`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALFRED WEAVER, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00754
`Patent No.: 8,559,635
`For: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Qualifications & Engagement ....................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Materials Reviewed and Relied upon .......................................................... 5
`III. Summary of Conclusions .............................................................................. 6
`IV. Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 8
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`D.
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 11
`V.
`Background Technology of the ’635 Patent .............................................. 11
`VI. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 18
`A. Decryption terms ................................................................................. 18
`B.
`“Encrypted Video” .............................................................................. 35
`C.
`“processor” .......................................................................................... 39
`D.
`“executable instructions” ..................................................................... 45
`VII. Aminetzah Does not Render Claims 3, 21, and 28-30 Unpatentable
`for Obviousness ............................................................................................ 48
`A. Aminetzah Fails to Teach or Suggest Decryption of
`28, 29, and 30) ..................................................................................... 52
`B.
`Claim 21) ............................................................................................. 54
`
`Aminetzah Fails To Teach or Suggest “Receiving A
`Transmission Comprising Encrypted Materials” (Independent
`
`Programming (Independent Claims 21 and Dependent Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Aminetzah Fails To Teach Or Suggest “Decrypting Under First
`Processor Control” and “Decrypting Under Second Processor
`
`
`
`Receiving a Signal Necessary for Decryption and a
`
`Aminetzah Fails To Teach or Suggest “Contacting A Remote
`Transmitter Station to Receive One of Said Transmission And
`
`C.
`Control a Second Portion” (Independent Claim 21) .......................... 59
`D. Aminetzah Fails To Teach or Suggest the Receiver Station
`Transmission from Different Sources (Dependent Claim 29) ............ 61
`E.
`Said Signal Necessary for Decryption” (Dependent Claim 30) .......... 63
`VIII. Aminetzah, in view of Bitzer, DOES not Render Claim 4
`Unpatentable for Obviousness .................................................................... 66
`A. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would not have Found it
`Obvious to Combine Aminetzah with Bitzer ...................................... 66
`B.
`Receiving Encrypted Video in an Information Transmission ............. 77
`IX. Guillou Does not Anticipate Claims 7, 21 and 29 ..................................... 79
`A. Guillou Fails To Expressly or Inherently Disclose the
`Used To Decrypt the First Control Signal Portion” (Claim 7) ........... 82
`B.
`29) ........................................................................................................ 83
`X. Guillou Does not Render claims 4, 13, 28, and 30 Unpatentable for
`obviousness ................................................................................................... 89
`A. Guillou Fails to Teach or Suggest Receiving Programming that
`Includes Encrypted Video (Dependent Claim 4) ................................ 89
`B.
`
`Guillou Fails To Expressly or Inherently Disclose “Decrypting
`Under First Processor Control” and “Decrypting Under Second
`Processor Control” (Independent Claim 21, Dependent Claim
`
`Aminetzah, in view of Bitzer, Fails to Teach or Suggest
`
`Subscriber Station “Detect[ing], in a Transmission Channel
`Including Said Programming, A Second Control Signal Portion
`
`Guillou Fails To Teach or Suggest “decrypting a second of said
`plurality of signals on the basis of said changed decryption
`technique, wherein said decrypted second of said plurality of
`ii
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`signals is embedded with executable instructions” and
`“controlling Said Controllable Device On The Basis Of Said
`
`Guillou Fails to Teach or Suggest Receiving and Decrypting
`Encrypted Materials that Includes a Portion of a Television
`
`Embedded Executable Instructions” (Independent Claim 13) ............ 93
`C.
`Program (Dependent Claim 28) .......................................................... 98
`D. Guillou Fails To Teach or Suggest “Contacting A Remote
`Said Signal Necessary for Decryption” (Dependent Claim 30) ........ 101
`XI. Secondary Considerations Confirm The Non-Obviousness Of The
`Inventions ................................................................................................... 103
`XII. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 103
`
`Transmitter Station to Receive One of Said Transmission And
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Alfred C. Weaver, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Patent Owner
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”) in the matter of the Inter
`
`Partes Review No. IPR2016-00754 of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 (“’635 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT
`2.
