throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,797,717
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued: September 14, 2010
`Filed: May 23, 1995
`Inventors: John Christopher Harvey, et al.
`Assignee: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, Ph.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R.§ 1.68
`
`I, Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Zynga, Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,797,717 (“the ‘717 Patent.”)
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $375 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`(a) U.S. Patent No. 7,797,717 to Harvey (“Harvey ‘717) (Exhibit
`
`1001);
`
`
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 to Lockwood (“Lockwood”) (Exhibit
`
`1008);
`
`

`
`
`
`(c) U.S. Patent No. 4,825,045 to Humble (“Humble”) (Exhibit
`
`1009);
`
`
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 4,204,206 to Bakula (“Bakula”) (Exhibit 1010);
`
`and
`
`
`
`(e) U.S. Patent No. 4,674,041 to Lemon (“Lemon”) (Exhibit 1011).
`
`I.
`
`Professional Background
`
`4.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. My current CV is
`
`attached. I was awarded the degree of BSEE from the University of Notre Dame
`
`in 1968. Directly after graduating I was employed by Bell Telephone Laboratories
`
`(now Alcatel-Lucent) as a Member of the Technical Staff. In this capacity I
`
`worked on the specification, testing and development of computer controlled data
`
`and telephone switching systems for deployment in telephone central offices.
`
`While I was at Bell Telephone Laboratories I received my MSEE from
`
`Northwestern University under a company sponsored program.
`
`5.
`
`In 1971 I left Bell Telephone Laboratories to pursue a PhD in a newly
`
`formed CS/EE program at the Johns Hopkins University. My degree was awarded
`
`in 1980 based on my research into the use of emulation techniques in the
`
`evaluation of computer architectures.
`
`6.
`
`In 1974 while working on my Ph.D. research I joined the Digital
`
`Systems team at Stanford University as a research associate where I worked on the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`development of an emulation system used for architectural research. From about
`
`1972 I also worked part-time with Palyn Associates, Inc. (later Palyn-Gould
`
`Group) (“Palyn) as a Member of the Technical Staff. At Palyn I worked initially
`
`on the development of a range of commercial products based on emulation
`
`concepts.
`
`7.
`
`In 1980 I joined Palyn full time as a member of their technical staff
`
`and later as Director of Engineering and by 1985 as Vice President of Engineering.
`
`Palyn was a consulting company with a range of international clients in the general
`
`field of computer technology. My responsibilities at Palyn related to two broad
`
`areas. First, I was responsible for directing product development on behalf of our
`
`clients, and second, I consulted directly with clients on issues related to processor
`
`and peripheral design. My work here related to main-frame processors, mini-
`
`computers, micro-computers and systems that used such components.
`
`8.
`
`In my role directing product development I was responsible for the
`
`specification, design, testing and debugging of a wide range of devices including
`
`mini-computers, microprocessors and peripheral controllers, such as printers,
`
`communications and printer interfaces. Work on these systems involved both
`
`hardware and software development.
`
`9.
`
`In 1994 I began working as an independent consultant first doing
`
`business as CTCS and later as Neuhauser Associates, Inc. Since that time my
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`professional work has focused on technical analysis of system primarily in the
`
`support of litigation or potential litigation. I have worked extensively in the
`
`analysis of patent claims both with respect to determining infringement and
`
`invalidity. I also have experience in software copyright and technical trade secret
`
`matters. From time to time I lead teams of engineers in testing and technical
`
`evaluations.
`
`10. At this time I have nearly 45 years of continuous professional
`
`experience in the field of processors and systems controlled by such processors.
`
`The Harvey ‘717 patent relates to system level interconnection of communication
`
`and computer devices. It also relates to their control by computers in response to
`
`signals. Over my engineering career I have designed many such computer
`
`controlled systems.
`
`11. Since 1972 I have had extensive experience with microprocessors and
`
`systems controlled by such devices. In addition to the specification, design,
`
`implementation, testing, debugging and deployment of such hardware systems, I
`
`have also developed the support software for many such systems. Commonly, I or
`
`the engineers I directed made use of microprocessor based systems to implement
`
`communications functions or to control larger processors systems. This included
`
`responding to certain protocols or developing our own protocols.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`12.
