Docket No. PMC-004
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`___________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of the invention ............................................................................... 3
`
`III. Petitioner’s expert declaration ....................................................................... 11
`
`Higgins ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`program and a portion to be completed by accessing prestored
`data at said station of a particular kind ................................................ 16
`
`Higgins fails to teach completing incomplete content because
`the ticker window display is being updated based on new stock
`data, not completed based on new stock data ..................................... 20
`
`Higgins fails to teach the prestored data that is stored prior to
`the storing of the programming ........................................................... 21
`
`I.
`II.
`IV. Ground 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over
`A. Higgins fails to teach programming that comprises a computer
`B.
`C.
`D. Higgins fails to teach executing the computer program to select
`E.
`F.
`G. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 36
`V. Ground 2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over
`A. Hedges fails to teach prestored data that is stored prior to the
`
`a specific datum from the prestored data and process the
`selected specific datum, which results in information used to
`complete programming ....................................................................... 23
`
`Higgins fails to teach placing the information resulting from the
`processing of the selected datum into the portion to be
`completed ............................................................................................ 29
`
`Higgins fails to teach storing a control signal which is operative
`at the station to cause execution of the computer program ................. 29
`
`Hedges ........................................................................................................... 39
`
`storing of the programming ................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`Hedges fails to teach programming comprising a computer
`program and a portion to be completed by accessing prestored
`data thereby completing said programming ........................................ 43
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 45
`
`Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 45
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORTIES
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831(Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................... 15
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 14, 39
`
`Statutes
`Other Authorities
`Rules
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131 ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Docket No. PMC-004
`
`Patent Owner, Personalized Media Communications LLC (“PMC” or
`
`“Patent Owner”), submits the following Patent Owner’s Response to the petition
`
`filed by Zynga, Inc. (the “Petitioner”) on February 26, 2013 requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 (Ex. 1001, “’131
`
`Patent”). (Paper 1, “Pet.” or “Petition”.) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`“Board”) instituted this proceeding in the Inter Partes Review Decision (Paper 11,
`
`“Dec.” or “Decision”) on July 25, 2013 instituting inter partes review on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 for anticipation by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,270,922 to Higgins (Ex. 1007, “Higgins”);
`
`2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 for anticipation by U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,339,798 to Hedges et al. (Ex. 1008, “Hedges”).
`
`This Response is submitted pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120. Separate from
`
`this Response, Applicant is submitting a motion to amend pursuant to 37 CFR
`
`§ 42.212. A conference with the Board was conducted on October 17, 2013,
`
`during which Patent Owner advised that it would be amending by submitting a
`
`substitute claim for claim 1 of the ’131 Patent. (See Paper 16, at 2.) No
`
`amendment is made to the other claims at issue in this proceeding. As required
`
`under the rules, this Response will argue patentability of the claims as they
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`presently stand, without amendment. Applicant will argue patentability of the
`
`
`
`claims as amended in the motion submitted herewith.
`
`With this Response, PMC submits the Declaration of Dr. Samuel H. Russ,
`
`Ph. D. (Ex. 2015, “Russ Decl.”) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. Dr. Russ is a computer
`
`scientist and professor with extensive experience in the field of computer science
`
`and electrical engineering, including particularly to computer communications and
`
`microprocessor systems and design. Dr. Russ’s declaration provides an analysis of
`
`the cited prior art from the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill at the time
`
`viewing the claims and specification. Dr. Russ’s declaration also addresses certain
`
`opinions and testimony of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Neuhauser submitted in his
`
`affidavit. (Ex. 1010, “Neuhauser Decl.”) In addition, PMC submits the cross-
`
`examination deposition testimony of Dr. Neuhauser, which was conducted on
`
`October 8-9, 2013. (Ex. 2013, “Neuhauser Dep. Oct. 8”; Ex. 2014, “Neuhauser
`
`Dep. Oct. 9”), along with the cross-examination deposition testimony of Dr.
