throbber
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
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,649
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ........... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based ........................................ 1
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................... 2
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`“digital television signals” (claims 39, 54, and 67) .......... 2
`
`“digital video signals” (claims 54 and 62) ....................... 4
`
`“cadence information” (claim 67) .................................... 5
`
`“processor” (claims 39, 54, 62, and 67) ........................... 6
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable .............. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .................. 7
`
`II.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS
`OF THE ’649 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 7
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’649 Patent ...................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’649 Patent ...................... 9
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability ............................................ 10
`
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability ............ 11
`
`Ground 1: Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67 Are Invalid Over Mustafa ..... 11
`
`(1) Claim 39 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................. 11
`
`(2) Claim 54 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................. 19
`
`(3) Claim 62 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................. 24
`
`(4) Claim 67 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................. 27
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 2:
`
`In the Alternative to Ground 1, Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67
`are Obvious Based on Mustafa in View of Iijima .......... 30
`
`(1) Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67 Are Obvious Based on
`Mustafa in View of Iijima .............................................. 33
`
`Ground 3: Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67 Are Invalid Over Campbell in
`View of the Knowledge of A PHOSITA ........................ 34
`
`(1) Claim 39 Is Invalid Over Campbell ................................ 35
`
`(2) Claim 54 Is Invalid Over Campbell ................................ 42
`
`(3) Claim 62 Is Invalid Over Campbell ................................ 47
`
`(4) Claim 67 Is Invalid Over Campbell ................................ 51
`
`Ground 4:
`
`In the Alternative to Ground 3, Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67
`are Obvious Based on Campbell in View of Widergren 56
`
`(1) Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67 Are Obvious Based on
`Campbell in View of Widergren .................................... 57
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .................. 59
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .................................... 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................. 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) Lead and Back-Up Counsel ........................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ....................................... 60
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 60
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests IPR of Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649 (“the ’649 patent”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`In 1981, the named inventors of the ’649 patent filed U.S. Patent Appl.
`
`No. 06/317,510, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’490 patent”) to
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”). Ex. 1007. In 1987, PMC
`
`filed a continuation-in-part of that application, which discarded the original 22-
`
`column specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification that spanned
`
`over 300 columns. Ex. 1002. In the months leading up to June 8, 1995, PMC filed
`
`328 continuations from that 1987 application, having tens of thousands of claims
`
`and deluging the Patent Office with thousands of prior art references. Ex. 1009 at
`
`2; Ex. 1017; Ex. 1002 at 1-31; Ex. 1011 at 10. The ’649 patent is one of the
`
`patents that issued from that flurry of activity.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`Apple requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’649 patent.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based
`IPR of the Challenged Claims is requested in view of the prior art below.
`
`PMC asserts that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the Sept. 11, 1987 priority
`
`date. Ex. 1019 at 6. For the purposes of this IPR only, Apple assumes the Sept.
`
`11, 1987 priority date.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to Mustafa, et al. (“Mustafa”) (Ex. 1003), filed
`April 30, 1987, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).1
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,215,369 to Iijima (“Iijima”) (Ex. 1004), issued July 29,
`1980, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`• U.S. patent No. 4,536,791 to Campbell, et al. (“Campbell”) (Ex. 1005),
`issued Aug. 20, 1985, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”) (Ex. 1006),
`issued Nov. 24, 1981, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Apple requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’581 Patent
`Mustafa renders obvious Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 under § 103.
`Mustafa, in view of Iijima, renders obvious Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67
`under § 103.
`Campbell renders obvious Claims 39, 54, 62, and 67 under § 103.
`
`Campbell, in view of Widergren, renders obvious Claims 39, 54, 62,
`and 67 under § 103.
`
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`A claim in an IPR is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in
`
`light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`“digital television signals” (claims 39, 54, and 67)
`
`(1)
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of “digital
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 are to the pre-AIA versions applicable here.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`television signals” is “television signals entirely or partially encoded in a digital
`
`format.” The term “digital television signal” did not have a well-known meaning
`
`in the art. Ex. 1001 ¶ 72. A person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”)
`
`reading the ’649 patent would have recognized that television signals that included
`
`both digital and analog components would constitute “digital television signals”.
`
`Ex. 1002 at Figs. 1, 2A, 10:43-11:6, 18:54-61, 18:64-19:14; Ex. 1001 ¶ 72. To the
`
`extent that there is any ambiguity, the ’490 patent (a parent to the ’649 patent) also
`
`supports that only a portion of the digital television signal needs to be digital. Ex.
`
`1007 at 14:1-4 (discussing partial encryption).
`
`This construction is further supported by the prosecution history. Because
`
`of the lack of a well-known meaning for this term, during prosecution, the
`
`Examiner asked “[w]hat do applicants mean by ‘digital television’?” and rejected
`
`several claims under § 112 based on the use of “digital television.” Ex. 1009,
`
`8/27/1996 Non-Final Rejection, at 3. The applicant responded that digital
`
`detectors 34 and 37 determine whether there are encoded digital signals present in
`
`portions the analog video or audio portions of the television signal, and digital
`
`detector 38 “receives a separately defined, and clearly digital, transmission.” Ex.
`
`1012, 10/2/1998 Amendment, at 34-35. The Applicant further explained that
`
`“[s]ince the television programming transmission is disclosed to be comprised of a
`
`video portion, an audio portion and embedded encoded digital signals, the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`separately defined transmission is at least some of the television programming
`
`transmission that contains the encoded digital signals.” Id. The Applicant
`
`concluded that “the audio portion, video portion and signal portion of the television
`
`programming transmission may be entirely or partially encoded in digital format,
`
`separately defined from analog format, thereby comprising ‘digital television.’”
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The construction is also consistent with the claims of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,559,635, a patent in the same family as the ’649 patent with the same
`
`specification. For example, claim 18 of the ’635 patent recites “wherein the at
`
`least one encrypted digital information transmission is unaccompanied by any non-
`
`digital information transmission.” Ex. 1028 at Claim 18. Absent the “is
`
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission” language, the
`
`“encrypted digital information transmission” may otherwise include both digital
`
`and non-digital information. Similarly, the Challenged Claims are without
`
`qualifying language and therefore may include both digital and non-digital
`
`information.2
`
`(2)
`“digital video signals” (claims 54 and 62)
`
`2 Although Apple disagrees, Apple notes that in the District Court litigation PMC
`
`states that “digital television signals” means “television programming that
`
`includes digital audio and digital video signals.” Ex. 1020 at 3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of “digital video
`
`signals” is “video signals entirely or partially encoded in a digital format.” As
`
`explained in Section C.1 above, the Applicant explained during prosecution that
`
`the ’649 patent discloses embedding digital signals in portions of analog video.
`
`See Section C.1. The applicant further made clear during prosecution that “digital
`
`video” may “constitute only one element of digital television” or “hav[e]
`
`applications entirely separate from digital television.” Ex. 1010 at 5. Therefore,
`
`digital video signals can be partially encoded in digital format as explained in
`
`Section C.1. See Section C.1.3
`
`“cadence information” (claim 67)
`
`(3)
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of “cadence
`
`information” is “information used to distinguish the individual messages of a
`
`message stream.” Cadence information was not a term of art in electronic
`
`communications. Ex. 1001 ¶ 76. However, the ’649 patent specification explains
`
`that “[c]adence information which consists of headers, certain length tokens, and
`
`signals that are called ‘end of file signals’ enables subscriber station apparatus to
`
`distinguish each instance of header information in any given message stream and,
`
`3 Although Apple disagrees, Apple notes that in the District Court litigation PMC
`
`states that “digital video signals” means “video signals encoded as discrete
`
`numerical values instead of an analog representation.” Ex. 1020 at 3.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`hence, to distinguish the individual messages of said stream.” Ex. 1002 at 31:14-
`
`19 (emphasis added). Further, Claim 34 (not a Challenged Claim) states,
`
`“communicating to a signal generator cadence information which operates at said
`
`receiver station to select a portion of at least one message of said message
`
`stream.” Ex. 1002 at Claim 34 (emphasis added). Also, PMC agrees that
`
`“cadence information” “enable[s] a receiver apparatus to distinguish the individual
`
`messages within a message stream.” Ex. 1020 at 3.
`
`“processor” (claims 39, 54, 62, and 67)
`
`(4)
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of “processor” is
`
`“a device that operates on data.” This construction is consistent with the plain
`
`meaning, in the context of the ’649 patent, and is supported by intrinsic evidence.
`
`The term “processor” appears throughout the specification, but the specification
`
`does not provide any definition or limitation on the functionality of the processor.
`
`Rather, the specification describes a variety of processors, including hardwired
`
`devices that process data. See Ex. 1002 at 135:52-56 (decoders 30 and 40 process
`
`information), 76:11-13 (buffer/comparators 8 process information). In an IPR
`
`proceeding addressing a related PMC patent, the Board properly ruled that a
`
`“processor” is “a device that operates on data.” Ex. 1022 at 7-8. In fact, PMC
`
`proposed a similar construction in the Amazon district court litigation for a related
`
`patent having the same specification: “any device capable of performing operations
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`on data.” Ex. 1021 at 12. Also, the district court in which PMC has sued Apple
`
`previously construed “processor” in another related patent as “any device capable
`
`of performing operations on data.” Ex. 1008 at 14-16.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable
`
`D.
`How the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is detailed in Section II.D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits is attached. Relevance of the evidence, including
`
`identifying the specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, may be
`
`found in Section II.D. Apple submits a declaration of Dr. Charles Neuhauser, an
`
`expert with nearly 50 years of experience in the relevant fields, in support of this
`
`petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. Ex. 1001.
`
`II. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS
`OF THE ’649 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’649 Patent
`The ’649 patent is titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods” and
`
`generally relates to the transmission, reception, processing and presentation of
`
`information carried on various types of electrical signals (i.e., standard radio and
`
`television signals). Ex. 1002 at Face, Abstr.; Ex. 1001 ¶ 27. The Challenged
`
`Claims relate to methods of processing television and/or video signals at receiver
`
`stations. Ex. 1002 at Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67. A receiver accepts a conventional
`
`television broadcast transmission via conventional antenna. Ex. 1002 at 10:44-46.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`Digital information, including information that causes the receiver to perform
`
`particular functions, is embedded in the broadcast. Ex. 1002 at 7:51-63, 23:34-37.
`
`A TV connected to the receiver presents received video and audio information.
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1, 11:20-23. Aside from the general description above, the
`
`Challenged Claims are not embodied in any specific example in the ’649 patent
`
`specification.
`
`Claim 39 is an example of the Challenged Claims:
`
`in said
`
`information
`
`39. 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
`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;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`[g] processing of said digital television signals simultaneously
`at two or more of said plurality of processors; and displaying
`television programming included in said digital television
`signals.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’649 Patent
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097, which led to the ’649 patent, was filed on
`
`May 24, 1995. Ex. 1002 at Cover. It claims priority to a series of continuation and
`
`continuation-in-part applications ending with U.S. Patent Appl. No. 06/317,510,
`
`which was filed on November 3, 1981, and issued as the ’490 patent. Ex. 1002 at
`
`Cover. The ’649 patent did not issue until July 6, 2010. Ex. 1002 at Cover.
`
`Initially, the Examiner rejected pending claim 2 under § 112, paragraph 1,
`
`because the meaning of “digital television” was unclear, and the means used to
`
`transmit digitally formatted television signals were not the same as the means used
`
`to
`
`transmit analog
`
`television signals and
`
`the Applicant only disclosed
`
`“transmit[ing] over the same TV channel that was used to carry conventional
`
`analog TV broadcasts.” Ex. 1009 at 3; Ex. 1011 at 13-18; Ex. 1001 ¶ 60. The
`
`applicant responded that “digital television” includes a television transmission that
`
`is entirely or partially encoded in digital format. Ex. 1012 at 34-35. Subsequently,
`
`the applicant amended the claims to add claims 56-108. Ex. 1013 at 16-30.
`
`Application claims 56, 57, 67 and 72 correspond to issued claims 39, 54, 62 and
`
`67, respectively. Ex. 1016. After the Applicant accepted the Examiner’s proposed
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`claim amendments, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. See generally,
`
`Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 56-65.
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`C.
`Ground 1: Mustafa teaches a system where user terminals receive video,
`
`digital audio, and digital control information. Mustafa in view of the knowledge of
`
`a PHOSITA renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Ground 2: In
`
`the alternative
`
`to Ground 1,
`
`if “digital
`
`television
`
`signals”/”digital video signals” require the signals to be completely digital, then
`
`Mustafa in view of Iijima renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Iijima describes
`
`a digital transmission system for television signals.
`
`Ground 3: Campbell is a cable television system having a receiver that
`
`accepts digital data transmissions in video format. Campbell in view of the
`
`knowledge of a PHOSITA renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Ground 4: In
`
`the alternative
`
`to Ground 3,
`
`if “digital
`
`television
`
`signals”/”digital video signals” require the signals to be completely digital, then
`
`Campbell in view of Widergren renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Widergren describes a digital data transmission system.
`
`During prosecution, Mustafa was not cited, and Iijima, Campbell and
`
`Widergren were cited in an IDS, along with thousands of other references, and
`
`were not discussed.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`D. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability
`Apple provides a detailed discussion of how the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’649 patent are rendered obvious.
`
`Ground 1:
`Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67 Are Invalid Over Mustafa
`(1) Claim 39 Is Invalid Over Mustafa
`a. Mustafa discloses the Claim 39 preamble: “A method of
`processing signals in a television receiver, said television receiver having
`a plurality of processors.”
`
`Mustafa teaches a method of processing signals in a television receiver (i.e.,
`
`terminal 12 and television receiver or monitor 35), said television receiver having a
`
`plurality of processors (i.e., memory bank 62, output register, video D/A converter
`
`60B, CSG frame jump correction 63, and character generator 64 (collectively
`
`“video output processor”) and audio RAM 50, audio D/A converter 51, and sound
`
`summer 44 (collectively “audio output processor”)). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 98-108. Mustafa
`
`discloses Terminal 12 (which receives standard television formatted signals that
`
`contain video frames, digitally encoded audio frames, and encoded audio
`
`channels), and television receiver or monitor 35, which presents the received
`
`programming. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 3:32-35, 6:23-24, 6:34-45. Also, as described in
`
`detail for 39[g], terminal 12 processes the received video and audio frames using a
`
`plurality of processors, including “video output processor” and “audio output
`
`processor.” Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 7:36-44, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 103-07.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`b. Mustafa discloses 39[a]: “receiving an information
`transmission including digital television signals and a message stream.”
`
`Mustafa teaches receiving an information transmission (i.e., the audio/video
`
`frame data) including digital television signals (i.e., the second group of the
`
`audio/video frame data, which includes video and digital audio data) and a
`
`message stream (i.e., the first group of the audio/video frame data, which includes
`
`field sync, error check, address, and mode code information). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 109-16.
`
`Mustafa discloses that terminal 12 receives television signals (i.e., an information
`
`transmission) through “Cable In” 13. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 1, 2:64-68, 3:33-34, 6:42-
`
`45; Ex. 1001 ¶ 109.
`
`Fig. 3 represents the video and audio frames used to carry information to
`
`terminal 12. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 3, 2:55-57. The video and audio frames of Fig. 3 are
`
`divided into two sections: the first group of lines carrying auxiliary information,
`
`and the second group of active lines carrying audio or video data. Ex. 1003 at Fig.
`
`3, 3:40-44, 5:41-44. The first group of frame data (i.e., a message stream) consists
`
`of lines 1-15 and 263-278 and contains auxiliary information such as a terminal
`
`address, used to determine if the frame is addressed to a particular terminal, and a
`
`mode code, which identifies the frame as either video or audio. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 3,
`
`3:60-64, 7:4-8, Ex. 1001 ¶ 104, 113. The second group of frame data (i.e., digital
`
`television signals) consists of lines 16-262, 279-525 and contains digitally encoded
`
`audio that may be particular to video frames or video data such as still frames of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`text, pictures, or other images. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 3, 3:13-20, 3:33-35, 4:64-65, 6:42-
`
`45.
`
`c. Mustafa discloses 39[b]: “detecting said message stream in
`said information transmission.”
`
`Mustafa teaches detecting said message stream (i.e., the first group of the
`
`audio/video frame data is detected by clock generator and data extraction circuit
`
`59) in said information transmission (i.e., audio/video frame data). Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 117-21. Mustafa discloses that clock generator and data extraction circuit 59
`
`detects all frame lines by number, including the message stream (i.e., lines 1-15
`
`and 263-278), using the horizontal driver, vertical driver, and color subcarrier burst
`
`flag. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 7:8-21, 8:10-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 117-21.
`
`d. Mustafa discloses 39[c]: “inputting at least a first portion of
`said message stream to a control processor.”
`
`Mustafa teaches inputting at least a first portion (i.e., line 12 of the first
`
`group of the audio/video frame data) of said message stream (the first group of the
`
`audio/video frame data) to a control processor (i.e., VBI Correlation Circuits,
`
`including VBI processor 46 and mode/tag register 48). Ex. 1001 ¶¶122-26.
`
`Mustafa discloses that line 12 of the first group of the audio/video frame data (i.e.,
`
`the message stream) is “read out and the address and mode (video or audio) bits are
`
`connected over to the [VBI correlation circuit, which includes] VBI processor 46, a
`
`mode/tag register 48 and error detector 47” where the information is processed to
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`identify if the frame is addressed to the terminal and the type of frame (i.e. audio or
`
`video), and its sequence with other frames so that the frame can be processed
`
`appropriately. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 3, 3:60-64, 5:41-46, 7:18-24; Ex. 1001 ¶¶122-26.
`
`e. Mustafa discloses 39[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.”
`
`Mustafa teaches selecting control information (i.e., the mode code) in said at
`
`least a first portion of said message stream (i.e., line 12 of the first group of the
`
`audio/video frame data) and communicating said selected control information (i.e.,
`
`the mode code) to at least one register memory (i.e., mode/tag register 48). Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶127-31. Mustafa discloses that line 12 of the first group of the audio/video
`
`frame data includes a mode code (i.e., control information), that identifies the
`
`frame as either video or audio, and its sequence with other frames so that the
`
`terminal can process it accordingly. Ex. 1003 at 3:62-64, 7:4-17. The mode bits
`
`from line 12 are communicated to mode/tag register 48 (i.e., a register memory) for
`
`storage. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 7:18-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127-31.
`
`f. Mustafa suggests 39[e]: “comparing stored function
`invoking data to the contents of said at least one register memory.”
`
`Mustafa suggests comparing stored function invoking data (i.e., the known
`
`four potential mode codes stored at terminal 12) to the contents of said at least one
`
`register memory (i.e., the contents of mode/tag register 48, which contains the
`
`mode code of the current frame). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 132-37. Mustafa discloses that
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`received mode bits are sent to mode/tag register 48 and the VBI correlation circuit
`
`“check[s]” the mode bits “to determine the type of frame, so that appropriate action
`
`can be taken.” Ex. 1003 at 7:18-25. The mode bits can have one of four
`
`meanings: (1) video frame; (2) video frame, stop preceding audio; (3) audio
`
`playout, initial frame; and (4) audio playout, continuation frame. Ex. 1003 at 7:11-
`
`17. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious that the four meanings of the mode
`
`code would be known to VBI processor 46 (i.e., stored) and that in determining the
`
`meaning of the mode code for the current frame, the VBI processor 46 would
`
`compare the received mode code to four potential meanings of the mode code (i.e.,
`
`function invoking data). Ex. 1003 at 7:11-25; Ex. 1001 ¶¶134-36. A PHOSITA
`
`would have been motivated to store the four, known mode codes to quickly and
`
`easily check the type of frame, and use a comparison to check the type of frame
`
`because comparing incoming data to stored data is a basic operation that is
`
`straightforward and easy to implement. Ex. 1001 ¶¶134-36.
`
`g. Mustafa discloses 39[f]: “inputting said digital television
`signals to said plurality of processors on the basis of one or more
`matches.”
`
`Mustafa teaches inputting said digital television signals (i.e., the video and
`
`digital audio data contained in the second group of the audio/video frame data) to
`
`said plurality of processors (i.e., memory bank 62, output register, video D/A
`
`converter 60B, CSG frame jump correction 63, and character generator 64
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`(collectively the “video output processor”) and audio RAM 50, audio D/A
`
`converter 51, and sound summer 44 (collectively the “audio output processor”)) on
`
`the basis of one or more matches (video frame data is processed differently than
`
`audio frame data based on the result of the mode code comparison). Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶138-41. Mustafa discloses that the received frame is processed based on whether
`
`an audio or video mode code is received. Ex. 1003 at 7:21-24, 7:29-31. If the
`
`received mode code indicates that the received frame is an audio frame, based on
`
`matching one of the known four potential mode codes, the received audio data
`
`(from the second section of the received audio frame) is processed by the “audio
`
`output processor,” i.e., the received audio data is played out from RAM 50 through
`
`D/A converter 51 and output to sound summer 44, which is connected to the audio
`
`input of channel 3 modulator 45. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 7:36-44; Ex. 1001 ¶ 139. The
`
`components that make up the “audio output processor” are collectively a processor
`
`because they operate on the audio data. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 106-07. If the received mode
`
`code indicates that the received frame is a video frame, based on matching one of
`
`the known four potential mode codes, the received video frame data (from the
`
`second section of the received video frame) is processed by the “video output
`
`processor,” i.e., the received video frame is output from memory bank 62 through
`
`output register and D/A converter 60B to CSG frame jump correction 63 and then
`
`to character generator 64, which is connected to the video input of channel 3
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`modulator 45. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 7:29-31, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001 ¶ 140. The
`
`components that make up the “video output processor” are collectively a processor
`
`because they operate on the video data. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 140-05. Thus, the video and
`
`digital audio data for a particular frame is inputted to the “video output processor”
`
`or the “audio output processor” based on the received mode code matching the
`
`video or audio code. Ex. 1001 ¶¶138-41.
`
`h. Mustafa suggests 39[g]: “processing of said digital television
`signals simultaneously at two or more of said plurality of processors.”
`
`Mustafa suggests processing of said digital television signals (i.e., the video
`
`and digital audio data contained in the second group of the audio/video frame data)
`
`simultaneously at two or more of said plurality of processors (i.e., memory bank
`
`62, output register, video D/A converter 60B, CSG frame jump correction 63, and
`
`character generator 64 (collectively “video output processor”) and audio RAM 50,
`
`audio D/A converter 51, and sound summer 44 (collectively “audio output
`
`processor”) process the data simultaneously in order to have the audio accompany
`
`the associated video). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 142-47. Mustafa discloses that audio frames
`
`may be associated with particular video frames (such as a voiced narrative or
`
`instructions). Ex. 1003 at 3:24-31, 4:64-65. As shown in Fig. 5 and described for
`
`39[f], when an audio frame is received it is processed by the “audio output
`
`processor” and when a video frame is received it is processed by the “video output
`
`processor.” Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5, 7:29-31, 7:36-44, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 138-40; see
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`39[f]. As there are no components between the output of the “video output
`
`processor” and channel modulator 45 (line F/‘V’ in Fig. 5) or between the output
`
`of the “audio output processor” and channel modulator 45 (‘A’ in Fig. 5), a
`
`PHOSITA would have found
`
`it
`
`to be an obvious and commonsense
`
`implementation to have the “video output processor” and “audio output processor”
`
`simultaneously process the video and audio information, especially considering
`
`that some audio frames are intended to accompany video frames. Ex. 1001 at Fig.
`
`5, 3:24-31, 4:64-65; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 144-46. A PHOSITA would have been motivated
`
`to implement the simultaneous processing in the “video output processor” and
`
`“audio output processor” rather than process, buffer and synchronize the processed
`
`video/audio in channel modulator 45. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 144-46. This is because
`
`simultaneous processing simplifies the components required as otherwise channel
`
`modulator 45, an inexpensive, off-the-shelf component, would have to be
`
`customized to add buffers and synchronization

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket