Docket No. PMC-007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________
`
`
`
`ZYNGA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00171
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251
`
`___________________________
`
`PRELIMINARY PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Personalized Media Communication LLC and the Zynga
`Litigation .............................................................................................. 1
`
`B. Overview of the ’251 Patent ............................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED ................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 17 is rendered unpatentable for obviousness over
`Hedges in View of Yamamoto ............................................................ 8
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 17 is rendered unpatentable for obviousness over
`Hedges and Yamamoto in view of Frohbach .................................. 17
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 17 is rendered unpatentable for obviousness over
`Yamamoto in view of Bakula ........................................................... 22
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`at Least One of Claims 18, 19, 22-24 and 28 is Anticipated
`by Hedges ........................................................................................... 28
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`at Least One of Claims 18, 19, 22-24 and 28 is rendered
`unpatentable for obviousness over Hedges in view of
`Frohbach ............................................................................................ 36
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`at Least One of Claims 18, 19, 22-24 and 28 is Anticipated
`by Bakula ............................................................................................ 39
`
`III. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 44
`
`Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Personalized Media Communications LLC (“PMC”) submits
`
`the following preliminary response to the petition filed by Zynga, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) on February 27, 2013 requesting inter partes review of claims 17-19,
`
`22-24 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251 (the “’251 Patent”) (Zynga Ex. 1001)
`
`(the “petition”). Petitioner has failed to establish that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood it will prevail as to at least one claim. Accordingly, PMC respectfully
`
`requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decline to institute
`
`inter partes review of the ‘251 Patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b).
`
`A.
`
`Personalized Media Communication LLC and the Zynga
`Litigation
`
`PMC is the owner of a fundamental intellectual property portfolio developed
`
`over thirty years by inventor and founder John C. Harvey. During the last two
`
`years, fifty-eight (58) new patents from this portfolio have issued, including the
`
`’251 Patent. These patents cover numerous aspects related to the use of control
`
`and information signals in electronic media content to generate output for display.
`
`The inventions covered by these patents have a wide range of application across
`
`many fields and can be delivered via the Internet, cellular wireless, cable/satellite,
`
`and other networks and on any number of platforms including personal computers,
`
`televisions and other electronic-media delivery systems. The PMC inventions
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`enable publishers, advertisers, social networks, businesses and consumers to enjoy
`
`the benefit of new media content in a variety of ways and have been licensed to a
`
`wide range of technology companies including Sony Corporation, Motorola
`
`Mobility and Cisco Systems.
`
`On February 13, 2012, PMC filed a patent infringement suit in the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Zynga, Inc., a
`
`developer and provider of social computer games, for the infringement of four
`
`PMC patents, United States Patent Nos. 7,797,717; 7,908,638; 7,734,251; and
`
`7,860,131, generally relating to the use of control and information signals in
`
`electronic media content to generate output for display that is personalized or
`
`customized and relevant to users. Zynga has filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`for each of these patents.
`
`B. Overview of the ’251 Patent
`
`The claims of the ’251 Patent are directed to a method for receiving and
`
`processing remotely originated and local user specific data for use with a video
`
`apparatus. The claims relate to multiple embodiments in the specification. In one
`
`example described in the ’251 Patent and described in U.S. Patent 4,694,490 to
`
`which the ’251 Patent claims priority, a multimedia presentation apparatus is
`
`disclosed as providing a combined medium presentation to users at receiver
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`stations. U.S. Patent 4,694,490 (the “’490 Patent”) at Abstract; Col. 18, ll. 44-49
`
`(‘490 Patent attached hereto as Exhibit A). The subscriber station can be
`
`programmed to store information related to a user’s stock portfolio and to receive
`
`updates about these particular stocks and the industries they are in. Id. at Col. 18,
`
`ll. 44-49.
`
`In one particular embodiment, a receiver station containing a microcomputer
`
`205 is disclosed to receive and process a plurality of signals related to a “Wall
`
`Street Week” television program. Id. at Col. 19, ll. 5-29. In one portion of the
`
`program, the “Wall Street Week" presentation includes general graphics regarding
`
`overall market performance, e.g., the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial
`
`Average, that are combined with locally generated images regarding the
`
`performance of the specific user's portfolio. Id. at Col. 19, l. 53 – Col. 20, l. 7.
`
`In particular, the specification describes that the receiver station receives,
`
`detects, and passes signals found in an information transmission to a processor of
`
`the receiver station. Id. at Col. 19, l. 42 – Col. 20, l. 11. In one embodiment, the
`
`receiver station can organize received signals into organized signals that can be
`
`further processed to control or affect operations at the receiver station. Id. at Col.