`
`Neuhauser on Oct. 1, 2013 in related IPR proceedings IPR Nos. 2013-00162, -
`
`00164 (Ex. 2021, “Neuhauser Dep. Oct. 1”.) 1
`
`
`1 Petitioner and Patent Owner have agreed to allow cross-designation of materials
`
`among the four related IPR proceedings (IPR Nos. 2013-00156, -00162, -00164, -
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`As set forth in detail below, PMC provides evidence which establishes by a
`
`
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to
`
`demonstrate that challenged claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 of the ’131 Patent are
`
`anticipated by the prior art references asserted by the Petitioner.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE INVENTION
`
`The claims at issue are directed to a method of processing video signals at a
`
`receiver station based on at least one information transmission. Prior to the
`
`conception and development of the inventions disclosed in the ’131 Patent,
`
`communication systems in the art, such as those based on teletext2, were flawed
`
`00171) so that evidence elicited at the depositions may be cited and relied upon in
`
`another IPR proceeding, subject to any appropriate objection as to admissibility.
`
`2 During the prosecution of this and related applications, the U.S. Patent &
`
`Trademark Office considered and found the inventions to be patentable over many
`
`references directed to teletext, videotext, and similar text-transmission systems. In
`
`a related ex parte appeal of U.S. Pat. No. 7,734,251 (at issue in a companion IPR),
`
`the Board found that the inventions were patentable over ten references directed to
`
`teletext-based systems. (Ex. 2017, Ex parte Harvey, No. 2007-1837 (B.P.A.I. Mar.
`
`20, 2009).) The systems in the references cited by Petitioner are deficient in some
`
`of the same respects as those teletext-based systems already considered.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`
`
`and limited in capability. The inventors of the ’131 Patent recognized that
`
`improvements could be made to develop an advanced, unified system for
`
`programming communications and delivering information and instructions to
`
`various stations. These inventions have since been applied across numerous
`
`industries to facilitate the delivery of media content to electronic devices.
`
`Certain methods for delivering complete programming, including those
`
`claimed in the ’131 Patent, enable the delivery of truly personalized advertising
`
`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. Like the teletext-based systems, none of the asserted prior art
`
`systems, including Higgins and Hedges, are capable of performing all of these and
`
`other claimed operations.
`
`“Exotic Meals of India” Example
`
`In one example provided in the specification of the ’131 Patent,
`
`programming including a “program instruction set” (computer program) and a
`
`“spot commercial Q” (content describing advertising specials at local
`
`supermarkets) is delivered to a receiver station. (Ex. 1001, ’131 Patent, col. 183 l.
`
`40 – col. 184 l. 32.) The specials can vary from supermarket to supermarket and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`from time to time, and, therefore, the spot commercial Q ultimately delivered, can
`
`
`
`vary from receiver station to receiver station. (Id.) Additionally, the specific spot
`
`commercial may be selected based on subscriber specific data, such as the dietary
`
`habits for the family. (Id.)
`
`In the “Exotic Meals of India” example in the specification, television
`
`content is delivered to subscribers in the form of a cooking show. (Id. at col. 241 l.
`
`57, et seq.) The computer at each subscriber’s home has information stored
`
`reflecting the dietary habits for that household, e.g., at a first household the data
`
`indicates that the “family prefers very hot and spicy foods, prefers to minimize salt
`
`consumption … [and consists] of four adults.” (Id. at col. 244 ll. 37-42.) A second
`
`family’s data indicates a preference for “particular mild foods, is indifferent to salt
`
`consumption, … [and consists] of two adults.” (Id. at col. 245 ll. 2-4.) A third
`
`family’s data indicates it “prefers particular moderately hot and spicy foods, is
`
`indifferent regarding salt consumption, .. [and consists] of two adults and three
`
`children.” (Id. at col. 245 ll. 16-21.)
`
`The “Exotic Meals of India” program is “devoted to the subject of cooking a
`
`particular fish curry that can be mild or moderately hot and spicy or, as a vindaloo,
`
`very hot and spicy.” (Id. at col. 242, ll. 60-62.) During the program, the viewer is
`
`told “If you are interested in cooking what we are preparing here and want a your
`
`own printed copy of the recipe tailored to your own tastes and your own shopping
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`list for a charge of only 10 cents,” enter the code # seen on the screen. (Id. at col.
`
`
`
`242 ll. 63-col. 243 ll. 2.) If the subscriber makes the purchase, a recipe and a
`
`shopping list tailored to the size of the family and its eating habits is generated and
`
`delivered at the subscriber station. (Id. at col. 244 ll. 25-57.)