`
`In terms of my background and experiences that qualify me as an
`
`expert in this case, I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 1976 from the
`
`University of Illinois. I also obtained a Master of Science Degree in Computer
`
`Science from the University of Illinois in 1973 and a Bachelor of Science Degree
`
`in Engineering Science from the University of Tennessee in 1971.
`
`3.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 16 books or book chapters in the
`
`computer science field and have authored or co-authored over 170 refereed journal
`
`and conference papers on various topics related to computer science, computer
`
`systems, computer networks, search agents, databases, the Internet and e-
`
`commerce, among other topics.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`I am a member of the editorial board of the IEEE Computer magazine.
`
`I have presented papers at numerous conferences and have served as
`
`Program Chair or Technical Program Chair of a number of conferences around the
`
`world. For example, I was the Keynote Speaker at the International Workshop on
`
`Privacy, Security, and Trust for Mobile Devices (MobiPST’11), in Maui, Hawaii,
`
`
`
`1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`in July 2011 on the topic of “Providing Privacy and Security for Mobile Devices.”
`
`I was the Keynote Speaker at the IEEE International Conference on Industrial
`
`Technology (ICIT’05), in Hong Kong, in December 2005 on the topic of
`
`“Achieving Data Privacy and Security Using Web Services.” I was the Keynote
`
`Speaker at the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and
`
`Factory Automation (ETFA’05), in Catania, Sicily, Italy, in September 2005 on the
`
`topic of “A Security Architecture for Distributed Data Security.”
`
`6. With my co-authors Sam Dwyer and Kristen Hughes, I wrote chapter
`
`two entitled “Health Insurance Accountability and Portability Act” in the book
`
`Security Issues in the Digital Medical Enterprise, published by the Society for
`
`Computer Applications in Radiology in 2004. I wrote the paper “Secure Sockets
`
`Layer” in Computer in April 2006. With my co-author Andrew Jurik, I wrote
`
`“Securing Mobile Devices with Biotelemetry,” presented at the International
`
`Workshop on Privacy, Security, and Trust in Mobile and Wireless Systems
`
`(MobiPST’11), in Maui, Hawaii, in July, 2011. I presented the NATO Fellowship
`
`Lecture at Bogazici University, in Istanbul, Turkey, in May 2000 on the topic of
`
`“Internet Privacy and Security.” With my master’s student Andrew Snyder, I
`
`wrote “The e-Logistics of Securing Distributed Medical Data,” presented at the
`
`IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Banff, Alberta, Canada,
`
`in August 2003. I supervised Andrew Snyder’s master’s thesis on the topic of
`
`
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`“Performance Measurement and Workflow Impact of Securing Medical Data
`
`Using HIPAA Compliant Encryption in a .NET Environment,” in August 2003.
`
`7.
`
`I am a named inventor on U.S. patent 4,217,658 that resulted from my
`
`Ph.D. research at the University of Illinois.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE, an honor awarded to less than two percent
`
`of the IEEE membership.
`
`9.
`
`I have been an invited guest lecturer at numerous meetings sponsored
`
`by various corporations around the world. For example, I spoke on “Reliable
`
`Multicast and Reliable Group Management” for a meeting held at Sun
`
`Microsystems in Palo Alto, California in July, 1999. I gave a presentation entitled
`
`“Xpress Transport Protocol” at a meeting sponsored by General Electric Research
`
`and Development Laboratory, held in Schenectady, New York, in December, 1996.
`
`I was an invited speaker on the topic of “Medical Data Privacy and Security” at the
`
`Microsoft Healthcare Users’ Group meeting in Redmond, Washington in 2006.
`
`10.
