`
`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