`
`6, ll. 43-61; Col. 7, ll. 36-64. In addition to receiving data that serves as a basis for
`
`displaying the video presentation, the receiver station receives audio which
`
`describes the information that is being displayed as part of the “Wall Street Week”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`program. See e.g., ’490 Patent at Col. 6, l. 61-67; Col. 19, ll. 52-60. The result is a
`
`presentation of a coordinated display using the locally generated image of the
`
`user’s stock portfolio performance and the remotely originated video image of the
`
`television show broadcast. The receiver station outputs the programming, during
`
`which the host of the television program says, “Here is what the Dow Jones
`
`Industrials did in the past week,” and a studio generated graphic is overlaid on top
`
`of the outputted programming. Then the host says, “And here is what your
`
`portfolio did,” whereupon a generated graphic of the user’s own stock performance
`
`is overlaid on the studio generated graphic by processing the user’s portfolio data.
`
`Id at Col. 19, l. 52 – Col. 20, l. 7.
`
`The Petitioner challenges claims 17-19, 22-24 and 28. The independent
`
`claims challenged–claims 17 and 18–are set forth below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`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:
`
`receiving said user specific data at said video apparatus, said user specific
`data being specific to a user of said video apparatus;
`
`contacting a remote data source after said step of receiving said user specific
`
`data;
`
`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;
`
`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;
`
`receiving, at said audio receiver, audio which describes information
`displayed in said video presentation;
`
`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;
`
`outputting said audio at said video apparatus before ceasing to display said
`locally generated video image.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`18. A method of outputting a video presentation at a receiver station, said
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving at least one information transmission at said receiver station, said
`at least one information transmission including a first discrete signal and a second
`discrete signal;
`
`detecting said first discrete signal and said second discrete signal in said at
`least one information transmission;
`
`passing said detected at least one first discrete signal and said second
`discrete signal to at least one processor;
`
`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;
`
`generating an image in response to said organized signal by processing at
`least one user specific subscriber datum, said at least one user specific subscriber
`datum being stored at said receiver station prior to said step of organizing and
`based on information supplied by a user of said receiver station, said generated
`image including at least some information content that does not include any
`information from said discrete signals; and
`
`outputting said video presentation to said user, said video presentation
`comprising, firstly, a video image and, secondly, a coordinated display using said
`generated image and said video image, wherein said at least some information
`content of said generated image is displayed.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`The Board should deny the Petition and decline to institute a trial. The
`
`petition has failed to meet the minimum threshold requirement required under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314 for the institution of inter partes review. See also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108. In particular, “The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to
`
`be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the
`
`petition filed under section 311 and any response under section 313 shows that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. §314(a) (2013). This
`
`requirement, instituted with the passing of the America Invents Act, is a
`
`heightened standard.1
`
`
`
`1 The “reasonable likelihood” standard was intended by Congress to be a
`
`substantially higher barrier to patent validity challenges than the former
`
`“substantial new question of patentability” test used for inter partes reexamination
`
`proceedings. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (part 1) at 47 (2011) (“The threshold for
`
`initiating an inter partes review is elevated from ‘significant new question of
`
`patentability’ – a standard that currently allows 95% of all requests to be granted –
`
`to a standard requiring Petitioners to present information showing that their
`
`challenge has a reasonable likelihood of success.”). Accordingly, inter partes
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`The Petitioner challenges claims 17-19, 22-24 and 28 of the ’251 Patent
`
`based on a collection of markedly distinct references, U.S. Patent No.4,339,798 to
`
`Hedges (“Hedges”) (Zynga Ex. 1007); U.S. Patent No. 3,668,312 to Yamamoto
`
`(“Yamamoto) ( Zynga Ex. 1008); U.S. Patent No. 4,107,735 to Frohbach
`
`(“Frohbach”) (Zynga Ex. 1009); and U.S. Patent No. 4,204,206 to Bakula et al.
`
`(“Bakula”) (Zynga Ex. 1010). As shown below, the Petitioner fails to establish
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood it will prevail as to at least one challenged
`
`claim and therefore the petition should be rejected.
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 17 is rendered unpatentable for obviousness over Hedges in
`View of Yamamoto
`
`The standard for obviousness is whether “the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The analytical
`
`framework originally set forth in Graham v. John Deere, Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966),
`
`
`review is available only in exceptional cases where serious doubts about the
`
`patent’s validity are raised and where a prima facie case has been established by
`
`the petitioner. See 157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl
`
`(D-Ariz)).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`and reaffirmed in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (U.S. 2007),
`
`involves factual determinations about the relevant prior art and the differences, if
`
`any, between the claimed invention and the relevant art. A determination of
`
`obviousness must be supported by a detailed and reasoned basis so as to avoid
`
`subjectivity and hindsight reconstruction. See KSR, 126 S.Ct. at 1741 (“rejections
`
`cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning, a showing of an ‘apparent
`
`reason to combine’ multiple references may be required”) [cite omitted]).
`
`Significantly, the analysis must take into account all claim limitations in
`
`order to evaluate the “invention as a whole” as the statute mandates. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103. A prima facie case of obviousness fails if the references, alone or in
`
`combination, fail to teach or suggest the invention as claimed including all
`
`limitations. See In re Fine 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Further, it is
`
`well settled that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the
`
`patentability of that claim against the prior art. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32
`
`USPQ.2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (all claim limitations must be considered)
`
`(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401, 405 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also
`
`M.P.E.P. §§ 2141.02 (“The Claimed Invention as a Whole Must be Considered”),
`
`2143.03.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`The Petitioner challenges claim 17 of the ’251 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) based on Hedges in view of Yamamoto. Petition at 9-20.
`
`Hedges discloses a remote gaming system containing a croupier station, a
`
`credit station and a player game station remotely located from the croupier and
`
`credit stations. Ex. 1007 at Abstract. These stations operate together to provide
`
`players at the game stations with remote access to casino games, such as craps,
`
`roulette, or keno. Id. At the croupier station, the croupier manages the play of
`
`these games, including inputting game results, which then are displayed to the
`
`players at the game station. Id. at Col. 13, ll. 50-53. The credit station operates as
`
`a central controller in the interface between the croupier station and a plurality of
`
`game stations. For instance, the credit station receives wagers from player game
`
`stations and receives game results from the croupier station, which it then
`
`distributes, including the result of each bet, to each respective game station. Col.
`
`8, ll. 10-20; Col. 13, ll. 58-59.
`
`Yamamoto is a “Television Telephone System” allowing for subscriber-to-
`
`computer communication. Ex. 1008 at Abstract. The receiving station includes a
`
`television, a telephone, and an input device for making selections to request
`
`information. Id. at Col. 3, ll. 32-43. The information could be, for example, a
`
`diagram of train seats available for travelers. Id. at Col. 8, ll. 39-73. Thus, a
`
`subscriber can make a request for train availability via his telephone. Id. at Col. 8,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`ll. 39-46. In response, the transmitting side computer transmits a diagram showing
`
`seat availability. Id. Audio may be transmitted saying “Please select your seat for
`
`reservation.” Id. at Col. 8, ll. 49-54. The subscriber can then use a light diode pen
`
`to select a seat from the seat diagram displayed on the screen. That information is
`
`sent back to the transmitter to reserve the seat. Id. at Col. 54-64. As a result, an
`
`updated seating diagram is generated at the remote transmitting computer and
`
`communicated to the receiver station reflecting that the selected seat is reserved.
`
`Id. at Col. 8, ll. 61-75.
`
`The petition fails to demonstrate that claim 17 is rendered unpatentable for
`
`obviousness over Hedges and Yamamoto. The Petitioner, in particular, challenges
`
`the claim based on an inconsistent and oftentimes contradictory reading of the
`
`primary reference, Hedges. The petition indiscriminately cherry-picks sentences
`
`from the reference in cobbling together the proposed rejection. When viewed as a
`
`whole, the Petitioner’s proposed rejection is unsupportable.
`
`The Petitioner, for example, fails to demonstrate that Hedges teaches
`
`receiving remotely originated data from the remote data source based on said step
`
`of contacting to serve as a basis for displaying said video presentation. The
`
`petition relies on Hedges’ activation of its player game station 10 after the credit
`
`station verifies the user’s credit card as teaching this step. Petition at 13. The
`
`petition argues that in response to the activation of the player station, “the credit
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`station 9 sends commands to the player station to clear the display for a new
`
`game.” Petition at 14. The command to clear the display, according to the
`
`petition, teaches the receiving of remotely originated data. There are several flaws
`
`with this argument, any one of which is sufficient to defeat Petitioner’s argument.
`
`First, Hedges does not disclose that upon the activation of the player station,
`
`a command is sent to the player to clear the display. Rather, the reference merely
`
`describes that “[i]f the player station receives authorization to proceed, the player
`
`station 10 asks the player for game selection via a message on the playboard.” Ex.
`
`1007 at Col. 12, ll. 66-68. Furthermore, the reference describes that the croupier
`
`must first press a start key at the croupier station when he or she wishes to start the
`
`game and only then is a command sent to the credit station and the player station to
`
`clear the display for a new game. Id. at Col. 13, ll. 14-19. Thus, Hedges’ player
`
`station does not receive, based on the contacting step, remotely originated data that
`
`serve as a basis for displaying a video presentation, as presently claimed.
`
`Second, the Petitioner fails to demonstrate that a command to the player
`
`station to clear the display for a new game teaches remotely originated data that
`
`serve as a basis for displaying a video presentation. There is no evidence that
`
`supports this contention. For example, nothing in Hedges suggests that the
`
`command to clear the screen is processed in order to generate a locally generated
`
`image.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`While the petition picks out other instances of game display to argue that the
`
`Hedges teaches the receiving of remotely originated data to serve as a basis for
`
`displaying the video presentation, these instances do not teach that remotely
`
`originated data is received based on the step of contacting the remote data source.
`
`Stated another way, the alleged remotely originated data in these cited examples
`
`are not received in response to the activation of the player station. Petitioner’s
`
`argument fails because it is not based on a single, coherent application of the
`
`reference to the claim. The reference must be applied in accordance with the claim
`
`language, including language linking claim limitations. Asserting that “contacting
`
`a remote data source” is operation A in Hedges and, in the next breath, that
`
`“receiving based on said step of contacting said remotely originated data” is not
`
`based on operation A, but is based on a completely different operation B, cannot
`
`sustain Petitioner’s argument.
`
`The Petitioner, furthermore, fails to demonstrate that Hedges teaches
`
`executing processor instructions to process the remotely originated data and the
`
`user specific data at the video apparatus in order to generate the locally generated
`
`image. The Petitioner argues that Hedges teaches this step in generating a gaming
`
`playboard 40 by processing data received from the credit station (the alleged
`
`remotely originated data) and by processing “user input to the player station” (the
`
`alleged user specific data). Petition at 14.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed rejection breaks down entirely here. Prior to its
`
`analysis of this claim limitation, the proposed rejection relies on credit card
`
`information and user input to activate the station as the alleged user specific data.
`
`The petition, for example, describes that Hedges teaches contacting a remote data
`
`source after said step of receiving said user specific data with Hedges’ game
`
`station contacting the credit station to “authenticate the [user specific data]
`
`information and approve activation of the station.” Petition at 13. Then, to teach
`
`the step of 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, the petition contends that the credit station sends data to activate the
`
`player station and to send a clear screen command. Petition at 13-14.
`
`Yet, in attempting to show the step of executing processor instructions to
`
`process remotely originated data and user specific data, the Petitioner, suddenly
`
`changes the alleged “user specific data.” Instead of referring to the credit card
`
`information or user input for station activation relied upon as disclosing the
`
`previous limitations, the petition switches course and vaguely refers to a user
`
`wager selection as the alleged “user specific data” in analyzing the executing step.
`
`Petition at 14. The Petitioner does not reconcile this disconnect. The Petitioner
`
`does not attempt to explain how a wager selection fits within the Petitioner’s
`
`analysis of the first three steps of the claim and, indeed, it is not clear how the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`selection of the wager could fit within the station activation process. For instance,
`
`Hedges, does not teach (nor does it make sense) that a wager selection can be
`
`entered before the activation of the station.
`
`In addition, the petition fails to reference any portions of Hedges wherein
`
`remotely originated data and user specific data are processed in order to generate
`
`the locally generated image. For instance, the Petitioner neither explains nor cites
`
`to any portion of Hedges that specifically describes that the RGT firmware
`
`processes both types of data in generating the gameboard 40.
`
`The frailty of Petitioner’s challenge is especially apparent in its attempt to
`
`demonstrate that the references teach the step of simultaneously displaying the
`
`locally generated image and the image received from the remote video source at
`
`the video output device. The Petitioner specifically refers to Hedges’ gaming
`
`playboard 20 and TV monitor 21 as teaching this step. The plain and ordinary
`
`reading of this limitation within the context of the claims, even under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, however, does not allow for Petitioner’s attempt to
`
`interpret Hedges’ two physically separate display devices as teaching the claimed
`
`display at a video output device.
`
`Petitioner further fails to demonstrate that Hedges teaches receiving audio
`
`which describes information displayed in said video presentation and outputting
`
`the audio at said video apparatus before ceasing to display said locally generated
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`video image. The petition points to Hedges’ receiving of an input from a coaxial
`
`cable system and essentially argues in ipse dixit fashion that there would be audio
`
`received from the croupier station. Petition at 12 (“video monitor 21 would
`
`therefore include an audio receiver”).
`
`However, the reference does not actually disclose that audio is
`
`communicated to the video monitor 21 over this coaxial connection for output and
`
`the petition cannot cite to any actual description of audio being delivered at the
`
`player station. For instance, the reference does not disclose any “dealers voice
`
`[that] describes the dealers action,” as the petition alleges. Petition at 15. It is just
`
`as likely an inference that audio would not be needed at the game station of
`
`Hedges because the dealer actions are displayed on the playboard. For example,
`
`when no more bets can be placed, the playboard displays the message “NO MORE
`
`BETS” on the gameboard. Ex. 1007 at Col. 13, ll. 37-39
`
`Recognizing this deficiency, the Petitioner relies on Yamamoto to teach the
`
`claimed receiving and outputting of audio. The Petitioner, however, fails to
`
`identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
`
`casino game system of Hedges with Yamamoto’s seat reservation system. It is not
`
`at all clear why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Hedges to
`
`“receiv[e] and play[] voice announcement[s] that describe what is being displayed
`
`in the seat reservation image.” Petition 15. As described above, there is no need
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`for sound to be received at the game station and outputted, because game action is
`
`already communicated and displayed on the playboard. There is no discernible
`
`benefit that would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover,
`
`in the system of Yamamoto, receiver stations do not receive audio over a coaxial
`
`cable so that the combination would be inoperable. Furthermore, the receiver
`
`stations of Yamamoto contain audio circuits that process multi-frequency coded
`
`audio signals. The closed circuit video monitor 21 would not be able to process
`
`the audio signals of Yamamoto.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail as to at least one claim based on its
`
`proposed rejection over Hedges and Yamamoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 17 is rendered unpatentable for obviousness over Hedges
`and Yamamoto in view of Frohbach
`
`Petitioner recognizes that the combination of Hedges and Yamamoto does
`
`not teach (among other things, as noted in Section A) the step of 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. So the petition goes on to
`
`cite to Frohbach in an effort to revive its challenge of claim 17, now based on an
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`unlikely three-way combination of Hedges and Yamamoto in view of Frohbach.
`
`Petition at 20-23.
`
`Here, the Petitioner does not contend that Frohbach makes up for the
`
`deficiencies of Hedges and Yamamoto identified in Section II.A. Hence, even if
`
`the teachings of Frohbach asserted in the Petition were accepted as fact, it remains
`
`the case that the combined teachings of Hedges, Yamamoto and Frohbach still
`
`would not yield the subject matter recited in claim 17 and therefore, the claim
`
`remains patentable over the alleged combination for at least this reason.
`
`Frohbach is directed to a television audience survey system. In response to a
`
`television broadcast, individual viewers can register their reactions using a remote
`
`control device. Ex. 1009 at Abstract. The reaction information is transmitted to a
`
`remote interrogatory device, which collects the information received from the
`
`viewers. Id. at Col. 6, ll. 4-16; Col. 8, ll. 1-24.
`
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Frohbach teaches simultaneously
`
`displaying the locally generated image and the image received from the remote
`
`video source at the video output device. The Petitioner refers to a “pictorial
`
`representation” displayed on a television set that contains a graduated bar graph
`
`describing the collected viewer reactions. Petition at 21-22 (citing to Ex. 1009 at
`
`Col. 15, ll. 7-33; Fig. 4). For instance, the bar graph may be displayed with a
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00171
`Patent No. 7,734,251 B1
`Atty. Docket: PMC-007
`
`
`
`television show and may indicate the number of positive reactions received for the
`
`television show. Id.
`
`The Petitioner contends that the bar graph along with the television show
`
`teaches a generated image and an image from a remote video source. Petition at
`
`22. Even if this is taken as true, the limitation is not taught by the reference, as the
`
`claim specifically requires that the simultaneous display includes a locally
`
`generated image. The Petitioner’s omission of “locally” is telling. Indeed, the
`
`reference does not describe that the bar graph is locally generated and
`
`simultaneously displayed with the television broadcast. Rather, the reference
`
`describes that after all of the viewer reactions are received and collected at the
`
`remote interrogatory device, the remote interrogatory device processes this data
`
`and generates the television broadcast that includes the television show and the bar
`
`graph:
`
`As its name implies, the block and bar generator 198 generates
`the requisite signals for realizing the block displays 25" to 28" and the
`bar displays 169 and 171 in the video display 161 as shown in FIG. 4.
`A video processor 200 provides the block and bar generator 198 with
`horizontal drive (HDR) and vertical sync (VERT) signals, and the
`block and bar generators 198, in turn, provides the video processor
`200 with bar or block number signals (BKNR) and bar ena