`
`For example, a recipe and shopping list for the first family having four
`
`adults and preferring hot and spicy foods with minimal salt, is generated by their
`
`computer, which:
`
`[S]elects the . . . information that specifies the size of the family of the
`subscriber of said station together with the tastes and dietary habits of
`the members of said family; determines that one ingredient of the
`recipe of said family is “Patak’s low-salt Vindaloo Curry Paste”
`(because said family prefers particular very hot and spicy foods and
`prefers to minimize salt consumption); computes that, at one-half
`pound of halibut fish and one teaspoonful of said Vindaloo Paste per
`adult, the recipe of said family (which is of four adults) calls for two
`pounds of halibut and four teaspoonfuls of said Paste and that the
`shopping list of said family lists two pounds of halibut and one jar of
`“Patak’s low-salt Vindaloo Curry Paste”; incorporates information of
`said two pounds and four teaspoonfuls of “Patak’s lowsalt Vindaloo
`Curry Paste” into generally applicable information of the recipe of
`said “Exotic Meals of India” programming and information of said
`two pounds and one jar of “Patak's low-salt Vindaloo Curry Paste”
`into generally applicable information of the shopping list of said
`programming, thereby generating (through the processes of so
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`determining, computing, and incorporating) output information of the
`specific recipe and shopping list of said family.”
`
`
`
` (Id. at col. 244 ll. 33-54.)
`
`
`
`In this manner, the recipe and shopping list text are completed and delivered
`
`by processing subscriber specific information. After receipt of the recipe and
`
`shopping list, a commercial will be delivered which gives the viewer an
`
`opportunity to purchase the appropriate ingredients at a local supermarket. This
`
`will occur by delivering a commercial spot Q that 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).”) (Id.)
`
`The commercial spot Q starts as a commercial that will be completed with
`
`additional content generated appropriate to that subscriber. For example, it might
`
`include content that needs to be completed as follows: “Super Discount
`
`Supermarkets will deliver to you, at cost, all the pork you need to entertain five
`
`hundred people at this low, low price [of] . . . .” (Id. at col. 252, ll. 49-53.) When
`
`the program instruction set (computer program) is executed, subscriber related
`
`information, such as price of the pork at that time, and location and delivery cost
`
`based on distance to the consumer’s home, is accessed and used to compute the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`charge for delivering pork bellies to the consumer, which will complete the
`
`
`
`generally-applicable “Super Discount Supermarkets will deliver to you at cost, all
`
`the pork you need to entertain five hundred people for this low, low price [of] . . .”
`
`(Id. at col. 185 l. 46–col. 187 l. 12; col. 252 l. 11–col. 253 l. 55.) In this manner,
`
`the incomplete video portion of the commercial unit Q is completed with locally
`
`generated image content (e.g., “1,071.32” for a first subscriber, “$1,080.64” for a
`
`second subscriber, and $1,138.92 for a third subscriber ). (Id. at col. 257, l. 12-col.
`
`259 l. 17.)
`
`There may also be audio content in the commercial that is incomplete:
`
`“This offer represents a savings to you of over [ ] percent!” (Id at col. 253 l. 33-
`
`col. 254 l. 17). Thus, subscriber specific data is processed at each subscriber
`
`station receiving the commercial to compute information that will be used for
`
`supplemental audio content to complete the incomplete audio content:
`
`Then microcomputer, 205, selects audio information that represents
`the percentage saving that said subscriber can save by buying an
`untrimmed pork belly unit in comparison to a trimmed pork belly
`unit at said market. Automatically, microcomputer, 205, clears its
`audio RAM. Then automatically, by dividing the information at said
`3rd working memory (which is 915.93) by said cost-of-a-trimmed-
`pork-belly-unit information (which is 1987.25), microcomputer, 205,
`computes information of 0.4609 (rounded), which is the decimal
`equivalent of the percentage savings; determines that said information
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`is greater than 0.4600 and less than 0.4700; and selects the audio
`information of an announcer's voice saying "forty-six" from among
`the information of said file, D:DATA-OF.ITS; and places said
`information at audio RAM.
`(Id. at col. 251 ll. 46-60.) At the second and third subscriber stations, different
`
`computations result in audio content for the statement “forty-five” and “forty-
`
`
`
`three,” to be stored for output. (Id. at col. 250 l. 60-col. 251 l. 33, col. 253 l. 64-col.
