`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00754
`Patent No.: 8,559,635
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE &
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Opinions In Support of Petitioner’s Reply .................................................. 2
`A. Guillou Discloses Executable Instructions As Recited In Claim
`13 ........................................................................................................... 2
`Guillou Discloses Decrypting Under First/Second Processor
`Control As Recited In Claim 21 ............................................................ 4
`Guillou Renders Obvious Claim 28 ...................................................... 5
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Transmit Encrypted Variable
`DK In-Band to Increase System Security ............................................. 6
`Control Logic 409 Controls Decryption of Programming Based
`on Decoder 403’s Decryption of Encrypted DK ................................. 10
`Aminetzah and Bitzer Are Combinable .............................................. 11
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Substitute Claims Are Not Supported By The ’413 AND ’510
`Applications .................................................................................................. 12
`A.
`Substitute Claims 34 and 35 Are Not Supported By The ’413
`And ’510 Applications ........................................................................ 12
`Substitute Claim 36 Is Not Supported By The ’413 And ’510
`Applications ......................................................................................... 14
`Substitute Claims 37-40 Are Not Supported By The ’413 And
`’510 Applications ................................................................................ 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. Substitute Claims 34-40 Are Unpatentable Over Guillou ....................... 18
`A.
`Substitute Claim 34 Is Obvious Over Guillou In View of Sechet
`and Campbell ....................................................................................... 18
`Substitute Claim 35 Is Obvious Over Guillou In View of
`Campbell ............................................................................................. 25
`Substitute Claim 36 Is Obvious Over Guillou In View of
`Campbell ............................................................................................. 26
`Substitute Claims 37-39 Are Obvious Over Guillou In View of
`Campbell ............................................................................................. 28
`Substitute Claim 40 Is Obvious Over Guillou In View of
`Campbell ............................................................................................. 30
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`IV. Substitute Claims 37-40 Are Unpatentable Over Aminetzah ................. 30
`
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`Substitute Claims 37-39 Are Obvious Over Aminetzah ..................... 30
`
`Substitute Claims 34-40 Are Unpatentable Over Seth-Smith ................. 34
`A.
`Claim 2 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ................................................ 35
`B.
`Substitute Claim 34 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 42
`C.
`Substitute Claim 35 Is Anticipated by Seth-Smith ............................. 49
`D.
`Substitute Claim 36 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 50
`E.
`Substitute Claim 37 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 55
`F.
`Substitute Claim 38 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 58
`G.
`Substitute Claim 39 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 59
`H.
`Substitute Claim 40 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 59
`
`VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 62
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I previously prepared and executed a declaration (Ex. 1001) in IPR2016-
`
`00754. I submit this declaration in support of Petitioner Apple’s opposition
`
`to Patent Owner PMC’s Contingent Motion to Amend. This declaration also
`
`responds to arguments raised in PMC’s Patent Owner Response (Paper 15)
`
`and Dr. Weaver’s declaration (Ex. 2019).
`
`2.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed and considered the following:
`
`• The Board’s Decisions Instituting Inter Partes Review (Paper 8)
`• PMC’s Patent Owner Response (Paper 15)
`• Declaration of Dr. Weaver (Ex. 2019)
`• Deposition Testimony of Dr. Weaver (Ex. 1054)
`• Declaration of Dr. Dorney (Ex. 2130)
`• Deposition Testimony of Dr. Dorney (Ex. 1052)
`• Additional prior art and materials discussed in Sections II-V
`This material is in addition to the material I reviewed and considered
`
`while preparing my original declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`3.
`
`OPINIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`A. Guillou Discloses Executable Instructions As Recited In Claim 13
`I understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that the decrypted individual
`
`data octets dj are not executable instructions because allegedly character
`
`generator does not carry out operations according to the data octets. This is
`
`incorrect. Guillou explains that the octets dj are instructions to the character
`
`generator. (Ex. 1006 at 19:18-21.) The character generator stimulates the
`
`inputs R2, V2, and B2 of the display means according to each individual octet
`
`dj. (Ex. 1006 at 19:18-21.) Contrary to PMC and Dr. Weaver’s
`
`characterization, the character generator’s operation is instructed by each
`
`individual data octet dj.
`
`4.
`
`Additionally, as I explained in my prior declaration, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Guillou’s encryption
`
`scheme to also transmit signals embedded with executable instructions. (Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 158-160.) I understand PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to modify Guillou to
`
`transmit encrypted signals embedded with executable instructions. This is
`
`incorrect. No significant modifications to Guillou are required to transmit
`
`encrypted signals with executable instructions. A person of ordinary of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that encrypting a sequence of
`
`2
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`bits representing teletext programming is no different than encrypting a
`
`sequence of bits representing command and control instructions. Further,
`
`the transmission network is oblivious to how information travelling through
`
`it is ultimately interpreted and processed by a receiver. As far as the
`
`television signal (used merely as a carrier) is concerned, one digital bit is the
`
`same as another.
`
`5. Modifying Guillou’s receiver to receive and processes signals embedded
`
`with executable instructions would be a trivial task for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. In fact, Guillou expressly teaches such a modification to a
`
`standard teletext receiver to support decryption. (Ex. 1006 at 17:19-68,
`
`19:42:20:10.) Guillou explains that the decoding circuit 145 must be
`
`modified in order to recognize the access control page as opposed to regular
`
`programming content in order to decrypt the programming. (Ex. 1006 at
`
`17:19-68, 19:42:20:10.) Similarly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have easily been able
`
`to add another “data
`
`type”
`
`to Guillou’s
`
`communications protocol to identify pages / lines with command and control
`
`instructions as opposed to pages / lines with programming to be displayed.
`
`6.
`
`Any remaining modifications would be application dependent and, as I
`
`explained earlier, these too would have been well within the ability of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, it was well known to a person of
`
`3
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`ordinary skill in the art that command and control instructions could be
`
`transmitted embedded in television signals and used to control peripherals
`
`(e.g., video recorders) and set top boxes for a variety of applications,
`
`including content protection, home security, channel monitoring and
`
`consumer response, emergency alert notifications, etc. (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 48-50.)
`
`B. Guillou Discloses Decrypting Under First/Second Processor
`Control As Recited In Claim 21
`
`7.
`
`I understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that Guillou’s decoding circuit
`
`145 does not control the decryption of encrypted teletext data Dj because it
`
`is only responsible for extracting selected teletext pages from the
`
`transmission and inputting them for further processing. This is wrong.
`
`8.
`
`Guillou discloses that decoding circuit 145 also initializes octet generator
`
`26’, causes the generation of decoding octets Cj, and combines decoding
`
`octets with encrypted octets Dj to generate decoded octets dj. (Ex. 1006 at
`
`20:29-39.) By initializing the octet generator 26’, causing the generation of
`
`decoding octets Cj, and combining decoding octets with encrypted octets Dj
`
`to generate decoded octets dj, decoding circuit 145 controls the decryption of
`
`encrypted octets Dj. Indeed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood Guillou’s disclosure to explain that decoding circuit 145 controls
`
`decryption.
`
`4
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`I also understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that if decoding circuit
`
`145 controls decryption of encrypted teletext data Dj, then it follows that
`
`decoding circuit 145 must also control the decryption of messages Mi. This
`
`too is incorrect.
`
`10. PMC and Dr. Weaver wrongly equate decoding circuit 145’s control of the
`
`digital logic used to decrypt Dj with decoding circuit 145’s communications
`
`with K restoring circuit 110. Guillou explains that the K restoring circuit
`
`110 is “programmed” to decrypt messages Mi. (Ex. 1006 at 20:53-21:14.)
`
`Decoding circuit 145 merely passes Mi to K restoring circuit for decryption.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 20:40-52). In Guillou, decoding circuit 145 does not control K
`
`restoring circuit 110 to decrypt Mi.
`
`C. Guillou Renders Obvious Claim 28
`I understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that teletext programming
`
`11.
`
`cannot be a part of a television program. This is wrong.
`
`12.
`
`It was well known that teletext programming included text and/or graphics
`
`used to generate visuals, which may be nonstatic, for a variety of
`
`programming, including news programs, weather services, educational
`
`programs, etc. (Ex. 1001 ¶ 43.) It was also known that the teletext system
`
`described by Guillou was used with television programming. (Ex. 1022 at
`
`3-4.) The ANTIOPE system described by Guillou, for example, could
`
`5
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`subtitle television programs or “broadcast special pages to display news
`
`flashes superimposed on the television program.” (Ex. 1022 at 3-4.)
`
`13.
`
`I also understand that PMC argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be unable to modify Guillou to provide teletext programming as part
`
`of a television program. But no modification is required because the system
`
`described by Guillou (ANTIOPE) is already compatible with providing
`
`teletext programming as part of a television program. (Ex. 1022 at 3-4; Ex.
`
`1006 at 1:11-12.) Further, Dr. Weaver’s assessment that decrypting the
`
`digital data would prohibit teletext programming from being provided with a
`
`television program due to delays caused by the decryption process is also
`
`incorrect. Guillou’s system processes the received programming in real-
`
`time and is expressly disclosed as being compatible with the ANTIOPE
`
`system. (Ex. 1006 at 1:24-28, 1:55-62, 2:28-43; Ex. 1022 at 3-4.)
`
`D.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Transmit Encrypted Variable
`DK In-Band to Increase System Security
`
`14.
`
`I understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not have been motivated to transmit encrypted DK in-band,
`
`and that doing so would render Aminetzah’s system inoperable. PMC and
`
`Dr. Weaver’s analysis is incorrect.
`
`15. Contrary to PMC and Dr. Weaver’s position, the use of in-band command
`
`and control signals to control access to programming in systems such as the
`
`6
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`one disclosed by Aminetzah was well known to the person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the alleged invention. (Ex. 1001 ¶ 56-61.) A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that more frequently
`
`transmitting encrypted variable DK using an “out-of-band” channel (such as
`
`the disclosed telephone line) would not be optimal. As DK changes with
`
`greater frequency, the frequency with which the DCC would have to contact
`
`the subscriber station would also increase, essentially tying up the
`
`subscriber’s phone line and rendering it unusable for any other calls. For
`
`example, a DK changing every hour would mean 24 calls between the home
`
`terminal and the DCC. Rather, it would be more efficient to transmit the
`
`encrypted variable DK along with the encrypted digital programming (i.e.,
`
`using an “in-band” channel as Aminetzah discloses doing for variable PD.)
`
`16. Reading Aminetzah and Bond, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`conclude that Bond teaches away from transmitting DK in-band. Aminetzah
`
`explains that system security can be increased by changing the encryption
`
`variables (such as DK) more frequently. (Ex. 1008 at 7:4-12.) Bond
`
`describes Aminetzah’s system as one which delivers codes periodically and
`
`separately to provide system security. (Ex. 1024 at 1:43-51.) A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the rate at which
`
`decryption variables change and the manner in which they are distributed,
`
`7
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`both affect system security. I note that Dr. Weaver agrees that these are
`
`design choices a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar
`
`with. (Ex. 1054 at 147:13-148:15.) In contrast to PMC and Dr. Weaver’s
`
`position, transmitting encrypted DK in-band would have been an obvious
`
`design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and would have
`
`increased system security.
`
`17.
`
`I further note that Dr. Weaver’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been taught away from transmitting DK in-band appears
`
`to be based on the faulty assumption that because Aminetzah transmits
`
`certain digital control signals unencrypted (e.g., PD, BCD, SG) with the
`
`television signal,
`
`then
`
`that
`
`implies
`
`that any proposed modification
`
`transmitting DK in-band would mean transmitting DK in the clear. (Ex.
`
`1054 at 150:11-151:21.) That is not the modification I proposed and nor
`
`would a person of ordinary skill in the art assume that DK would be
`
`transmitted in the clear just because some other signals are transmitted
`
`unencrypted. In fact, Aminetzah discloses that DK is encrypted using the
`
`home terminal’s serial number SN. (Ex. 1008 at 2:15-33, 2:58-3:3.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that in-band
`
`transmission of DK should be similarly secure, i.e., encrypting DK using SN
`
`before transmission.
`
`8
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`I understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that it would be “impossible”
`
`to transmit DK in-band. Contrary to PMC and Dr. Weaver’s position,
`
`transmitting DK in-band would not render Aminetzah’s system inoperable.
`
`PMC and Dr. Weaver’s argument assumes an extreme number of
`
`subscribers. While there would indeed be a limit to the number of
`
`subscribers that could be supported using in-band command and control
`
`signals in Aminetzah’s system, that would be true of any system. Such
`
`extreme cases were well understood, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that Aminetzah’s system could be modified without
`
`rendering it inoperable within system limits. Further, PMC’s argument that
`
`all encrypted DKs must be fit into a single field of the TV signal is wrong.
`
`Encrypted DKs need not be sent in a single field and need not even have to
`
`change with every filed of the TV signal. A person of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood how to modify Aminetzah to transmit DK in-band, without
`
`limiting system bandwidth to the point of inoperability.
`
`19. PMC and Dr. Weaver’s argument that individual home terminals would be
`
`unable to receive their respective DKs is not correct. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known how to transmit encrypted DK in-band to
`
`multiple subscribers. Transmitting both general and subscriber specific
`
`command and control data in a broadcast system such as Amineztah’s was
`
`9
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`well known at the time of the alleged invention. (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 54-61.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that each
`
`subscriber’s encrypted DK would be transmitted embedded in the TV signal
`
`with addressing data so that each subscriber terminal could correctly identify
`
`its own encrypted DK. (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 54-61.) In fact, Guillou discloses one
`
`example of such a scheme whereby each individual receiver is able to
`
`identify its own unique message Mi, which contains encrypted operating key
`
`K.
`
`E. Control Logic 409 Controls Decryption of Programming Based on
`Decoder 403’s Decryption of Encrypted DK
`20. PMC and Dr. Weaver’s argument that control logic 409 controls the
`
`decryption of television programming “independently” of the operation of
`
`decoder 403 is wrong. Aminetzah discloses that control logic descrambles
`
`or decrypts programming based on variable DK, which is decrypted by
`
`decoder 403. (Ex. 1008 at 2:15-3:10, 5:57-6:6, 6:10-41.) Control logic 409
`
`produces a control signal to control the decryption of programming using
`
`variables PD and DK. (Ex. 1008 at 6:32-41.) Without decoder 403
`
`providing decrypted DK, control logic 403 would not be able to decrypt the
`
`received programming.
`
`10
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`F. Aminetzah and Bitzer Are Combinable
`I understand that PMC and Dr. Weaver argue that Aminetzah and Bitzer
`
`21.
`
`cannot be combined because it would require a complete overhaul of
`
`Aminetzah’s system. This is wrong. Transmitting digital content using
`
`standard television signals (e.g., teletext and videotex services) was well
`
`known at the time of the alleged invention. (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 39-47.) It was well
`
`known that such digital programming services used transmission schemes
`
`such as disclosed by Bitzer (replacing active video with digital content) to
`
`transmit a variety of programming, including news programs, weather
`
`services, educational programs, etc.
`
` In fact, Aminetzah discloses
`
`transmitting digital data using standard TV signals. (Ex. 1008 at 2:15-33,
`
`2:58-3:3.) Aminetzah’s system already supports receiving digital data in the
`
`TV signal. Thus applying Bitzer’s techniques to add digital content into the
`
`standard TV signals transmitted by Aminetzah would have been well within
`
`the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art and would not have
`
`demanded a complete overhaul of the system.
`
`22. Adding digital programming as taught by Bitzer would not have rendered
`
`Aminetzah’s system inoperable. Bitzer discloses a digital data transmission
`
`system using standard commercial
`
`television channels (i.e., digital
`
`programming) “for sending digital data bit by bit over television channels in
`
`11
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`a field by field manner. (Ex. 1009 at Abstract, 1:47-52, 3:59-63, 4:7-15,
`
`5:13-27, 5:37-45.) That is perfectly compatible with Amintzah’s disclosed
`
`system. Further, applying Bitzer’s techniques to provide some digital
`
`programming does not mean that Aminetzah’s system cannot then also
`
`receive regular analog programming on non-digital channels. They are not
`
`mutually exclusive as PMC and Dr. Weaver contend. Rather, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with systems that included
`
`channels with all analog content (e.g., standard TV), all digital content (e.g.,
`
`full-field teletext), and channels that carried both analog and digital content
`
`(e.g., standard TV augmented with digital services such as subtitles/teletext).
`
`(Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 39-46.)
`
`II. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ’413
`AND ’510 APPLICATIONS
`A.
`
`Substitute Claims 34 and 35 Are Not Supported By The ’413 And
`’510 Applications
`23. Substitute Claims 34 and 35, each of which depends from Claim 2, are not
`
`supported by the written description of the ’413 Application. First, Claim 2
`
`recites “decrypting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of said
`
`programming using said first decryptor at said subscriber station [and]
`
`passing said encrypted digital information portion of said programming and
`
`the decrypted control signal portion to a second decryptor at said subscriber
`
`12
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`station.” I understand PMC has identified “2nd-WSW-program-enabling-
`
`message (#7)” as the “first encrypted digital control signal portion” (Ex.
`
`2130 at 31-32; Ex. 1052 at 94:9-13), “decryptor 39K” as the “first
`
`decryptor” (Ex. 2130 at 31-32; Ex. 1052 at 96:14-17), and “decryptor 231”
`
`as the “second decryptor.” (Ex. 2130 at 31-32; Ex. 1052 at 97:18-20). But
`
`no part of 2nd-WSW-program-enabling-message (#7) is passed to decryptor
`
`231 after it is decrypted in decryptor 39K. (Ex. 1052 at 99:9-15.) Because
`
`Claim 2 is not supported by the disclosure of the ’413 Application, Claims
`
`34 and 35 which depend from Claim 2 are not supported either.
`
`24. Second, Claim 35 recites “wherein said subscriber station detects, in a
`
`transmission channel including said programming, a second control signal
`
`portion used to decrypt the first control signal portion.” The portions of the
`
`specification which PMC cites in support of this limitation describe that
`
`“decryption key J” is used to decrypt the encrypted information of 2nd-
`
`WSW-program-enabling-message (#7). (Ex. 2130 at 53.) But decryption
`
`key J
`
`is not received “in a
`
`transmission channel
`
`including said
`
`programming.” Rather, the specification describes that “selected subscriber
`
`stations that are preprogrammed with decryption key J.” (Ex. 2135 at 181
`
`(154:5-10), 182 (154:18-21), 273 (246:19-30), 274 (247:19-24), 308 (281:1-
`
`5).)
`
`13
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`25. Claims 34 and 35, which are substitutes for Claims 4 and 7, are also not
`
`supported by the ’510 Application. The term “programming,” which
`
`appears in Claims 4 and 7 as well as in Substitute Claims 34 and 35, is
`
`defined in both the ’510 and ’413 Applications, with its meaning expanding
`
`significantly in the ’413 Application. The ’510 Application defines
`
`programming as “everything transmitted over television or radio intended
`
`for communication of entertainment or to instruct or inform” (Ex. 2050 at
`
`1:7-9), whereas the ’413 Application defines programming as “everything
`
`that is transmitted electronically to entertain, instruct or inform …” (Ex.
`
`2135 at 38 (11:6-10).)
`
`B.
