`
`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