`
`254 l. 12.) The supplemental audio content is used at each station to complete the
`
`statement: “This offer represents a savings to you of over [ ] percent.” (Id. at col.
`
`253 ll. 30-col. 254 l. 17.)
`
`
`
`At this juncture, the commercial spot Q has been personalized twice by
`
`completing content items (i.e., the image content on sales price and the audio
`
`content on savings). The delivery of the commercial now proceeds with additional
`
`portions of video, audio, and text content each of which are completed before
`
`delivery to the subscriber. First, the subscriber computer retrieves the previously-
`
`computed user specific recipe data that indicates that first subscriber would use
`
`low-salt Vindaloo curry paste. Using that information, audio content is determined
`
`in order to complete an incomplete audio statement with user specific audio
`
`content (i.e., audio of “low salt Vindaloo” for a first subscriber, “Mild version
`
`Quick” at a second, and “Hot version Quick” at a third). (Id. at col. 254 ll. 23-51.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`Next, incomplete text content for a subscriber specific coupon (i.e., “Super
`
`
`
`Discount Supermarkets offers to deliver at cost one unit of untrimmed pork belly
`
`product, suitable for a large outdoor barbecue party, to:”) is completed by
`
`computing the dollar figure cost and the subscriber’s address to complete the
`
`coupon that is to be printed at the subscriber site. (Id. at col. 255 ll. 22-24.) The
`
`completed coupons are delivered as:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Subscriber 1
`(Id. at col. 255 l. 6-col. 256 l. 54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Subscriber 2
`
`
`
`More generally-applicable but incomplete video content is completed by
`
`determining subscriber specific images of phone numbers for the supermarket that
`
`is closest to each subscriber. (Id. at col. 258 ll. 1-65 (“456-1414” at a first location,
`
`“224-3121” at a second location, etc.).) This information will be used to complete
`
`generally-applicable video. (Id. at col. 260 ll. 8-41.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`More general audio content is completed by determining audio to complete
`
`
`
`the later statement of:
`
`Super Discount Supermarkets is proud to sponsor the television series,
`‘Exotic Meals of India.’' Being truly exotic, many of the ingredients,
`can't be found in average supermarkets, but your friendly Super
`Discount manager is happy to supply all of these ingredients to your
`family. Tonight your personal recipe and shopping list call for
`Patak’s" [complete with audio for “low salt Vindaloo,” “Mild version
`Quick,” and “Hot version Quick” for first, second, and third
`subscribers].
`(Id. at col. 259 ll. 13-63; col. 260 l. 55-col. 261 l. 23.)
`
`
`
`The commercial ends by asking the subscriber to enter a code # using a
`
`remote control if he/she wants to order for delivery the specific ingredients at the
`
`specific prices from the local supermarket. (Id. at col. 261 l. 28-38.)
`
`III. PETITIONER’S EXPERT DECLARATION
`
`
`
`Petitioner relied heavily on the expert declaration of Dr. Charles Neuhauser.
`
`Obviously, the weight to be accorded any expert declaration must depend to a very
`
`large extent on the care and objectivity of its analysis. In the Patent Owner’s view,
`
`the Neuhauser declaration exhibits a lack of objective indicia of the requisite care
`
`and objectivity. For example, in its introduction, the Neuhauser declaration
`
`disparages the disclosure of the Harvey specification for alleged technical
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`shortcomings. One principal example was that the Harvey applicants failed to
`
`
`
`provide any formulas or computer software (“[f]or example, there are no formulae,
`
`computer programs, descriptions of circuitry or the like”; see Ex. 1010, Neuhauser
`
`Decl., ¶ 24) to support their inventive techniques. When examined on this
`
`assertion during deposition, Dr. Neuhauser had to concede that the Harvey patent
`
`specification described dozens of examples of formulas and software. (Ex. 2021,
`
`Neuhauser Dep. Oct. 1, 82:18-91:14 (conceding disclosure examples of formulas
`
`in specification), 117:11-121:18 (conceding disclosure examples of software in
`
`specification).)
