`
`?Xhibit 70’5
`
`
`
`
`Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Zynga,
`
`
`Case "PR90’3—00156 (SCM)
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`ZYNGA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00156
`U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131
`___________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SAMUEL H. RUSS, PH.D.
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Samuel H. Russ, do hereby declare:
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Patent Owner
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”) in the matter of the Inter
`
`Partes Review, No. IPR2013-00156, of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 (“’131 Patent.”)
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT
`2. My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`Declaration are summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached as part of Exhibit 2019. Exhibit 2019 also includes a list
`
`of my publications and the cases in which I have testified at deposition, hearing, or
`
`trial during the past four years.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in 1986 and a Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech in 1991.
`
`4.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have been a member of the faculty of the
`
`University of South Alabama as an Assistant and Associate Professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. During that time, I have won
`
`awards for excellent teaching and have been actively publishing research in home
`
`networking and digital video recording (DVR) technologies. I am active in the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and am a Distinguished
`
`Lecturer for the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society. As a consultant, I have
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conducted briefings for members of the financial community on technology trends
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`in the cable, satellite, and IPTV sectors. I teach classes in subjects including
`
`encryption, digital system design, signal integrity, systems engineering, software
`
`development, embedded system development, digital logic design, and computer
`
`engineering.
`
`5.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, I worked for Scientific-Atlanta (now Cisco’s
`
`Service Provider Video Tech. Group), where I managed a cable set-top box (STB)
`
`design group that designed four STB models, including the Explorer 4200 (non-
`
`DVR) and 8300 (DVR) models. Set-top boxes contain numerous features relevant
`
`to the Harvey patents, including networking, communications, interactivity, the
`
`ability to download software, video and audio processing, and digital audio and
`
`video. Both models sold several million units. As design-group manager, I was
`
`responsible for managing the design and prototyping activities of the group and for
`
`interfacing with other groups (especially integrated-circuit design, procurement,
`
`software developers, the factory where prototypes were built, and product
`
`managers) and for maintaining the hardware and mechanical development
`
`schedule. Since the products were produced in extremely high volumes, the
`
`projects had very high visibility in the company, and therefore carried a great deal
`
`of responsibility. In order to manage the design of cable set-top boxes, I had to be
`
`an expert in communications, signal processing, networking, distributed systems,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`remote downloading of software, encryption/decryption, and software development
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`including coding and testing.
`
`6.
`
`Also while at Scientific-Atlanta, I became a staff expert in home
`
`networking, conducting demonstrations of breakthrough wireless video-
`
`distribution technology and managing a group that developed a new coaxial home
`
`networking system. The coaxial system won a Technology and Engineering
`
`Emmy® Award in 2013. I became a staff expert in DVR reliability and led a team
`
`that improved the software, hardware, repair, manufacturing processes, and vendor
`
`qualifications of DVR set-tops and hard disk drives. I was a named inventor on
`
`forty-eight (48) patent applications that were filed while I was at Scientific-
`
`Atlanta, twenty five (25) of which have issued as patents as of the writing of this
`
`Declaration.
`
`7.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was a Staff Electrical Engineer and then Matrix
`
`Manager at IVI Checkmate (now Ingenico), where I managed the hardware design
`
`team that completed the design of the eN-Touch 1000 payment terminal. This
`
`terminal was in widespread use, for example, at the self-checkout at Home Depot.
`
`8.
`
`I also served on the faculty of Mississippi State University from 1994
`
`to 1999 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer
`
`Engineering where I taught circuit board design and two-way interactive video
`
`classes, among other things. I managed the development of a distributed run-time
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`environment that could run complex physical simulations on networked
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`workstations and could migrate software between workstations while it was
`
`running.
`
`9.
`
`I have also authored 32 journal articles and conference papers. A
`
`recent conference paper on digital video recording won second place in a “best
`
`paper” competition at the 2011 International Conference on Consumer Electronics
`
`in Las Vegas, NV. A complete list of publications is included in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Exhibit 2019.