`
`I was the Lucian Carr III Professor of Engineering and Applied
`
`Science at the University of Virginia from 2002-2004. I was a member of the
`
`Provost’s Promotion and Tenure Committee of the University of Virginia during
`
`2003-2006. I served as the Chairman of the Department of Computer Science
`
`during 1984-85 and am now the Associate Chair of my department. In 1996-1999
`
`and again in 2012-2015, I served as a member of the Promotion and Tenure
`
`
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Committee for the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of
`
`Virginia and chaired that committee during 1998-1999 and 2014-2015.
`
`11.
`
`I teach the University of Virginia’s CS 4753 course “Electronic
`
`Commerce Technologies.” This course explains the role of encryption in modern
`
`electronic commerce and teaches the details of the mathematical algorithms that
`
`implement symmetric key encryption, public key encryption, and other encryption
`
`techniques. I was the Principal Investigator for “Secure E-Commerce: A Modular
`
`Course Supported by Virtual Laboratories,” a $500,000 research project funded by
`
`the National Science Foundation to develop a course teaching secure e-commerce.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to my teaching activities at the University, I am the
`
`Founding Director of the University of Virginia Applied Research Institute, a
`
`group of faculty who are pursuing research projects of national significance in the
`
`areas of homeland security and national defense.
`
`13.
`
`I have also had the opportunity to consult with and/or work in the
`
`commercial sector. For example, I received a $200,000 research grant from
`
`Microsoft for my work in connection with development of a solution to the
`
`problems associated with the privacy and security of medical data. In the past, I’ve
`
`consulted for General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, Raytheon, E-
`
`Systems and others. Additionally, I founded five companies of my own which
`
`focused on e-commerce. I was involved in all aspects of the life cycles of these
`
`
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`companies from raising start-up capital funding, to designing and developing
`
`products, to attempting to commercialize these products in the marketplace. One
`
`of these companies, Reliacast, developed secure multimedia distribution software
`
`and was ultimately sold to Comcast.
`
`14. My fields of experience include computer science, computer systems,
`
`computer network architecture, and Internet and electronic commerce, among
`
`others.
`
`15. A detailed curriculum vitae showing more of my credentials in these
`
`fields and the cases in which I have testified in the past four years is attached as
`
`Exhibit 2002.
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $400/hour for consulting services. My compensation for this matter
`
`is not determined by or contingent upon the outcome of this case.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND RELIED UPON
`17.
`In preparing this Declaration I reviewed and considered the following
`
`
`
`materials:
`
`Description
`Ex. / Doc.
`Paper 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review by Petitioners (“Pet.”)
`1001 Declaration Of Anthony J. Wechselberger Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.68 In Support Of Petition For Inter Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,559,635
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490
`5
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483 (“Guillou”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 4,388,643 (“Aminetzah”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 3,743,767 (“Bitzer”)
`-
`All other documents cited and used in this Declaration.
`
`18.
`
`I have also relied upon my years of education, teaching, research, and
`
`experience concerning software, computer architecture, networks, network
`
`protocols, electronic commerce, privacy and security.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`19.
`I understand that the Petitioner challenged claims 1-4, 7, 13, 18, 20,
`
`21, 28-30, 32, and 33 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’635 Patent based on
`
`certain references and combinations:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 21, and 29
`
`Anticipation based on
`Guillou
`Claims 4, 13, 18, 20, 28, 30, 32, and 33 Obvious based on
`Guillou
`Obvious based on
`Aminetzah
`Obvious based on
`Aminetzah and Bitzer
`
`Claims 3, 21, and 28, 29, and 30
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 18, 20, and 33
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the Board issued an Institution Decision on
`
`September 21, 2016 (Paper 8), finding that Petitioner failed to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail to show that claims 3, 18, 20, 32 and 33 are
`
`unpatentable based on any of the alleged grounds or a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail to show that claim 7 is unpatentable based on Aminetzah
`
`in view of Bitzer. I also understand that Patent Owner dedicated claims 1 and 2 of
`
`
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’635 Patent to the public by disclaiming claims 1-2 pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.321(a) in a submission filed with the U.S. Patent Office on June 24, 2016.
`
`Therefore, claims 1-2 are no longer in controversy before the Board.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the following grounds remain at issue:
`
`# Claims
`
`Prior Art
`
`Alleged Basis for
`Unpatentability
`Anticipation
`
`Obviousness
`Obviousness
`
`Obviousness
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`7, 21, 29
`
`4, 13, 28, 30
`21, 28, 29, 30
`
`4
`
`22.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`(Ex. 1006 “Guillou”)
`Guillou
`U.S. Patent No. 4,388,643
`(Ex. 1008, “Aminetzah”).
`Aminetzah in view of U.S.
`Patent No. 3,743,767 to
`Bitzer (Ex. 1009, “Bitzer”)
`I have been asked by PMC to determine whether the challenged
`
`claims are rendered unpatentable based upon these remaining grounds. Petitioner
`
`cites to the declaration of Mr. Wechselberger (Ex. 1001). I have reviewed his
`
`declaration. I provide my opinion regarding many of Mr. Wechselberger’s
`
`positions below.
`
`23. As provided below, I find that these claims are novel and non-obvious
`
`over Guillou. In addition, Aminetzah, alone or in view of Bitzer, fails to render
`
`these claims unpatentable for obviousness. In addition, for the reasons set forth
`
`below, I conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would not have had reason to modify the prior references in the manner
`
`stated in the Petition and in the Wechselberger Declaration.
`
`
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`24.
`I am not an attorney. I have been advised of the following general
`
`principles of patent law to be considered in formulating my opinions as to whether
`
`the claims of the ’635 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
`A. Anticipation
`25.
`I understand that to anticipate a patent claim, a single prior art
`
`reference must disclose every element of the claim, either explicitly or inherently
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that an element of a claim is
`
`“inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference when the missing element is the
`
`inevitable outcome of the process and/or thing that is described in the prior art
`
`reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`26.
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject
`
`matter set forth in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`of the claim would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior
`
`
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. I also understand that in assessing
`
`whether a claim is obvious, one must consider whether the claimed improvement is
`
`more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions. I understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton. However, I understand that obviousness cannot be
`
`based on the hindsight combination of components selectively culled from the
`
`prior art. I also understand that a combination is not obvious if it requires
`
`extensive additional problem-solving steps that are not taught in the references and
`
`that are not simple matters for a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a
`
`combination is not obvious if it requires the development of an additional complex
`
`infrastructure.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation
`
`nor the avowed purpose of the inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or
`
`
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`problem known in the field at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent
`
`can provide a reason for combining elements. For example, I understand that it is
`
`important to consider whether there existed, at the time of the invention, a known
`
`problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`claims. I understand that known techniques can have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art can fit the teachings
`
`of multiple pieces of prior art together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
`
`grasp. I further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely
`
`to be the product, not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense, which
`
`bears on whether the claim would have been obvious.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`evidence of commercial success of an invention, evidence of a long-felt need that
`
`was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence
`
`that an invention achieved a surprising result. I further understand that such
`
`evidence must have a nexus or causal relationship to the elements of a claim in
`
`order to be relevant.
`
`
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`31.
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must construe the
`
`claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification from the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the
`
`purposes of this review, unless otherwise stated, I have construed each claim term
`
`in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`D.
`32.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I believe that the ’635 Patent is addressed to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”), i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the art with at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree or equivalent in digital electronics, electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical degree, with 2-5
`
`years of post-degree work experience in system engineering (or equivalent). In
`
`determining who would be a POSITA, I considered at least the following criteria:
`
`(a) the type of problems encountered in the art; (b) prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (d) the sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (e) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`V. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’635 PATENT
`33. The’635 Patent comprises the vision of an end-to-end system that can
`
`distribute digital information over an analog or digital transmission system from a
`11
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`transmitter station to a receiver station, optionally passing through an intermediate
`
`station, and the methods for accomplishing that distribution. The transmitted
`
`digital information can be addressed to one or more receiver stations and can
`
`include commands, data, signals, computer programs, or encrypted programming.
`
`34. The digital information so transmitted can be encrypted by its
`
`originator, in whole or in part, and decrypted by its receiver using a decryption key
`
`sent from the transmitter to the receiver. The decryption key itself can be
`
`encrypted and it too can be decrypted by the receiver using information provided
`
`by the transmitter.
`
`35. The’635 Patent responded to the new possibilities opened up as
`
`transmission of digital content, instead of analog content, became more
`
`technologically feasible. The’635 Patent describes an entirely new signal-
`
`processing system having multiple layers of transmitter station devices that are
`
`able to control addressable receiver devices in large networks.
`
`36. The patented inventions addressed problems in the prior art by
`
`recognizing the significant improvements that could be accomplished if receivers
`
`could communicate with other devices in a network; if transmitters could control
`
`receivers such as, for example, by sending control instructions in the same
`
`information stream as programming content; and if receivers could use those
`
`control instructions to identify content addressed to individual users and to carry
`
`
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`out controlled operations specific to a receiver device. Such a network, employing
`
`distributed computing and control, is able to provide customized user content,
`
`other new and useful types of content, and new modes of delivering that content.
`
`But such a system is enormously more complex than the one-to-many distribution
`
`structures in the prior art.
`
`37. The’635 Patent discloses methods and apparatuses for addressing
`
`specific technical issues that arose for the first time in the context of the inventors’
`
`systems and methods for distributing personalized media content in a networked
`
`environment.
`
`38. The layered signal decryption technology claimed in the’635 Patent –
`
`which allows encrypted content to be transmitted along with encrypted digital
`
`control signals and requires decryption of the digital control signals first in order to
`
`unlock the encrypted content – was initially conceived to inhibit piracy of TV
`
`content delivered in a cable, satellite or other networked system.
`
`39. At the time of the inventions of the’635 Patent, the secure delivery of
`
`programming content along with related control signals to control or enable
`
`specific signal processing operations at remote receiver stations was a technical
`
`challenge particular to a distributed computing environment such as, for example, a
`
`cable television network. And, the technical solutions the inventors conceived,
`
`developed and patented were novel and unconventional at the time. The patented
`
`
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`inventions require specially-programmed equipment to implement various specific
`
`applications and functions, such as receiving incoming digital information
`
`transmissions, filtering or selecting control signals or other signals or specific
`
`content from the incoming information transmissions, and/or decrypting the
`
`incoming information transmissions.
`
`40. Recognizing the importance of protecting the programming being
`
`transmitted, the ’635 Patent discloses a sophisticated embodiment of access
`
`control, allowing for the delivery of personalized content to subscriber stations in a
`
`secure manner through unique encryption key management techniques. For
`
`instance, the conditional access technology claimed by the patents allows
`
`encrypted content to be transmitted along with encrypted digital control signals and
`
`requires decryption of the digital control signals first in order to unlock the
`
`encrypted content. The digital information so transmitted can be encrypted by its
`
`originator, in whole or in part, and decrypted by its receiver using decryption key
`
`information (e.g., the decryption key(s), or the location of the key(s), or a method
`
`of calculating a key) sent from the transmitter to the receiver. The decryption key
`
`information can itself be encrypted and it too can be decrypted by the receiver
`
`using information provided by the transmitter or stored at the receiver.
`
`41. FIG. 4A of the application that the ’635 Patent claims priority to, U.S.
`
`Appl. No. 317,510, which issued as U.S. Patent 4,694,490 (the “’490 Patent”)
`
`
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`shows a receiver station’s signal processor, 100, and a programing decrypter and/or
`
`interrupt means, 101, each of which receives the transmissions of programing. Ex.
`
`1004 at 13:12-15. The devices, 100 and 101, may receive one channel of
`
`programing or multiple channels. The ’490 Patent describes that transmissions
`
`received at these receiver stations may contain “code or codes necessary for the
`
`decryption of the transmission.” Ex. 1004 at 13:31-32. FIG. 4D shows that a
`
`multi-stage decryption/interruption process may be used in which transmissions
`
`must be processed by one or more additional decryptor /interruptors, 111, that
`
`follow decryptor/interruptor, 110:
`
`
`
`42. The ’490 Patent further describes that the receiver station’s “signal
`
`processors, 100, 103, 106, 109, and 112, could also operate in a predetermined
`
`fashion and telephone a remote site to get an additional signal or signals necessary
`
`for the proper decryption and/or transfer of incoming programing transmissions.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at 15:21-25. See also, e.g., FIG. 1 (telephone connection 22 with digital
`
`recorder 16).
`
`
`
`15
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`43. The receiver station further receives and processes encrypted content
`
`through cable transmissions. Ex. 1004 at 6:30-32. FIG. 2A, for example, shows a
`
`decoder capable of receiving cable transmissions on different channels. The
`
`decoder forwards transmissions on one of three paths. The detectors of each path
`
`“are designed to act on the particular frequency ranges in which the encoded
`
`information may be found.” Ex. 1004 at 6:42-7:5. “Path C inputs the separately
`
`defined transmission to a digital detector, 38.” In contrast, the decoder forwards
`
`analog television and audio transmissions containing embedded digital data to
`
`paths A and B. Id.
`
`44. Through the disclosed access control system, the ’635 Patent allows
`
`users at these receiver stations to access materials through purchases or other
`
`means. For example, in one of the many examples provided, the disclosed
`
`invention allows a user to purchase, receive, decrypt, and output a printed cooking
`
`recipe:
`
`Suppose a viewer watches a television program on cooking techniques
`that is received on TV set, 202, via box, 201. Julia Childs's "The
`French Chef” is one such program. Halfway through the program, the
`host says, “If you are interested in cooking what we are preparing here
`and want a printed copy of the recipe for a charge of only 10 cents,
`press 567 on your Widget Signal Generator and Local Input.” The
`viewer then presses buttons 567 on local input, 225, which signal is
`conveyed to the buffer/comparator, 8 (referring to FIG. 1), of signal
`
`
`
`16
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`processor, 200, to hold and process further in a predetermined fashion.
`Five minutes later, a signal is identified in the incoming programing
`on TV set, 202, by decoder, 203, which is also transferred by
`processor, 204, to buffer/comparator, 8, of signal processor, 200. This
`signal instructs buffer/comparator, 8, that, if 567 has been received
`from signal generator, 225, signal processor, 200, should, in a
`predetermined fashion, instruct tuner, 223, to tune cable converter
`box, 222, to the appropriate channel to receive the recipe in encoded
`digital form and instruct control means, 226, to activate printer, 221.
`The signal transmission from processor, 204, also passes a signal
`word to signal processor, 200, which, in a predetermined fashion,
`signal processor, 200, decrypts and transfers to decrypter, 224, to
`serve as the code upon which decrypter, 224, will decrypt the
`incoming encrypted recipe. … When the transmission of the recipe is
`received, box 222, transfers the transmission to decrypter, 224, for
`decryption and thence to printer, 221, for printing.
`Ex. 1004 at 20:16-50.
`
`45. At the time of the inventions, the secure delivery of programming
`
`content along with related control signals to control or enable specific signal
`
`processing operations at remote receiver stations was a technical challenge
`
`particular to a distributed computing environment. The technical solutions the
`
`inventors conceived, developed and patented were novel and unconventional at the
`
`time. Indeed, the inventors saw “great potential” in their disclosed inventions, and
`
`they believed that unlocking that potential would “add substantial richness and
`
`
`
`17
`
`PMC Exhibit 2019
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`variety to the communication of ideas, information and entertainment.” Ex. 1003
`
`at 2:2-5. Their objective was “to unlock this great potential in the fullest measure.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at 2:49-52.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCT