throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251
`
`Trial No.: IPR20l3-00171
`
`Issued: June 8, 2010
`
`Filed: June 6, 1995
`
`Inventors: John Christopher Harvey, er al.
`
`Assignee: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`
`Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
`
`REBUTTAL 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 rebuttal declaration at the request of Zynga, Inc. in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251 (“the ‘251
`
`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.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in support of the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review filed by Zynga, Inc. on February 27, 2013.
`
`(Exhibit 1011, referred
`
`to herein as “Neuhauser I”)
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is in rebuttal to the Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`No. 14) (referred to herein as “PIVIC Resp”) and the Declaration of Samuel H.
`
`ZYNGA EX. 1013
`
`

`
`Russ, Ph.D. (Exhibit 2015) (referred to herein as “Russ Declf’) both filed on
`
`October 25, 2013.
`
`5.
`
`For ease of reference the rebuttal arguments below will generally be
`
`presented in the same order as the Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 18, 19, 22-24 and 28 are Anticipated by Bakula
`
`A.
`
`Bakula Discloses Outputting a Video Presentation to a User
`That Includes Firstly, a Video Image and, Secondly, a
`Coordinated Display
`
`6.
`
`With respect to the sixth claim element PMC and Dr. Russ assert that
`
`Bakula does not disclose “outputting” a “video presentation comprising, firstly, a
`
`Video image and, secondly, a coordinated display.” [PMC Resp., pp. 7-13; Russ
`
`Decl., W66-74] The argument put forward by PMC and Dr. Russ is that the terms
`
`“firstly” and “secondly” are not merely enurnerations of items that are displayed,
`
`but rather identify two activities that must occur in sequence. That is, PlVlC’s
`
`position is that “firstly” and “secondly” identify sub-steps of the sixth step of claim
`
`18. Under their interpretation the display of the “video image" must appear first by
`
`itself, and then the “coordinated display” appears.
`
`7.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is another
`
`interpretation, namely,
`
`that “firstly” and “secondly” are simply enumerating
`
`portions of the presentation to be output. This is the interpretation that I believe
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would come to based on the plain language of the
`
`

`
`claim. At the very least the sixth step of claim 18 is ambiguous, and thus the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation must allow for both possibilities.
`
`8.
`
`Further, even assuming Pl\/lC’s overly-narrow interpretation,
`
`the
`
`“outputting” claim limitation is still disclosed by Bakula. Bakula discloses a dual
`
`screen mode in which a news story to be edited can be displayed alongside another
`
`related news story.
`
`[See, Bakula 824-34.] The disclosure of Bakula therefore
`
`supports the following sequence of operations, as acknowledged by Dr. Russ
`
`during deposition.
`
`[See, Exhibit 1019, pp. 429-433.] First, operating in single
`
`screen mode a user may select a news story for editing. This news story is “user
`
`specific subscriber datum,” which upon selection is stored in the receiver station.
`
`[Bakula 5:14-27] The user may then make a modification to the news story. For
`
`example, the user might correct a typo or add a line to the story.
`
`[Bakula 4:10-13]
`
`At any point the user may save the news story to memory.
`
`[Bakula 4:13-19]
`
`These actions satisfy the first through fifth steps of claim 18.
`
`9.
`
`Now the user switches to dual screen mode and loads a related news
`
`story into the lefi hand side of the display. This related news story is the “video
`
`image” required by the sixth step of claim 18. Next the user may load the
`
`previously modified news story into the right hand side of Bakula’s dual screen
`
`mode.
`
`[Bakula 1:50-61] This completes the sixth step of claim 18 because these
`
`actions presented, “firstly”, a “video image” (z'.e.,
`
`the related story) and,
`
`

`
`“secondly”, a “coordinated display” consisting of the “video image” and the
`
`“generated image.” Thus, even under PMC’s narrow interpretation of “firstly” and
`
`“secondly” (i. e., that they express a temporal relationship) the system of Bakula
`
`meets the limitations of claim 18.
`
`B.
`
`Bakula Discloses Outputting a Coordinated Display
`
`10.
`
`PMC and Dr. Russ argue that the display of a first news story and a
`
`second modified news story simultaneously on the screen of Bakula is not a
`
`“coordinated display.” [See PMC Resp., pp, 15-16] PMC’s argument is that the
`
`display of the two news stories is not coordinated because there is no “computer-
`
`controlled coordination” between the images. However, this is not required by
`
`either the plain language of the claim or by the Board’s claim interpretation.
`
`11.
`
`It is my understanding that the Institution Decision adopted a previous
`
`claim interpretation by the BPAI, concluding that a coordinated display is “a
`
`display where the images used in the display are displayed based on a defined
`
`relationship between the content of the images.” [Institution Decision, p. 7] One
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Bakula meets this requirement
`
`because it explicitly states that a terminal user may display two stories related to
`
`the same subject and modify one based on the other.
`
`[Bakula 1:50-61] Thus the
`
`display of Bakula provides a “coordinated display” according to the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`

`
`C.
`
`Bakula Discloses Receiving an Information Transmission at a
`Receiver Station That Includes First and Second Discrete Signals
`
`12. With respect to the step of “receiving” (first step), PMC and Dr. Russ
`
`argue that a signal received from the keyboard in the terminal of Bakula does not
`
`meet
`
`this limitation.
`
`[PMC Resp, pp, 16-18; Russ Decl., W54-61] Their
`
`argument is that an “information transmission” cannot be received at a “receiver
`
`station” unless it originates from a “transmitter station” that is external to the
`
`receiver station.
`
`I disagree. This is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the claim. Rather, PMC is attempting to limit the claim to certain preferred
`
`embodiments.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘25l patent does not place any restrictions on how a
`
`“receiver station” must obtain an “information transmission.
`
`There is no reason
`
`)3
`
`why this “information transmission” could not be received from some other part of
`
`the “receiver station” or from some source external
`
`to the “receiver station.”
`
`Figure 5 of Bakula discloses keyboard signals on lines KBO—7 and Strobe 1&2 that
`
`are received by the KB Latch & Ctr] block.
`
`[See, Bakula, Fig. 5] This is enough
`
`to satisfy the “receiving” limitation of claim 18 under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`14.
`
`Furthermore, Pl\/IC’s overly narrow interpretation would exclude
`
`many of the preferred embodiments described in the ‘25l patent
`
`in which a
`
`subscriber specific datum is entered from a keyboard or a floppy disk.
`
`[See e.g.,
`
`

`
`‘251 Patent, 148:65—149:16; 168:48-52; 183:47-49; 241:31—-45] For instance, in the
`
`Exotic Meals of India embodiment, in response to a prompt from the television
`
`broadcast, the subscriber may enter a sequence of characters at their Widget Signal
`
`Generator and Local Input (z'.e., Local Input 225, which is a keyboard). This
`
`information is “transmitted” from local input 225 to controller 20.
`
`[‘25l Patent,
`
`242:42-54] Both of these components are identified in Figure 7 of the ‘251 patent
`
`as part of the “ultimate receiver station.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand from the teachings of the ‘25l patent that information can be
`
`transmitted and received internally within a “receiver station.”
`
`Halfway through the program the host says, “If you are
`
`interested in cooking what we are preparing here and want a
`
`[sic] your own printed copy of the recipe tailored to your own
`
`tastes and your own shopping list for a charge of only 10 cents,
`
`enter on your Widget Signal Generator and Local Input the
`
`information the you see on your screen.” The information that
`
`appears on the screen of each subscriber is “TV567#”.
`
`Each subscriber — in particular,
`
`the subscriber of the
`
`station of FIGS. 7 and 7F, said second subscriber, and said third
`
`subscriber — enters TV567#, in a fashion well known in the art,
`
`at the keyboard of the specific local
`
`input, 225, of his own
`
`station which causes said input, 225, to _fi a particular
`
`preprogrammed
`
`process-local-input
`
`instruction
`
`and
`
`said
`
`

