`
`?Xhibit 70’6
`
`
`
`
`inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Zynga,
`
`
`Case "PR70’3—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.”)
`
`In particular, this declaration addresses the patentability of substitute claim of the
`
`’131 Patent against the prior art, including the prior art cited by the Petitioner in
`
`their Petition for Inter Partes Review.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`networking and digital video recording (DVR) technologies. I am active in the
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and am a Distinguished
`
`Lecturer for the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society. As a consultant, I have
`
`conducted briefings for members of the financial community on technology trends
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`projects had very high visibility in the company, and therefore carried a great deal
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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,
`
`remote downloading of software, encryption/decryption, and software development
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I also served on the faculty of Mississippi State University from 1994
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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
`
`environment that could run complex physical simulations on networked
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The ’131 Patent and its file history;
`
`The claim listing in PMC’s motion to amend containing the
`
`substitute claim 12.
`
`c.
`
`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);
`
`d.
`
`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.”)
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,204,206 to Higgins et al. (“Higgins”) (Ex.
`
`1007);
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,339,798 to Hedges et al. (“Hedges”) (Ex.
`
`1008);
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`g.
`
`Transcripts of the Deposition of Dr. Neuhauser on October 8-9,
`
`2013 (“Neuhauser Dep.”) (Exs. 2013, 2014);
`
`h.
`
`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, 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
`
`a common disclosure, as described in the background of the technology section
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`I have also relied on my years of education, teaching, research, and
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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 substitute claim 12,
`
`which replaces original independent claim 1, is novel and non-obvious over the
`
`prior art, including Higgins and Hedges. For at least this reason, original
`
`dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 which depend from original claim 1 (now
`
`substitute claim 12) are also novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`18.
`I am not an attorney. I have been advised of the following general
`
`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
`
`POSITA 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purposes of this review, unless otherwise stated, I have construed each claim term
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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.
`
`22. The standards for anticipation from 35 U.S.C. §102(a) and (b)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(35 U.S.C. §§102(a)-(b) (2012).)
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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
`
`every claim limitation so as to render the claim, as a whole, obvious. The relevant
`
`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 negatived
`
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012).)
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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;
`
`initial skepticism; failure of others; praise of the invention; and the taking of
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to the interrelated teaching of
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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
`
`claimed invention if a person of ordinary skill would be discouraged from
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`trying to address the issues or solve the problems faced by the inventor and ignore
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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.
`
`V. LISTING OF THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE IN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Original Claim 1. (Replaced by proposed substitute claim 12).
`
`Substitute claim 1 (Submitted in PMC’s motion to amend as proposed
`
`substitute claim 12). 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 stored programming
`
`comprising a computer program and a portion of programming to be completed
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by accessing prestored data at said station of a particular kind,
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`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 based on subscriber specific data and place
`
`information, which results from a processing of said selected datum, into said
`
`portion of programming to be completed at said storage device, thereby
`
`completing said programming at said storage device, the completed
`
`programming including at least an advertisement for delivery from the station
`
`of a particular kind to a subscriber; 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.
`
`3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein said prestored data designates
`
`subscriber data, said method further comprising the step of storing subscriber data.
`
`4. (Original) 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instructions in a specific order with information designating a time period.
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein said portion to be completed
`
`comprises generally applicable information.
`
`9. (Original) 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. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein said storage device is an
`
`ultimate receiver station.
`
`VI. THE CLAIMED INVENTION
`31.
`In numerous embodiments, the ’131 Patent describes a system that
`
`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. (’131
`
`Patent, 1:57-65.) The ’131 Patent describes methods for delivering complete
`
`programming, including truly personalized advertisements and other programming
`
`to subscribers by executing a computer program that causes a processor to select
`
`specific data from prestored data and place information, which results from
`
`processing of selected data, into a portion of programming to be completed,
`
`thereby completing the programming so that it can be delivered.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32. The ’131 Patent, for instance, describes an “Exotic Meals of India”
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`program and advertisements for pork bellies. The cooking show becomes a
`
`personalized experience, and the patent gives multiple examples of that
`
`personalization. (Id. at 244:31-54.) In one example, the price of pork bellies
`
`varies from person to person based on the supermarket that is nearest that
`
`individual, the “spot” price of pork bellies, and the transportation costs to the
`
`customer. During a break, advertisement programming is provided to the viewer.