`
`10.
`
`In my current capacity as an independent consultant I have reviewed
`
`and verified the operation of a wide variety of technical systems, including
`
`processors, personal computers, television devices, smart phones, peripherals and
`
`bus systems.
`
`11.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration I have relied
`
`upon my education and my 22 years of professional and academic experience.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $300 for consulting services. My compensation for this matter is not
`
`determined by or contingent on the outcome of this case.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND RELIED UPON
`13.
`In preparing this Declaration I reviewed and considered the following
`
`materials:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`The ’131 Patent and its file history;
`
`The Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’131 Patent filed by
`
`the Zynga Inc. (“the Petitioner”) (“The Petition” or “Pet.”) and the exhibits
`
`that are cited by the Petition, including, the Declaration of Charles J.
`
`Neuhauser, Ph.D. (“Neuhauser Declaration”, “Dr. Neuhauser” or
`
`“Neuhauser Decl.”) (Ex. 1010);
`
`c.
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) Decision on
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review of the ’131 Patent, dated July 25, 2013
`
`(“the Decision” or “Dec.”)
`
`d.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,204,206 to Higgins et al. (“Higgins”) (Ex.
`
`1007);
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,339,798 to Hedges et al. (“Hedges”) (Ex.
`
`1008);
`
`f.
`
`Transcripts of the Deposition of Dr. Neuhauser on October 8-9,
`
`2013 (“Neuhauser Dep.”) (Exs. 2013, 2014);
`
`g.
`
`All other documents cited and used in my Declaration.
`
`14.
`
`In addition to the materials above, I have reviewed materials in
`
`connection with related inter partes proceedings Case Nos. IPR2013-00162,
`
`IPR2013-00164 and IPR2013-00171. The ’131 Patent and the Patents-at-issue in
`
`these related cases, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,638; 7,797,717; and 7,734,251, all share
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a common disclosure, as described in the background of the technology section
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`below.
`
`15. An additional basis for my opinions is my own experience as an
`
`engineer acquired, for example, while I was a manager and a staff expert at
`
`Scientific-Atlanta (“S-A”). As noted above, I have managed the design of four
`
`electronic products that entered mass production (three cable set-top boxes, the
`
`Explorer 1840, 4200, and 8300, and one point-of-sale retail terminal, the eN-Touch
`
`1000). Two of those products (the Explorer 4200 and 8300) were produced in
`
`million-unit quantities. I also became a staff expert in home networking and DVR
`
`reliability and performance, as well as all aspects of cable, satellite, and IPTV
`
`“Pay-TV” networks.
`
`16.
`
`I have also relied on my years of education, teaching, research, and
`
`experience concerning software, circuit design, signal integrity, computer
`
`architecture, digital logic design and synthesis, embedded systems, distributed
`
`computing, computer and network security, and networking.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`17. As described in detail below, it is my opinion that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9,
`
`and 11of the ’131 Patent are novel over the prior art cited by the Petitioner,
`
`including Higgins and Hedges.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`18.
`I am not an attorney. I have been advised of the following general
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`principles of patent law to be considered in formulating my opinions as to whether
`
`the claims of the ’131 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must construe the
`
`claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification from the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the
`
`purposes of this review, unless otherwise stated, I have construed each claim term
`
`in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`requires that a single prior art reference or product discloses or contains, expressly
`
`or inherently, every limitation of the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that inherency exists only if it necessarily
`
`follows that the device or system would have the element at issue. If the device or
`
`system could operate without the element at issue, such as by operating in a
`
`different way or using a different element, there is no inherency.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22. The standards for anticipation from 35 U.S.C. §102(a) and (b)
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`applicable to the ’131 Patent are reproduced below:
`
`a.
`
`The invention was known or used by others in this country, or
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country,
`
`before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
`
`b.
`
`The invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this
`
`country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
`
`the United States.
