throbber
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,860,131
`
`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

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