`
`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, peripherals and bus systems.
`
`13.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this report I have relied upon my
`
`education and my 45 years of professional experience.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1-7 and
`
`9 of the ‘717 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`15.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this report involve the application of my engineering knowledge and
`
`experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the Harvey ‘717
`
`patent. My knowledge of patent law is no different than that of any lay person.
`
`Therefore, I have requested the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Zynga, to
`
`provide me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The
`
`paragraphs below express my understanding of how I must apply current principles
`
`related to patent validity to my analysis.
`
`16.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`specification. For the purposes of this review, I have construed each claim term in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand
`
`that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`19.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`20. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`21.
`
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`III.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the Harvey
`
`‘717 patent I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant priority date. My understanding is that the priority date of the
`
`Harvey ‘717 patent is September 1987.
`
`23. The Harvey ‘717 patent describes the interconnection and operation of
`
`very well-known components. These components include television receivers,
`
`radio receivers, amplifiers, micro-computers (“personal computers”), audio
`
`recorders and video recorders, among other things. In addition, the Harvey ‘717
`
`patent discusses at a general level various types of “signal decoders”, such as
`
`television line decoders, used to decode radio and television signals, and switches
`
`to direct these types of signals between various components. The Harvey ‘717
`
`patent also describes simple signal and message formats.
`
`24. The technology scope of the Harvey ‘717 patent may be discerned
`
`easily by a simple review of the figures. These figures show components that were
`
`very well known in 1987. What they do not show is any unusual circuitry or
`
`interconnection of components. This is also true of the text of the Harvey ‘717
`
`patent. Although the text of patent is extensive it does not describe the use of any
`
`unusual technology beyond what is shown in the figures. For example, there are
`
`no formulae, computer programs, descriptions of circuitry or the like. Basically,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`the Harvey ‘717 patent relates to the interconnection of well-known components
`
`and their control using widely known and understood techniques.
`
`25. Based on my review of the specification of the Harvey ‘717 patent, it
`
`is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be an engineer with a
`
`Bachelor’s of Science in Electrical Engineering or a closely related field1. This
`
`person would have between three and five years of experience beyond graduation
`
`in the implementation of communications systems and controlling these systems
`
`(or similar types of systems) through the use of computer technology. Someone
`
`would be equally qualified if they had a Master’s of Science degree and somewhat
`
`less practical experience.
`
`26.
`
`I am able to make this assessment because by 1987 I worked with,
`
`supervised and hired engineers with these types of qualifications. These engineers
`
`had the requisite knowledge to make and use systems as described in the claims of
`
`the Harvey ‘717. Because I have worked with and supervised engineers with this
`
`background I know very well what their capabilities were in September 1987 and
`
`
`1 By the 1980’s most Electrical Engineer students took courses in communications
`and computer programming. Even in college these students would likely have had
`practical experience building systems based techniques similar to those described
`in the Harvey ‘717 patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`how they would interpret the claims of the Harvey ‘717 patent and the disclosures
`
`of the applicable prior art.
`
`IV. Summary of the ‘717 Patent
`
`27. The Harvey ‘717 patent contains nearly 300 columns of text and 22
`
`drawing sheets. For brevity, I have limited my summary of the Harvey ‘717 patent
`
`to one example embodiment described in the patent’s specification. I will do this
`
`not from today’s perspective over 25 years after the priority date, but rather from
`
`the perspective of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood in
`
`1987.
`
`28. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize various commonly
`
`used terms in the Harvey ‘717 patent, such as “control signal”, “device”, “storage”,
`
`“computer program” and so forth. Other terminology, such as “complete
`
`programming” can be interpreted based on the plain meaning of the words.
