PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued: June 8, 2010
`Filed: June 6, 1995
`Inventors: John Christopher Harvey, et al.
`Assignee: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`On behalf of Zynga Inc. (“Zynga” or “Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review is respectfully requested for
`
`claims 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251 (“the ‘251 Harvey
`
`Patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1001.
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to
`
`charge the $27,200 Petition Fee, along with any additional fees, to Deposit Account
`
`501432, ref: 479204-620002. Seven claims are being reviewed, so no excess claim
`
`fees are required.
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .................................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  Overview of the ‘251 Harvey Patent .................................................................. 2 
`IV. 
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ........................... 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes Review Is
`A. 
`Requested ............................................................................................... 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge to the Claims Is Based ......................................... 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ....................................... 7 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable .......................................................................................... 9 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ..................................... 9 
`E. 
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That At Least One Claim of the ‘251
`Harvey Patent Is Unpatentable ........................................................................... 9 
`Claim 17 is Obvious over Hedges (US 4,339,798) in view of
`A. 
`Yamamoto (US 3,668,312) ..................................................................... 9 
`Claim 17 is Obvious over Hedges in view of Yamamoto and
`Frohbach (US 4,107,735) ..................................................................... 20 
`Claim 17 is Obvious over Yamamoto in view of Bakula (US
`4,204,206) ............................................................................................ 23 
`Claims 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 28 are Anticipated by Hedges ................. 32 
`Claims 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 28 are Obvious over Hedges in view of
`Frohbach .............................................................................................. 45 
`Claims 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 28 Are Anticipated by Bakula ............... 47 
`F. 
`VI.  Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................. 58 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`E. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`
`VII.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ‘251 Harvey Patent is currently being wielded by the patent owner,
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”), in an attempt to cover long-
`
`known computer programming and networking techniques that are far afield from the
`
`alleged invention described in the patent specification. (See, Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC v. Zynga Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-68-JRG.) PMC’s aggressive litigation campaign is
`
`made possible by an overly-expansive claim scope that results from a long and tortured
`
`prosecution history dating back to an original filing in November 1981, and includes
`
`approximately 300 related applications filed in 1995 in an effort to extend the patent
`
`term well beyond what is justifiable.
`
`Most of the near 300 applications filed in 1995, including the originally filed
`
`claims of the ‘251 Harvey Patent, were directed to television and radio technology, as
`
`described in the specification of the ‘251 Harvey Patent. Also related to television
`
`technology were most of the thousands of prior art references cited by the patent owner
`
`during prosecution, including a single IDS citing over 700 references.
`
`Given this history, it is not surprising that the prior art considered by the Patent
`
`Office when examining the ‘251 Harvey Patent was directed to television technology.
`
`But the allowed claims, the subject matter of which was first added by amendment
`
`nearly four years after the ‘251 Harvey Patent was filed in 1995 and almost eighteen
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`years after its 1981 claimed priority date, are now being asserted against online
`
`computer gaming technology, in a way that extends far beyond the television
`
`technology disclosed in the specification of the ‘251 Harvey Patent and the prior art
`
`considered by the Patent Office. (See, e.g., PMC Infringement Contentions against
`
`Zynga, attached as Ex. 1002.) This type of computer technology was well known
`
`before the 1981 priority date of the ‘251 Harvey Patent, as demonstrated by the
`
`teachings of the Hedges, Yamamoto, Frohbach, and Bakula references cited herein.
`
`Petitioner submits that had these more-relevant references been considered by the
`
`Patent Office during prosecution, at least claims 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 28 of the
`
`‘251 Harvey Patent would not have issued, and therefore this petition for inter partes
`
`review should be granted.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘251 Harvey Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. Overview of the ‘251 Harvey Patent
`
`The ‘251 Harvey Patent was filed on June 6, 1995 and issued on June 8, 2010.
`
`The ‘251 Harvey Patent claims priority to a series of continuation and continuation-in-
`
`part applications dating back to November 3, 1981. The ‘251 Harvey Patent includes
`
`290 columns of specification, all detailing various examples of a system for adding
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`personalized content to a television or radio broadcast. For instance, the ‘251 Harvey
`
`Patent describes an example system for broadcasting a television program about stock
`
`market investing, “Wall Street Week.” (‘251 Harvey Patent, 11:19–14:47.)
`
`Similarly, the claim that was originally filed with the ‘251 Harvey Patent in 1995
`
`was also directed to television broadcast technology. It was not until the amendment of
`
`claim 91 and the addition of claim 93 in 1999 that claims bearing resemblance to issued
`
`independent claims 17 and 18 were first introduced in the application. (Ex. 1003, ‘251
`
`File History, Supplemental Amendment dated March 4, 1999.) After pending for
`
`nearly ten years, the application was appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and
`
`Interferences (BPAI) in February 2005. (Ex. 1004, Appeal Brief.)
`
`On appeal, the BPAI allowed 29 claims over the prior art, and allowed 10
`
`more claims following a request for rehearing by PMC. (Ex. 1005, Decision on
`
`Appeal dated March 23, 2009; see also Ex. 1006, Decision on Request for
`
`Rehearing dated June 26, 2009.) Among the claims allowed by the BPAI were
`
`independent claim 93, which issued as claim 18, and dependent claim 91, which was
`
`rewritten in independent form and issued as claim 17. (Ex. 1005, Decision on
`
`Appeal.) The primary reference considered by the Board (and the only anticipation
`
`reference considered) was the Japanese “Oono” teletext reference. (Id. at 28-41.) In
`
`accordance with its construction of terms, the Board made several findings with
`
`respect to the rejections over Oono. First, the Board found that the stored “user
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`specific subscriber datum” element (as recited in issued claim 18) was met by
`
`Oono’s temporary memory storage of a user’s teletext page selection. (Id. at 33-34.)
`
`According to the Board’s construction, even a channel or menu selection by a user
`
`qualifies as subscriber specific data. (Id.) Second, the Board found that the
`
`“organizing information” claim element (as recited in issued claim 18) was met by
`
`Oono’s serial reception of data bits and the simple collection of these bits into a byte
`
`format in memory. (Id. at 34-35.)
`
`The Board concluded, however, that the step of “outputting information . . .
`
`based on said organized signal” (as recited in issued claim 18) was not present in
`
`Oono, because “Oono does not teach that the teletext data contains any signal that
`
`instructs the receiver to output a video presentation.” (Id. at 36-37.) Although the
`
`teletext datastream disclosed in Oono included instructions that control the
`
`appearance of the display, the Board concluded that the display occurs automatically
`
`and thus is not “based on said organized signal.” (Id.) The Board further concluded
`
`that Oono failed to disclose the step of “generating an image by processing . . .
`
`subscriber datum” (as recited in issued claim 18), because “Oono generates an
`
`image by processing teletext data sent to the terminal in response to user selection
`
`data, not by processing the user selection data.” (Id. at 39.)
`
`With respect to dependent claim 91 (issued claim 17), the Board concluded
`
`that the cited references failed to teach the claim limitation requiring that “audio . . .
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`describes information displayed in said video presentation.” The Board reasoned
`
`that although the audio portion of a standard television program often describes
`
`what is happening in the video, standard television audio does not describe
`
`information in a video presentation that includes a locally generated image. (Id. at
`
`80-81.)
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which Inter Partes Review
`Is Requested
`Inter Partes review is requested for claims 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 28 of the
`
`‘251 Harvey Patent.
`
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,339,798 to Hedges (“Hedges”) (Exhibit 1007). Hedges was
`
`filed on December 17, 1979, and issued on July 13, 1982. Hedges is therefore
`
`prior art to the ‘251 Harvey Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Hedges was cited
`
`in an IDS by the applicant during prosecution of the Harvey ‘251 Patent, along
`
`with thousands of other references, but was not applied during prosecution.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,668,312 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”) (Exhibit 1008).
`
`Yamamoto was filed April 2, 1970, and issued on June 6, 1972. Yamamoto is
`
`therefore prior art to the ‘251 Harvey Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,107,735 to Frohbach (“Frohbach”) (Exhibit 1009). Frohbach
`
`was filed on April 19, 1977, and issued on August 15, 1978. Frohbach is prior
`
`art to the ‘251 Harvey Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Frohbach was cited in
`
`an IDS by the applicant during prosecution of the Harvey ‘251 Patent, along
`
`with thousands of other references, but was not applied during prosecution.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,204,206 to Bakula (“Bakula”) (Exhibit 1010). Bakula was
`
`filed on August 30, 1977 and issued on May 20, 1980. Bakula is therefore prior
`
`art to the ‘251 Harvey Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 on which the challenge to the
`
`claims is based and the patents relied upon for each ground are as follows:
`
`a) Claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hedges in view of
`
`Yamamoto;
`
`b) Claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hedges in view of
`
`Yamamoto and Frohbach;
`
`c) Claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamamoto in view of
`
`Bakula;
`
`d) Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 are anticipated by Hedges under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e);
`
`e) Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Hedges in view of Frohbach; and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`f) Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 are anticipated by Bakula under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and solely for the purposes of this review,
`
`Petitioner construes the claim language such that the claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the ‘251 Harvey Patent.
`
`Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this review, each claim be construed in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. The following claim terms have been construed by the BPAI during an
`
`appeal of the application that ultimately issued as the ‘251 Harvey Patent. For the
`
`purposes of this inter partes review only, Petitioner is adopting these prior
`
`constructions of the BPAI:
`
`coordinated display: “a display where the images used in the display are
`displayed dependent on a defined relationship between the content of the
`images… [M]erely superimposing a ‘generated image,’…at a certain
`location on the display of the television program, where the generated image
`has no defined relationship to the content of the television program, is not ‘a
`coordinated display using said generated image and said video image.’” (Ex.
`1006, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 3-4.)
`
`user specific: “The term ‘user specific’ is broad enough to read on any
`information (or signal) that reflects something personal about a particular
`user, such as property ownership[] or capabilities, and implies no restriction
`on the number of users to whom the information (or signal) can be
`considered to be personal… ‘User specific’ data does not require that the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`information be ‘unique’ or ‘personal’ to the user… Nor does ‘user specific’
`data require any particular kind of data, such as numerical data as opposed to
`control data… Therefore, we conclude that any data entered by a user
`(subscriber) at a receiver station is ‘user specific data’ because the data is
`personal to the user even if other users can enter the same data.” (Ex. 1005,
`Decision on Appeal at 17.)
`
`user specific subscriber datum: “require[s] no more than data input by
`a user because that data is specific to that user. The data can be any kind of
`data, including control data… [A]ny data entered by a user (subscriber) at a
`receiver station is a ‘user specific subscriber datum’ because that data is
`personal to the user.” (Id. at 34, 44.)
`
`generate: “to bring into existence… Thus ‘generate’ requires more than
`just ‘select’ or ‘retrieve.’” (Id. at 39.)
`
`locally generated: “brought into existence at a particular location.” (Id.
`at 18.)
`
`organize: “to arrange in a desired pattern.” (Id. at 21.)
`
`organizing information included in said at least one first discrete
`signal with information included in said second discrete signal to
`provide an organized signal at said receiver station: “two or more bits
`(discrete signals) are ‘organized’ by being arranged in a buffer or register to
`cause a byte of data that is recognized by a computer as a character of data or
`a program instruction. Each bit has one bit of information.” (Id. at 22.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`organizing information in signals to provide an organized signal:
`“requires that individual bits are assembled into a group, such as a byte,
`which is recognized by the computer.” (Id. at 35.)
`
`generating an image by processing at least one user specific
`subscriber datum: “requires that the datum influences the appearance of
`the image.” (Id. at 38-39.)
`
`Because the standard for claim construction at the Patent Office is different than
`
`that used during a U.S. District Court litigation, Petitioner expressly reserves the right
`
`to argue a different claim construction in litigation for any term of the ‘251 Harvey
`
`Patent as appropriate in that proceeding.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`A detailed explanation of how claims 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 28 are
`
`unpatentable is set forth below at Section V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at Exhibit
`
`1011 is a Declaration of Charles J. Neuhauser, Ph.D under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That At Least One Claim of the ‘251
`Harvey Patent Is Unpatentable
`A. Claim 17 is Obvious over Hedges (US 4,339,798) in view of
`Yamamoto (US 3,668,312)
`
`The Hedges patent (Exhibit 1007) discloses “[a] remote gaming system for use
`
`with a wagering or gambling establishment such as a casino to enable a player’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`participation in a selected one of a plurality of wagering games from a remote
`
`location.” (Hedges, Abstract.) “The player station includes a live game display for
`
`displaying a selected one of a plurality of games being played at the croupier station,
`
`such as roulette or keno. The player station includes a changeable playboard for
`
`displaying a selected one of a plurality of wagering possibilities corresponding to a
`
`selected one of the plurality of games played at the croupier station.” (Id.) A remotely
`
`displayed playboard is illustrated in Fig. 4, which includes fields to display the current
`
`state of a remote casino game and also includes fields for displaying items relative to
`
`the player’s account, such as total credit remaining. (Id., 4:5-13.)
`
`The Yamamoto patent (Exhibit 1008) describes a television-telephone (i.e.,
`
`videophone) system that includes both a telephone handset and a display screen on
`
`which the user may input information using a light-pen. (Yamamoto, Fig. 1; 3:32-56.)
`
`As an example of how the system may be utilized, the Yamamoto patent describes a
`
`seat reservation service. Using the seat reservation service, an image of the available
`
`seats (e.g., for an airplane, theater, etc.) is displayed on the system display screen, and
`
`the user may select an available seat using the light-pen. (Id., 8:39-75.) This
`
`information is then transmitted to a remote computer, which responds to indicate on the
`
`display screen that the reservation has been confirmed. (Id.) In addition, the
`
`reservation service may also include a corresponding voice announcement, such as
`
`“your seat reservation has duly been completed.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`The preamble of claim 17 recites “[a] method for receiving and processing
`
`remotely originated and user specific data for use with a video apparatus, said video
`
`apparatus having an audio receiver and a video output device for displaying a video
`
`presentation comprising a locally generated image and an image received from a
`
`remote video source.” Hedges discloses “[a] remote gaming system for use with a
`
`wagering or gambling establishment such as a casino to enable a player’s participation
`
`in a selected one of a plurality of wagering games from a remote location.” “The
`
`system includes a croupier station, a credit station and a player station remotely located
`
`from the croupier station and the credit station.” (Hedges, Abstract.) The player station
`
`10 (i.e., a video apparatus) includes a remote gaming terminal (RGT) playboard 20 and
`
`a television monitor 21. (Id., Fig. 1 and 2:66-3:22.)
`
`
`
`The player station 10 disclosed in Hedges is a video apparatus that provides a
`
`video presentation including both a locally generated image (i.e., the RGT playboard
`
`20) and an image received from a remote video source (i.e., the live game display on
`
`television monitor 21.) The RGT playboard 20 is locally generated at the player station
`
`by processor 41 shown in Fig. 2. (Id., 8:61-9:2, “Referring now to FIG. 9, processor 41
`
`of FIG. 2 is depicted in more detail… The firmware is interpreted by microprocessor
`
`90 in the RGT to cause it to generate the appropriate playboard display, sense
`
`commands entered by the player, control the magnetic card reader, communicate with
`
`the credit station, and so forth.”)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`The player station (i.e., said video apparatus) also includes a video monitor 21
`
`that receives a remote video source from the croupier station. “The player station
`
`includes a live game display for displaying a selected one of a plurality of games being
`
`played at the croupier station, such as craps, roulette or keno.” (Id., Abstract.) As
`
`shown in Fig. 2, “the live game display 44 includes a remotely controlled color
`
`television monitor such as monitor 21 of FIG. 1, which is connected by a standard
`
`closed circuit TV coaxial cable system 22 as depicted in FIG. 1, which is in turn
`
`connected to TV cameras 12, 13 placed to monitor live wagering games in progress at a
`
`selected one of a plurality of croupier stations in the casino.” (Id., 3:23-29.)
`
`Hedges discloses that the video monitor 21 in the player station receives an input
`
`from a standard closed circuit TV coaxial cable system. The video monitor 21 would
`
`therefore include an audio receiver. To the extent, however, that it may be determined
`
`that Hedges does not expressly disclose a video apparatus with an audio receiver, this is
`
`disclosed by Yamamoto. Specifically, Yamamoto discloses a television-telephone
`
`system that includes both a television display device 30, 31 for receiving and
`
`displaying video images and a telephone handset 11 (i.e., an audio receiver) for
`
`receiving an audio signal. (Yamamoto, Fig. 1; Abstract; 3:32-52.)
`
`The first element of claim 17 recites “receiving said user specific data at said
`
`video apparatus, said user specific data being specific to a user of said video
`
`apparatus.” Hedges discloses that the player station 10 (i.e., said video apparatus)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`receives user specific data, including user input (to select a gaming playboard, make a
`
`wager, input identifying information using a magnetic card reader, etc.). In addition,
`
`Hedges further discloses that user-specific data may be received by the player station
`
`10 (i.e., said video apparatus) from the credit station 9, which stores information
`
`pertaining to the particular user’s account. For instance, Hedges discloses that the
`
`monitor may display the user’s total credit received from the credit station. (See, e.g.,
`
`Hedges, 8:65-9:2; 3:52-60; 4:34-36.)
`
`
`
`The second element of claim 17 recites “contacting a remote data source after
`
`said step of receiving said user specific data.” Hedges discloses the player station 10
`
`contacting the credit station (i.e., a remote data source) after receiving user specific
`
`data. For example, Hedges discloses that a player station 10 is activated by receiving
`
`user specific data from a magnetic card reader and user input, and then contacts the
`
`credit station 9 to authenticate the information and approve activation of the station.
`
`(Id., 12:47-65.)
`
`
`
`The third element of claim 17 recites “receiving from said remote data source
`
`based on said step of contacting said remotely originated data to serve as a basis for
`
`displaying said video presentation.” Hedges discloses that, based on the player station
`
`10 contacting the credit station 9 to activate a gaming playboard, the credit station 9
`
`sends data (i.e., remotely originated data) to the player station 10 for use in generating
`
`the playboard display (i.e., for displaying said video presentation.) For example, after a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`new game is activated on the player station 10, the credit station 9 sends commands to
`
`the player station 10 to clear the displays for a new game, sends the game results to the
`
`player station for display, and sends data to the player station 10 to update a display of
`
`the user’s remaining credit. (Id., 8:7-19; 13:16-19.)
`
`
`
`The fourth element of claim 17 recites “executing processor instructions to
`
`process said remotely originated data and said user specific data at said video apparatus
`
`in order to generate said locally generated image, said locally generated image
`
`including at least some information content that does not include any information from
`
`said remote video source and said remote data source.” Hedges discloses executing the
`
`RGT firmware (i.e., processor instructions) at the player station to process remotely
`
`originated data from the credit station 9 and user specific data (e.g., user input to the
`
`player station) to generate a gaming playboard 40 (i.e., a locally generated image.) The
`
`gaming playboard 40 includes at least some information that is not received from the
`
`remote video source or from a remote source, such as the display of user input (e.g., to
`
`select a wager) as well as the information included in the overall playboard layout (e.g.,
`
`the image of a roulette table as shown in Fig. 4). (Id., 8:65-9:2; 3:40-45; 4:9-13.)
`
`
`
`The fifth element of claim 17 recites “receiving, at said audio receiver, audio
`
`which described information displayed in said video presentation.” Hedges discloses
`
`that the video monitor 21 in the player station receives an input from a standard closed
`
`circuit TV coaxial cable system. The video monitor 21 would therefore include an
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`audio receiver. (Id., 3:23-29.) Further, the live closed circuit television feed to the
`
`video monitor 21 would include both the audio and video from the croupier station, and
`
`thus the received audio would describe what was being displayed in the video (e.g., the
`
`sound of the dealers voice would describe the dealers actions in the video, the sound of
`
`a Roulette ball dropping would describe the visual image of the same, etc.). (Id.)
`
`
`
`To the extent, however, that it may be determined that Hedges does not expressly
`
`disclose “receiving, at said audio receiver, audio which described information displayed
`
`in said video presentation this claim element,” this claim element is disclosed by
`
`Yamamoto. Yamamoto discloses displaying a video image to a user for the purpose of
`
`making a seat reservation. In addition, Yamamoto discloses receiving and playing
`
`voice announcements that describe what is being displayed in the seat reservation
`
`image. For example, Yamamoto discloses displaying an image of available seats for
`
`user selection, and simultaneously receiving and playing a voice announcement that
`
`indicates the prices of the displayed seats. (Yamamoto, 8:39-75.)
`
`
`
`The sixth element of claim 17 recites “simultaneously displaying said locally
`
`generated image and said image received from said remote video source at said video
`
`output device, wherein said at least some information content of said locally generated
`
`image is displayed.” Hedges discloses that the player station 10 simultaneously
`
`displays the gaming playboard 20 (i.e., said locally generated image) and the live video
`
`display 21 received from the croupier station (i.e., an image received from said remote
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`video source.) As shown in Fig. 1, the gaming playboard 20 is displayed on a monitor
`
`(see, e.g., monitor 60 in Fig. 3A) in the same station 10 as the video display 21 from the
`
`croupier station. The two images (i.e., playboard 20 and video display 21) are
`
`simultaneously displayed by the player station 10. (Hedges, 13:60-62; 3:23-60.)
`
`
`
`The final element of claim 17 recites “outputting said audio at said video
`
`apparatus before ceasing to display said locally generated video image.” As detailed
`
`above with reference to the fifth element of claim 17, Hedges discloses that the video
`
`monitor 21 in the player station receives an input from a standard closed circuit TV
`
`coaxial cable system, and thus would include an audio output describing what was
`
`being displayed in the corresponding video (e.g., the sound of the dealers voice would
`
`describe the dealers actions in the video, the sound of a Roulette ball dropping would
`
`describe the visual image of the same, etc.). (Id., 3:23-29.)
`
`
`
`To the extent, however, that it may be determined that Hedges does not expressly
`
`disclose “outputting said audio at said video apparatus before ceasing to display said
`
`locally generated video image,” this claim element is disclosed by Yamamoto.
`
`Specifically, as detailed above with reference to the fifth element of claim 17,
`
`Yamamoto discloses displaying an image of available seats for user selection, and
`
`receiving and playing a voice announcement while the video image is being displayed.
`
`(Yamamoto, 8:39-54; 8:73-75.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,734,251
`
`As demonstrated below, the combination of Hedges and Yamamoto discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claim 17 of the ‘251 Harvey Patent.
`
`17. A method for receiving and processing remotely originated and user specific data
`for use with a video apparatus, said video apparatus having an audio receiver and a
`video output device for displaying a video presentation comprising a locally generated
`image and an image received from a remote video source, said method comprising the
`steps of:
`Hedges discloses this claim element. (See Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 42-53.)
`“Referring now to FIG. 9, processor 41 of FIG. 2 is depicted in more detail… The
`firmware is interpreted by microprocessor 90 in the RGT to cause it to generate the
`appropriate playboard display, sense commands entered by the player, control the
`magnetic card reader, communicate with the credit station, and so forth.” (Hedges,
`8:61-9:2.)
` “The player station includes a live game display for displaying a selected one of a
`plurality of games being played at the croupier station, such as craps, roulette or
`keno.” (Hedges, Abstract.)
`“[T]he live game display 44 includes a remotely controlled color television monitor
`such as monitor 21 of FIG. 1, which is connected by a standard closed circuit TV
`coaxial cable system 22 as depicted in FIG. 1, which is in turn connected to TV
`cameras 12, 13 placed to monitor live wagering games in progress at a selected one of
`a plurality of croupier stations in the casino.” (Hedges, 3:23-29.)
`receiving said user specific data at said video apparatus, said user specific data being
`specific to a user of said video apparatus;
`Hedges discloses this claim element. (See Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 54-58.)
`“For example, the playboard allows wagering on games such as craps, roulette and
`keno. The use of several playboards, one for each game, would be expensive,
`cumbersome, and confusing to a player, and as a result the playboard depicted in
`FIGS. 3A and 3B allows for a plurality of games to be rapidly and automatically
`changed by a processor means 41 of FIG. 2 when it receives a command from the
`player that a new game has been selected.” (Hedges, 3:52-60.)
`“A player touching what appears to be