`
`(Id. at 185:45-187:16; 252:11-254:17.)
`
`33. The advertisement, at one instance, promises to “deliver to you, at
`
`cost, all the pork you need to entertain five hundred people for this low, low price”
`
`(Id. at 252:51-53.) -- at which point the personalized price appears on the screen.
`
`The commercial spot Q is tailored based on the subscriber’s location (e.g.,
`
`commercial is for a supermarket that is closest to that viewer) and dietary habits
`
`(e.g., the commercial for the first family could be for “Patak's low-salt Vindaloo
`
`Curry Paste” whereas the commercial for the second family could be for something
`
`different, “Patak's Quick Curry Paste (Hot)”. (See, e.g., ’131 Patent at 185:45-
`
`187:16; 250:11-251:26; 252:11-254:51.) Personalized audio is also delivered
`
`because the announcer states “represents a saving to you of over [forty-three/forty
`
`six/etc.] percent.” (Id. at 253:33-254:17.) Using the patented invention, each
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subscriber can be shown a different, personalized price on his or her TV monitor.
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`The subscribers are receiving personalized commercials. (Id. at 252:34-253:29.)
`
`34. A person of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that the
`
`advertisements included in the programming are functionally integral to the
`
`invention claimed by substitute claim 12. Advertisements, and in particular, the
`
`content of the advertisement included in the programming, transforms the
`
`particular steps that are taken by the computer, as recited in the claim. The
`
`advertisement and its content transform the selection of a specific datum from
`
`the prestored data based on subscriber specific data. Similarly, it affects the
`
`information that is placed into the portion to be completed, where the
`
`information is the result of processing the selected datum. The commercials
`
`that are provided are not merely any commercial, but rather, as recited in the claim,
`
`are part of programming that is completed based on subscriber specific data. The
`
`content of the commercial is integral to the selection of data from the prestored
`
`data. In the “Exotic Meals of India” commercial example, the prestored data that
`
`is selected relates to the current prices of Pork at the nearest store, the location of
`
`the viewer’s home versus the nearest grocery store, the dietary habits of the viewer
`
`and his or her family and other information. Moreover, the claim recites that the
`
`advertisement is delivered from the station to the subscriber. Without the
`
`advertisement, the selection, placing and processing operations of the claimed
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`invention, a station of a particular kind would not deliver complete programming
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`in the same manner. For this reason, the advertisements included in the
`
`programming are functionally integral to the claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found
`
`the invention claimed by the substitute claim to be significant. At the time of the
`
`invention, 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.)
`
`36. Part of the significance of the invention is the ability for programming
`
`to be completed based in part on subscriber specific data, i.e., by the selecting from
`
`prestored data based on subscriber specific data. This allows for programming to
`
`be tailored to individual subscribers. Significantly, the prior art systems of 1987
`
`were unable to provide such customization. Furthermore, it is significant that the
`
`completed programming can include advertisements. This allows even for
`
`advertisements to be tailored to specific subscribers.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. As evident from the examples described in the ’131 Patent these and
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`other features of the claimed invention allow for users to enjoy programming that
`
`is tailored specifically for the user, e.g., based on information about the user that
`
`may be available at each station. As the patents explain, “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.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`38. As seen above, PMC’s substitute claim recites that the completed
`
`programming includes at least an advertisement for delivery from the station
`
`of a particular kind to a subscriber.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, “advertisement” requires no construction. The term
`
`should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`40.
`
`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, to the extent the Board requires construction of the term, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in 1987 would construe the term “advertisement” to be its
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plain and ordinary meaning: a notice or statement about goods, products or
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`services for the purpose of attracting customers or supporters.
`
`41. The ’131 Patent is organized around a set of examples that show
`
`numerous ways in which the inventions can be practiced. Many of these examples
`
`describe advertisements included in completed programming. In particular, these
`
`advertisements take the form of notices or statements that are provided to the
`
`viewer describing goods, products or services for the purpose of attracting
`
`customers or supporters. In the “Exotic Meals of India” program that I described
`
`above, the advertisements are commercials that are provided to the subscriber to
`
`attract the customer into purchasing pork that can be delivered to the customer’s
`
`home for a user-specific price. During this advertisement, the announcer
`
`announces:
`
`Think how much your friends enjoy outdoor barbecues.
`
`(’131 Patent, 252:44.)
`
`For a limited time only, Super Discount Supermarkets make this
`special offer to you. Super Discount Supermarkets will deliver to you,
`at cost, all the pork you need to entertain five hundred people for this
`low, low price . . .
`
`(Id. at 252:48-52.) A user-specific price is generated and provided to the
`viewer. Then, the announcer announces:
`Super Discount Supermarkets makes this offer-today only-at cost, and
`this offer represents a saving to you of over . . .
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`
`(Id. at 253:30-34.) Then the computer is caused to output the percentage of
`saving to the user in the announcer’s voice saying “forty-six”. (Id. at
`252:34-253:29.) Subsequently, the commercial continues, and announces to
`the viewer:
`To confirm this very special limited offer to you in writing, we are
`now printing, at your printer . . . the current specials and coupon
`offers of Super Discount Supermarkets which include a special
`coupon for you with which you can buy enough pork for your own
`barbecue party.
`
`(’131 Patent, 254:61-257:7)
`
`42.
`
`In another example, farmers are provided with programming that
`
`helps them plan for the upcoming year. As part of the programming provided to
`
`the viewer, the ’131 Patent describes that the receiver station of the farmer is
`
`capable of receiving a series of advertisements in the form of spot commercials.
`
`The ’131 Patent describes that these spot commercials are “for a particular new
`
`farm truck, a particular new farm tractor, a particular new farm disk harrow.”
`
`Automatically, under control of its received program instruction set,
`the microcomputer, 205, of its farmer’s station records complete
`information of said farmer’s crop planting plan at its A: disk in a file
`named PLANTING.DAT.
`
`Then automatically, under control of its particular program instruction
`set, each farmer’s microcomputer, 205, computes and retains
`information of a particular schedule of spot commercials. Information
`of twenty-six specific potential commercials of any given schedule are
`included in the information of its set, and the specific commercials
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`include, for example, commercials for a particular new farm truck, a
`particular new farm tractor, a particular new farm disk harrow,
`software of a particular new “PROPRIET.MOD” module for
`analyzing crop planting plans and generating recommended planting
`plans in a “new improved fashion,” etc. Under control of the
`instructions of its particular set, by analyzing the budget information
`of the farmers’ crop planting plan, each microcomputer, 205,
`automatically identifies four commercial spots that are of a particular
`possible highest potential value to its farmer. For example, by
`analyzing equipment depreciation information, one
`microcomputer, 205, determines that its farmer has an old truck, a
`new tractor, and a new disk harrow and selects, as one of its four
`commercials, the commercial of the new truck. Meanwhile, another
`microcomputer, 205, determines that its farmer has an old truck, a
`new tractor, and an old disk harrow and selects the commercial of the
`new truck because a new truck is costlier than a disk harrow and may
`be more valuable to its farmer. Automatically, the microcomputer,
`205, of each station inputs to the signal processor, 200, of its station
`particular schedule information of its four identified commercial
`spots. In due course, the recorder, 76, of each local intermediate
`station transmits further additional SPAM messages that are
`embedded in its prerecorded programming and that are addressed to
`URS microcomputers, 205, then transmits a particular local-second-
`cueing message (#11) that is addressed to ITS computers, 73.
`
`(’131 Patent, 283:29-59.)
`
`Playing each commercial spot causes the combined medium
`information of said spot to display information of a particular
`commercial product such as a truck or a particular service such as a
`software package; to access the prerecorded “A:PLANTING.DAT”
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131 B1
`
`disk file information of a farmer’s crop planting plan; in a fashion
`well known in the art, to generate cost/benefit financial analysis of the
`incremental benefit of acquiring and using the displayed product or
`service (by comparison with the farmer’s existing product or service
`of like kind); and to display (or otherwise output) information of said
`analysis (if said analysis results in a positive net present benefit).
`
`(’131 Patent, 285:23-34.)
`
`43. The advertisement included in the programming provides a series of
`
`messages that are provided, in this case,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
