IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`Filed: May 24, 1995
`
`Issued: July 6, 2010
`
`Inventor(s): John Christopher Harvey, James
`William Cuddihy
`
`Assignee: Personalized Media
`Communications, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: Signal processing apparatus and methods Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES NEUHAUSER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 3
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law .......................................................................... 7
`
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’649 Patent .................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 12
`
`Claim 54 .................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim 62 .................................................................................... 14
`
`Claim 67 .................................................................................... 15
`
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ’649 Patent ......................... 15
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 28
`
`VI. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“digital television signals” .................................................................. 30
`
`“processor” .......................................................................................... 31
`
`“digital video signals” ......................................................................... 31
`
`“cadence information” ......................................................................... 32
`
`VII. Background on Prior Art References ............................................................ 33
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Background on Mustafa ...................................................................... 33
`
`Background on Iijima .......................................................................... 33
`
`Background on Campbell .................................................................... 34
`
`Background on Widergren .................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`i
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`VIII. Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 Are Invalid Over Mustafa ................................... 36
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 are Obvious Based on
`Mustafa in View of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in
`the Art .................................................................................................. 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 39 is Obvious Over Mustafa in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................... 37
`
`Claim 54 is Obvious Over Mustafa in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................... 55
`
`Claim 62 is Obvious Over Mustafa in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................... 66
`
`Claim 67 is Obvious Over Mustafa in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................... 70
`
`IX. Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 Are Invalid Over Mustafa In View Of
`Iijima .............................................................................................................. 75
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Iijima .................................................................................................... 75
`
`The Combination of Mustafa and Iijima ............................................. 77
`
`C. Mustafa in view of Iijima Renders Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 81
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 82
`
`Claim 54 .................................................................................... 83
`
`Claim 62 .................................................................................... 84
`
`Claim 67 .................................................................................... 85
`
`X.
`
`Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 Are Invalid Over Campbell ................................. 85
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 are Obvious Based on
`Campbell in View of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill
`in the Art .............................................................................................. 86
`
`1.
`
`Claim 39 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................... 86
`
`
`
`ii
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 54 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................... 109
`
`Claim 62 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................... 119
`
`Claim 67 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................... 123
`
`XI. Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 Are Invalid Over Campbell In View Of
`Widergren .................................................................................................... 132
`
`A. Widergren .......................................................................................... 132
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Combination of Campbell and Widergren ................................. 135
`
`Campbell in view of Widergren Renders Claims 39, 54, 62, and
`67 Obvious ........................................................................................ 141
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 39 .................................................................................. 142
`
`Claim 54 .................................................................................. 143
`
`Claim 62 .................................................................................. 144
`
`Claim 67 .................................................................................. 145
`
`XII. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ......................................... 146
`
`XIII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 149
`
`
`
`iii
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`I, Charles Neuhauser, Ph.D., do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Apple, Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,752,649 (“the ’649 patent”). I am being compensated for my
`
`time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate of $400 per
`
`hour. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether or not Claims
`
`39, 54, 62, and 67 of the ’649 patent (“the Challenged Claims”) are invalid
`
`as anticipated or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ’649 patent issued on July 6, 2010, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`08/449,097 (“the ’097 application”), filed on May 24, 1995. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`cover). The ’649 patent alleges to be a continuation of a series of
`
`applications dating back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 07/096,096 filed on
`
`September 11, 1987, now U.S. Patent No. 4,965,825 (“the ’096
`
`Application”). The ’096 Application alleges to be a continuation-in-part of a
`
`series of applications dating back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 06/317,519, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’519 Application”).
`
`1
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`4.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`priority date of the alleged invention recited in the ’649 Patent is September
`
`11, 1987.
`
`5.
`
`The face of the ’649 patent names John Christopher Harvey and James
`
`William Cuddihy as the named inventors, and identifies Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC as the named assignee. (Ex. 1002 at cover).
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’649 patent, the file
`
`history of the ’649 patent, numerous prior art references, and technical
`
`references from the time of the alleged invention.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of
`
`one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`8.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of the art, and have considered
`
`the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of
`
`September 11, 1987. My opinions are based, at least in part, on the
`
`following references in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of September 11, 1987:
`
`2
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to
`Mustafa, et al. (“Mustafa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,215,369 to Iijima
`(“Iijima”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to
`Campbell, et al. (“Campbell”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to
`Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”)
`
`Date of Public Availability
`Filed April 30, 1987; Issued and
`Published on December 6, 1988 (Ex.
`1003 at Face)
`
`Filed December 15, 1978; Issued
`and Published on July 29, 1980 (Ex.
