`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In Re:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,930,444: Attorney Docket No. 081841.0104
`
`Inventor: Camhi, Elie, et al.
`
`Filed:
`
`Issued:
`
`April 28, 1994
`
`July 27, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`IPR No. Unassigned
`
`Assignee: Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
`
`Title: Simultaneous Recording and Playback Apparatus
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 1
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Application of Random-Access Memory to Provide Simultaneous
`
`I. Background and Qualifications ............................................................... 1
`II. Legal Understanding ................................................................................ 7
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................ 8
`B. Obviousness ....................................................................................... 8
`III. Background on the Relevant Technology .............................................. 12
`A. Review of Video Recording Technology ........................................ 12
`VCR Functionality in 1992 .............................................................. 15
`Remote Control Units in 1992 ......................................................... 16
`Digital video and video compression in 1992 ................................. 17
`Random access memory allowing simultaneous read and write: .... 18
`Read/Write Capabilities in a Digital VCR ....................................... 18
`commands ........................................................................................ 21
`IV. The Patent at Issue ................................................................................. 23
`A. The ’444 Patent ................................................................................ 23
`B. Prior Art Considered ........................................................................ 24
`V. Construction of Claims .......................................................................... 25
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 26
`B. “means for powering the apparatus” ................................................ 27
`C. “means for wireless communication between said remote control
`and said control circuit” ................................................................... 28
`D. “key means” ..................................................................................... 30
`E. “memory unit” ................................................................................. 32
`F. “said storage medium having structure which enables substantially
`random access to information stored in said medium” .................... 33
`G. “keyboard having a record key and a playback key” ...................... 35
`VII. Invalidity ................................................................................................ 36
`A. Anticipation/Obviousness by Truog and/or Yifrach ....................... 36
`
`
`Control circuitry in a VCR responsive to the remote control
`
`i
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 2
`
`

`

`’444 Patent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 36
`’444 Patent Claim 2 ......................................................................... 60
`’444 Patent Claim 3 ......................................................................... 62
`’444 Patent Claim 4 ......................................................................... 64
`’444 Patent Claim 5 ......................................................................... 65
`’444 Patent Claim 6 ......................................................................... 65
`’444 Patent Claim 7 ......................................................................... 65
`’444 Patent Claim 8 ......................................................................... 66
`’444 Patent Claim 9 ......................................................................... 67
`’444 Patent Claim 10 ....................................................................... 68
`’444 Patent Claim 13 ....................................................................... 72
`’444 Patent Claim 14 ....................................................................... 73
`B. Obviousness by Goldwasser, Truog, and/or Yifrach ....................... 80
`’444 Patent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 80
`’444 Patent Claim 2 ....................................................................... 103
`’444 Patent Claim 3 ....................................................................... 106
`’444 Patent Claim 4 ....................................................................... 107
`’444 Patent Claim 5 ....................................................................... 109
`’444 Patent Claim 6 ....................................................................... 109
`’444 Patent Claim 7 ....................................................................... 110
`’444 Patent Claim 8 ....................................................................... 112
`’444 Patent Claim 9 ....................................................................... 115
`’444 Patent Claim 10 ..................................................................... 117
`’444 Patent Claim 13 ..................................................................... 121
`’444 Patent Claim 14 ..................................................................... 122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 3
`
`

`

`I, Anthony Wechselberger, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge
`
`and, if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters
`
`contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide technical assistance in the inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,930,444 ("the ’444 Patent").1
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related
`
`to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of the
`
`’444 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`4. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum vitae.2
`
`Here, I provide a brief summary of my qualifications. I am currently the
`
`President of Entropy Management Solutions (“EMS”), a position I have held
`
`since I founded the company in 1999. In this capacity, I perform consulting
`
`services
`
`related
`
`to
`
`technology and business development, content
`
`management, distribution and merchandizing, systems engineering and
`
`product design in the areas of industrial and consumer broadband and
`
`
`
`
`1 Ex. 1001.
`
`2 Appendix A.
`
`1
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 4
`
`

`

`multimedia technologies and associated commercial systems.
`
`5.
`
`I have forty years of experience working with high technology
`
`systems related to military, commercial, and consumer communication
`
`systems, networks and appliances. I have held various design, leadership
`
`and executive positions in, for example, engineering, operations, sales and
`
`marketing, and product management at leading companies in those fields,
`
`such as TV/COM International, Inc. (TV/COM) and Oak Communications,
`
`Inc. Over many years I have published and/or presented a number of articles
`
`and papers related to content/information creation, transmission/distribution
`
`and reception/consumption in various media sectors, including cable,
`
`satellite, broadcast/wireless, Internet and digital cinema. Attached as
`
`Appendix B is a list of my publications.
`
`6.
`
`As Vice President at Oak Communications (1980s), Chief
`
`Technology Officer at TV/COM (1990s) and a consulting systems engineer
`
`(1999
`
`to
`
`the present), I have specialized
`
`in
`
`the areas of digital
`
`communications
`
`technologies,
`
`systems
`
`and
`
`networks,
`
`including
`
`infrastructures, communications equipment and associated signal processing,
`
`network management and command-and-control, and information security
`
`as used for content management, merchandizing and delivery to the
`
`receivers/consumers of information/content. Consumer appliances are often
`
`
`
`2
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 5
`
`

`

`the receivers/consumers of the communications systems I’ve worked with,
`
`and I’ve been involved, for example, in the design, manufacturing, sales and
`
`servicing of consumer appliances such as set top boxes (STB) since the early
`
`1980s.
`
`7. My experience
`
`includes
`
`the development of
`
`terrestrial
`
`broadcast, satellite uplink and cable head-end commercial equipment for
`
`television transmissions, as well as consumer appliance equipment such as
`
`STBs and other home based or home networked devices. All of these
`
`architectures included computer control systems for network and associated
`
`network device command and control, and for management of content
`
`distribution and consumer appliance functions. For example, these systems
`
`are addressable. “Addressability” enables the system operator to control the
`
`delivery of content and network services, network sourcing and receiving
`
`devices (e.g., servers and transmission equipment, and PC or STB receivers)
`
`and the consumer experience. Examples are delivery of software or data
`
`files, for which purchased or subscription services or content is available,
`
`and a la carte functions such as pay-per-view (PPV) and video-on-demand
`
`(VOD).
`
`8.
`
`I have been a participant in the development and evolution of
`
`modern consumer digital audio and digital video communications systems
`
`
`
`3
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 6
`
`

`

`and technologies. In 1980 Oak was developing and demonstrating high
`
`fidelity digital audio transmission systems for broadcast applications. This
`
`was the same time as consumer electronics companies such as Philips,
`
`Toshiba, Sony and others were doing research that eventually led to the
`
`audio compact disc. As a member of the research group at Oak, we shared
`
`ideas and information about sampling rates, analog-to-digital and digital-to-
`
`analog conversion and compatibility between consumer storage/playback
`
`and broadcast applications. In 1991, my employer, TV/COM, and I began to
`
`participate
`
`in
`
`the newly
`
`formed
`
`International Organization
`
`for
`
`Standardization (ISO) MPEG-2 digital television standards initiatives, and in
`
`the following year, both the European Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) and
`
`U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) forums (which were
`
`based upon MPEG-2).
`
`9.
`
`In the mid-1990s, as the technologies and standards in support
`
`of digital television (DTV) moved towards implementation, the dawn of the
`
`Internet age also arrived. This had a dramatic impact on the way broadband
`
`systems engineers like myself began to plan for the future. This is because
`
`the concept of convergence—the melding of
`
`traditional broadband
`
`communications systems and equipment, computers and computer networks,
`
`and the telecommunications worlds—was changing the communications
`
`
`
`4
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 7
`
`

`

`infrastructure and technology landscape. When television distribution went
`
`all-digital, the information of television became simply “data”—and it
`
`became possible for the technologies of digital television, computers and
`
`computer networks and the telephony industry (which was in the midst of its
`
`transition to digital infrastructure that began in the 1970s) to coalesce.
`
`Support for on-line and Internet services demanded a high performance two-
`
`way data transmission capability, and so broadband network providers began
`
`to upgrade their distribution infrastructures accordingly.
`
`10.
`
`In conjunction with this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief
`
`Technology Officer, I directed the expansion of our network products into
`
`broadband data communications generally, from its initial focus on digital
`
`television. Networks became more advanced in order to support real-time
`
`interaction between consumers and various information sources, and
`
`interactive and on-line applications led to rapid adoption of client-server
`
`information access architectures. The ubiquitous set top box began to
`
`evolve from a minimalist appliance towards its current status as a
`
`communications hub of the consumer’s media room. This was supported by
`
`the exponential increase in the capabilities of powerful yet inexpensive
`
`integrated circuits and memory to become more software driven and support
`
`advanced digital signal processing (DSP) needs.
`
` These processing
`
`
`
`5
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 8
`
`

`

`capabilities are relevant to the matters of the current case, because the
`
`asserted patent is essentially a set top box (and accompanying remote control
`
`unit) with audio/video recording and playback capability that relies upon
`
`memory and control processes to affect simultaneous record/playback
`
`functionality – functions found in what we refer to today as a digital or
`
`personal video recorder (DVR or PVR).
`
`11.
`
`In my consulting work I have continued to work with
`
`technologies, equipment and network infrastructures for content generation,
`
`distribution and consumption. My current work involves both traditional
`
`and newly developing architectures and distribution channels. As an
`
`example of the latter, I am the chief security systems architect on behalf of
`
`the six major Hollywood studios for their “Digital Cinema Initiatives” (DCI)
`
`consortium. DCI develops and evolves the requirements and specifications
`
`for transitioning first run theatrical movie releases from film to digital for
`
`distribution and exhibition display. I am responsible for all elements of
`
`command and control and digital rights management (DRM) for the digital
`
`cinema system design and implementation. I also represent DCI at the
`
`Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), which is
`
`developing the set of internationally recognized standards for global
`
`adoption of digital cinema. The migration to all-digital distribution impacts
`
`
`
`6
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 9
`
`

`

`other content distribution channels such as early window release for
`
`hospitality, airplane and cable/satellite video-on-demand (VOD), as well as
`
`newer so called “over-the-top” distribution channels based on Internet
`
`distribution. I have also been a strategy and technology consultant to
`
`content management and distribution entities in these areas.
`
`12. My consulting practice today includes a balance of technology
`
`and systems engineering services and assistance to the legal community as a
`
`technology consultant and/or expert witness. I have been accepted to
`
`provide, and have provided, expert testimony in the areas of multimedia
`
`technologies such as digital television and appliances, and associated
`
`networks as used for content management and delivery on many occasions.
`
`13.
`
`I have a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, conferred by the University of Arizona in 1974 and San Diego
`
`State University in 1979, respectively. I also completed the Executive
`
`Program for Scientists and Engineers at the University of California at San
`
`Diego in 1984. I am a named inventor on two patents, U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,531,020, “Multi-layer Encryption System for the Broadcast of Encrypted
`
`Information,” and U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440, “Universal Decoder.”
`
`II. Legal Understanding
`
`14. My opinions are also informed by my understanding of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 10
`
`

`

`relevant law. I understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis and that there are several possible reasons that a patent
`
`claim may be found to be unpatentable.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that earlier publications and patents may act to
`
`render a patent unpatentable for one of two reasons: (1) anticipation, and (2)
`
`obviousness.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`16. First, I understand that a single prior art reference, article,
`
`patent, or publication “anticipates” a claim if each and every element of the
`
`claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further understand that, where a claim
`
`element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art reference, the reference may
`
`nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim element is necessarily
`
`present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method disclosed—i.e. the
`
`missing element is “inherent.”
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`17. Second, I understand that the prior art may render a patent
`
`claim "obvious." I understand that two or more prior art references, articles,
`
`patents, or publications that each disclose fewer than all elements of a patent
`
`claim may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim obvious if the
`
`combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the claim
`
`
`
`8
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 11
`
`

`

`and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have been motivated to
`
`combine the prior art. I understand that this motivation to combine need not
`
`be explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. I also
`
`understand that one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is a
`
`person having ordinary creativity. I further understand that one or more
`
`prior art references, articles, patents, or publications that disclose fewer than
`
`all of the elements of a patent claim may render a patent claim obvious if
`
`including the missing element would have been obvious to one of skill in the
`
`art (e.g., the missing element represents only an insubstantial difference over
`
`the prior art or a reconfiguration of a known system).
`
`18. Under the doctrine of obviousness, a claim may be invalid if the
`
`differences between the invention 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.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that obviousness is based on the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-
`
`obviousness to the extent they exist.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 12
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of both obviousness and
`
`non-obviousness should be considered when evaluating whether a claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`invention. These secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include, for
`
`example:
`
` a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the
`
`claimed invention;
`
` commercial success of processes claimed by the patent;
`
` unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
` praise of the invention by others skilled in the art;
`
` the taking of licenses under the patent by others; and
`
` deliberate copying of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that there are second indicia of the
`
`obviousness of an alleged invention such as the combination of known
`
`elements to produce an obvious or expected result.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary indicia and the claimed invention. I further understand that if the
`
`claimed invention produced expected results that this is also a secondary
`
`consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`23.
`
`It
`
`is also my understanding
`
`that
`
`there are additional
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 13
`
`

`

`considerations that may be used as further guidance as to when the above
`
`factors will result in a finding that a claim is obvious, including the
`
`following:
`
` the claimed invention is simply a combination of prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results;
`
` the claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results;
`
` the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar
`
`devices or methods in the same way;
`
` the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device or
`
`method that is ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
` the claimed invention would have been "obvious to try" choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success;
`
` there is known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
`
`on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would
`
`have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
` there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there
`
`was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims; and
`
`11
`
`
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 14
`
`

`

` there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference
`
`or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`24. Finally, I understand that a claim may be deemed invalid for
`
`obviousness in light of a single prior art reference, without the need to
`
`combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the
`
`reference can be supplied by the knowledge or common sense of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`III. Background on the Relevant Technology
`
`A. Review of Video Recording Technology
`
`25. As of 1992, it was well known by the average consumer that it
`
`was simple and straightforward to locally record broadcast TV or even radio
`
`channels by merely performing analog recording of the broadcast signals on
`
`a Video Cassette Recorder (“VCR”). At that time, it was also well
`
`understood that the state of the art was readily enabled digitized audio and
`
`video data to be stored to both dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”)
`
`solid state memory as well as hard disk drive memory (“HDD”) in the
`
`typical PC computer. The cost of these two types of memory was still high -
`
`
`
`12
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 15
`
`

`

`- in the range of $556 for 16 megabytes of DRAM memory3 and $800 to
`
`$1600 for 40 to 80 megabytes of HDD memory.4 While DRAM was quite
`
`compact, the HDD drives were still using the 5¼” “floppy disk” form-factor
`
`and were typically at least 6” wide, 4” in height and as deep as 8 to 10”.
`
`Thus, they were roughly the same size as the typical set-top box (“STB”)
`
`used in the industry, so to put such a drive in a STB would require doubling
`
`the size of the appliance, and add significantly to its cost. As I was in the
`
`STB manufacturing business in 1992, I can attest that size and cost of a STB
`
`was critical. According to Moore’s Law, however, the expectation at that
`
`time was that the cost of both DRAM and HDD memory would continue to
`
`drop, as it had by half every eighteen months to two years as the memory
`
`density doubled. The expectation also existed that the size of HDD drives
`
`would also drop with the introduction of 3½” drive diameter modules
`
`already beginning to make a market appearance.
`
`26. Throughout the 1980s, TV viewers enjoyed the ability to use
`
`VCRs to record and view programs at a later time. It was also widely
`
`understood by 1992 that some viewers were skipping TV commercials by
`
`fast-forwarding through them. Viewers could also easily “pause” the replay
`
`
`
`
`3 Ex. 1013.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 16
`
`

`

`for any reason and then immediately resume viewing. All VCR’s had
`
`remote control units (RCU) with control buttons that included “pause”,
`
`“record” and “playback.” As a result of the success and consumer
`
`acceptance of VCRs, it was also understood that it would be a desirable
`
`feature of a VCR or STB to be able to have the same “pause” feature but for
`
`a live TV broadcast. From an engineering point of view, this was actually
`
`quite simple and easy if sufficient random access memory were available.
`
`This is because the ability to give a viewer the effect of “pausing” a live TV
`
`broadcast, the easiest implementation of the recorder needed to utilize
`
`random access memory as could be provided by combinations of DRAM
`
`and HDD.
`
`27. Despite the awareness that a “television pause” or “live pause”
`
`feature would be useful, it had not been implemented in low cost, consumer
`
`electronics due to the cost of memory in the 1992 timeframe. For example
`
`in Truog’s 1989 Bachelor’s Thesis “Television Pause Function” device, the
`
`author stated that: “[t]here are two methods for storing these signals for later
`
`playback. One is digitizing the signals and storing the information on a disk
`
`in the form of bytes of video information. This method provides very easy
`
`access to video data. Using conventional means it is extremely costly and
`
`also difficult to do due to the high frequency at which the signals are
`
`
`
`14
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 17
`
`

`

`broadcast.”5 Truog also stated “[o]nce digital encoding of video becomes
`
`more prevalent and less expensive, a digital recording technique should be
`
`used in place of the VCRs.”6
`
`28.
`
`In 1992, it was generally understood that inexpensive, random
`
`access memory, that is, a combination of DRAM and HDD, would
`
`eventually make the function of “live pause” readily implementable. As my
`
`examination of the prior art shows, at that time, there was no technical issue
`
`with implementing “live pause” as a TV viewing feature, rather the cost of
`
`sufficient memory to record at least enough video to handle a 5 to 10 minute
`
`pause was not affordable in a consumer appliance for the masses.
`
`VCR Functionality in 1992
`
`29. A Consumer Reports review of VCRs in March, 1992 indicates
`
`that infrared remotes were commonplace, programming to record at a later
`
`time was commonplace, and controlling pause, fast forward or reverse
`
`(trick-play) and
`
`frame advance
`
`(including “jog-shuttle”) was also
`
`commonplace. Programming the VCR to record a future program was also
`
`commonplace. Ex. 1023, 158-159.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`5 Truog, Ex. 1002, at 5.
`
`6 Truog, Ex. 1002, at 23.
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 18
`
`

`

`30. The ’444 Patent admits that fast-forward, reverse, and frame
`
`advance were well-known in all but the least expensive VCR’s as of the
`
`invention date. At 6:27-41, the ’444 Patent states:
`
`The enhanced remote control has additional function
`keys intended for use during time delay playback by
`recorder 10, as described above and initiated by user
`actuation of playback key 20. These additional function
`keys include fast forward 52 and reverse 54, pause 56,
`and frame advance 58. Control circuit 14 is adapted to
`respond to user actuation of these keys by controlling
`the rate and sequence with which stored information
`retrieved from memory unit 12 is transferred to outputs
`24 for display. This enables the recorder of the instant
`invention to approximate the enhanced playback
`features which have become well known from their
`presence on all but the least expensive VCR's presently
`known and marketed.7
`Remote Control Units in 1992
`
`31. Remote control Units (RCU) for televisions and VCRs were
`
`well established in the 1970s and, by the 1980s, IR remote controls had
`
`replaced the previous ultrasonic-based remote controls invented in the 1960s.
`
`Many patents were filed and issued around 1980 pertaining to infrared
`
`
`
`
`7 ’444 Patent, Ex. 1001, 6:27-41.
`
`16
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 19
`
`

`

`technology and its use in televisions, set top boxes and VCR’s (or VTR, for
`
`video tape recorder, as they were also known) operation. In fact, the
`
`appearance and utility of multiple RCUs in consumers’ living rooms by the
`
`late 1980s led to the introduction of the so called “universal remote” – a
`
`single RCU that could perform the functions of several RCUs.
`
`32. Remote controls at the time the ’444 Patent was filed provided
`
`keys to enable enhanced playback features, as recited in the ’444 Patent
`
`itself at 6:27-41 (which is reproduced above). A person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand that a remote control had keys or buttons with which the
`
`user interfaced with the remote control, and such keys would include the
`
`well-known keys that the ’444 Patent mentions, such as fast forward, rewind,
`
`frame advance, and pause.
`
`Digital video and video compression in 1992
`
`33. Video compression was well known at the time of the ’444
`
`Patent. Video compression standards existed and new standards were in
`
`development. An existing standard was H.261, which was finalized in 1990
`
`by the CCITT and compressed digital video to rates 64 kbps to 2 Mbps, and
`
`associated audio. Additionally, work on the video compression standards
`
`now known as MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 began in 1988 and 1990 respectively
`
`by the ISO, and largely complete drafts of these standards were published in
`
`17
`
`
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 20
`
`

`

`the spring of 1991 and fall of 1994 respectively.
`
`Random access memory allowing simultaneous read and write:
`
`34.
`
`“Dual-ported RAM” allows Read and Write to happen on the
`
`same clock cycle of the same storage device. Video RAM is a well-known
`
`dual-port RAM example, and both were well established and well known in
`
`1992. Furthermore, multi-head disk drives that achieved simultaneous read
`
`and write operations through the use of multiple heads were also known, see,
`
`e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,134,499 to Sata et al. (Ex. 1021) entitled "Video
`
`Recording Apparatus Having Control Means Provided Therein for
`
`Independently Controlling the Writing Head and the Reading Head," which
`
`was considered by the examiner during prosecution of the ’444 Patent, and
`
`also U.S. Patent No. 4,972,396 to Rafner entitled "Multiple Independently
`
`Positionable Recording Reading Head Disk System" (Ex. 1019).
`
`Application of Random-Access Memory to Provide Simultaneous
`
`Read/Write Capabilities in a Digital VCR
`
`35. The idea of a digital VCR was not novel in 1992. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,625,464 to Compoint entitled "Continuous Television Transmission
`
`Reproduction and Playback" (priority date March 5, 1991) continuously
`
`records an incoming television signal by digitizing it and writing it to a two-
`
`
`
`18
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 21
`
`

`

`headed hard disk, which enables simultaneous reading and writing. Ex.
`
`1020.
`
`36. U.S. Patent No. 4,972,396 to Rafner entitled "Multiple
`
`Independently Positionable Recording-Reading Head Disk System" (issued
`
`November 20, 1990) describes a multi-headed hard disk system in which
`
`reading from and writing to the disk can occur at the same time. Ex. 1019.
`
`Rafner provides an example use of the device to provide VCR-type
`
`functionality, where compressed digital video is stored and provides a
`
`contrast with conventional tapes because viewing can begin prior to
`
`termination of recording due to the use of separate read/write heads.
`
`37. U.S. Patent 5,134,499 to Sata entitled "Video recording
`
`apparatus having control means provided
`
`therein for
`
`independently
`
`controlling the writing head and the reading head" (filed August 3, 1989)
`
`describes an apparatus in which viewing can begin prior to the termination
`
`of recording using two separate read/write heads, with a RAM allowing
`
`writing to a buffer when the write head is traversing and not writing to disk.
`
`Ex. 1021.
`
`38. PCT Publication WO 89/12896 to Ulmer entitled "Device for
`
`simultaneous recording and playback of television images" (published
`
`December 28, 1989) allows users to perform VCR-like functionality on
`
`
`
`19
`
`Dish, Exh. 1010, p. 22
`
`

`

`television signals. Ex. 1006. Ulmer discloses a device having a remote
`
`control that allows playback of a recorded video signal while the recording
`
`is still taking place. The video is stored in a digital random-access memory,
`
`which enables simultaneous recording and playback. Ulmer discloses user
`
`control of the unit through a remote control, and clearly indicates the simple
`
`operation of the device: record, wait for a user-selected interval of time,
`
`playback. Ulmer describes extensively the operation of the control circuit
`
`that allows for not only simultaneous reading and writing but also providing
`
`the enhanced playback features of fast forwa