`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`
` Entered: July 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZYNGA INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (SCM)
`Patent 7,860,131 B1
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”) filed a petition requesting an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent 7,860,131 (Ex. 1001, “the ’131 patent”).
`
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) In response, Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`
`(“PMC”) filed a patent owner preliminary response on May 10, 2013. (Paper 9,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition and patent owner preliminary response,
`
`we determine that the information presented in the petition establishes that there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that Zynga would prevail with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
`
`9, and 11 of the ’131 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 of
`
`the ’131 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Zynga indicates that the ’131 patent is involved in co-pending litigation
`
`captioned Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga Inc., Case No.
`
`2:12-cv-68-JRG (ED.Tex.). (Pet. 56.) Zynga also filed three other petitions
`
`seeking inter partes review of the following related patents: Patent 7,908,638
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`(IPR2013-00162), Patent 7,797,717 (IPR2013-00164), and Patent 7,734,251
`
`(IPR2013-00171). (Paper 10.)
`
`The ’131 patent claims the benefit of various U.S. patent applications under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120. (Ex. 1001, 1.) Zynga asserts that PMC has conceded in the
`
`related District Court litigation that the earliest effective priority date for the
`
`challenged claims of the ’131 patent is September 11, 1987, the filing date of U.S.
`
`patent application No. 07/096,096, issued as U.S. Patent 4,965,825. (Pet. 3-4,
`
`citing to Ex.1005, 3.) PMC does not contest that assertion in its preliminary
`
`response. Therefore, on this record, the Board assumes that the effective filing
`
`date of the challenged claims of the ’131 patent is no earlier than September 11,
`
`1987.
`
`B. The ’131 Patent
`
`The ’131 patent is related to a system for transmitting conventional
`
`broadcast programming simultaneously with relevant user specific information to a
`
`subscriber station. (Ex. 1001, 6:61-67.) Figure 1, below, is illustrative.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 shows a “video/computer combined medium subscriber station.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 10:41-42.) The subscriber station includes a television tuner 215 for
`
`receiving a broadcast transmission, a divider 4, a TV signal decoder 203, a
`
`microcomputer 205 and a TV monitor 202M. The tuner 215 receives embedded
`
`control signals, which are decoded by decoder 203. The video signal from the
`
`tuner 215 is split by divider 4 into two copies. One copy is sent to the decoder 203
`
`and the other is sent to microcomputer 205. The decoder extracts the embedded
`
`data into “signals only.” (Ex. 1001, 10:53-63.) Microcomputer 205 can generate
`
`graphics that can be combined or overlaid on the video signal to produce an output
`
`signal that is sent to the monitor 202M. (Ex. 1001, 11:15-18.)
`
`The ’131 patent provides an example of how the system might work with
`
`respect to “Wall Street Week” program. The show, “Wall Street Week” may be
`
`displayed at a monitor at the same time information is displayed that is specific to a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`user’s stock portfolio. (Ex. 1001, 11:23-14:37.) The microcomputer
`
`(microprocessor) 205 contains a floppy disk that holds a data file containing
`
`information on the portfolio of financial instruments owned by the subscriber and
`
`identifies specific information related to the subscriber’s stock portfolio.
`
`Microcomputer 205 is programmed to receive an input of signals from the decoder
`
`and also from divider 4 and responds in a predetermined way to instruction signals
`
`embedded in the “Wall Street Week” programming transmission. (Ex. 1001,
`
`11:42-60.) The embedded signals include control instructions that are addressed to
`
`and control the microcomputer 205 of each subscriber station. (Ex. 1001, 12:4-
`
`12.)
`
`In response to the embedded signals, the microcomputer 205 calculates the
`
`performance of the subscriber’s stock portfolio (based on the information
`
`previously stored at the microcomputer based on the individual’s stock portfolio)
`
`and enters information at the video RAM of the graphics card for graphing results
`
`of the subscriber’s portfolio changes. (Ex. 1001, 13: 26-46.) A subsequent
`
`instruction signal (embedded in the signal sent to the microcomputer from the
`
`broadcast), instructs the microcomputer to overlay the graphic information in its
`
`graphics card onto the received composite video information and transmits the
`
`combined information to TV monitor 202M, showing the subscriber’s own
`
`portfolio performance overlaid on the studio generated graphic. (Ex. 1001, 14:1-
`
`17.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`C. Exemplary Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Each of the
`
`dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 depend directly from claim 1. Claim 1 is
`
`exemplary of the claimed subject matter of the ’131 patent, and is reproduced as
`
`follows:
`
`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;
`
`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.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Zynga relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Hedges
`Sitrick
`Higgins
`
`July 13, 1982
`U.S. Patent 4,339,798
`Feb. 25, 1986
`U.S. Patent 4,572,509
`U.S. Patent 5,270,922 Dec. 14, 1993
`
`(Ex. 1008)
`(Ex. 1009)
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Zynga asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`
`anticipated by Higgins;
`
`2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Hedges;
`
`3. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Sitrick;
`
`4. Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Higgins and Hedges;
`
`and
`
`5. Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sitrick and Hedges.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a first step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`
`we determine the meaning of the claims. In an inter partes review, claim terms in
`
`an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this regard, we must be careful not to read a
`
`particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Zynga does not provide a claim construction for any of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9
`
`and 11 of the ’131 patent. Rather, Zynga represents that each claim should be
`
`construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. (Pet. 10-11.) PMC does not contend otherwise.
`
`However, it is implicit that there is disagreement over the scope of the phrase
`
`“control signal.” (See, e.g., Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 8.) Therefore, we construe the
`
`term “control signal.” We also find it necessary to construe the term “said storage
`
`station” of dependent claim 9.
`
`
`
`Control signal
`
`The term “control signal” is not defined in the ’131 patent. One trade
`
`dictionary defines a “control signal” as an electrical signal that directs a sequence
`
`of operations to be performed by a computer.[1]
`
` The ’131 patent describes several
`
`examples of signals which appear to be control signals. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract.) The ’131 patent’s description includes various electronic or other
`
`devices, such as displays, computers, converters, tuners, speakers, printers, and
`
`furnaces, which respond to the signal in a variety of causal or predetermined
`
`manners, for example, by outputting different media, automating connections,
`
`etc. (See id.)
`
`
`
`[1] Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms 60 (1983).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`As ordinarily understood, the word “signal” means “any electrical quantity,
`
`such as voltage, current, or frequency, that can be used to transmit information.”[2]
`
`See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Because
`
`the specification does not provide an explicit definition of the claim term, in
`
`determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general
`
`dictionary definition of the word for guidance.)
`
`In light of the record, the term “control signal” reasonably means “an
`
`electrical quantity that is operative to cause a responsive action in a device,
`
`including but not limited to causing an output, an operation, or a sequence of
`
`operations.”
`
`
`
`said storage station
`
`Claim 9, which depends on claim 1, recites “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.”
`
`Claim 1 does not refer to a storage station. Rather claim 1 refers to a “station of a
`
`particular kind.” Claim 1 further recites that the station includes a storage device.
`
`Although Zynga does not provide an explicit claim construction for claim 9, it is
`
`implicit that Zynga construes “said storage station” as a reference to the claim 1
`
`“storage device.” (See, e.g., Pet. 23-24; Ex. 1010, ¶ 175.) For purposes of this
`
`decision, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`[2] Microsoft Computer Dictionary 435 (3rd Ed. 1997).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`understood, at the time of the invention, that the referral to “said storage station” is
`
`a referral to the “storage device.”
`
`
`
`B. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 – Anticipated by Higgins
`
`Zynga argues that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Higgins. In its petition, Zynga explains, with
`
`supporting evidence (e.g., Ex. 1010, which is a declaration of Dr. Charles J.
`
`Neuhauser “Dr. Neuhauser”), how each claim limitation is met by Higgins. (Pet.
`
`12-25, citing to Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 41-114.) Upon review of Zynga’s analysis and
`
`supporting evidence, and taking into account PMC’s preliminary response, we
`
`determine that Zynga has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`will prevail with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 on the ground that these
`
`claims are anticipated by Higgins.
`
`Higgins
`
`
`
`Higgins describes a data processing and communication system that
`
`distributes and displays financial market information via a plurality of stored
`
`program controlled work stations. (Ex. 1007, Abstract.) Figure 1b of Higgins,
`
`reproduced below, illustrates a portion of the data processing and communication
`
`system.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1B of Higgins shows a plurality of work stations 110 i, j, k , each a
`
`“station of a particular kind” that includes a “storage device” ROM 109 and/or
`
`RAM 111. The work station 110 “delivers complete programming” to a user by
`
`displaying, at display 107, user-specific financial market data. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007,
`
`Abstract, “Various derivative tasks, such as security price limit alerts, are user
`
`programmable and are activated by the contents of the work station data base.”).
`
`Higgins describes that each work station 110 includes programming
`
`comprising a computer program stored within memory ROM 109. (Ex. 1007,
`
`2:18-20 and 6:21-23.) RAM 111 may also store computer programs or program
`
`portions. (Ex. 1007, 2:25-26.) A portion of the programming (e.g., programming
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`for displaying ticker information on display 107) is completed by accessing
`
`prestored data from RAM 111, such as the stock symbols and associated price
`
`information of the stocks of interest by the user, and displaying the completed
`
`programming on display 107. (Ex. 1007, Figure 2, 4:45-5:59.)
`
`The processor CPU 103 controls what is displayed on the display. (Ex.1007,
`
`2:16-18.) The computer program for completing programming is executed on
`
`CPU 103. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 48-64; Ex. 1010, ¶ 71). CPU 103 selects a specific
`
`datum (e.g., a specific stock to watch stored by the user) from the prestored data in
`
`RAM 111 – stored information such as all of the securities of interest to the broker
`
`or user of the work station. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 5:48-64; Ex. 1010, ¶ 72.) The
`
`processor then processes the selected datum and places the resulting information
`
`into the portion to be completed, e.g., updating the information to the field or
`
`window of display 107.
`
`Higgins further describes several control signals. For example, information
`
`a user enters through a keyboard that is stored in RAM 111, which causes
`
`execution of the computer program. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 4:24-41; 4:60-5:5; Ex.
`
`1010, ¶¶ 75-77). Thus, station 110 is enabled to deliver complete programming to
`
`display 107.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - storing a control signal
`
`PMC argues that Higgins does not teach “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.” (Prelim. Resp. 8.) With respect to this
`
`limitation, PMC first argues that Zynga fails to explain how keyboard strokes teach
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`a control signal. (Id.) In its petition, Zynga directs attention to column 4, lines 24-
`
`28 of Higgins, for example, which describes (with emphasis added in italics):
`
`“[t]hat is, the work stations 110 have a signal entry keyboard 112 which may be
`
`employed by a user (e.g., broker) to specify various kinds of information desired
`
`for viewing via his display 107.” Higgins further describes that “[v]arious
`
`derivative tasks, such as security price limit alerts and customized, selective ticker
`
`displays, are user programmable and are actuated by the work station data base.”
`
`(Ex. 1007, 1:51-54, emphasis added.) Moreover, Higgins describes, that signals
`
`entered by a user or broker are command messages. (Ex. 1007, 6:54-57.) Zynga
`
`relies on Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand the teachings of Higgins. In that regard, we credit the
`
`testimony of Neuhauser that the programming or commands entered by the user
`
`through the keyboard are “control signals” because his testimony is also consistent
`
`with Higgins itself. (Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 47, 48, 76.) In accordance with our construction
`
`above, Higgins describes a control signal by at least the description of a user
`
`entering, through keyboard 112, an electrical quantity that is operative to cause a
`
`responsive action in a device (e.g., what fields will be displayed on the display
`
`107) to be performed by CPU 103.
`
`PMC, on the other hand, fails to consider Higgins from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995); In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962) (A reference anticipates a
`
`claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its
`
`teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`possession of the invention.). PMC’s arguments are conclusory and not based on
`
`facts that are consistent to those of record.
`
`PMC argues that Higgins is silent with respect to any key stroke that causes
`
`the execution of a stored computer program. (Prelim. Resp. 8.) But as explained
`
`in the petition, Higgins describes that “the work stations 110 have a signal 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 that “depending
`
`upon the user-entered key strokes, the specific format of the multi-window display
`
`may vary.” (Ex. 1007, 4:24-41). Higgins further explains that the user-entered
`
`signals are stored in RAM 111. (Ex. 1007, 4:60-5:5.) As explained in the petition,
`
`and supported by Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony, the user-entered key strokes, e.g.,
`
`signal commands, stored in RAM 111 are control signals that cause execution of
`
`the programming to vary the work station display. (Pet. 18; Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 74-76.)
`
`PMC’s argument that Zynga relies on a list of stock symbols to meet both
`
`the control signal and the prestored data is misplaced. (Prelim. Resp. 9.) We do
`
`not understand Zynga to rely on one feature in Higgins to meet two separate
`
`claimed limitations of claim 1. Rather, we understand Zynga to rely on the list of
`
`securities as the prestored data (see, e.g., Pet. 17) and the customized, selective
`
`ticker displays, that are user programmable as an example of the claimed control
`
`signal (see, e.g., Pet. 18.) Thus, Higgins contemplates that a user may change the
`
`fields of display and may also dictate which stocks the system will monitor and
`
`display to the user. This is illustrated in the following paragraph of Higgins (Ex.
`
`1007, 1:46-54):
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`In accordance with one aspect of the present invention,
`information characterizing a dynamically changing sub-population of
`the market securities is maintained at and becomes immediately
`available to each work station responsive to the pattern of usage at
`that specific station. Various derivative tasks, such as security price
`limit alerts and customized, selective ticker displays, are user
`programmable and are actuated by the work station data base.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the above reference to
`
`“market securities” to be with reference to the example of the 300 stock market
`
`symbols that are stored and monitored as information entered by the user, and the
`
`derivative tasks such as limit alerts and customized ticker displays to be other
`
`information entered by a user. In either case, the information entered by the user is
`
`stored.
`
` Zynga presents an alternative theory that the reporting of new trades
`
`transmitted from the ticker plant 35 is a control signal that is received and stored
`
`by the workstation and that causes execution of the program to change the
`
`information in the window display automatically. (Pet. 20.) PMC disagrees and
`
`argues that Zynga has failed to show how the stock information from the ticker
`
`plant 35 is a control signal. (Prelim. Resp. 10.)
`
`Contrary to PMC’s assertions, Zynga does show how the stock information
`
`from the ticker plant 35 is a control signal. Specifically, Zynga directs attention to
`
`Higgins’ Fig. 4 flow chart and the explanation of such at column 8, lines 38-63.
`
`We have reviewed the petition and the portions of Higgins to which Zynga directs
`
`attention and determine that Zynga shows that the reporting of new trades
`
`transmitted from the ticker plant 35 is a control signal that is received and stored
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`by the workstation and that causes execution of the program to change the
`
`information in the window display automatically. PMC does not explain, in any
`
`meaningful way, why Zynga’s showing in that regard is incorrect. PMC does not
`
`address Fig. 4 of Higgins or the explanation found at column 8, lines 38-63.
`
`Specifically, Higgins describes, in connection with Fig. 4, that the information
`
`from the ticker plant is an electrical quantity that is operative to cause a responsive
`
`action in CPU 103 to perform a sequence of operations (see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 8:38-
`
`41, “the first step 301 reads into the computer CPU the next incoming stock
`
`symbol, price, volume and related information (ticker message)”.)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - storing programming … comprising a … portion to be completed
`
`PMC argues that Zynga fails to identify any stored programming that
`
`includes a portion to be completed. (Prelim. Resp. 10.) Claim 1 recites “storing
`
`programming at said storage device, said programming comprising a computer
`
`program and a portion to be completed.” Zynga does account for this claim 1
`
`limitation. (See, e.g., Pet. 14-16.) The petition explains that “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 103 in Fig. 2) on the workstation
`110 i, j, k .” (Pet. 16-17.) The petition further explains that the programming
`
`(program and portion to be completed) is stored in RAM 111. (Pet. 17.) Thus, we
`
`are not persuaded that Zynga fails to identify any stored programming that includes
`
`a portion to be completed.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`
`PMC argues that Zynga fails to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that claim 4 is unpatentable. (Prelim. Resp. 11.) Claim 4, which
`
`depends on claim 1, recites “[t]he 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.”
`
`PMC argues that neither of the control signals alleged by Zynga is disclosed as
`
`containing a stream of two or more control signals. (Prelim. Resp. 11.) PMC’s
`
`argument is misplaced. Claim 4 does not recite “two or more control signals.”
`
`The claim requires “two or more control instructions.” In any event, Zynga does
`
`account for the limitations of claim 4 in its petition. (Pet. 21-22.) Zynga directs
`
`attention to portions of Higgins and Dr. Neuhauser’s declaration. In particular, Dr.
`
`Neuhauser testifies as follows (Ex. 1010, ¶ 90):
`
`The ‘ticker messages’ received by mux/demux 105 constitute ‘a series
`or stream of sequentially transmitted control instructions.’ Each
`ticker message represents one ‘control instruction’ which triggers the
`actions outlined in Figure 4. Because these ticker messages represent
`financial data they are received in a ‘specific order’.
`
`We credit Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony reproduced above because his
`
`statements are consistent with the description set forth in Higgins at column 2,
`
`lines 42-57. PMC does not address Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony or the description
`
`in Higgins and thus does not overcome Zynga’s showing in that regard.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`Claim 9
`
`PMC argues that Zynga fails to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that claim 9 is unpatentable. (Prelim. Resp. 12.) Claim 9, which
`
`depends on claim 1, recites “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.”
`
`PMC argues that Zynga fails to demonstrate that the keyboard strokes or the
`
`stream of stock information are control signals that cause the control of a
`
`peripheral device. (Prelim. Resp. 12.) We have addressed, supra, why Zynga has
`
`demonstrated sufficiently why either the entries made by the user using the
`
`keyboard or the stock information from the ticker plant 35 constitute a control
`
`signal. Zynga relies on the Higgins display 107 to meet the claimed limitation of a
`
`“peripheral device.” Zynga’s showing is reasonable and PMC has failed to
`
`persuade us otherwise.
`
`
`
`Claims 3, 6, and 11
`
`As to challenged dependent claims 3, 6, and 11, Zynga shows persuasively
`
`that Higgins discloses the additional recited limitations in those claims. (See Pet.
`
`21-22 and 24-25.) PMC’s arguments are directed to claims 1, 4, and 9, and PMC
`
`does not address claims 3, 6, and 11 with separate specific arguments. (Prelim.
`
`Resp. 11.)
`
`For reasons provided above, Zynga establishes a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on the ground of unpatentability of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 as
`
`anticipated by Higgins under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 – Anticipated by Hedges
`
`Zynga argues that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hedges. In its petition, Zynga explains, with
`
`supporting evidence (e.g., the declaration of Dr. Neuhauser), how each claim
`
`limitation is met by Hedges (Pet. 25-41, citing to Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 115-183.) Upon
`
`review of Zynga’s analysis and supporting evidence, and taking into account
`
`PMC’s preliminary response, we determine that Zynga has demonstrated that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and
`
`11 on the ground that these claims are anticipated by Hedges.
`
`Hedges
`
`Hedges describes a remote gaming system for use with a wagering or
`
`gambling establishment such that a player may participate in a game from a remote
`
`terminal (a player station). (Ex. 1008, Abstract.)
`
`The player station includes a live game display for displaying a
`selected one of a plurality of games being played at the croupier
`station, such as craps, roulette or keno. The player station includes a
`changeable playboard for displaying a selected one of a plurality of
`wagering possibilities corresponding to a selected one of the plurality
`of games being played and for displaying the results of the game
`played at the croupier station.
`(Id.)
`
`Figure 4, shown below, shows a game of roulette, which can be displayed on
`
`the playboard.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows a playboard that includes blocks of different colors for
`
`displaying possible wagers in a format which simulates a playing board in the live
`
`game selected. The display includes items relative to the player’s account such as
`
`total credit remaining and items pertinent to the game such as wagering limits,
`
`payoff odds, and time remaining to enter a bet. (Ex. 1008, 4:5-13.)
`
`The player station remote gamming terminal (RGT) is described with
`
`respect to Figure 9, shown below:
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`
`
`The RGT includes “read only memory (ROM) 91 to provide sufficient
`
`storage to hold the remote gaming terminal software and random access memory
`
`(RAM) 92 to hold temporary results of processing.” (Ex. 1008, 6:30-36.) The
`
`“RAM 91 [sic] is used for temporary storage of data which may change during the
`
`operation of the RGT.” (Id. 9:60-61.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - storing a control signal
`
`PMC argues that Hedges does not teach “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.” (Prelim. Resp. 13-14.) With respect to
`
`this limitation, PMC argues that Zynga fails to explain how the Hedges “stimulus”
`
`received from the credit station and player teach a control signal or how the
`
`“stimulus” is stored at the player game station. (Id.)
`
`In its petition, Zynga asserts that the stimulus received from the credit
`
`station or from the player as well as the data stored in ROM 91 and RAM 92 all
`
`cause execution of the RGT firmware to generate and display the completed
`
`playboard. Zynga explains, directing attention to the testimony of Dr. Neuhauser,
`
`any of the stimuli are, therefore, control signals that are stored and that are
`
`operative at the RGT to cause execution of the RGT firmware. (Pet. 34.)
`
`In support of the argument, Dr. Neuhauser testifies that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that Hedges discloses a number of control
`
`signals including commands entered by the player, inputs from the magnetic card
`
`reader 87 and the communicator 42, and that the control signals cause execution of
`
`the computer program stored in ROM 91 to produce the completed programming
`
`shown in playboard 40. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 148.) Indeed, Hedges describes that the
`
`“firmware is interpreted by microprocessor 90 in the RGT to cause it to generate
`
`the appropriate playboard display, sense commands entered by the player, control
`
`the magnetic card reader, communicate with the credit station, and so forth.” (Ex.
`
`1008, 8:65-9:2.) As further explained by Dr. Neuhauser, the described “stimulus”
`
`of Hedges would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00156 (Zynga v. PMC)
`Patent 7,860,131
`
`
`a control signal because the stimuli trigger execution of program code stored in
`
`ROM 91. (Ex. 1010, ¶ 149 citing Hedges at 9:10-26.) Lastly, we understand
`
`Zynga and Dr. Neuhauser to explain that the stimuli are all stored in ROM 91 and
`
`RAM 92.
`
`We have reviewed those portions of Hedges to which we are directed and
`
`determine that Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony as to stimulus being control signals that
`
`are stored is credible. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood any
`
`of the described various stimuli to be a control signal. For example, when a user at
`
`the RGT selects a particular game or places a particular wager and uses