`
`Substitute Claim 36 Is Not Supported By The ’413 And ’510
`Applications
`26. Substitute Claim 36 is not supported by the written description of the ’413
`
`Application. First, Substitute Claim 36 recites “changing a decryption
`
`technique in response to at least a first of said plurality of signals” and
`
`“decrypting a second of said plurality of signals on the basis of said changed
`
`decryption technique.” I understand that in support of the first of these
`
`limitations, PMC identifies the following disclosure from the ’413
`
`Application:
`
`In example #4, the encryption of the execution segment
`of said first message is done in such a fashion that, after
`
`14
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`encryption, said segment is identical to a particular
`execution segment that addresses URS signal processors,
`200, and instructs said processors, 200, to use a particular
`decryption key Z (different from the decryption key J that
`decrypted the second message example #2 and decrypt
`the message in which said segment occurs
`
`(Ex. 2130 at 73-74.) What is described here is that the encrypted portion of
`
`the first message of example #4, while still encrypted, instructs the receiver
`
`station to decrypt that same encrypted portion with decryption key Z. The
`
`signal that PMC has identified as causing a change in decryption technique
`
`and the signal decrypted on the basis of that changed decryption technique
`
`are one and the same. Given this, PMC has failed to identify “a first of said
`
`plurality of signals” and “a second of said plurality of signals” as recited in
`
`the claim.
`
`27. Second, Substitute Claim 36 recites “wherein said receiver station is capable
`
`of initiating a transmission of digital data to a remote station…, said digital
`
`data indicative of successful operation of said decrypting.” Nothing in the
`
`disclosures cited by PMC suggests that any transmission is sent which is
`
`indicative of the successful decryption of the encrypted portion of the first
`
`message of example #4. (Ex. 2130 at 74-77, 86-91.)
`
`15
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`28. Claim 36, which is a substitute for Claim 13, is also not supported by the
`
`’510 Application. Though PMC identifies numerous unrelated portions of
`
`the ’510 Application, none of these describe executable instructions which
`
`have been embedded in an encrypted signal. (See Ex. 2130 at 74-83.)
`
`C.
`
`Substitute Claims 37-40 Are Not Supported By The ’413 And ’510
`Applications
`29. Substitute Claim 37 and Substitute Claims 38-40 (which depend from
`
`Substitute Claim 37) are not supported by the written description of the ’413
`
`Application. First Claim 37 recites, in part, “receiving a transmission at a
`
`receiver station comprising encrypted materials,” “decrypting under first
`
`processor control a first portion of said encrypted materials in said
`
`transmission,” and “decrypting under second processor control a second
`
`portion of said encrypted materials.” I understand PMC has identified the
`
`specification’s disclosure of “2nd-WSW-program-enabling-message #7” as
`
`the claimed “first portion of said encrypted materials” (Ex. 2130 at 106-08;
`
`Ex. 1052 at 109:5-14) and the encrypted video of the Wall Street Week
`
`program as the claimed “second portion of said encrypted materials (Ex.
`
`2130 at 113-15; Ex. 1052 at 111:20-112:12).
`
`30. But 2nd-WSW-program-enabling-message #7 and the encrypted video of the
`
`Wall Street Week program are not received in the same transmission. The
`
`specification explains that the encrypted digital video of the Wall Street
`
`16
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Week program is transmitted to subscribers by intermediate transmission
`
`stations “commencing at a particular 8:30 PM time on a particular Friday
`
`night.” (Ex. 2135 at 315-16 (288:30-289:21).) By contrast, the 2nd-WSW-
`
`program-enabling-message (#7) is embedded in and transmitted as part of a
`
`transmission of “analog television information” “before said 8:30 PM time.”
`
`(Ex. 2135 at 327 (300:10-18) (emphasis added).) Given this, 2nd-WSW-
`
`program-enabling-message (#7) and the encrypted video of the Wall Street
`
`Week program do not comprise first and second portions of “a transmission
`
`… comprising encrypted materials.”