`
`
`
`Likewise, the declaration indicates that the figures in the specification show
`
`rather ordinary systems--they “do not show . . . any unusual circuitry or
`
`interconnection of components.” (Ex. 1010, Neuhauser Decl., ¶ 24.) And the text
`
`of the patent adds little to the figures because “it does not describe the use of any
`
`unusual technology”. (Id.) That statement is hard to reconcile with the patent. For
`
`example, Figure 4 and the accompanying text of the ’131 Patent describe a
`
`sophisticated receiver station for processing a transmission having doubly-
`
`encrypted video and singly-encrypted audio, including the use of a matrix switch
`
`routing signals to three different decryptors using three different keys (decryptor
`
`107 for decrypting encrypted audio with key Ca; decryptor 224 for first-stage
`
`decryption of video using key Ba; and decryptor 231 for second-stage decryption
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`of video using key Aa). (See Ex. 1001, ’131 Patent, col. 149 l. 40-col. 164 l. 63.)
`
`
`
`It is hard to fathom how one could conclude that the system of Figure 4 does not
`
`disclose “any unusual circuitry” or “unusual technology”. These and other
`
`assertions in the declaration are so totally at odds with the actual Harvey
`
`specification that one must question the reliability of the declaration as a whole.
`
`
`
`Additionally, the analysis in the Neuhauser declaration appears to proceed
`
`from a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of anticipation. Dr. Neuhauser
`
`stated in deposition that he did not rely on the doctrine of inherency for any of his
`
`anticipation analysis. (Ex. 2013, Neuhauser Dep. Oct. 8, 34:19-35: 6.) Not relying
`
`on inherency, he explained that his methodology was to examine the references to
`
`assess whether they taught or suggested or implied the claim limitation at issue.
`
`(Id. at 34:19-35: 6, “Q. How do you determine if register X doing action Y is found
`
`in the prior art reference A. Well, I would go back to the prior art reference and
`
`try to see if there was a structure in there that's -- that is suggested or taught by the
`
`reference that is a register . . .”); (Id. at 27:10-13, “Q. What do you mean by a
`
`reference suggesting an element? A. I think it’s the same thing that I had under the
`
`notion of imply.”.)
`
`
`
`Of course, anticipation cannot be predicated on a finding that the prior art
`
`“suggested or implied” a limitation. This basic misapplication of the law of
`
`anticipation puts into question Dr. Neuhauser’s findings on anticipation in his
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`
`declarations.3 It is especially critical for this IPR for the ’131 Patent where the sole
`
`grounds are anticipation.
`
`
`
`Throughout the remainder of this Response to the Petition, the Patent Owner
`
`will provide other examples of such deficiencies in Dr. Neuhauser’s analysis.
`
`IV. GROUND 1. CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, AND 11 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102
`OVER HIGGINS
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 of the ’131 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Higgins. (Pet. 12-24.) Higgins is directed to a financial
`
`system made up of regional computers, branch computers, and trader terminal
`
`computers. The trader terminals receive stock information as it is generated by the
`
`various markets and display the financial information to the user. (Ex. 1007,
`
`Higgins, col. 2 ll. 27-57.) A trader can set a personal ticker window to display
`
`specific stocks of interest by inputting stock identifiers, a list of which is stored in
`
`local RAM. (Id. at col. 4 l. 60-col. 5 l. 5.) A limit window may also be configured
`
`to display stocks that have exceeded an upside or downside limit set by the trader
`
`for specific stocks of interest. (Id. at col. 5 ll.7-15.) The trader work station may
`
`
`3 Patent Owner notes the Board’s citation to In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936
`
`(CCPA 1962). Patent Owner is not aware of LeGrice being cited for the
`
`proposition that a reference can anticipate by “suggesting or implying”.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`also include a RAM that automatically stores updated stock information for the
`
`
`
`300 stocks most recently queried by the trader (called the “LRU list”). (Id. at col.
`
`5 ll.16-21, 48-64.)
`
`For a proper showing that a claim is anticipated, all elements of the claim
`
`must be disclosed in the cited reference. “A claim is anticipated only if each and
`
`every element as set forth in the claim is found … in a single prior art reference.”
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
`
`1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[t]he identical
`
`invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.”
`
`MPEP § 2131, citing Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9
`
`USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the
`
`elements must be arranged as required by the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
`
`15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). For at least the reasons set
`
`forth below, Higgins does not disclose all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9,
`
`and 11, and the claims are, therefore, patentable over Higgins.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Independent Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
`
`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Higgins fails to teach several key limitations of Claim 1, as highlighted
`
`above.
`
`A. Higgins fails to teach programming that comprises a computer
`program and a portion to be completed by accessing prestored
`data at said station of a particular kind
`
`The claim requires that the programming is stored in a storage device that
`
`includes 1) a computer program, and 2) a portion to be completed. Stated
`
`differently, the programming, as stored in the storage device, must include both the
`
`computer programming and a portion that needs to be completed. This can be
`
`understood with the following illustration provided in Dr. Russ’s declaration:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2015, Russ Decl., ¶ 61.)
`
`Section II above provided a detailed overview of the completion and
`
`delivery of the “Exotic Meals of India” commercial at the subscriber receiver
`
`station. Prior to being transmitted to the subscriber stations, the commercial and
`
`associate computer program is pre-processed at the regional intermediate receiver
`
`station. The intermediate receiver station is described as receiving a programming
`
`unit Q, which, when processed at a receiver station, would display a spot
`
`commercial of a supermarket chain that describes discounts and “cents-off coupon
`
`specials” at the local supermarkets. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ’131 Patent, col. 183 ll.
`
`40-54; col. 184 ll. 41-59; col. 186 ll. 24-30; col. 188 ll. 27-48.) This programming
`
`Q, when stored at the intermediate receiver station, includes programming
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00156
`Patent No. 7,860,131
`
`instructions (computer program) and a portion to be completed. (Id.) For
`
`
`
`example, the ’131 Patent describes that locally generated information must be
`
`placed into the programming Q in order to complete the programming. (See, e.g.,
`
`Id. at col. 183 ll. 40-54; col. 186 ll. 24-30; col. 188 ll. 27-48; col. 189 l. 59–col.
`
`190 l. 22.)
`
`As an example, the intermediate receiver station can process the following
`
`local data to calculate pricing variables that may be placed into the programming Q
`
`(as stored in memory): the supermarket chain’s cost per unit of pork belly, the cost
`
`of transporting to the market, and the cost per mile of transporting the pork belly.
`
`(Ex. 1001, ’131 Patent, col. 186 l. 54–col. 187 l. 12.) The pricing variables that are
`
`calculated from the local data are inserted into the programming, thereby
`
`completing the programming. When the programming Q is transmitted to a
`
`receiver station, the viewer will be given an estimate of the total cost for having
`
`pork belly delivered to his or her home. (Id. at col. 185 l. 46–col. 187 l. 12; col.
`
`252 l. 11–col. 253 l. 55.) This is just one example. The ’131 Patent describes
`
`numerous other examples where programming that is stored in memory is
`
`completed by placing information into a portion of the programming, as stored at
`
`the storage device, thereby completing the programming. (See, e.g., Id. at col. 190
`
`l. 64-col. 191 l. 6; col. 192 ll. 1-11; col. 193 l. 64-col. 194 l. 9; col. 195 l. 54–col.
`
`196 l. 53.)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Inn applyingg Higgins, tthe Petitionner and Drr. Neuhaus
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-000156
`
`
`Paatent No. 7,8660,131
`
`
`
`er, howeveer, cannot
`
`
`
`
`
`point too “an incommplete porttion of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`programmming” store
`
`
`
`d in memoory that is
`
`
`
`completted. Insteaad, they pooint to the ““fields” of f the displayy providedd to the useer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as the secondd ticker or the monitoor field. (PPet. 16; Exx. 1010, Neeuhauser DDecl.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶ 67.) IIn other woords, the Peetitioner annd Dr. Neuuhauser reffer to the s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pecific
`
`
`
`sectionss of the dissplay of Figgure 2 as thhe “portionn to be commpleted”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 10007, Higginns, Fig 2.) This clearlly does nott meet the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requiremeents of the
`
`
`
`claim. AA person oof ordinaryy skill in thhe art woul
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d never coonsider a seection of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the storred programmming to bbe
`
`
`
`display,, as displayyed to the uuser, to be a portion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`completted. (Ex. 22015, Russs Decl., ¶¶
`59, 63-66.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) The Petiitioner andd Dr.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neuhauuser’s read,, in fact,