Paper 9
`
`
` Entered: July 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ZYNGA INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
` PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00171 (SCM)
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JONI Y. CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”) filed a petition requesting an inter partes review of
`
`claims 17-19, 22-24, and 28 of U.S. Patent 7,774,251. (Paper 2, “Pet.”) In
`
`response, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”) filed a patent
`
`owner preliminary response. (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD – 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 filed 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.
`
`Pursuant to the defined threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board
`
`institutes an inter partes review of claims 17-19, 22-24, and 28 of the ’251 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’251 patent and three other related patents are the subject of four inter
`
`partes review filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and District Court
`
`litigation in which PMC alleges infringement against Zynga. (See Prelim. Resp. 2;
`
`Pet. 1 (citing Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga Inc. Civil Action
`
`No. 2:12-cv -68-JRG (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2012).)
`
`B. The ’251 Patent
`
`The ’251 patent describes a modified television receiver station which
`
`includes a microcomputer which combines specific television viewer information
`
`and general mass media television broadcasting information into personalized
`
`media for the television viewer. (See Ex. 1001, Abstract, Fig. 1.) PMC describes
`
`the ’251 patent claims as “directed to a method for receiving and processing
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`remotely originated and local user specific data for use with a video apparatus.”
`
`(Prelim. Resp. 2.)
`
`Figure 1 from the ’251 patent, below, depicts a block diagram of a receiver
`
`station. (Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 23-24.)
`
`
`
`
`
` As background, PMC and Zynga, through its expert declarant Dr. Charles
`
`Neuhauser (Neuhauser Decl., Ex. 1011), each similarly describe a disclosed
`
`receiver station embodiment in the ’251 patent which involves a television
`
`program called “Wall Street Week” or “Wall Street Week in Review.” (See
`
`Prelim. Resp. 3; Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 37-40.) According to PMC, “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.” (Prelim. Resp. 3 (citing ’251 patent at col. 19, l. 53 to col. 20, l. 7).) Dr.
`
`Neuhauser further explains that “user-specific information (i.e. the type and
`
`quantity of stock holdings) has been previously stored in the user’s microcomputer
`
`205 (see supra Fig. 1). Thus, each viewer’s microcomputer 205 contains
`
`individual portfolio information.” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 39.) According to Dr. Neuhauser,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`as a final step, the disclosed broadcast station sends an embedded signal to cause
`
`the microprocessor to overlay a graphic image showing the user’s individual stock
`
`performance with a graphic showing the Dow Jones Industrial average or general
`
`market performance. (See Ex. 1011, ¶ 40 (citing Ex. 1001 at cols. 13-14).)
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Challenged claims 17 and 18 follow:
`
` 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`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; and
`
`
`outputting said audio at said video apparatus before ceasing to
`display said locally generated video image.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Zynga relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`(Ex. 1008)
`June 6, 1972
`Yamamoto U.S. Patent 3,668,312
`Frohbach U.S. Patent 4,107,735 Aug. 15, 1978 (Ex. 1009)
`Bakula
`U.S. Patent 4,204,206 May 20, 1980
`(Ex. 1010)
`Hedges
`U.S. Patent 4,339,798
`July 13, 1982
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Zynga asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103:
`
`Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 as anticipated by Bakula;
`
`Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 as anticipated by Hedges;
`
`Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 as obvious over Hedges and Frohbach;
`
`Claim 17 as obvious over Yamamoto and Bakula;
`
`Claim 17 as obvious over Hedges and Yamamoto;
`
`Claim 17 as obvious over Hedges, Yamamoto, and Frohbach,
`
`(Pet. ii.)
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets each claim in an inter partes review using the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). See also Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48766 (Claim Construction). “Generally speaking, we indulge a
`
`‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.” See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). Tempering the presumption, “claims ‘must be read in view of the
`
`specification, of which they are a part. . . .’ [T]he specification ‘is always highly
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”’ See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Circ. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).
`
`The parties do not contend that any claim terms or phrases should be given a
`
`meaning other than the ordinary and customary meaning that the terms or phrases
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the ’251 patent
`
`specification. Zynga adopts the definitions of related terms or phrases in the ’251
`
`patent as defined in a previous Board decision, Ex parte Harvey et al., 2007-1837
`
`(BPAI 2009) (Ex. 1005 (decision), Ex. 1006 (rehearing decision)). (See Pet. 3, 7-
`
`9.) PMC does not contest the adopted meanings. At this juncture, there is no
`
`apparent reason to depart from the previously defined terms. See Ayst
`
`Technologies Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (there is
`
`“no reason to depart from the position consistently taken on this issue by the
`
`parties”).
`
`Accordingly, the Board adopts the following definitions:
`
`coordinated display: “‘a display where the images used in the
`display are displayed dependent on a defined relationship between the
`content of the images.’” (Ex. 1006, 3 (quoting PMC’s rehearing
`request at 12).) “[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, 3-4 (quoting claim at
`issue).)
`
`user specific: “The term ‘user specific’ taken alone 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.” (Ex. 1005,
`17 (quoting another related decision, citation omitted).)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
` .
`
` . . “User specific” data does not require that the 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 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.” (Id. at 34.)
`
`“[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 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 create 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.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`subscriber datum: “requires that the datum influences the
`appearance of the image.” (Id. at 38-39.)
`
`In addition, the Board adopts the following definition of video output
`
`
`
`device: “a device which outputs video but is not limited to a single monitor.” The
`
`’251 patent states that “for example, the output apparatus may be speakers or one
`
`or more printers rather than a television monitor.” (Ex. 1001, col. 161, ll. 27-28.)
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`I. Bakula – Anticipation, Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28
`
`Zynga relies on the Neuhauser Declaration (Ex. 1011) to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Bakula anticipates claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28. (Pet.
`
`47-58.) Bakula discloses a “Video Display System” which allows an editor to
`
`view and edit two related news or sports stories in a dual display at a video
`
`terminal which includes a local processor (CPU) which communicates with a host
`
`computer. Different writers, including the editor, can upload, download, create,
`
`and edit stories using a keyboard at each CPU-based terminal T1. In addition to
`
`the keyboards, other input sources to the CPU-based terminals include an optical
`
`reader (OCR) or wires from UPI or the AP. (Ex. 1010, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1-2,
`
`col. 1, ll. 40-67, col. 3, ll. 52 – col. 4, l. 27, col. 6, ll. 24-39.)
`
`Dr. Neuhauser and Zynga read the recited “receiver station” in claim 18 on
`
`one of Bakula’s CPU-based editing terminals T1 or T. (See Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 56-
`
`57, Fig. 1; Ex. 1011, ¶195; Pet. 47, 51.) Dr. Neuhauser and Zynga read the recited
`
`“first” and “second discrete signal[s]” on any two of the eight data bits
`
`representing a character key entry transmitted from the keyboard to a CPU-based
`
`terminal T in Bakula. (Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 197-198; Pet. 47, 51-52.) Dr. Neuhauser and
`
`Zynga rely further on Bakula’s disclosure that the CPU at a terminal T1 responds
`
`to the keyboard character signals on an interrupt basis, thereby satisfying the step
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`of “detecting said first discrete signal and said second discrete signal” as recited in
`
`claim 18. (Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 197-200; Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1010 at col. 6, ll. 24-30, col.
`
`4, ll. 4-13).)
`
`PMC responds that Zynga fails to show that “a letter entered using a
`
`keyboard key stroke [in Bakula’s system], is received in an information
`
`transmission received in the purported ‘receiver station.’” (Prelim. Resp. 40.)
`
`PMC also argues that Zynga “fails to show that Bakula teaches the step of
`
`detecting of the first discrete signal and said second discrete signal in the at least
`
`one information transmission.” (Prelim. Resp. 40.)
`
`To support these and similar arguments, PMC reasons that while Bakula
`
`discloses that a stored text character can have an eight bit pattern, Bakula does not
`
`“describe the content or structure of a keyboard key stroke that is received at an
`
`editing terminal.” (Prelim. Resp. 40.) PMC also reasons that Zynga “ignores the
`
`claim requirement that the first and second discrete signals are detected in the at
`
`least one information transmission.” (Prelim. Resp. 40.)
`
`However, Dr. Neuhauser explains that Bakula discloses that “‘key codes are
`
`received from the keyboard’” and describes “‘KEYBOARD DATA BIT* (*=0
`
`through 7),’” i.e., an eight bit pattern. (Ex. 1011, ¶ 197 (quoting Ex. 1010, col. 14,
`
`ll. 35-36, Table II, col. 11).) Dr. Neuhauser also explains that “[t]he interrupt
`
`indicates to the CPU that the signal group KB0-KB7 is ready to be read by the
`
`CPU, that is that it has been ‘detected.’” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 200.) Bakula generally
`
`describes that “presentation of the pressed key codes to the CPU is on an interrupt
`
`basis in a manner well known in the art” and that the “keys are conventional.” (Ex.
`
`1010, col. 4, ll. 28-30.) PMC’s arguments do not overcome Zynga’s explanation
`
`that conventional detection by the CPU on an interrupt basis of each eight bit code
`
`reasonably satisfies the step of “detecting of the first discrete signal and said
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`second discrete signal in the at least one information transmission.”
`
`PMC also asserts that Zynga “fails to show that Bakula teaches organizing
`
`of 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.” (Prelim. Resp. 41.)1 PMC maintains that Zynga provides “little
`
`evidence” to support the characterization that Bakula’s CPU organizes the bits of
`
`data from the keyboard. (Prelim. Resp. 41.)
`
`However, as just discussed, Bakula generally discloses that the key
`
`characters are organized as codes in a conventional manner. Dr. Neuhauser also
`
`explains that the data “read from the buffer 96 is organized when it [is] stored in a
`
`register of the CPU (see figures 2 and 4) or memory of RAM M (see figures 2 and
`
`6).” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 207.) Dr. Neuhauser further explains that “[t]his information
`
`may be further ‘organized’ by the CPU and other system hardware because the
`
`data received from the keyboard is used in some cases to determine the character to
`
`be displayed.” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 207.) The record fairly shows that the bit information
`
`must be organized so that it can be processed as a character and displayed as such
`
`after having been transmitted as a conventional eight bit pattern.
`
`
`
`PMC also asserts that Zynga does not address how displaying dual news
`
`stories explains how one story is “firstly, a video image” while another story is
`
`“secondly, a coordinated display using said generated image and said video
`
`image,” as claim 18 requires. (Prelim. Resp. 42.) First, PMC does not appear to
`
`be arguing that Bakula’s edited news stories are not images. In any case, Dr.
`
`Neuhauser testifies that stories, which include enhanced characters, are produced
`
`on a “‘video display terminal’” in Bakula. (Ex. 1011, ¶ 219 (quoting Ex. 1010 at
`
`
`1 Notwithstanding PMC’s use of italics presumably to indicate a claim phrase, the
`word “of” does not appear in the recited “organizing” step in claim 18.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`col. 1, l. 66).) Bakula describes a “video display control VDC which includes a
`
`direct memory access circuit DMA and a character generator CG.” (Ex. 1010,
`
`col. 4, ll. 45-47.) Different command keys create a “bold video modification,” “a
`
`video inversion enhancement,” “a video modifier of strike-through,” or “a blink
`
`enhancement” which “will cause the data character at that location to blink.”
`
`(Ex. 1010, col. 7, ll. 23-36.) Dr. Neuhauser also points out that Bakula’s system
`
`produces image data characters by processing them to form “‘the proper video dot
`
`pattern for display on the CRT screen.’” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 223 (quoting Bakula at col.
`
`5, ll. 30-41).) At this juncture, the evidence shows that Bakula’s news stories,
`
`displayed and edited to form video patterns by using video techniques, reasonably
`
`constitute video images and generated images.
`
`Second, Dr. Neuhauser explains that “[t]he two images are a ‘coordinated
`
`display’ because they both have been selected for review by the user of the
`
`terminal.” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 219.) Dr. Neuhauser quotes Bakula as follows: “‘In this
`
`way then the editor could use one of the stories as a base and then modify it in
`
`accordance with what he likes about the other story or the editor might modify
`
`both stories.’” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 219 (quoting Bakula, col. 1, ll. 58-61).)
`
`Zynga further explains how the two stories (images) form a “coordinated
`
`display” as claim 18 requires, as follows:
`
`The display of the news story being edited (i.e., the generated
`image) and the second news story (i.e., the video image) provides a
`coordinated display because both news stories have a defined
`relationship within the user terminal display. For example, Bakula
`discloses that the display may be divided into left and right portions,
`where each portion has a defined width corresponding to a certain
`number of characters. The second news story and the first news story
`being edited are displayed in the separate left and right portions of the
`display, such that the video presentation includes a coordinated
`display.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`(Pet. 51.)
`
`
`
`In other words, contrary to PMC’s characterization that Zynga proposes only
`
`one news story as forming the required “coordinated display” (Prelim. Resp. 42),
`
`Zynga characterizes both stories, or images, as displayed together to form the
`
`required “coordinated display.” According to the quoted petition passage supra,
`
`the “coordinated display” includes a “generated image” (as an edited story) and
`
`said “video image” (as “the second news story”), as claim 18 requires. PMC does
`
`not contest Zynga’s characterization of Bakula’s disclosure, and PMC fails to
`
`address squarely Zynga’s particular reading of claim 18 onto that characterization,
`
`both of which, at this juncture, appear to be reasonable.
`
`
`
`Claim 19 follows: “The method of claim 18, wherein a receiver specific
`
`control signal is generated based on a third discrete signal, said method further
`
`including the step of: selecting said video presentation in response to said
`
`generated receiver specific control signal.” (See Pet. 54.) Dr. Neuhauser relies on
`
`user keyboard output signals for selecting a news story as constituting a third
`
`discrete signal which generates a receiver specific control signal at the terminal
`
`CPU processor. Bakula’s host computer responds to the terminal CPU signal by
`
`downloading a particular news story to that terminal. (See Ex. 1011, ¶ 223.)
`
`
`
`PMC primarily relies on arguments presented with respect to claim 18 and
`
`further argues that Zynga “does not explain how a video presentation is selected,
`
`as claimed.” (Prelim. Resp. 43.) However, Zynga relies on the keyboard
`
`selection of a news story as discussed above. PMC’s argument fails persuasively
`
`to describe a shortcoming in that reliance. For example, using a key stroke to
`
`generate a “third discrete signal” to select a news story, or “video image,” to be
`
`displayed in one of the dual panels creates a “coordinated display” making up
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`“said video presentation” which includes both panels and the two news stories, as
`
`discussed supra with respect to independent claim 18.
`
`Dependent claim 28 follows:
`
`28. The method of claim 18, wherein said receiver station
`
`includes a video monitor which outputs said video presentation,
`wherein said video presentation comprises a series of computer
`generated video display outputs, and wherein by processing said at
`least one user specific subscriber datum said at least one processor
`delivers said generated image at said video monitor in one of said
`series of computer generated display outputs, said method further
`comprising the step of receiving said at least one user specific
`subscriber datum from a remote data source.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC maintains that Zynga
`
`does not show that Bakula teaches that the dual-window news story is
`a video presentation comprising of a series of computer generated
`video display outputs. The Petitioner, in fact, ignores this limitation
`completely. See Petition at 57. For similar reasons, the Petitioner fails
`to teach processing said at least one user specific subscriber datum
`said at least one processor delivers said generated image at said
`video monitor in one of said series of computer generated display
`outputs, as provided in claim 28.
`
`(Prelim. Resp. 43.)
`
`PMC’s arguments do not address Zynga’s explanation that “[t]he news
`
`stories of the video presentation are ‘computer generated video display outputs’
`
`because the images of the display are created by a character generator of the user
`
`terminal.” (Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1011 at column 5, ll. 28-54).) Dr. Neuhauser
`
`further explains that Bakula’s dual window “video presentation is a ‘series of
`
`computer generated display outputs’ because the display of Bakula is controlled at
`
`the editing terminal by the processor (i.e., the CPU at Figure 2).” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 241;
`
`accord Pet. 57-58.) PMC’s arguments also fail to address Dr. Neuhauser’s
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`explanation that a second news story for editing is received from the remote host
`
`computer and constitutes user specific subscriber datum. (Ex. 1011, ¶ 243.)
`
`As Zynga generally proposes, claim 28 appears to be broad enough to
`
`encompass selecting successive “news stories,” i.e., “a series of computer
`
`generated display outputs,” from Bakula’s host computer for editing at a terminal.
`
`Alternatively, claim 28 appears to be broad enough to encompass Bakula’s
`
`disclosure of modifying a selected news story with successive edits, or, as another
`
`example, selecting and downloading previously modified versions of the same
`
`story stored in the host computer.
`
`As to challenged dependent claims 22-24, Zynga similarly relies on Bakula
`
`and the Neuhauser Declaration, and shows persuasively that Bakula discloses the
`
`additional recited limitations in those claims. (See Pet. 55-58.) PMC directs its
`
`arguments to claims 18, 19, and 28, and PMC does not contest the specific
`
`limitations in claims 22-24 with separate arguments. Pursuant to the foregoing
`
`discussion, the petition establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`
`ground of unpatentability of claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28 as anticipated by Bakula
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`II. Hedges, Anticipation, Claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28
`
`Zynga relies on the Neuhauser Declaration (Ex. 1011) to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Hedges anticipates claims 18, 19, 22-24, and 28. (Pet.
`
`32-47.) Hedges discloses a remote gaming system in which gamblers at a remote
`
`terminal can watch live gaming stations (termed “croupier” stations), select a
`
`game, apply for credit, and place wagers.
`
`Zynga describes Hedges as follows:
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`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.) The player station disclosed in Hedges is thus a
`receiver station that outputs a video presentation.