`
`(35 U.S.C. §§102(a)-(b) (2012).)
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) if that invention is described in another U.S. Patent that was filed earlier,
`
`unless the inventor of the claimed invention conceived of the claimed invention
`
`before the other U.S. Patent was filed.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is invalid for obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if two or more prior art references in combination disclose, expressly
`
`or inherently, every claim limitation so as to render the claim, as a whole, obvious.
`
`Alternatively, a claim can be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if a single prior art
`
`reference combined with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art discloses
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`every claim limitation so as to render the claim, as a whole, obvious. The relevant
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`standard for obviousness is as follows:
`
`a.
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if
`
`the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated
`
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012).)
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in determining whether or not a patented invention
`
`would have been obvious, the following factors should be considered: (a) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (b) the differences between the prior art and the claims
`
`at issue; (c) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (d) whatever “secondary
`
`considerations” may be present.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that certain “secondary considerations” may be relevant
`
`in determining whether or not an invention would have been obvious, and that
`
`these secondary considerations may include commercial success of a product using
`
`the invention, if that commercial success is due to the invention; long-felt need for
`
`the invention; evidence of copying of the claimed invention; industry acceptance;
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`initial skepticism; failure of others; praise of the invention; and the taking of
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`licenses under the patents by others.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. But multiple prior art references or elements may, in some
`
`circumstances, be combined to render a patent claim obvious. I understand that I
`
`should consider whether there is an “apparent reason” to combine the prior art
`
`references or elements in the way the patent claims. To determine whether such an
`
`“apparent reason” to combine the prior art references or elements in the way a
`
`patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to the interrelated teaching of
`
`multiple patents, to the effects of demands known to the design community or
`
`present in the marketplace, and to the background knowledge possessed by a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that when the prior art “teaches away” from
`
`combining prior art references or certain known elements, discovery of a
`
`successful means of combining them is more likely to be non-obvious. A prior art
`
`reference may be said to “teach away” from a patent when a person of ordinary
`
`skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set
`
`out in the patent, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
`
`taken by the patent. Additionally, a prior art reference may “teach away” from a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed invention if a person of ordinary skill would be discouraged from
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`combining the reference with another reference, such as when substituting an
`
`element within that prior art reference for a claim element would render the
`
`claimed invention inoperable or ineffective for its intended purpose.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that it is not permissible to use hindsight in assessing
`
`whether a claimed invention is obvious. Rather, I understand that, to assess
`
`obviousness, you must place yourself in the shoes of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant field of technology at the time the inventions were made who is
`
`trying to address the issues or solve the problems faced by the inventor and ignore
`
`the knowledge you currently now have of the inventions.
`
`C.
`
`30.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I believe that the ’131 Patent is addressed to a person with at least the
`
`equivalent of a first college degree in digital electronics, electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical degree, with several
`
`years (e.g., 2-5 years) of post-degree experience in a similar field. In determining
`
`who would be a person of ordinary skill, I considered at least the following criteria:
`
`(a) the type of problems encountered in the art; (b) prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (d) the sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (e) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’131 PATENT AND
`RELATED PATENTS
`31. The ’131 Patent foresaw a world in which control signals enabled the
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`merger of multimedia content with, for example, broadcast television to provide
`
`graphical content and audio content, tailored to the needs of individual subscribers.
`
`Prior to the ’131 Patent, the art of the era involved terminals connected to
`
`mainframes, standalone computers, or broadcast television. The ’131 Patent
`
`describes the creation and delivery of content in a novel manner that provides
`
`personalized, interactive combined medium programming.