`1004 at Face)
`
`Filed November 27, 1981; Issued
`and Published on August 20, 1985
`(Ex. 1005 at Face)
`
`Filed December 15, 1978; Issued
`and Published November 24, 1981
`(Ex. 1006 at Face)
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`9.
`I am an electrical engineer by training and profession with a specialization in
`
`the area of computer based systems. My educational and practical
`
`background also includes extensive experience in the field of computer
`
`science and engineering. I have been a practicing electrical engineer since
`
`1968. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my curriculum
`
`vitae is provided as Appendix A to this Declaration (Ex. 1001) and provides
`
`a description of my professional experience, including my academic and
`
`employment history, publications, conference participation, and more.
`
`3
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I have extensive educational and professional engineering experience. I was
`
`awarded a BSEE degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1968.
`
`Immediately after graduating from the University of Notre Dame, I was
`
`employed as a Technical Staff Member by Bell Telephone Laboratories
`
`(which has subsequently become Alcatel-Lucent).
`
`11. During my time at Bell Telephone Laboratories, I worked on the
`
`specification, testing, and development of computer controlled data and
`
`telephone switching systems. During that time, I also received my MSEE
`
`from Northwestern University (1971) under a company sponsored program.
`
`12.
`
`I left Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1971 to pursue a Ph.D. in a joint CS/EE
`
`program at Johns Hopkins University. In 1980, I was awarded a doctorate
`
`based on my research in evaluating computer architectures using emulation
`
`techniques.
`
`13. While working on my Ph.D. research, I joined the Digital Systems
`
`Laboratory at Stanford University as a research associate in 1974. There, I
`
`worked on the development of emulation systems for architectural research.
`
`In 1974 I also began working on a part-time basis at Palyn Associates, Inc.
`
`to develop a range of commercial products based on this research.
`
`14.
`
`In 1980, I joined Palyn as a full-time member of the Technical Staff. I later
`
`became Director of Engineering at Palyn, and by 1985 I was the Vice
`
`4
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`President of Engineering. At Palyn, I was responsible for directing product
`
`development on behalf of our clients, which consisted of a range of
`
`international entities involved in computer technology. I also directly
`
`consulted with clients regarding processor and peripheral design.
`
`15.
`
`In my consulting role at Palyn, I was responsible for the specification,
`
`design, testing, and debugging of a wide range of computer devices,
`
`including mini-computers, microprocessors, printers, and communication
`
`interfaces. This involved both hardware and software development.
`
`16. Since 1994, I have been an independent consultant focusing on technical
`
`analysis primarily in support of litigation or potential litigation. In this role I
`
`have analyzed many different types of computer based systems, including
`
`robotic manufacturing systems, television transmission and reception
`
`systems, microprocessors, main-frame systems, peripheral systems and
`
`networked systems. I also led a team of engineers in the functional analysis
`
`of various
`
`types of systems,
`
`including robotic systems, networked
`
`processors, processor operation and video production equipment.
`
`17. Other details concerning my background, including a list of my publications,
`
`professional service, and more, are set forth in my curriculum vitae. In
`
`forming the opinions expressed in this report, I have relied upon my
`
`5
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`education and my nearly 50 years of professional experience in the field of
`
`processors and systems based on processors.
`
`18. The specification of ‘649 patent relates in a general way to the transmission
`
`of standard television signals that have additional information that may be
`
`used, among other things, to provide what might be seen as enhancements to
`
`the typical television viewing experience. One well-known technique for
`
`sending information in this manner is Teletext. As will be discussed later,
`
`Teletext and related variants are also the basis for some of the prior art I will
`
`be analyzing with respect to the Challenged Claims.
`
`19.
`
`I have considerable knowledge and experience with respect to Teletext and
`
`related Videotex systems. I have followed the technical evolution of
`
`Videotex systems since at least the late 1970s, and I have experience with
`
`Videotex/Teletext from involvement in various patent disputes where the
`
`prior art involved Teletext or similar systems. In the course of this work, I
`
`have reviewed many articles, patents and books related to the technical
`
`characteristics of these systems and issues related to their deployment. I
`
`have been doing this since at least 1995.
`
`20.
`
`In addition I have practical experience with Teletext technology gained from
`
`using the technology in various settings, including a national broadcast
`
`center. I have also restored to operation Teletext equipped televisions and
`
`6
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`operated them using over-the-air and recorded signals that I created. Within
`
`the past few years I have led a small team of engineers that restored a
`
`commercial Teletext creation system to full operation and used it to create
`
`real-time teletext streams for the purpose of demonstrating various Teletext
`
`operations and modes of operation.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`21. Because I am an engineer and not an attorney I have been provided with an
`
`understanding of the patent law relevant to conducting the analysis given in
`
`this report. The following represents my understanding of these issues.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’649 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the September 11, 1987, alleged
`
`priority date of the ’649 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior
`
`art reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that
`
`the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim may be obvious in view of a single reference, or may be obvious
`
`from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`7
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 11
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the alleged, patented invention,
`
`skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, unexpected results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but
`
`unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged invention, the
`
`failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a
`
`nexus—a connection—between any such secondary considerations and the
`
`alleged invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent
`
`invention by others is a secondary consideration tending to show
`
`obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field, and that combination yields
`
`8
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 12
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of
`
`finding a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When
`
`a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious. I understand that a claim may be
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited
`
`in the claims.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`Summary of the ’649 Patent
`A.
`27. The ’649 patent generally relates to the transmission of standard television
`
`signals enhanced with certain types of embedded control signals and/or
`
`digital data.
`
`28. Specifically, the Challenged Claims generally relate to methods of
`
`processing television and/or video signals at receiver stations. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`9
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67). Figure 1 of the ’649 patent depicts a simple
`
`embodiment of a receiver station:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1). The components of Figure 1 are all conventional and
`
`include a television tuner 215, divider 4, TV signal decoder 203,
`
`microcomputer 205, and TV monitor 202M. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1). Via
`
`conventional antenna, television tuner 215 receives a conventional television
`
`broadcast transmission. (Ex. 1002 at 10:44-46). Digital information is also
`
`embedded in the broadcast. (Ex. 1002 at 7:51-63). For example, in a
`
`television transmission, the information can be embedded in line 20 of the
`
`vertical blanking interval. (Ex. 1002 at 7:67-8:2). The digital information
`
`may include the “addresses of specific receiver apparatus controlled by the
`
`signals and instructions that identify particular functions the signals cause
`
`addressed apparatus to perform.” (Ex. 1002 at 7:59-63). TV Monitor
`
`10
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 14
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`202M receives composite video and audio transmissions and presents a
`
`television video image and audio sound. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1, 11:20-23).
`
`11
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 15
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`Claim 39
`1.
`29. Claim 39 is reproduced below:
`
`[preamble] A method of processing signals in a television receiver, said
`
`television receiver having a plurality of processors, said method comprising
`
`the steps of:
`
`[a] receiving an information transmission including digital television signals
`
`and a message stream;
`
`[b] detecting said message stream in said information transmission;
`
`[c] inputting at least a first portion of said message stream to a control
`
`processor;
`
`[d] selecting control information in said at least a first portion of said
`
`message stream and communicating said selected control information to at
`
`least one register memory;
`
`[e] comparing stored function invoking data to the contents of said at least
`
`one register memory;
`
`[f] inputting said digital television signals to said plurality of processors on
`
`the basis of one or more matches;
`
`[g] processing of said digital television signals simultaneously at two or
`
`more of said plurality of processors; and
`
`12
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 16
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`[h] displaying television programming included in said digital television
`
`signals.
`
`Claim 54
`2.
`30. Claim 54 is reproduced below:
`
`[preamble] A method of television or video signal processing at a television
`
`or video receiver, said television or video receiver having a plurality of
`
`processors, comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] receiving an information transmission, said information transmission
`
`including a message stream;
`
`[b] receiving a control signal which operates at a transmitter station to
`
`communicate said information transmission to a transmitter; and
`
`[c] transmitting said message stream, said message stream enabling said
`
`receiver station to select control information in said message stream,
`
`[d] compare said control information to a stored function invoking datum,
`
`[e] input selected digital television or digital video signals to said plurality of
`
`processors on the basis of one or more matches of said control information
`
`to said stored function invoking datum,
`
`[f] simultaneously process said selected digital television or digital video
`
`signals at two or more of said plurality of processors, and
`
`13
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 17
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`[g] display television programming or video information included in said
`
`selected digital television or digital video signals.
`
`Claim 62
`3.
`31. Claim 62 is reproduced below:
`
`[preamble] A method of processing signals at a receiver station, said
`
`receiver station having a video monitor and a plurality of processors, said
`
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] receiving an information transmission including digital video signals and
`
`control information;
`
`[b] detecting said control information in said information transmission and
`
`passing said control information to a control processor;
`
`[c] communicating said control information selectively to at least one
`
`register memory;
`
`[d] comparing stored function invoking data to the contents of said at least
`
`one register memory;
`
`[e] communicating said digital video signals to at least one of said plurality
`
`of processors on the basis of one or more matches;
`
`[f] processing said digital video signals simultaneously at two or more of
`
`said plurality of processors; and
`
`[g] displaying video included in said digital video signals.
`
`14
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 18
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`Claim 67
`4.
`32. Claim 67 is reproduced below:
`
`[preamble] A method of processing signals in a television receiver, said
`
`television receiver having a plurality of processors, said method comprising
`
`the steps of:
`
`[a] receiving an information transmission including digital television signals
`
`and cadence information;
`
`[b] detecting and passing said cadence information to a control processor;
`
`[c] communicating said cadence information selectively to at least one
`
`register memory;
`
`[d] comparing stored communication control information to the contents of
`
`said at least one register memory;
`
`[e] communicating said digital television signals to said plurality of
`
`processors on the basis of one or more matches;
`
`[f] processing said digital television signals simultaneously at two or more of
`
`said plurality of processors; and
`
`[g] displaying television programming included in said digital television
`
`signals.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ’649 Patent
`
`15
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 19
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`33. As I mentioned above, the specification of the ‘649 patent generally relates
`
`to the transmission of standard television signals enhanced with certain types
`
`of embedded control signals. The specification of the ‘649 patent contains
`
`about 300 columns and covers a number of technology areas. In the
`
`following I will only discuss those aspects of technology that I believe are
`
`directly relevant to the Challenged Claims of the ‘649. The technology
`
`outlined below represents the knowledge and understanding that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have possessed in September 1987.
`
`34. The Challenged Claims relate to the transmission, reception and processing
`
`of television signals and to using control signals embedded in the television
`
`signals to control processing of these television signals.
`
`35.
`
`In 1987 standard broadcast television was ubiquitous and had been for many
`
`years. The television signal format was by that time highly standardized
`
`through the efforts of various industry participants. The basic technological
`
`characteristics of monochrome television were established in the late 1940s.
`
`36. After the introduction of television in the early 1940s, there were subsequent
`
`enhancements to support new technological advances, such as color, closed
`
`captioning, Teletext and stereophonic sound. Enhancements to television
`
`were introduced very carefully because the base of installed television
`
`receivers was so large that revolutionary changes would cause massive
`
`16
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 20
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`obsolescence issues. It is for this reason that the introduction of color
`
`television required that the new color television signal be compatible with
`
`previously purchased monochrome sets.
`
`37. The National Television System Committee (NTSC) standard was the
`
`approved standard for over-the-air (OTA) transmissions of television signals
`
`in the United States. This standard was adopted in 1941 by the Federal
`
`Communications Commission (FCC). The NTSC standard was based on
`
`sequential transmission and uniform linear scanning techniques, and was
`
`developed for use with CRT (cathode ray tube) presentation technology.
`
`38. An NTSC television signal conveys light intensity and positional reference
`
`information. When the CRT receives a NTSC television signal, the electron
`
`beam that creates the image on the CRT display screen is accordingly
`
`modified based on the light intensity and positional information conveyed in
`
`the NTSC signal. The electron beam that creates the image on the CRT
`
`screen does so by going from left to right and top to bottom. This typically
`
`occurs in real time, that is, the received picture intensity information is used
`
`to directly drive the CRT as it is received.
`
`39.
`
`In order to simplify the design of the television receiver, the NTSC
`
`television signal contains a number of synchronizing signals that coordinate
`
`the movement of the electron beam across the face of the CRT screen.
`
`17
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 21
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`These signals do not contain displayable information and occur when the
`
`electron beam is not in the visible area of the television screen. Because
`
`these non-displayable parts of the signal cannot be seen by the viewer,
`
`various systems have been developed to transmit information in either
`
`analog or digital form during these time periods. The so called “vertical
`
`blanking interval” or VBI encompasses the scan lines at the top of the screen
`
`and has been used for auxiliary signal transmission since at least the early
`
`1970s. There is a corresponding area at the start of each scan line called
`
`sometimes referred to as the “horizontal blanking interval” or HBI.
`
`Information can be impressed on this part of the signal also, although the use
`
`of the HBI for this purpose is less common.
`
`40. Under the NTSC standard, the VBI consists of 21 scan lines, the first 9 of
`
`which are using for synchronizing two interlaced (or interleaved) vertical
`
`images that were transmitted. The remaining 12 lines were left unused.
`
`41. Oftentimes systems transmitted digital data in the VBI or HBI. Digital data
`
`consists of discrete, discontinuous binary digits. A digital signal is a signal
`
`that represents a sequence of discrete values.
`
`42.
`
`In the United States, closed captioning is one form of digital data
`
`transmission using the VBI with which many consumers are familiar.
`
`Closed captioning enables the hearing impaired to enjoy television by
`
`18
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 22
`
`

`
`Declaration of Charles Neuhauser Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.