`
`31. Second, Substitute Claim 37 recites “wherein said receiver station comprises
`
`memory in which a first unique digital code capable of identifying said first
`
`processor is stored.” I understand PMC has identified “controller 20” as
`
`supporting the claimed “first processor.” (Ex. 2130 at 106-08; Ex. 1052 at
`
`108:16-109:4.) In support of the claimed “unique digital code” PMC
`
`identifies the following: “Automatically, in the predetermined fashion of the
`
`said instructions, controller, 20, selects information of the unique digital
`
`code at ROM, 21, that identifies signal processor, 200, and the subscriber
`
`station of FIG. 4 uniquely.” (Ex. 2130 at 115-16.)
`
`32.
`
`I understand that Dr. Dorney also cites to this same disclosure in support of
`
`Substitute Claim 34’s requirement of “a first unique digital code capable of
`
`17
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`identifying a signal processing apparatus.” Here, however, the claim
`
`requires that the unique digital code identify “said first processor” not “a
`
`signal processing apparatus.” But as is clear from the cited disclosure, the
`
`unique digital code “identifies signal processor, 200,” not controller 20
`
`which Dr. Dorney identified as the “first processor” of the claim.
`
`33. Substitute Claim 37 and Substitute Claims 38-40 (which depend from
`
`Substitute Claim 37) are also not supported by the ’510 Application. Claim
`
`37 recites “wherein said transmission further comprises unique digital codes
`
`identifying a data unit and a source of said data unit [and] said unique digital
`
`codes are stored at said receiver station.” The ’510 Application fails to
`
`describe that unique digital codes identifying a data unit or its source are
`
`stored a receiver station. Instead, PMC relies on an inherency argument,
`
`stating that “[m]onitoring for these codes inherently means they are stored at
`
`the receiver station.” (Ex. 2130 at 119-20.) But “monitoring” carries no
`
`such implication.
`
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 34-40 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`GUILLOU
`A.
`
`Substitute Claim 34 Is Obvious Over Guillou In View of Sechet
`and Campbell
`34. The limitations added in Substitute Claim 34 are rendered obvious by
`
`Guillou in combination with Sechet and Campbell.
`
`18
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`35. Sechet discloses applying the exact same double key encryption scheme
`
`disclosed in Guillou to control access to television programming beyond
`
`teletext/viewdata, including digital audio. (Ex. 1045 at 1:33-68, 2:1-32,
`
`3:43-51.)
`
`36. Campbell discloses an addressable cable TV system with the capability of
`
`controlling access to TV programming at a subscriber’s converter box
`
`through command control data embedded in the VBI of a television signal.
`
`(Ex. 1023 at 1:7-11, 3:28-4:9.) The system enables real-time two-way
`
`communications between the converter boxes and the cable head end
`
`subsystem, which supports a variety of interactive services including pay-
`
`per-view, home security, polling, channel monitoring, and information
`
`retrieval. (Ex. 1023 at 4:19-24, 11:3-8, 17:9-23, 26:14-28:2.)
`
`encrypted audio
`1.
`37. Sechet discloses receiving encrypted audio as part of the received
`
`programming. (Ex. 1045 at 1:33-68, 2:1-32, 3:43-51.) Sechet explains that
`
`encrypted audio can be carried in an all-digital channel, like teletext data.
`
`(Ex. 1045 at 3:43-51.)
`
`19
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`wherein said subscriber station comprises memory in which
`a first unique digital code capable of identifying a signal
`processing apparatus is stored
`38. Campbell discloses an “addressable cable television control system.” (Ex.
`
`1023 at 1:7-8.) In Campbell’s system, subscriber converter boxes are
`
`individually addressable. (Ex. 1023 at 7:8-10, 9:17-22, 16:35-17:8, 19:6-14,
`
`19:35-20:10, Fig. 11.) The system communicates subscriber specific data to
`
`individual subscriber converter boxes using a “subscriber identification
`
`code,” which is “unique to a specific remote subscriber station.” (Ex. 1023
`
`at 20:5-10, Fig. 11.) The subscriber converter box recognizes data addressed
`
`to it using the identification code. (Ex. 1023 at 20:9-10.) This unique digital
`
`identification code is stored in memory. (Ex. 102