`
`32. At a high level, the ’131 Patent describes an integrated system for
`
`programming creation and communication that involves the fields of computer
`
`processing, computer communications, television, radio, and other electronic
`
`communications. (’131 Patent, 1:24-31.) The inventors understood that there was
`
`great potential for combining the capacity of broadcast communications media to
`
`convey ideas with the capacity of computers to process and output user specific
`
`information. For example, such a system could combine the capacity for
`
`conveying general information to large audiences (such as telling them that stock
`
`prices rose today in heavy trading) with information of specific relevance to each
`
`particular user in the audience (such as telling a particular person “but the value of
`
`your stock portfolio went down.”). (’131 Patent, 1:57-65.)
`
`33. As the patents explain:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`
`
`Unlocking this potential is desirable because these new media will add
`substantial richness and variety to the communication of ideas,
`information and entertainment. Understanding complex subjects and
`making informed decisions will become easier. To unlock this
`potential fully requires means and methods for combining and
`controlling receiver systems that are now separate.
`(Id. at 2:1-11.)
`
`34. While the ’131 Patent describes what could be a large networked
`
`system for delivering many types of personalized programming, the inventors
`
`recognized that in specific situations fewer functions would be required, and that in
`
`such situations, one or more of the specific operating elements described in the
`
`patent could be omitted. Indeed, a central objective of the invention was to
`
`provide flexibility regarding the installed equipment. By including such a capacity
`
`for wide variation, individual subscribers were given the widest range of
`
`information options supported by their installed equipment. The inventors
`
`described a system with flexibility for expanding the capacity of installed systems
`
`through transmitted software, for altering installed systems in a modular fashion by
`
`adding or removing components, and for restricting the programming to only
`
`certain subscribers if such was desired. (Id. at 9:6-21.)
`
`35. The specification is organized around a set of examples that show
`
`numerous ways in which the inventions can be practiced. The patent specification
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shared by the ’131 Patent begins by describing an example that creates a
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`personalized presentation using the “Wall Street Week” television program
`
`combined with local data about the subscriber's own stock portfolio. That
`
`introductory example is then followed with eleven additional examples that show
`
`applications of the inventions to such areas as the sale of pork bellies, the
`
`preparation of Indian food, and the coordination of farming activities.
`
`36. One of the examples described in the patent involves the television
`
`show “Wall Street Week”. As the patents explain, with the patented invention,
`
`Wall Street Week goes from being a television show that merely conveys general
`
`stock market information to a wide audience to a personalized combined media
`
`experience in which each individual viewer sees his or her own individual stock
`
`portfolio performance in combination with the general stock market information.
`
`For this to work, the subscriber needs more than just a television set. The
`
`subscriber station described in this example includes a microprocessor or
`
`microcomputer and a disk drive. Stored on this disk drive is a file that contains
`
`information about the subscriber's stock portfolio. (’131 Patent, 11:42-50.)
`
`37. The microcomputer accesses this data file and calculates the
`
`performance of the subscriber's stock portfolio. The microcomputer then
`
`constructs a graphic image showing that individual performance. The system
`
`accesses a local “portfolio data file” for information and calculates the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`performance of the subscriber's personal stock portfolio to prepare a graphic image
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`of that performance. (Id. at 13:26-31.) An example of such a graphic image is
`
`shown in Figure 1A of the patent.
`
`38. While these calculations are occurring, the usual television image and
`
`the sound of the transmitted “Wall Street Week” program are presented on the TV
`
`monitor. During this time the program may show the “talking head” of the host as
`
`he describes the behavior of the stock market over the course of the week. At
`
`some point, the host says, “Now as we turn to the graphs, here is what the Dow
`
`Jones Industrials did in the week just past,” and a studio generated graphic is
`
`transmitted. (Id. at 13:60–14:2.) An example of a graphic image showing the
`
`general stock market condition is shown in Figure 1B of the patent.
`
`39. So far, nothing personalized has been presented to the subscriber. But
`
`then the host says, “And here is what your portfolio did,” and the viewer becomes
`
`engaged in a personalized media presentation. A signal instructs the
`
`microcomputer to overlay the personalized graphic information of Figure 1A onto
`
`the received information of Figure 1B and transmit the combined information to a
`
`monitor, which displays a graph showing the subscriber’s own portfolio
`
`performance overlaid on the broadcast image describing the market at large. (’131
`
`Patent, 14:2-17; 231:3-11.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-000156
`
`
`Patent NNo. 7,860,1331 B1
`
`
`
` (Id. at FFig. 1B, Fiig. 1C.)
`
`
`
`
`
`440. As thhe patent exxplains, this process
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would nott be a one-ttime event
`
`
`
`: “In
`
`
`
`actualityy, the proccess of conttrolling computer-baased combiined mediaa operationns is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`continuous and involves sysstematic inpputting andd maintainning of up-tto-date useer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specificc data at eaach subscribber stationn.” For exaample, onlyy at subscrriber statio
`
`
`
`
`
`ns
`
`
`
`where uuser specifiic stock daata is mainttained systtematicallyy and up-too-date can tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system generate immages thatt actually s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subscribbers. (Id. aat 231:3-111.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`how the peerformancee of the poortfolios of f the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`441. Anotther exampple provideed is the “EExotic Meaals of Indiaa” programm and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`advertissements forr pork belllies. As wiith the Walll Street WWeek exampple, portio
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the cooking shoow are commmon to alll of the subbscribers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` But once
`
`
`
`again, usinng
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the discclosed inveention, the cooking shhow becommes a persoonalized exxperience,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the pateent gives mmultiple exaamples of tthat personnalization.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In one exaample, the
`
`ns
`
`and
`
`
`
`price off pork belliies varies ffrom personn to personn based onn the supermmarket thaat is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nearest that indiviidual, the ““spot” pricee of pork bbellies, andd the transpportation c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`osts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the customer. By accessing user specific information, the system is able to
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`calculate an individualized pork belly price for each viewer of the cooking
`
`program. During a commercial break, an announcer promises to “deliver to you, at
`
`cost, all the pork you need to entertain five hundred people for this low, low price”
`
`-- at which point your personalized price appears on the screen. (’131 Patent,
`
`252:34-253:29.) Personalized audio is also delivered because the announcer states
`
`“saving you more than [forty-three/forty six/etc.] percent.” Using the patented
`
`invention, each subscriber can be shown a different, personalized price on his or
`
`her TV monitor. The subscribers are receiving personalized commercials. (Id.)
`
`42. When the cooking show returns from the commercial break, the
`
`announcer says that the special ingredients for tonight’s show are available for
`
`delivery from a local supermarket chain. And, once again, the cooking show
`
`becomes a personalized experience that is also interactive. The system uses user
`
`specific information to determine the telephone number of the supermarket that is
`
`nearest to your house, and the number of that supermarket is displayed on the
`
`screen. Other features of this example described in the patents include the ability
`
`for each subscriber to see different food choices based on their personal tastes
`
`(such as mild or spicy) and the ability to transmit a personalized shopping list back
`
`to the supermarket when the user enters a special code at the subscriber station.
`
`(Id. at 253:1-44.)
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43. As discussed above, the inventions in the Asserted Patents are
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`explained using numerous examples and platforms as illustrations, but, as the ’131
`
`Patent also explains, the inventions are not limited to just those examples and
`
`platforms. The disclosed system has wide applicability, involving “the fields of
`
`computer processing, computer communications, television, radio, and other
`
`electronic communications.” (’131 Patent, 1:24-31.) “The programming may be
`
`delivered by any means including over-the-air, hard-wire, and manual means.”
`
`(Id. at 7:11-13.) The term “programming” is defined broadly: “The present
`
`invention consists of an integrated system of methods and apparatus for
`
`communicating programming. The term ‘programming’ refers to everything that is
`
`transmitted electronically to entertain, instruct, or inform, including television,
`
`radio, broadcast print, and computer programming was well as combined medium
`
`programming (Id. at 6:29-34.)
`
`44. Further, a key feature of the disclosed inventions is expandability:
`
`“Yet another objective is expandability. As the operating capacities of computer
`
`hardware have grown in recent decades, increasingly sophisticated software
`
`systems have been developed to operate computers. Often incompatibilities have
`
`existed between newly developed operating system software and older generations
`
`of computer hardware. It is the objective of the system of signal composition of
`
`the present invention to have capacity for expanding to accommodate newly
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`developed subscriber station hardware while still serving older hardware
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`generations.” (’131 Patent, 22:60-23:2.)
`
`45. Flexibility is another key feature: “A central objective of the present
`
`invention is to provide flexibility in regard to installed station apparatus. At any
`
`given time, the system must have capacity for wide variation in individual station
`
`apparatus in order to provide individual subscribers the widest range of
`
`information options at the least cost in terms of installed equipment. Flexibility
`
`must exist for expanding the capacity of installed systems by means of transmitted
`
`software and for altering installed systems in a modular fashion by adding or
`
`removing components.” (Id. at 9:10-19.)
`
`46. The inventors saw “great potential” in their disclosed inventions, and
`
`they believed that unlocking that potential would “add substantial richness and
`
`variety to the communication of ideas, information and entertainment.” (Id. at 1:57
`
`– 2:5.) Their objective was “to unlock this great potential in the fullest measure.”
`
`(Id. at 2:49-52.) The illustrations they used to show how that potential could be
`
`unlocked were “presented by way of example only.” (Id. at 161:17, 286:21-22.)
`
`The invention was “not to be unduly restricted” by those examples “since
`
`modifications may be made in the structure of the various parts or in the methods
`
`of their functioning without functionally departing from the spirit of the
`
`invention.” (Id. at 161:17:21, 286:21-26.)
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`47. The Decision construed the term “compute” to mean “to use a
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`computer or cause it to do work.”
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, this construction is inconsistent with the use of the
`
`term in the claim and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would not arrive at this construction in light of how this term is used in
`
`the specification of the ’131 Patent.
`
`49. As used in the claim, “computing” cannot be interpreted as “using a
`
`computer or causing it to do work” because it makes little sense when this
`
`construction is placed in the claim in place of “computing.” (“[‘using a computer
`
`or causing it to do work’] second data . . . by processing said first data.”) A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand how the “second data”
`
`is affected by “using a computer or causing it to do work.” Because the claim reads
`
`the “computing” is performed “at said subscriber station” Replacing computing
`
`with “using a computer or causing it to do work” effectively reads the term
`
`“computing” out of the claim entirely.
`
`50.
`
`It is my understanding that a term must be given its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`considered in light of the specification of the patent. With this requirement in
`
`mind, a person of ordinary skill in the art, in my opinion, would interpret this term
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to mean “calculating or determining” (information or data) because it is how this
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`term is used throughout the ’131 Patent. In other words, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would reject the overly broad definition provided in the Decision in light
`
`of the specification.
`
`VII. HIGGINS
`51.
`I have been asked to consider whether Higgins anticipates claims 1-3,
`
`6, and 11-13 of the ’131 Patent. As I describe below, I conclude that none of the
`
`claims are anticipated. I conclude that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that
`
`Higgins – as understood from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention – discloses independent claim 1 of the ’131 Patent and
`
`its dependent claims.
`
`52. U.S. Patent 5,790,922 to Higgins (“Higgins”) was filed on June 29,
`
`1984 and issued on December 14, 1993.
`
`53. Higgins discloses a “data processing and communication system” that
`
`“distributes and displays financial market data.” (Higgins, Abstract.) Information
`
`“of the market securities is maintained at and becomes immediately available to
`
`each work station responsive to the pattern of usage at that specific workstation.”
`
`(Higgins, 1:48-51.) Financial market data may be analyzed, such as to determine
`
`whether to generate a limit alarm and message. (Higgins, Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Claim 1
`54. Claim 1 recites:
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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
`sa