`
`TV567# information to the controller, 20, of the signal
`
`processor, 200, of said station.
`
`Receiving said instruction and information causes the
`
`controller, 20, at each station where TV567# is entered, in a
`
`predetermined fashion, to retain said TV567# information at
`
`particular last—local-input—# memory.
`
`(Harvey ‘251 Patent,
`
`242:36 — 242:53, emphasis added)
`
`I5.
`
`The specification of the ‘251 patent has other similar examples. For
`
`instance, Figure 1, the exemplary figure of the patent,
`
`is described generally at
`
`10:36 to 11:18 and teaches transmitting and receiving signals between various
`
`components within the receiver station of Figure 1. For example, microcomputer
`
`205 is described as receiving and processing information bearing signals from TV
`
`signal decoder 203 [see, e.g., 10:45~67]:
`
`One is inputted continuously to TV signal decoder, 203, and the
`
`other to microcomputer, 205. TV signal decoder, 203, which is
`
`described more fully below, has capacity for
`
`receiving a
`
`composite video transmission; detecting digital
`
`information
`
`embedded therein; correcting errors in the received information
`
`by means of forward error checking techniques, well known in
`
`the art; converting the received information, as may be
`
`required, by means of input protocol techniques, well known in
`
`the art, into digital signals that microcomputer, 205, can 1
`
`and
`
`process
`
`and
`
`that
`
`can
`
`control
`
`the
`
`operation
`
`microcomputer,
`
`205;
`
`and
`
`transferring
`
`said
`
`signals
`
`of
`
`to
`
`7"
`
`

`
`microcomputer, 205. Microcomputer, 205, is a conventional
`
`microcomputer system with disk drives that is adapted to have
`
`capacity for receiving signals from decoder, 203; for generating
`
`computer graphic information; for receiving a composite video
`
`transmission; for combining said graphic information onto the
`
`video information of said transmission by graphic overlay
`
`techniques, well known in the art; and for outputting the
`
`resulting combined information to a TV monitor, 202M, in a
`
`composite video transmission.
`
`(Harvey ‘7l7 patent, 10:45-67,
`
`emphasis added)
`
`16. Other discussion in the specification related to the “receiver station”
`
`of Figure 7 also teaches the internal transmission and reception of information
`
`bearing signals. For example, a laser disk player and a record player are included
`
`as part of the “other input apparatus” 252 that can provide transmissions to the
`
`“receiver station” of Figure 7 and yet are clearly part of the receiver station:
`
`Input apparatus
`
`include satellite earth station, 250,
`
`satellite receiver circuitry, 251, converter boxes, 201 and 222
`
`(by means of which the station of FIG.
`
`6 receives the
`
`multiplexed multi-channel cable transmission of the cable head
`
`end station of FIG. 6), antennas, 298 and 299, and other input
`
`apparatus, 252 (which may be, for example, a laser disc player
`
`or a record player 1; and the subscriber station of FIG. 4 has
`
`capacity for receiving wireless programming transmissions (for
`
`example, at a satellite earth station, 250, and satellite receiver
`
`circuitry 251), a multi-channel cable transmission (for example,
`
`8
`
`

`
`at converter boxes, 201 and 222), and locally transmitted input
`
`[for example, at other input apparatus, 2521.
`
`(Harvey ‘25l
`
`patent, 201:53—67, emphasis added)
`
`17.
`
`Later in the description of Figure 7 at 202:59-203:3 the matrix
`
`switches 258 and 259 are described as communicating “information transmission”
`
`among station apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this
`
`description as supporting the notion that “information transmission” can be
`
`transmitted and received entirely within the receiver station.
`
`Two matrix switches, 258 and 259, communicate the
`
`programming
`
`and
`
`SPAM message/control
`
`information
`
`transmissions among station apparatus. Matrix switch, 258, is a
`
`conventional matrix switch, well known in the art, with
`
`capacity
`
`for
`
`switching
`
`programming
`
`transmissions
`
`of
`
`television, radio, and other forms of electronically transmitted
`
`programming. Matrix switch, 259, is a digital matrix switch,
`
`well known in the art, with capacity for switching binagy
`
`information transmissions. By means of matrix switch, 259, all
`
`apparatus communicate control information and the information
`
`of SPAM messages that have been detected in programming
`
`transmission.
`
`(Harvey ‘717 patent, 202:59—203:3, emphasis
`
`added)
`
`18.
`
`In the preferred example of Exotic Meals of India, the subscriber input
`
`characters are clearly an “information transmission” originating at the “Widget
`
`

`
`Signal Generator and Local Input” device.
`
`It is unclear what the “Widget Signal
`
`Generator and Local Input” of this description is. Surely, it includes a Local Input
`
`225 as illustrated in Figure 7. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the Local Input 225 might also be a “remote keyboard”, such as
`
`that described with respect to a “receiver station” of the prior art at ‘2S1 Patent,
`
`421-8. This is related to the cited prior art of Bourassin (US Pat. No. 4,337,480), in
`
`which the keyboard is a conventional remote control. The local input 225 of the
`
`‘25l patent is either wired or wireless, but in any case the information it provides
`
`is received “at a receiver station.” Further, such reception must be an “information
`
`transmission”, just as required in claim 18, as this is what one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would certainly
`
`understand that signals generated by various components of the “receiver station”
`
`are received “at” the receiver station, just as the first claim element requires and
`
`further that they are “information transmissions.”
`
`19. During his deposition, Dr. Russ indicated that based on his review of
`
`the Harvey patent’s
`
`specification,
`
`there is no discussion of receiving an
`
`information transmission at a receiver station where the transmission originates
`
`within the receiver station, and that this was a basis for his interpretation of the
`
`claim term “receiver station”:
`
`10
`
`

`
`Q. Are you saying that, based on your review of the Seven One
`
`Seven patent specification, there is no discussion of receiving
`
`an information transmission at a receiver station where that
`
`transmission originates within the receiver station‘?
`
`A.
`
`I believe that’s correct.
`
`Q.
`
`Is that an important basis for your interpretation of the term
`
`“receiver station”?
`
`A. That is one basis.
`
`[Exhibit 1019, pgs. 277-278.]
`
`20.
`
`As demonstrated by the numerous examples set forth above, it is my
`
`opinion that Dr. Russ is incorrect in his conclusion that there is no discussion in the
`
`Harvey patent specification of receiving an information transmission at a receiver
`
`station where that transmission originates within the receiver station.
`
`21. With respect to the claim term “information transmission”, PMC and
`
`Dr. Russ further conclude that this term must be narrowly interpreted as a
`
`transmission included within a carrier wave.
`
`[PMC Resp. pp. 17-18; Russ Decl.
`
`1]58] Specifically, PMC argues that a “television program transmission” describes
`
`“a single transmission enveloped within a single carrier wave.” [PMC Resp., Pp.
`
`17-18]
`
`I disagree. First, it is my understanding that this definition was provided
`
`by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to a different patent.
`
`But more importantly, claim 18
`
`is not
`
`related to a “television program
`
`transmission,” only to an “information transmission.” Whatever characteristics are
`
`11
`
`

`
`ascribed to a “television program transmission” simply do not apply to claim 18,
`
`which speaks more broadly of an “information transmission” that is unrestricted in
`
`its characteristics. Whether or not Bakula makes use of carrier waves is irrelevant
`
`to what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand about claim 18.
`
`D.
`
`Bakula Discloses Organizing a First Discrete Signal and a Second
`Discrete Signal into an Organized Signal
`
`22.
`
`PMC and Dr. Russ argue that Bakula does not disclose the step of
`
`“organizing” because Bakula’s keyboard inputs are “hardwired” and are thus never
`
`arranged or organized.
`
`[PMC Resp., pp. 18-20; Russ Decl., 111162-65] This is
`
`incorrect.
`
`23.
`
`In my previous declaration,
`
`I
`
`identified the KBO-KB7 signal
`
`in
`
`Bakula as being the signal containing the “first” and “second discrete signal.”
`
`[Neuhauser I, 11198] KBO—KB7 are eight signal lines representing shift status and
`
`depression of a particular key on the keyboard of Bakula. The accompanying
`
`strobe lines 2 and 3
`
`represent which particular
`
`shift pair
`
`(Unshifi/Shift;
`
`Shift2/Shifi3) is associated with the character.
`
`[Bakula 14:34-37] Although the
`
`keyboard lines are numbered KBO-KB7, there is no particular ordering to these bits
`
`because they only represent a particular key depression and do not represent a
`
`particular character.
`
`In fact, there is no reason that key scan codes need to
`
`represent any particular relationship between keyboard letters and numbers. For
`
`12
`
`

`
`example, the alphabetic and numeric ordering is not preserved in the scan code
`
`mapping of many personal computer keyboards. KBO-KB7 simply represent eight
`
`signal
`
`lines that arrive at keyboard latch 94 with the two keyboard strobes
`
`(STROBE 1 and STROBE 2) that indicate which shift state is applicable. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are many ways that these
`
`signals could be loaded into latch 94 because there are several thousand ways that
`
`these signals might be mapped to the data bus DB signals DBO—DB'7. The KBO—
`
`KB7 signals are therefore “organized” when they are captured by the KB LATCH
`
`94.
`
`[Bakula Fig. 5] Further, the combination of the individual keystroke data and
`
`the strobe signals must be processed (z'.e., organized) in order to generate the
`
`desired character.
`
`II.
`
`Claims 18, 19 and 22-24 Are Anticipated by Hedges
`
`A.
`
`Hedges Discloses Outputting a Video Presentation to a User
`That Includes Firstly, a Video Image and, Secondly, a
`Coordinated Display
`
`24. With respect to the sixth element of claim 18, PMC and Dr. Russ
`
`make two arguments. First, they argue, as above for Bakula, that “firstly” and
`
`“secondly” require a temporal ordering in the presentation. That is, that the “video
`
`image” must be presented first by itself and then it must be presented with the
`
`“generated image” forming the “coordinated display.”
`
`[PMC Resp., pp. 21-23;
`
`Russ Decl., W124-126] Second, they argue that the “video image” that is part of
`
`13
`
`

`
`the “coordinated display” must be the same image as the video image presented
`
`originally.
`
`[PMC Resp., pp, 21; Russ Decl., W123-124]
`
`I will address these
`
`arguments one at a time.
`
`25.
`
`As I stated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that “firstly” and “secondly” could simply be an enumeration of what must be
`
`presented rather than expressing some temporal sequencing in the display of
`
`information. Thus, at the very least, the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`see the meaning of “firstly” and “secondly” as ambiguous.
`
`The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation must therefore account for both possibilities. But even
`
`under PMC’s narrower
`
`interpretation,
`
`the system of Hedges still meets the
`
`limitations of the sixth element of claim 18.
`
`26.
`
`For example, in Hedges’ system, when a game ends the croupier
`
`enters the results into a keyboard 113 for display at the croupier station 11 and
`
`transmission to the credit station 9.
`
`[Hedges 13:50—62] Because the display 122 at
`
`the croupier station is in View of the video cameras 12 and 13 it is also transmitted
`
`as a live Video feed to the video monitor 21 of each player station 10.
`
`[Hedges
`
`7:49-56] At this point in time, the user display includes the following: (i) an
`
`image of the game on the video monitor 21 showing the results of play
`
`(particularly, the image of the result display 122) and (ii) an image on playboard 20
`
`of the user’s wager, wager amount and the wager result.
`
`[Hedges 13:50-62] The
`
`14
`
`

`
`completed game as shown on the player’s monitor 21 represents the “video
`
`image.”
`
`27.
`
`The game completion information from the croupier station is
`
`reviewed by the operator of the credit station and the game results are evaluated
`
`and the wagering results are calculated.
`
`[Hedges 13:50-62] These results are then
`
`sent to the terminal and the display on the playboard 20 is updated to reflect the
`
`result of play.
`
`[Hedges 13:60-62] For example,
`
`they show the new amount
`
`available for play (i.e.
`
`the “You Have” field of Fig. 4).
`
`[Hedges, 13:60-62]
`
`Results of the game are held on the display until the new game starts.
`
`[Hedges
`
`13:14-19] Thus the video of the completed game is displayed first and then, at a
`
`later point in time, the completed game is displayed with the generated image in a
`
`coordinated display. Hedges therefore discloses the sixth element of claim 18 even
`
`under PMC’s overly narrow temporal interpretation.
`
`28.
`
`PMC and Dr. Russ also argue that the “video image” cannot be a “live
`
`television feed.” [PMC Resp., pp. 21; Russ Decl., 1[1[123-124] Their argument is
`
`that the “video image” in the combined display must be exactly the same image as
`
`first presented.
`
`I disagree. Among other reasons, PMC’s narrow interpretation
`
`cannot be correct because it would exclude the “Wall Street Week” and “Exotic
`
`Meals of India” embodiments, which Dr. Russ relied upon throughout his
`
`declaration.
`
`[See, e.g., Russ Decl., W36-42] The “Wall Street Week” and the
`
`15
`
`

`
`“Exotic Meals of India” embodiments [‘251 Patent, 10137-1529 and 241:62-264:35,
`
`respectively] form the “coordinated display” from a “live television feed,” just as
`
`Hedges does.
`
`In the Wall Street Week example, the image is “static” because it is
`
`a graphic generated at
`
`the station [‘2Sl Patent, Fig.
`
`1B; 13:61-67 ], but
`
`nevertheless the image is repeatedly transmitted (because it is a “live television
`
`feed”) and would not qualify as the “same” video image under PMC’s and Dr.
`
`Russ’s very narrow interpretation of the term.
`
`29.
`
`Even more relevant is the Exotic Meals of India example. Here the
`
`“video image” used in the ‘coordinated display” is a live picture of an announcer,
`
`which would differ from frame to frame.
`
`[‘25l Patent, 252211-38] This is exactly
`
`the same as the video feed in Hedges. PMC’s and Dr. Russ’s interpretation of
`
`“video image” and “coordinated display” is simply too narrow to be what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of the ‘251 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Hedges Discloses Outputting a Coordinated Display
`
`30.
`
`PMC and Dr. Russ argue that
`
`the video presentation shown on
`
`monitors 20 and 21 of Hedges is not a “coordinated display.” [PMC Resp., pp. 23-
`
`25; Russ Decl., 1111126428] The Board has interpreted a “coordinated display” as
`
`“a display where the images used in the display are displayed dependent on a
`
`defied relationship between the content of the images.” [Institution Decision, p. 7]
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in Hedges the displays of
`
`16
`
`

`
`monitor 21 (the live game display) and monitor 20 (the playboard display) are
`
`coordinated because they provide information about the very same game situations.
`
`31.
`
`In Hedges, the game results are entered by the croupier at the croupier
`
`station 11 using a keyboard and display arrangement as shown in Fig. 10. [Hedges,
`
`6:62-7:14] The results are displayed at the croupier station on a display 122 that is
`
`located within the view of cameras 12 and 13 so that the results entered on the
`
`display can be seen by the players at their remote gaming stations.
`
`[Hedges 7:49-
`
`56] This is done so that players can verify that the results which they are seeing on
`
`their playboard match with the actual results at the croupier station, which they see
`
`on their monitor 21.
`
`[Hedges 7:57-8:4] One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that this is a “coordinated display” under the Board’s construction
`
`because the relationship is direct and both displays are by design showing the
`
`results of the same game.
`
`32.
`
`PMC and Dr. Russ also assert that the monitor 21 and 20 are not
`
`coordinated because the live video feed might be tuned to a different game than the
`
`player is playing.
`
`[PMC Resp., p 25; Russ Decl., W127] Such a situation, if it
`
`could even occur, would be an aberration, similar to mistakenly transmitting
`
`something beside the stock market graph in the “Wall Street Week” example of the
`
`‘251 patent.
`
`[See, e. g., Fig 1A]
`
`In fact, Figure l (the exemplary figure of the ‘25l
`
`patent) shows a connection 53 between the processor and the live game display 44.
`
`17
`
`

`
`The player may use a remote control at the console to select a particular game to be
`
`played at the remote gaming station and shown on the monitor 21.
`
`[Hedges, 3:30-
`
`39] One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is describing the
`
`control of two images in a coordinated manner, even under PMC’s narrow
`
`understanding of the Board’s construction.
`
`C.
`
`Hedges Discloses Receiving an Information Transmission at a
`Receiver Station with First and Second Discrete Signals
`
`33. With respect to the step “receiving [an] information transmission at a
`
`receiver station” PMC and Dr. Russ argue that the touch screen inputs on the
`
`playboard 40 of the remote gaming terminal are not “received” at that terminal.
`
`[PMC Resp., pp. 26-28; Russ Decl., W107-115] PMC and Dr. Russ also argue that
`
`the information transmission must be received in a carrier wave.
`
`[PMC Resp., pp.
`
`26-27; Russ Decl., 11111]
`
`I disagree with PMC’s overly narrow interpretation for
`
`the same reasons stated above with respect to Bakula in Section I.C.
`
`34. Moreover, even if PMC’s overly narrow interpretation was accepted,
`
`Hedges would still anticipate claim 18 based on commands and data transmitted
`
`from the credit station 9 to the player station 10.
`
`[Hedges 5:44-47] Credit station
`
`9 transfers game results and other information between the croupier stations 11 and
`
`the player stations 10.
`
`[Hedges 8:20-29] One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the credit station 9 is remote from and not physically part of the
`
`18
`
`

`
`player station 10.
`
`[See generally, Hedges Fig. 1; 1:40-42; 11-17] Player stations
`
`10 are connected to credit stations via a serial modem over telephone lines or bus
`
`22.
`
`[Hedges Figs. 1, 8; 3:11-17; 5:44-47; 5:48-55] One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that transmission by a modem over telephone lines involves
`
`transmission using a “carrier wave” in least in so far as the transmission involves
`
`various telephone transmission systems.
`
`I disagree with PMC and Dr. Russ that an
`
`information transmission must be from an external source and make use of carrier
`
`wave transmission. Nevertheless, the information transmissions from the credit
`
`station 9 to the player station 10 are transmissions from an “external source” and
`
`make use of a “carrier wave” as PMC and Dr. Russ believe is required.
`
`35.
`
`Even a single character
`
`in an asynchronous serial
`
`transmission
`
`consists of multiple bits (typically eight). Any two of these bits would be the
`
`“first” and “second discrete signals” under the Board’s definition (Institution
`
`Decision, p. 8). The discrete signals from the credit station 9 received on bus 22
`
`are “detected” by the modem 80 because this is the function of a modem. The
`
`detected serial stream is “passed” to the processor 41 of the player station 10 by the
`
`communications interface 81.
`
`[Hedges 5:66-6:8] The received serial stream,
`
`which includes the first and second discrete signals is organized into a byte in the
`
`communications interface 81 using an Intel 8251A.
`
`[Hedge 6:6-10] One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would also understand this because the function of the Intel
`
`19
`
`

`
`8251 serial
`
`interface and other asynchronous receiver/transmitter interfaces are
`
`well—known.
`
`36.
`
`All transmission between the player station and the credit station are
`
`encrypted.
`
`[Hedge 6:23-26] This means that every character must be decrypted by
`
`the authenticator 43.
`
`[See generally, Fig 2.; Fig. 8,
`
`item 80; 629-20]
`
`The
`
`decryption process depends upon encryption keys stored in buffer area 165 of
`
`RAM 92.
`
`[Hedges 1026-9] The encryption keys are “user specific subscriber data”
`
`and because they are stored in the RAM 92 they meet the limitation of being
`
`“stored at the receiver station.” The encryption keys are copied from the player
`
`station user’s magnetic card.
`
`[Hedges 10:1-5] This occurs before any of the
`
`“information transmission” related to game play because all such transmission are
`
`encrypted.
`
`[Hedges 6:25-26] Because all transmissions from the credit station 9
`
`are encrypted they must be decrypted by the player station 10, and thus, any
`
`generating of an image based on such transmission (such as the 15 second
`
`warning) occurs “in response to” the steps I have outlined above. Therefore, an
`
`information transmission from the credit station 9 as received and processed by the
`
`player station 10 meets all the requirements of steps 1 through 5 of claim 18, even
`
`under PMC’s overly narrow interpretation.
`
`37. Game results are displayed at
`
`the croupier station 11 and are
`
`transmitted to the credit station 9.
`
`[Hedges 7:37-8:4] When these results are
`
`20
`
`

`
`presented at a player station they represent the outputting of the “generated image”
`
`as part of the “coordinated display,” thus meeting step 6 of claim 18 (“outputting”).
`
`Similarly, other
`
`indications, such as “15 seconds to play” and game start
`
`information result in “generated images” because they modify the playboard of the
`
`player station. [Hedges 13:14-22; 13:41-49]
`
`D.
`
`Hedges Discloses Organizing Information Included in a
`First Discrete Signal with Information Included in a Second
`Discrete Signal to Provide an Organized Signal
`
`38.
`
`In my previous declaration, I identified playboard scan signals 77 and
`
`78 (Hedges Fig.3B) as the “first” and “second discrete signals” required by the step
`
`4 (“organizing”) of claim 18. Dr. Russ argues that Hedges does not organize these
`
`signals into an “organized” signal, because it does not “reorganize” or “rearrange”
`
`these signals.
`
`[PMC Resp., pp. 28-29; Russ Decl., '|[1]1 18]
`
`39.
`
`In its decision the Board interprets “organizing” as requiring “that
`
`individual bits be assembled into a group, such as a byte, which is recognized by a
`
`computer.” [Institution Decision, p. 8] One of ordinary skill in the art would see
`
`that the system of Hedges meets this limitation just as I described previously. The
`
`operation of the playboard logic of Hedges works in the following manner. The
`
`signals 77 (row scan) and 78 (column scan) are generated by counters within the
`
`Keyboard Controller 73, which is an Intel 8278 keyboard controller, a well-known
`
`device for which the specifications were readily available in 1981.
`
`[Hedges 4:37-
`
`21
`
`

`
`41]
`
`If a cross point 70 is touched the change in capacitance causes a signal to
`
`propagate to line 79 and to be detected by Analog Detector (Fig. 3B) generating a
`
`signal on line RL 55.
`
`[Hedges 4:42-57] When this occurs the current state of the
`
`scan is captured in a register for transfer to the processor 41. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand this because this is how the Intel 8278 keyboard
`
`controller operates.
`
`40.
`
`The row and column scan signals (77, 78) occur at specific points in
`
`time. The captured state of the scan counter is a specifically organized version of
`
`the signals on line 77 and 78 and represents a byte of computer data with a
`
`particular ordering of the bits, namely, M0-M6. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that the processor 41 recognizes this byte of information because
`
`it makes decisions based upon this byte of information. For example, the processor
`
`uses this byte of information to determine which area of the touchscreen 70 was
`
`touched by the player so that it may be used to trigger the appropriate action.
`
`[Hedges 4:58-5:8] Specifically, the processor 4

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