibit 1007) discloses “[a] data processing and
`
`communication system [that] distributes and displays financial market ticker,
`
`quotation, news and ancillary information via a plurality of stored program
`
`controlled work stations.” (Higgins, Abstract.) An example of a multi-window
`
`display for displaying the financial market ticker and other information received by
`
`the work stations is illustrated in Fig. 2 of Higgins, which is reproduced below.
`
`As shown in Fig. 2 (above), the work station display disclosed in Higgins
`
`may include multiple information fields, including both a general non-user-specific
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`field, such as a NYSE ticker 142, and personalized user-specific fields, such as a
`
`second personalized stock ticker field 147 and a MONITOR field 153 that contains
`
`price information for a predetermined population of securities of interest to that
`
`particular user. (See, Higgins, col. 4, line 34 – col. 5, line 36.)
`
`As demonstrated below, the Higgins reference discloses each and every
`
`limitation of claims 1, 3, 4 6, 9 and 11 of the Harvey ‘131 Patent. (See, Exhibit
`
`1010, ¶¶ 41-114.) These claims are therefore anticipated by Higgins under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method of enabling a station of a
`
`particular kind to deliver complete programming, said station including a storage
`
`device.” Higgins discloses “[a] data processing and communication system [that]
`
`distributes and displays financial market ticker, quotation, news and ancillary
`
`information via a plurality of stored program controlled work stations.” (Higgins,
`
`Abstract.) The plurality of stored program controlled work stations are illustrated
`
`at reference 110 i,j,k in Fig. 1B of Higgins (reproduced below). “The work station
`
`110 i,j,k also includes a program containing memory 109, e.g., a read only (ROM)
`
`device and variable content memory 111, e.g., a random access (RAM) unit.”
`
`(Higgins, col. 2, lines 18-22.) Higgins therefore discloses a station of a particular
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`kind (i.e., work stations 110 i,j,k) that includes a storage device (i.e., program
`
`containing memory 109).
`
`
`
`Higgins further discloses methods of enabling the work stations 110 i,j,k to
`
`deliver complete programming. For example, Fig. 2 of Higgins illustrates a
`
`display 107 that presents information to a system user via a work station. (Higgins,
`
`col. 1, lines 64-66.) Higgins discloses methods of displaying user-specific
`
`financial market data on the work station user display 107, for example as shown
`
`in Figs. 3 and 4, and thus discloses methods of enabling a station of a particular
`
`kind to deliver complete programming. (See, Exhibit 1010, ¶¶ 59-63.)
`
`First Element
`
`The first element of claim 1 recites “storing programming at said storage
`
`device, said programming comprising a computer program and a portion to be
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`completed by accessing prestored data at said station of a particular kind.” The
`
`work stations 110 i,j,k illustrated in Fig. 1B of Higgins include a computer
`
`program stored within memory 109 for driving a display 107. (Higgins, Fig. 1B
`
`and col. 2, lines 15-22.) Information presented on the display 107 by the
`
`programming is illustrated at Fig. 2 of Higgins. Specifically, with reference to the
`
`work station user display 107 shown in Fig. 2, Higgins explains (with emphasis
`
`added):
`
`The information presented at display 107 may comprise a single
`field of information, e.g., a quotation, a ticker flow or the like.
`Alternatively, in accordance with one aspect of the instant invention, a
`multi-window display may be presented via the cathode ray tube 107.
`Moreover, depending upon the user-entered key strokes, the specific
`format of the multi-window display may vary.
`
`One illustrative multi-window presentation for display 107 at a
`system work station is shown in FIG. 2. The composite presentation
`has a first field 142 which simply comprises the complete New York
`Stock Exchange ticker (a series of stock transaction messages for
`stock executions on that exchange.) …
`The multiple window display format chosen by the user via
`
`keyboard 112 includes a second ticker (“TICKER-2”) specified under
`the user control. In accordance with varying aspects of the present
`invention, the user may format his own personal ticker by establishing
`criteria which a trade message from ticker plant 35 must satisfy to
`pass to the TICKER-2 window field 147 for viewing. The criteria,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`
`stored in RAM 111, may specify trades in only a specific enumerated
`list of securities, trades from specific exchange(s), and/or so forth…
`A further MONITOR field 153 contains price information for a
`
`predetermined population of securities of interest to that particular
`broker… (Higgins, col. 4, line 34 – col. 5, line 18.)
`
`Higgins thus discloses “programming that comprises a computer program,”
`
`i.e., the multi-window presentation for display 107 is programming. Higgins
`
`further discloses that the programming includes a “portion to be completed” (i.e.,
`
`the second ticker and the MONITOR field) “by accessing prestored data” (i.e., the
`
`criteria stored in RAM 111) “at said station of a particular kind.” (See, Exhibit
`
`1010, ¶¶ 64-68.)
`
`Second Element
`
`The second element of claim 1 recites “wherein said computer program is
`
`operative to complete said portion when executed at said station of a particular
`
`kind, said execution of said computer program enabling a processor at said station
`
`of a particular kind 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, thereby completing said programming.” As explained
`
`above, Higgins discloses a computer program that presents a multi-window
`
`presentation having portions (e.g., the second ticker and the MONITOR field) that
`
`are completed through execution of computer program by a processor (i.e., CPU
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`103 in Fig. 2) on the workstation 110 i,j,k. (See, Higgins, col. 4, line 34 – col. 5,
`
`line 18.)
`
`Higgins further discloses that the second ticker in the multi-window display
`
`107 is formatted based on user-specific criteria that is prestored in workstation
`
`RAM 111. (Higgins, col. 4, line 60 – col. 5, line 1.) Higgins explains that this pre-
`
`stored criteria may, for example, include a specific enumerated list of securities or
`
`trades from specific exchanges (i.e., specific datum), that is processed in order to
`
`determine the information (i.e., the specified market data) to be placed into the
`
`second ticker field on the multi-window display. (See, Id.) Regarding the stored
`
`information, Higgins further discloses:
`
`As alluded to above, it is one of the offices of the instant invention
`to store within each work station 110 i,j,k and in particular in the
`RAM memory 111 there located, information characterizing the
`securities of interest to that broker or other work station user. To that
`end, the stored computer program automatically stores in the variable
`price data corresponding to a limited, predetermined number (e.g.,
`300 for purposes of specificity only) of securities whose price
`information was last requested at the work station. (Higgins, col. 5,
`lines 41-59.)
`
`Higgins thus discloses completing programming (i.e., the multi-window
`
`display) by selecting a specific datum (e.g., “securities of interest to that broker or
`
`other work station user”) from prestored data and processing the selected data to
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`place information (i.e., the specified market data) into a portion of the
`
`programming to be completed (e.g., the second ticker field). (See, Exhibit 1010, ¶¶
`
`69-73.)
`
`Third Element
`
`The third element of claim 1 recites “storing a control signal, which is
`
`operative at at least one particular kind of station, said control signal operative to
`
`cause said execution of said computer program.” Higgins discloses multiple
`
`control signals that cause execution of the computer program on a workstation.
`
`For instance, Higgins discloses that “the work stations 110 have a single entry
`
`keyboard 112 which may be employed by a user (e.g., a broker) to specify various
`
`kinds of information desired for viewing via his display 107” and further discloses
`
`that “depending upon the user-entered key strokes, the specific format of the multi-
`
`window display may vary.” (Higgins, col. 4, lines 24-41.) The user-entered key
`
`strokes disclosed in Higgins are control signals that cause execution of the
`
`programming to vary the work station display. Further, Higgins explains that such
`
`user-entered criteria (i.e., control signals) are stored in RAM 111:
`
`The multiple window display format chosen by the user via
`keyboard 112 includes a second ticker (“TICKER-2”) specified
`under the user control. In accordance with varying aspects of
`the present invention, the user may format his own personal
`ticker by establishing criteria which a trade message from ticker
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`
`plant 35 must satisfy to pass to the TICKER-2 window field
`147 for viewing. The criteria, stored in RAM 111, may specify
`trades in only a specific enumerated list of securities, trades
`from specific exchange(s), and/or so forth. (Higgins, col. 4,
`line 60 – col. 5, line 5, emphasis added; see also, col. 5, lines
`23-26 and Fig. 2.)
`
`As another example of the use of control signals, Higgins discloses that “[a]s
`
`new trades in the monitored 300 security population are reported via the ticker
`
`plant 35, communications link receiver 98, demultiplexer 105 and work station
`
`central processor 103 automatically change the stored price information in RAM
`
`111. The stored security price information also automatically changes the price
`
`presentation for the respective securities wherever a security appears in any of the
`
`multiple windows (fields) of the display.” (Higgins, col. 5, line 65 – col. 6, line 5.)
`
`More specifically with reference to Fig. 4, Higgins explains:
`
`Examining the flow chart of FIG. 4, the first step 301 reads into the
`computer CPU the next incoming stock symbol, price, volume and
`related information (ticker message) originated by ticker plant 35, and
`furnished to the work station 110 i,j,k via its corresponding branch
`apparatus 70, 80, 81 via cable 103 and demultiplexer 105. Test 303
`examines each of the application stock lists (i.e., the LRU list, the list
`associated with the limit processing, and so forth). If the security
`being characterized by the ticker plant message is not in any such list
`(N.0. output of test 303), control passes to test 320 to determine
`whether or not the stock data is appropriate for one of the tickers (e.g.,
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`
`142 or 147 of FIG. 2) in the user display. Assuming that the trade
`information being reported by ticker plant 35 is germane to one or
`more of the applications for that specific work station 110, the data
`base in RAM 111 associated with that security is updated (step 308) to
`reflect the last trade and quotations for that stock and step 310 updates
`all applications (windows and the related window-driving storage)
`associated with that stock as necessary. Thus, as only one example
`and assuming that the stock having the trade information then being
`reported by the ticker plant was in the LRU list and data base, the
`information being reported replaces the older data for that security
`stored in the data base of the user’s RAM 111. (Higgins, col. 8, lines
`38-63.)
`
`The reporting of new trades transmitted from the ticker plant 35 is therefore
`
`a control signal that is received and stored by the workstation and that causes
`
`execution of the program to automatically change the information in the multi-
`
`window display. (See, Exhibit 1010, ¶¶ 74-77.)
`
`Final Element
`
`The final element of claim 1 recites “whereby said station of a particular
`
`kind is enabled to deliver complete programming.” As explained above, the
`
`workstations 110 disclosed
`
`in Higgins are enabled
`
`to deliver complete
`
`programming by displaying and populating a multi-window display that includes
`
`one or more fields (e.g., the second ticker and the MONITOR field) that are
`
`populated based