`
`29. Basically, the Harvey ‘717 patent is related to the reception,
`
`distribution, storage, and presentation of information carried on various types of
`
`electrical signals. Much of the discussion and many of the examples shown in the
`
`Harvey ‘717 relate to performing these activities on standard radio and television
`
`signals. The Harvey ‘717 patent also assumes at places that such signals can
`
`include embedded control signals using what were well-known techniques in 1987.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`30. Most of the discussion in the Harvey ‘717 patent and the examples
`
`given as preferred embodiments would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to be system descriptions at a very high “block diagram” level. Block
`
`diagrams are well-known representations used by engineers when they want to
`
`convey general relationships between known components without having to give
`
`details of their internal operation. This person would understand that the basic
`
`technology of the Harvey ‘717 patent is the interconnection and control of various
`
`building blocks, such as television receivers, computers, matrix switches, and so
`
`forth.
`
`31. The exemplary figure of the Harvey ‘717 patent is the rather
`
`formidable Figure 7, which shows a very complex embodiment. However, the
`
`some of the basics of the Harvey system can be understood more easily from the
`
`much simpler Figure 1 shown below. With respect to the claims of the Harvey
`
`‘717 I will present an example below called “Farm Plans of Europe” that might be
`
`more relevant.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`32. What is shown in this figure is a basic system that might make use of
`
`the concepts expressed in the Harvey ‘717 patent. In this case the basic notion is to
`
`generate a presentation on the TV monitor 202M that is a composite of broadcast
`
`information (i.e. information that is available at every receiver) and information
`
`that is specific to a particular receiver. The components of Figure 1 are all
`
`conventional and include a television tuner 215, microcomputer 205, TV signal
`
`decoder 203 and TV monitor 202M. The Harvey ‘717 patent characterizes this
`
`arrangement as an example of a “subscriber station” [10:41-42]2. A basic
`
`description of this system and some examples of its operation are provided,
`
`generally, at 10:41-15:12.
`
`
`2 In this section all references are to the Harvey ‘717 patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`33. Briefly, it is assumed that the signal received by the TV tuner 215
`
`includes embedded control signals. Although not described explicitly in the
`
`Harvey ‘717 patent, one such transmission protocol for embedding control signals
`
`and other information in a television signal might have been the Teletext protocol
`
`or one of its variants. These techniques have been widely used since the early
`
`1970s. Basically, Teletext3 and similar protocols allow the television station to
`
`transmit digital data in an “unused” portion of the television signal. A television
`
`tuner receives the TV signal, which includes the embedded data, and provides a
`
`video and audio signal. Divider 4 serves to split the received video signal into two
`
`copies. One copy of the video signal is sent to TV signal decoder 203 where the
`
`embedded data, which is not visible in the signal, is extracted. The line labeled
`
`“signals only” represents the extracted data [10:53-63].
`
`34. Both the extracted data and the second copy of the video signal from
`
`divider 4 are sent to the microcomputer 205. This microcomputer is an IBM
`
`Personal Computer, a device that was widely known in 1987 because it or a
`
`compatible variant was used in many homes and businesses. Although not shown
`
`in Figure 1, the microcomputer 205 contains a specialized graphic overlay card
`
`[11:6-10]. This card serves two purposes. First, under control of program code in
`
`
`3 Closed captioning is another such technique, which is more widely used in the
`United States.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`microcomputer 205 it can generate graphic letters and symbols. Second, these
`
`generated graphics can be combined or overlaid on the video signal to produce an
`
`output signal that is sent to the TV monitor 202M [11:15-18]. This combined
`
`video signal presents the viewer with the general TV picture received from the
`
`television tuner 215, but overlaid with whatever graphics were generated by the
`
`graphics overlay card in the microcomputer 205.
`
`35. Because microcomputer 205 is a general purpose computer it offers
`
`the opportunity for the overlay information presented on TV monitor 202M to
`
`reflect
`
`information
`
`that
`
`is particular
`
`to each viewer.
`
` This
`
`is because
`
`microcomputer 205 may hold data that is specific to that viewer and an embedded
`
`signal received on the general television transmission that is sent to all viewers
`
`may trigger the presentation of this user-specific information in a way that is
`
`different or unique to each viewer.
`
`Example Preferred Embodiment of Harvey ‘717
`
`36. The following is a thumbnail sketch of claims 1-7 and 9 of the Harvey
`
`‘717 and is presented to provide a point of reference for understanding the claims
`
`and how the prior art anticipates the claims. It is not my intention here to define
`
`the claim terms, but rather simply to highlight some aspects of the claims that seem
`
`important and to give an intuitive feel for how these aspects relate to each other. In
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`this discussion the italicized terms in quotations are terms taken from the language
`
`of claims 1-7 and 9.
`
`37. Claims 1-7 and 9 of the Harvey ‘717 Patent relate to computing a
`
`“benefit datum” at a “receiver station”. This benefit datum is generated in
`
`response to a “first control signal” received by the receiver station and is based on
`
`“subscriber specific data” held at the receiver station. The receiver station also
`
`receives “information content”. The “information content” and the “benefit
`
`datum” are delivered to the subscriber on an “output device”. In response to
`
`viewing (or perhaps hearing) the “information content” and the “benefit datum”
`
`the subscriber may provide “input” to the receiver station. Input from the
`
`subscriber “controls” the receiver station in some manner.
`
`38. To aid in understanding the claims I will present here an example
`
`from the Harvey ‘717 that appears to be related to claims 1-7 and 9 of the Harvey
`
`‘717. There may be other and perhaps better examples among the dozen or so
`
`preferred embodiments presented in the Harvey ‘717 specification. However, I
`
`believe this example is useful for making claims 1-7 and 9 somewhat more
`
`concrete. I will discuss certain aspects of the example and how these aspects might
`
`be seen to correspond to various claim terms. Figure 7 represents the “receiver
`
`station” in this example.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`39. The particular example that I will be discussing here is referred to in
`
`the Harvey ‘717 as “Summary Example #11” [Harvey 274:45-286:46] and relates
`
`to a television program called “Farm Plans of Europe”. The 12 columns of the
`
`Harvey ‘717 devoted to the description of “Farm Plans of Europe” actually cover
`
`many other aspects of the preferred embodiment that are not addressed in claims 1-
`
`7 and 9. Rather than going over the entire example in detail I will emphasize here
`
`those aspects that are important to the claims.
`
`40. The example is based on a scheme where European farmers view a
`
`television program related to planting crops for the next growing season.
`
`Government planners at the national and local levels develop farm and economic
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`models based on markets, weather projections, employment figures, taxes and so
`
`forth. These models represent general information that will be sent to farmers in
`
`each nation and each locality. In addition each farmer using the system has
`
`developed data specific to his or her own situation, such as the acreage available
`
`for planting, equipment on hand, sun and shade conditions for each parcel and so
`
`forth [274:65-275:6]. This information is stored in his or her “receiver station” as
`
`a file labeled “MY_FARM.DAT” and is specific to each individual farmer. Later,
`
`national and local information received at the “receiver station” plus information
`
`in the MY_FARM.DAT file are used to compute a unique crop planting plan
`
`which is stored in the PLANTING.DAT file. Because each farm has different
`
`characteristics in the MY_FARM.DAT file the crop plan in the PLANTING.DAT
`
`file will differ from farm to farm [282:31-283:57]. The PLANTING.DAT file in
`
`this example might be seen as “subscriber specific data”.
`
`41. The “Farm Plans of Europe” example deals with several levels of
`
`transmission stations. There are national level stations and local level stations.
`
`Much of the discussion at 274:45-281:39 is related to passing information on
`
`national and local economic conditions between various national and local
`
`transmission stations. This protocol is unimportant to understanding claims 1-7
`
`and 9. However, one aspect is somewhat relevant. Namely that, in addition to the
`
`television video and audio of the program, television stations, particularly the local
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`station broadcasting to a group of farmers, embed certain “control signals” in the
`
`transmissions. These signals may trigger certain actions at the “receiver station”.
`
`For example, they may cause a record/playback unit 217 (Figure 7) at the
`
`“receiver station” to begin recording information content for later presentation
`
`[284:56-67].
`
`42. There are many aspects to the proposed Example #11, “Farm Plans of
`
`Europe”. For example, the system will develop a planting proposal (the file
`
`PLANTING.DAT) for each farmer based on the national plan, the local plan and
`
`their particular farm conditions. In addition, the system will play a selection of
`
`commercials that is specific to each farmer based on the planting proposal and the
`
`economic conditions of the farm. For example, a framer might see a commercial
`
`for a new truck because his particular truck is older than his other equipment
`
`[283:58-284:17].
`
`43. A small excerpt from example #11 may serve to illustrate certain
`
`aspects of claims 1-7 and 9 of the Harvey ‘717. This excerpt relates to the playing
`
`of a commercial spot to each farmer. At the time the commercial is played the
`
`farmer is also presented with profit projection data showing how the purchase of
`
`this particular product or service would benefit his farm. This benefit is calculated
`
`at the farmer’s particular station based on his or her current conditions and farm
`
`plan [285:49-60]. The selected commercial might be considered to be the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`“information content” and the projected profits described might be considered to
`
`be the “benefit datum”.
`
`44. With respect to the commercials to be played, Example #11 proposes
`
`that 26 individual commercials be stored at the local transmission station. During
`
`the program “Farm Plans of Europe” the national station sends an embedded signal
`
`to each local station. The local station in turn cues up the 26 commercials on its
`
`recorder/player 78 to be played over a second television channel in parallel with
`
`the continuing transmission of the “Farm Plans of Europe” program [284:46-55].
`
`When each farmer’s individual “receiver station” receives the embedded signal
`
`from its local station it tunes to the second television channel and prepares to
`
`record one or more of the 26 commercial spots on its recorder/player 217, 217A
`
`[284:56-67].
`
`45. After some preparation interval, the local station transmits the 26
`
`commercial spots to all the “receiver stations” where they are recorded on the
`
`recorder/player 217, 217A. This aspect might be considered as relating to claim 5.
`
`Each commercial spot is includes an embedded program unit identification which
`
`are used to organize the commercials at the “receiver station” into a station specific
`
`playback schedule. This might be considered “modifying” the commercial spot
`
`according to claim 13. The commercial spots are stored at the farmer’s receiver
`
`station for use near the end of the “Farm Plans of Europe” program [285:1-9].
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`46. At the same time a program file TELEPHONE.EXE is also received
`
`at all “receiver stations” and recorded on the disk drive of each receiver station.
`
`This program will be used later by individual farmers to modify the farm plans that
`
`have been developed for them [285:24-33].
`
`47. As the program “Farm Plans of Europe” comes to a close each
`
`“receiver station” receives a control signal that cause one or more of the
`
`previously stored commercial spots to be played. The particular spots played are
`
`those that were previously selected based on the PLANTING.DAT file at each
`
`receiver station. This control signal might be considered the “first control signal”
`
`of claim 1. When one of the previously selected commercials is played the
`
`processor at the receiver station accesses the PLANTING.DAT file and computes
`
`the benefit of purchasing the product or service shown in the commercial based on
`
`the individual farm plan. For example, the benefit shown might be the financial
`
`benefit of purchasing a new tractor. This information is presented (in an
`
`unspecified way) together with the commercial [285:34-60]. With respect to claim
`
`1 the following correspondences might apply: the selected commercial is
`
`“information content”, calculating the benefit is “generating”, and the calculated
`
`benefit shown is the “benefit datum”.
`
`48. Example #11 goes on to suggest that once the planting plan for a
`
`particular farm is developed the farmer may use the TELEPHON.EXE program
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`(previously downloaded) to make modifications to the farm crop plan. For
`
`example, the farmer may for his or her own reasons decide to plant a different set
`
`of crops. Once these modifications are complete the TELEPHON.EXE program
`
`sends the file by telephone from the receiver station to a remote data collection
`
`station [285:61-286:9]. Within the context of claim 1 the modification the farmer
`
`makes to the PLANTING.DAT file might be considered to be “receiving input”
`
`and the transmission of the PLANTING.DAT file might be considered to be
`
`“controlling the receiver station”.
`
`49. With respect to certain dependent claims, the modification of the
`
`PLANTING.DAT file by a farmer might be considered to be the related to claim 3,
`
`where the PLANTING.DAT file is the “subscriber specific data”. With respect to
`
`claim 15, the particular telephone number dialed to send the PLANTING.DAT file
`
`to the remote data collection station might be considered to be the “identifier”.
`
`50. The Harvey ‘717 patent shows a number of other preferred
`
`embodiments and describes other similar examples of personalized program
`
`presentation. In general, they are just elaborations of this simple example.
`
`V. Anticipation in View of Lockwood
`
`The Lockwood ‘359
`
`51. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Harvey ‘717 are anticipated by
`
`Lockwood (4,567,359) and therefore are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Background of Lockwood
`
`52. U.S. patent 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”)
`
`issued
`
`to Lawrence B.
`
`Lockwood and titled “Automatic Information, Goods and Services Dispensing
`
`System” was filed on May 24, 1984. It is my understanding that Lockwood has a
`
`priority date of May 24, 1984, and thus is prior art to the Harvey ‘717 patent.
`
`Technical Summary of Lockwood
`
`53. Lockwood discloses a multi-terminal system connected to a central
`
`processor that is intended to allow users to purchase products or services. The
`
`preferred embodiment of Lockwood is a system that supports the sales of insurance
`
`policies, however, Lockwood suggests other types of goods and services that might
`
`be offered, such as travel, catalog sales, financial services and the like [3:64-68].
`
`Figure 1 below shows the basic structure of the Lockwood system.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`54. There are three major components to the system of Lockwood.
`
`Terminals 2 are specifically designed to be used by customers of the product,
`
`which in this case are insurance policies [4:24-29]. Terminals 4 are located at
`
`insurance companies. These terminals are used by insurance company personnel
`
`to update policy prices and terms and to download various reports from the system
`
`[4:1-13; 5:37-44].
`
`55. Terminals 2 and 4 are connected to a central data processing center 1,
`
`which stores information about policies and coordinates the operation of the
`
`system in memory 23 (Figure 1) [5:37-44].
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`56. Terminal 2 is a special purpose terminal, shown in greater detail in
`
`Figure 2 below.
`
`
`
`57. The purpose of terminal 2 is to be a “user friendly” interface to the
`
`insurance policy system. Terminal 2 is envisioned as a booth or kiosk that would
`
`be located in public places like banks, supermarkets and grocery stores [2:30-33].
`
`The primary user interface on terminal 2 is a monitor and keyboard 8 and a touch
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`pad 13. Terminal 2 also includes a video disc player 9 that can generate an
`
`audiovisual presentation [4:33-51]. The notion is that user will interact with the
`
`audiovisual presentation, which is liked to a “factitious insurance agent” who will
`
`present information and ask questions. The user will answer via the touch pad 13
`
`or keyboard (part of monitor 8) [5:7-13].
`
`58. Processing center 1 coordinates terminals 2 and stores information
`
`about insurance policies and pricing for various insurance companies [2:44-47].
`
`At terminal 2 customers will select a type of insurance policy that they wish to
`
`review, such as an automobile policy [6:51-53]. Next they will answer a series of
`
`questions providing the system with personal information such as age, gender and
`
`marital status [6:51-61]. Once this information has been gathered at terminal 2 it
`
`will be sent to the processing center 1 [7:5-10]. Upon receipt of this information
`
`the processing center 1 will develop a personalized insurance quotation based on
`
`the specific customer data provided. In addition, the processing center may
`
`develop personalized policy quotation for several competing insurance companies
`
`[7:5-10]. This information is then presented to the customer on monitor 8 of
`
`terminal 1 and may be printed out for further review [7:10-15].
`
`59. Once a customer has reviewed the policy information and the price
`
`quotations they may elect to purchase a particular policy. At this point they will be
`
`asked for their credit card information and their name and address, which is sent to
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`
`processing center 1 for verification [7:25-55]. If a policy is purchased, it can be
`
`printed out on the printer 13.
`
`60. A good summary of the steps involved in the system operation is
`
`given at 1:58-2:7 and at 5:68-6:32. Figures 4 and 5 outline the basic sequencing in
`
`flowchart form.
`
`Lockwood

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket