`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF V. MICHAEL BOVE, JR. UNDER 37 CFR § 1.132
`WITH RESPECT TO REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,479,246
`
`I, V. MICHAEL BOVE, JR., a citizen of the United States, do
`hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I submit this declaration in connection with the review of U. S. Patent
`1.
`No. 8,479,246 (hereafter referred to as “the ’246 patent”). I am being
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration based upon my usual fixed
`hourly rate.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`2. I am employed as Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts
`Institute of Technology Media Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where
`I head a research group and co-direct the consumer electronics working group. I
`was also co-founder of and technical advisor to WatchPoint Media, Inc., an
`interactive television products and services company with offices in
`Lexington, Massachusetts, and London, England, which is now part of Ericsson.
`I have served as technical advisor to One Laptop Per Child, creators of an
`inexpensive laptop computer for children in developing nations.
`the
`I hold Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees from
`3.
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and have authored over ninety journal and
`conference papers on digital television, multimedia, digital signal processing,
`and optics. I have published papers on hyperlinked interactive video dating back
`to 1998. I have supervised over fifty graduate theses, and since 1990 have taught a
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0001
`
`

`

`graduate subject at MIT called Signals, Systems and Information for Media
`Technology. I am a Fellow of the Society of Photo-Instrumentation Engineers, a
`member of the Board of Editors of the Journal of the Society of Motion
`Picture and Television Engineers, and a member of a number of other
`professional organizations including the Optical Society of America,
`the
`Association for Computing Machinery, and the Institute of Electrical and
`Electronic Engineers. I am a named inventor on seventeen U.S. patents,
`including eight relating to hyperlinked interactive video. I served as General Chair
`of the 1996 ACM Multimedia Conference and of the 2006 IEEE Consumer
`Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC’06). Attached is a copy of
`my curriculum vitae.
`
`III.
`
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`4. In reviewing the ’246 Patent specification and claims, I understand that I
`am to read the claim terms as one of ordinary skill in the art would have done so
`in the 2000-2001 time frame. I believe I am capable of doing so, based upon my
`education and experience. Generally, I believe those of ordinary skill in the art
`of interactive video at the time would have had at least a bachelor of science
`degree in computer science (or a similar amount of computer science
`coursework) and at least two years of experience working with interactive video
`including networked streaming media, as this level of education and experience
`would be necessary to read and understand the ’246 Patent.
`5. I have been informed and understand that during inter partes
`review, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`with the specification, and claim language should be read in light of the
`specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0002
`
`

`

`6. I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of
`a patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the
`claim 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 to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that
`the framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the
`art; and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness. Finally, I understand
`that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`in the art if, for example, it results from the combination of known elements
`according to known methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution
`of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use of a known
`technique to improve similar devices in the same way or applying a known
`technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE
`
`
`
`A. The Purported “Need” In the Art
`
`7. The ’246 Patent relates to interactive video. In particular, the ’246 Patent
`purports to solve a “need” in the art for “interactive video content programming
`that permits the user to stop the video play to view ancillary content, and then
`continue video play from the point in time where play was stopped.” (’246 Patent
`at 1:51-55). However, the solution to this purported “need” was already known by
`those working in the field of interactive video by at least 1998. In particular, one of
`ordinary skill in the art knew that if a hyperlink associated with a video stream
`were selected by a user, the video stream could be interrupted, e.g. paused at the
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0003
`
`

`

`server, while the user accessed and interacted with the ancillary content. See, e.g.,
`V. Michael Bove et al., Adding Hyperlinks to Digital Television, Proc. 140th
`SMPTE Tech. Conf. at 7 (1998) (“Bove”); Jonathan Dakss et al., Hyperlinked
`Video, SPIE Multimedia Systems and Applications, v. 3528 at 8 (1998) (“Dakss”).
`Moreover, it was known that the ancillary content could include purchasing
`information related to products displayed in the video. See, e.g., Bove at 2, Fig. 3;
`Dakss at 1, Fig. 4.
`
`B. The ’246 Patent
`8. The ’246 patent is directed to the delivery of hyperlinked interactive
`video using Internet protocols. When a viewer selects a hyperlink contained in
`a main video program, the main video program pauses and ancillary information
`is accessed over the network and displayed; the video begins playing again from
`the pause point after the display of the ancillary information.
`9. Independent claims 1 and 16 (which I have been asked to address in this
`declaration) are both method claims, where claim 1 is a “method for creating
`an interactive video” and claim 16 is a “method for providing an interactive
`video.” In each claim the video is streamed from a remote site over a
`network using Internet protocols. In claim 1, a “link program” is adapted to
`access ancillary content over the network using a universal resource locator
`(URL). In claim 16, an “interface link” (which one of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand to be a hyperlink) to ancillary content is provided in the
`form of a universal resource locator (URL).
`10. Each of the independent claims includes a recitation regarding two
`things that occur during viewing. Claim 1 recites interacting with a link
`program. In the ’246 prosecution history, the Applicant submitted a declaration
`by its expert Dr. Gareth Loy in order to overcome an Examiner rejection
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0004
`
`

`

`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, that the term “link program” failed the
`written description requirement. Dr. Loy argued that the “link program”
`existed when a computer was shown to be performing certain tasks:
`one having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a ‘program’ is
`a list of instructions, and that without instructions computers do not do
`anything meaningful. Accordingly, any disclosure of a computer
`performing various tasks, necessarily means there is a corresponding
`program providing the required instructions to perform the task.
`(Exh. 1002, ’246 Patent File History, 3/22/13 Response After Final at
`5-6)
`
`Based upon the specification and claims of the ’246 patent, as well as the
`file history of the ’246 patent, it is my opinion that the Applicant conceded that
`any disclosure of a computer function associated with hyperlinks and video
`streaming would be disclosure of a “link program.” It is therefore my opinion that
`disclosures that recite any computer performing the functions disclosed in the ’246
`patent that are associated with the “link program” would be a disclosure of the
`“link program” itself. I understand that this interpretation of “link program” is
`consistent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of “link
`program” in the covered business method patent review of the ’246 patent, which
`was “a set of instructions that tells the computer what to do when a link is
`selected.”
`11. In claim 16, during viewing of the streaming video, interacting with the
`interface link results in “both” of two actions: interrupting the streaming of the
`video, and requesting/accessing the ancillary content from a remote site on the
`network via the URL. When video streaming resumes it does so “from the point
`in time when the streaming of the video was interrupted.”
`12. The plain language of these claims does not indicate a temporal
`or causal order between the interruption of streaming and the accessing of the
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0005
`
`

`

`linked ancillary content; in each case the interaction with the link or program
`simply causes “both” results. While the flow chart in figure 4 of the patent shows
`the “access” (element 410) occurring after the “pause” (element 408), the
`descriptive text in the specification states that this order is not required:
`After the video streaming has been continued, the user may select
`another link and thus repeat steps 404-422. It should be understood
`that the aforementioned steps need not occur in a particular order, or
`include all steps. (’246 patent 7:27-30)
`
`
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art of interactive video would
`understand from the specification that the requesting of pausing of the main video
`and the accessing of ancillary content would both occur in response to selection of
`the interface link, but that they could be done in any order or essentially in
`parallel. From an operational point of view, it would not matter if the program
`operated to first issue a request to access ancillary content over a URL and then
`issue a command to interrupt streaming of the main video, or vice versa, and that is
`what is indicated by the statement above.
`13. Claim 1 further recites:
`
`
`
`ancillary content available over the network with a universal resource
`locator (URL) to a remote site where the ancillary content is stored,
`the link program linking the ancillary content and the video to a
`point in time when the streaming of the video from the remote storage
`medium is interrupted...
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “ancillary content”
`means content other than the video previously streamed to the second site. Further,
`“streaming” the video would mean sending the video data over a network or other
`means of data communications from the location of the storage medium to the
`viewing computer or device.
`14. Claim 1 further recites limitations of “associating the link program with
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0006
`
`

`

`the video,” “streaming the video over the network for display,” and “providing the
`link program over the network.” The understanding of one of ordinary skill in
`the art for “streaming” was discussed above. “Associating” would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean joining or connecting the
`link program to the video, whether by encoding the link program data directly
`into the video data, or by encoding the video with a reference to the link program
`or encoding the link program with a reference to the video. “Providing the link
`program over the network” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`to mean supplying or making available the link program to another (e.g. the
`viewer) by means of the network already disclosed.
`15. Claim 1 also recites a limitation of “receiving an indication of an
`interaction with the link program.” One of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time would understand that an “interaction” may be any action taken by the user
`with respect to the link program, including moving a cursor on the display to the
`displayed link program and clicking or pressing a button.
`
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`16. I have been asked to examine four prior patents: U.S. Patent No.
`7,139,813 (Wallenius, hereafter referred to as “Wallenius”), U.S. Patent No.
`6,496,981 (Wistendahl, et al., hereafter referred to as “Wistendahl”), EP 0840241
`A1 (Chen et al., hereafter referred to as “Chen”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,796,952
`(Davis et al, hereafter referred to as “Davis”).
`A. Wallenius
`17. The Wallenius patent, like the ’246 patent, discloses associating time-
`dependent hyperlinks with a video in a content server to be streamed to a viewer.
`The interactivity of the video is enabled by what is called a “switchover
`application”, which initiates the new connection to the URL contained in the
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0007
`
`

`

`hyperlink while maintaining the original connection, then switching back to the
`original connection once the user has finished interacting with the new content.
`18. It is my opinion that Wallenius fully discloses the limitations recited in
`independent claims 1 and 16 of the ’246 patent. Wallenius discloses “a system in
`which link information is associated with video such that a user may select a
`hyperlink in video/multimedia content.” This is consistent with the preamble of
`claims 1 and 16 of creating or providing an interactive video.
`19. Wallenius further discloses a content server connected to a video
`browser. The video browser receives an electronic document, which may be
`a video, via an IP network from the content server. See Wallenius at 3:41-62. One
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time would understand that this means that the
`video is stored on the content server, which may be at a remote location from the
`location of the video browser. It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses
`the limitation in claim 1 of the ’246 patent of “encoding and storing the video onto
`a remote storage medium at a first site.”
`20. The switchover application in Wallenius is described as “a generic
`program for performing several tasks and may be responsible for one to many
`links associated with a video, i.e. the switchover application is associated with the
`video content and knows the links it is responsible for.” (Wallenius at
`7:42-49). Wallenius goes on to disclose the various functions of the switchover
`application. It is therefore my opinion that the “switchover application” in
`Wallenius at least discloses the “link program” in claim 1 of the ’246 patent.
`However, any disclosure by Wallenius of a hyperlink executing to access another
`URL is a disclosure of a “link program.”
`21. Wallenius discloses that the switchover application may pause the
`video/audio content stream of the original content when the new content session is
`established by user interaction. See Wallenius at 5:63-6:3, Claim 13. One of
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0008
`
`

`

`ordinary skill in the art would understand that pausing the video may be
`accomplished by interrupting the video stream at the remote storage medium. It is
`therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the limitations recited in claims
`1 and 16 of interrupting streaming at the remote site or first site so as to
`interrupt streaming over the network, and in response to indication of a user
`interaction. This disclosure would also disclose the limitation recited in claim 19
`of the ’246 patent “wherein the interrupting of the streaming of the video includes
`pausing the video.” Wallenius also discloses that when the switchover application
`establishes a new session toward the new content of the selected
`hyperlink, the switchover application may also perform the step of “pausing
`the video/audio content stream of the original content…” (Wallenius Claim 13).
`Further, if the original content server cannot maintain the content state, i.e. the
`current point in time, “a time displacement at the branched-from link is indicated
`to it.” (Wallenius at 6:54-56). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would
`understand that a video/audio stream could be paused either locally, in the viewing
`device, or remotely by having the content server pause streaming. The
`switchover application or the content server would be able to note the time in
`the original content at which the video was paused. It is therefore my opinion that
`Wallenius further discloses the limitation in claim 16 of the ’246 patent of
`“interrupting, at the remote location, the streaming of the video at a point in time
`so as to interrupt the streaming of the video over the network…”
`22. Wallenius discloses that:
`
`
`
`a user of a video browser selects a link displayed with the video while
`viewing the video. Once the link to a new session is selected, the
`establishment of a connection to the new session is initiated.
`(Wallenius at 2:6-9).
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “new session” in
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0009
`
`

`

`Wallenius is identical to the “ancillary content” recited in the ’246 patent.
`Wallenius further discloses that URLs are used as content references.
`See Wallenius at 3:64-67. When the new session is established, the original
`content may be paused at the time of switchover. See Wallenius, Claim 13. It is
`therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the limitations recited in claims 1
`and 16 of the ’246 patent wherein the ancillary content is accessible over the
`network with a URL, and further where the link program links the ancillary
`content with the point in time in the video where the ancillary content was
`accessed.
`23. Wallenius discloses that “the switchover application is associated
`with the video.” (Wallenius at 7:46). As discussed above, the switchover
`application is identical to a “link program.” Therefore, Wallenius discloses the
`limitation recited in claim 1 of “associating the link program with the video.”
`24. Wallenius discloses that “the video and content reference information
`for the hyperlinks in the video are transmitted in two separate streams on
`respective first and second channels…” (Wallenius at 5:40-50). It is therefore my
`opinion that Wallenius discloses the following recited limitations - for claim 1,
`“streaming the video over the network for display…”, claim 12, “wherein the
`streaming of the video over the network includes delivering the link program in a
`feed separate from a feed of the video,” and claim 22, “wherein the interface
`link originates from a feed separate from a feed of the video.”
`25. Wallenius discloses that “the switchover application may be downloaded
`(step 70, FIG. 1d) from the content server of the video to the browser…”
`(Wallenius at 7:51-53). It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the
`limitation recited in claim 1 of the ’246 patent of “providing the link program over
`the network.”
`26. Wallenius discloses that when the user makes a selection of a hyperlink,
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`the browser establishes a connection to the new link. See Wallenius at 5:63-
`6:3. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order for the new
`link to be established upon selection of the hyperlink, an indication of an
`interaction with the hyperlink would have to be received. It is therefore my
`opinion that Wallenius discloses the limitation recited in claim 1 of “receiving an
`indication of an interaction with the link program.”
`27. Wallenius discloses that when a switchover occurs back to the original
`content from the new link, the video/audio content stream may be resumed.
`See Wallenius at 8:57-59. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`resuming the streaming video would mean the streaming of the video over the
`network would continue from the point in time when the streaming of the
`video was interrupted. It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the
`limitation recited in claims 1 and 16 of continuing streaming of the video from the
`time the video was initially interrupted.
`28. Wallenius discloses that the switchover application can switch the user
`back to the original content stream once the user has ended the new
`content selected by the hyperlink:
`[A] smooth switchover can be used when returning to the
`original content from a selected content either when the content has
`reached its end or when a user explicitly decides to do so. (Wallenius
`at 6:40-43).
`
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art at that time would understand that once a user has
`terminated a content session, and is restored to the original content, the original
`content may resume automatically, or “when a user explicitly decides to do
`so.” The explicit user decision could be in the form of a click on a button in the
`video browser containing the original content, or through a click activating the
`browser window containing the original content. These kinds of user decisions
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`were already present in the art. See Chapter 4, Realplayer G2 User Manual, 1998-
`1999 (“Realplayer”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that
`resuming a video/audio content stream as taught by Wallenius could be combined
`with the icon controls of streaming video disclosed in Realplayer and allow
`for continuing of streaming based upon detecting activation of the video
`browser window through selection of an icon within the web browser. One of
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Wallenius and
`Realplayer to provide an easy-to-use interface for controlling pausing and
`resuming the video stream of Wallenius through an explicit user decision. It is
`therefore my opinion that Wallenius in combination with Realplayer discloses
`and renders obvious the limitations recited in claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 of the ’246
`patent, wherein the original video is resumed by “detecting an activation of a
`browser window displaying the video,” or by “detecting a selection of an icon.”
`29. Wallenius discloses that “the switchover application may be downloaded
`from the original content server to the browser…” (Wallenius at 2:56-58).
`Additionally, “the link information may be downloaded to the video browser from
`the content server at the start of the video before the video information is
`transmitted to the video browser from the content server.” (Wallenius at 2:43-
`46). It is my opinion that this disclosure in Wallenius discloses the limitations
`recited in claims 4, 6, 7 and 30 of the ’246 patent wherein “the link program is
`provided to client software at the second site prior to streaming the video over the
`network,” “the link program is stored at the second site prior to streaming the
`video over the network,” and the link program or interface link “is not provided
`simultaneously with the streaming of the video over the network. The browser
`would be located at a second location from the first location of the content
`server. It is therefore my opinion that this disclosure additionally discloses the
`limitation recited in claim 5, wherein “the link program is provided to client
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`software at the second site.”
`30. Wallenius discloses that:
`The link information may be transmitted as a link stream to the video
`browser parallel to the video information so that the link information
`is available to the video browser when the link is in effect.
`(Wallenius at 2:26-27).
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by transmitting the link
`stream in “parallel” with the video information, the two transmissions would be
`occurring at the same time. It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the
`limitations recited in claims 8 and 29 of the ’246 patent that the link program or
`interface link “is provided simultaneously with the streaming of the video over the
`network.” It is also my opinion that Wallenius discloses the limitations recited in
`claim 9 of the ’246 patent that “the link program is transmitted from the remote site
`as the video is being streamed over the network.”
`31. Wallenius also discloses that “the link stream provides the content
`reference for the hyperlinks that are presently viewable and selectable in
`the video.” (Wallenius at 5:53-55). One of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that making the hyperlinks viewable within the video would inherently
`require that the visual representation of the hyperlinks be placed over the video
`content. It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the limitation recited
`in claims 13 and 21 wherein the link program or interface link is overlaid on the
`video.
`32. Wallenius additionally discloses associating the hyperlinks with “a time
`and place in the video by coordinates…” (Wallenius at 4:32-33). It would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that associating a time point of the
`video to the hyperlinks is the same as using a time code marker to determine
`when an interface link should be displayed in the video. It is therefore my opinion
`that Wallenius discloses the limitation recited in claim 14 of the ’246 patent
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`wherein “the associating of the link program with the video includes embedding a
`time code marker in the video to permit the display of an interface link to
`the ancillary content based on the time elapsed during display of the video.”
`33. Wallenius discloses a wireless local area network. See Wallenius at
`8:23-24. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that all networks
`disclosed for data transfer could be wireless. It is therefore my opinion that
`Wallenius discloses the limitation recited in claims 15 and 28 of the ’246 patent
`where “the network includes a wireless network.”
`34. Wallenius additionally discloses that “the hyperlink appears in the
`video…” (Wallenius at 4:27). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that having a hyperlink appear in a video being displayed inherently discloses
`embedding an interface link in a video. It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius
`discloses the limitation recited in claim 20 of the ’246 patent “wherein the
`interface link is embedded in the video.”
`35. Wallenius discloses that the hyperlink in the video may be “information
`about how to buy the furniture.” (Wallenius at 2:19-21). One of ordinary skill
`in the art would understand that providing “information about buying a displayed
`product,” which is ancillary content to the video, comprises a commercial
`transaction. The commercial transaction may take place either through the
`ancillary content or by a link in the ancillary content to a site adapted to transact
`the commercial transaction. It is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the
`limitations recited in claims 24 and 26 of the ’246 patent of conducting
`commercial transactions using or accessing the ancillary content.
`36. Wallenius discloses that hyperlinks contain objects such as electronic
`documents. See Wallenius at 1:11-12. Wallenius
`further discloses
`that
`electronic documents may be a video. See Wallenius at 3:60-61. One of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that the electronic documents/videos linked to
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`hyperlinks in Wallenius are the same as the ancillary content in the ’246
`patent, and it is therefore my opinion that Wallenius discloses the limitation
`recited in claim 25 of the ’246 patent “wherein the ancillary content includes
`video.”
`37. Wallenius discloses a plurality of hyperlinks associated by a time and
`place in the video. See Wallenius at 4:32-34. It is therefore my opinion that
`Wallenius discloses the limitation recited in claim 27 of the ’246 patent that “the
`video has a plurality of the interface links associated therewith.”
`
`C. Wistendahl
`38. Like Wallenius and the ’246 patent, Wistendahl describes interactive
`video in which hyperlinks associated with a video are used to access linked
`information, which is consistent with the preambles of claims 1 and 16 of the ’246
`patent. Here the interactivity is enabled by what is referred to as an “Interactive
`Digital Media” or “IDM” program. The IDM program can respond to
`selection of linked “hot spots” in a variety of ways, most relevantly by
`“connecting to an external network such as a World Wide Web page or service in
`the Internet.” (Wistendahl at 5:48-49). It is my opinion that the “IDM program”
`in Wistendahl at least discloses the “link program” recited in the ’246 patent. This
`is consistent with Applicant’s own definition of “link program” in the ’246
`patent file history, see Paragraph 9; excerpts such as those in Wistendahl of the
`functions of the IDM program relating to ancillary content and video pausing
`disclose a “link program.”
`39. Wistendahl discloses that:
`
`
`
`when a user clicks on a designated “hot spot” by pointing to any
`display position encompassed within the area defined by the object
`mapping data, the IDM program recognizes that the object pointed
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`to has been selected, and consequently causes the other file or
`function linked to the “hot spot” to be performed.” (Wistendahl at 7:4-
`10)
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “hot spots” are directing
`the user to linked contents, which can be considered ancillary content, and that this
`could be performed using a URL. It is therefore my opinion that Wistendahl
`discloses the limitations recited in claims 1 and 16 of the ’246 patent of accessing
`ancillary content over a network.
`40. The Wistendahl specification discloses that the video player
`and/or server may include the ability to pause:
`When media content is rendered interactive with an IDM program
`using “hot spot” position data, it may be desirable to stop, pause,
`rewind, or otherwise control the playback with familiar VCR-like
`controls to allow the user time to interact with the program, such as
`for reading information, making choices, inputting information,
`following a hyperlink from the hot spot, or saving a hot spot for
`further review. VCR-like controls have been developed for use with
`most types of multimedia systems. For example, in video-on-demand
`or media-on- demand systems. “streaming” content supplied in
`segments of digital media packets can be controlled with VCR-like
`controls by interrupting the content stream upon sending a
`command from the subscriber and rescheduling the sending of
`content segments as requested by the subscriber. (Wistendahl, 16:66-
`17:13)
`
`
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art of interactive video would
`understand the passage above to encompass pausing of the video in a variety of
`circumstances, including pausing of the video in response to selection of a
`hyperlink without requiring further action by the viewer, as such would be the
`most logical and useful implementation of the desirable pause function.
`Moreover, my opinion is consistent with other portions of the specification,
`which explicitly refer to pausing in response to link selection. That pausing
`
`Hulu
`Exhibit 1008
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`the video may be the result of interacting with a link is discussed in column 9,
`lines 45-49:
`As an option, upon selection by a user clicking on an object, the
`IDM program can issue an instruction via the console processor
`40 to the video processor 48 to slow down or pause the running of
`the movie to allow time for the user to absorb the IDM program
`response.
`
` understand the above language to mean that interacting with a link while
`watching a video can result in two actions through the IDM program: a response
`which can, as noted previously, involve accessing information over the
`Internet, and pausing of the video. It is therefore my opinion that Wistendahl
`discloses the limitations recited in claims 1 and 16 of the ’246 patent wherein
`interacting with an interface link or the link program performs both interruption of
`the video over the network and accessing the ancillary content over th