`(Pet. 32-33 (citing and quoting Ex. 1007).)
`
`Zynga reads the recited “receiver station” in claim 18 onto the remote
`
`“player station” 10 in Hedges. (See Pet. 33; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1.) The “player
`
`station” 10 includes a “gaming terminal” 20 and live game display monitor 21.
`
`(Ex. 1007, Fig. 2, col. 2, l. 66, col. 3, ll. 6-16.) In one embodiment, the gaming
`
`terminal 20 includes a playboard 40 and a live game display 44. (Ex. 1007, Fig. 2.)
`
`The live game monitor 21 or 44 displays a live game at a casino. The gaming
`
`terminal 20 also includes a processor 41. (Id.) The gaming terminal playboard 40
`
`provides for player inputs via a touch sensitive keyboard for selecting games and
`
`placing wagers. (Ex. 1007, Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 18-29, col. 4, ll. 28-29.)
`
`Hedges alternately refers to playboard 20 or 40 (Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. l. 20, l.
`
`40) or gaming terminal 20 (id. at col. 3, l. 19). While the variance in terminology
`
`creates slight confusion, Hedges discloses two different monitors, one monitor
`
`with a live closed circuit television feed for live game viewing 21 or 44 as noted
`
`supra, and the other monitor (see Ex. 1007, Figs. 4, 5) at the gaming terminal 20
`
`for providing credit, wager, and gaming information to a remote gambler by
`
`mimicking or simulating the live game being played. The two images (i.e., the
`
`playboard 20 display and live game video display 21) are simultaneously displayed
`
`at the player station 10. (Id. at Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 40-53, col. 3, ll. 23-60, col. 13,
`
`ll. 60-62.)
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`
`Claim 18 recites the related steps of “receiving at least one information
`
`transmission at said receiver station” and “detecting said first discrete signal and
`
`said second discrete signal in said at least one information transmission.”
`
`(Emphasis added.) Zynga reads these receiving and detecting steps onto signals
`
`transmitted from Hedges’ playboard pursuant to a gambler’s selection of a
`
`particular game or wager, or a change in a displayed credit authorization amount.
`
`(See Pet. 33; Ex. 1007, Fig. 2.) For example, Dr. Neuhauser explains how
`
`“keyboard controller 73 ‘receives’ signals from column scan bus signals 77 and
`
`row multiplex bus signals 77” after a user presses a particular point on the
`
`playboard. (Ex. 1011, ¶ 128.) Alternatively, Zynga reads the recited
`
`“detecting . . . information” step onto the detection of information bits associated
`
`with “transmissions from the credit station (such as the amount of credit remaining,
`
`game results, etc.)” (Pet. 33.) Zynga describes the remaining claim 18 steps in
`
`terms of, inter alia, simultaneously displaying the live game, the different wagers,
`
`the changing credit, and the changing simulated games on the live monitor and the
`
`playboard monitor. These different displays require communication between the
`
`player station 10, the credit station 9, and the croupier station 11. (See Pet. 34-40;
`
`Ex. 1007, col. 3, ll. 4-17, Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`PMC contends that Zynga does not “demonstrate that the reference teaches
`
`the receiving of an information transmission containing the first and second
`
`discrete signals and, instead, ignores this limitation completely.” (Prelim. Resp.
`
`30.) PMC also argues that Zynga does not show how Hedges teaches the related
`
`step of “detecting of the first discrete signal and the second discrete signal in the at
`
`least one information transmission.” (Id.) PMC maintains that Zynga “completely
`
`fails to address the absence of the receiver station receiving an information
`
`transmission carrying such ‘user input.’” (Id.) PMC reasons that Zynga “merely
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00171
`Patent 7,734,251 B1
`
`refers to the scanning of the rows and columns to detect the player’s selection
`
`without pointing to any information transmission,” and while Hedges’ Figure 3B
`
`shows separate row 78 and column 77 buses, merely “scanning . . . the rows and
`
`columns to detect the player’s selection” does not “point[] to any information
`
`transmission.” (Id.)
`
`PMC does not explain why information signals resulting from selecting a
`
`particular game or wager by pressing a row and column, do not constitute
`
`receiving “at least one information transmission.” (See Prelim. Resp. 30.) Dr.
`
`Neuhauser and Hedges indicate that information signals flow in the form of
`
`discrete signals or bits on buses 77 and 78 which are sensed as capacitive input
`
`changes to a keyboard controller located between the touch sensitive keyboard
`
`portion of the playboard 40 and the processor 41. (See E