`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00754
`Patent No.: 8,559,635
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 1
`A.
`“decrypting”-related terms (all Challenged Claims) ............................. 1
`B.
`“encrypted video” (claim 4) .................................................................. 4
`C.
`“processor” (claim 21) .......................................................................... 6
`D.
`“executable instructions” (claim 13) ..................................................... 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable. ................................................ 9
`A. Guillou Anticipates or Renders Obvious Claims 4, 7, 13, 21,
`and 28-30 ............................................................................................... 9
`1.
`Guillou suggests receiving programming that includes
`“encrypted video” (claim 4) ........................................................ 9
`Guillou discloses detecting “a second control signal
`portion used to decrypt the first control signal portion”
`(claim 7) .................................................................................... 10
`Guillou suggests receiving signals embedded with
`“executable instructions” and “controlling said
`controllable device on the basis of said embedded
`executable instructions” (claim 13) .......................................... 11
`Guillou discloses “decrypting under first processor
`control” and “decrypting under second processor control”
`(claim 21) .................................................................................. 12
`Guillou suggests receiving encrypted materials that
`include “a portion of a television program” (claim 28) ............ 15
`Guillou suggests “contacting a remote transmitter station
`to receive one of said transmission and said signal
`necessary for decryption” (claim 30) ........................................ 16
`Aminetzah Renders Obvious Claims 21 and 28-30 ............................ 18
`1.
`Aminetzah discloses “decrypting” (claim 21) .......................... 18
`2.
`Aminetzah suggests “receiving a transmission
`comprising encrypted materials” (claim 21) ............................. 18
`Aminetzah discloses “decrypting under first processor
`control” and “decrypting under second processor control
`a second portion” (claim 21) ..................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`D.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Aminetzah discloses receiving “a signal necessary for
`decryption” and a transmission “from different sources”
`(claim 29) .................................................................................. 22
`Aminetzah suggests “contacting a remote transmitter
`station to receive one of said transmission and said signal
`necessary for decryption” (claim 30) ........................................ 23
`Aminetzah In View of Bitzer Renders Obvious Claim 4 .................... 23
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Support Nonobviousness ............. 25
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 26
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Keller,
`642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .............................................................................. 25
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`Statutes
`
`§ 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`PMC’s Response rehashes the same arguments PMC made in its Preliminary
`
`Response. The Board should again reject these arguments because PMC’s
`
`proposed claim constructions are not the broadest reasonable constructions and
`
`PMC’s arguments regarding the prior art are premised on PMC’s unsupportable
`
`claim constructions.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`None of PMC’s proposed constructions represent the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification (“BRI”). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`“decrypting”-related terms (all Challenged Claims)
`
`A.
`PMC re-argues that “decrypt” and “encrypt” are limited to operations that
`
`use a digital key on digital data. But PMC’s arguments are just as unavailing as
`
`before. The Board’s rejection of PMC’s attempt to exclude descrambling of an
`
`analog television signal should stand. Institution Decision at 7-8.
`
`PMC criticizes Apple and
`
`the Board for relying on a so-called
`
`“controversial” sentence in the specification. Response at 9-11. That statement,
`
`considered in its full context, continues to support Apple’s position (and the
`
`Board’s determinations1) that descrambling of analog television transmissions is
`
`
`1 The Board has found on multiple occasions that “decrypt” is not limited to
`
`digital data and encompasses descrambling in related PMC patents. Ex. 1011 at
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`within the scope of “decrypting.” Ex. 1003 at 160:40-65. By stating that
`
`“decryptors, 107, 224, and 231, may be conventional descramblers, well[] known
`
`in the art, that descramble analog television transmissions and are actuated by
`
`receiving digital key information,” the ’635 specification shows that merely
`
`labeling something a “decryptor” does not exclude the function of descrambling.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 160:51-55. Rather, it explicitly states that the use of the term
`
`“decryptor” may include decrypting either digital or analog data.
`
`Preceding this sentence, the specification says it is “obvious” to a PHOSITA
`
`“that the invention is not to be unduly restricted” by the given example because
`
`modifications can be made “without functionally departing from the spirit of the
`
`invention.” Id. at 160:40-45. The specification lists changes that could be made to
`
`the example that would still fall within the spirit of the invention—such as
`
`descrambling where a device is labeled “decryptor.” Id. at 160:40-161:21.
`
`PMC’s argument that the “controversial” sentence reflects an alternative
`
`embodiment is inconsistent with the text and presumes that “decrypting” must
`
`include solely digital information. The embodiments of the ’635 patent, including
`
`those cited favorably by PMC, are mixed signal embodiments, combining both
`
`
`11; Ex. 1012 at 3-5; Ex. 1014 at 2-4; Ex. 1036 at 7-10; Ex. 1037 at 7-8; Ex.
`
`1038 at 19-21.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`analog and digital transmissions. The “controversial” sentence is consistent with
`
`this, as it states that the decryptors may be conventional descramblers “that
`
`descramble analog television transmissions and are actuated by receiving digital
`
`key information.” Ex. 1003 at 160:51-55.
`
`The Board properly rejected PMC’s reliance on alleged disclaimers in the
`
`prosecution history and other BPAI and judicial decisions. Institution Decision at
`
`7-8. PMC cites one additional judicial decision, but does not address the Board’s
`
`findings about the record in this case as compared to those cases or the
`
`inconsistency in PMC’s positions. Response at 12-15. One example cited by PMC
`
`highlights that Apple and the Board are reading the “controversial” sentence
`
`properly. In the reexamination of a related patent with the same specification, PMC
`
`stated that it was acting as a lexicographer and that the invention includes
`
`“something beyond the conventional scrambling/descrambling … such as the use
`
`of a decryption key.” Ex. 2006 at 41. This is exactly what the “controversial”
`
`sentence states—the decryptors “may be conventional descramblers … that
`
`descramble analog television transmissions and are actuated by receiving digital
`
`key information.” Ex. 1003 at 160:51-55. This demonstrates that the Board’s
`
`decision not to exclude descrambling is correct. “Decrypting” may require the use
`
`of some type of digital information such as a key, but decryption may be
`
`performed on either digital or analog data.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`PMC also argues that documents authored by Apple’s expert contradict the
`
`Board’s construction and his testimony in this proceeding. Response at 15-18.
`
`Mr. Wechselberger explained that the purpose of the article he wrote in 1983 was
`
`not
`
`to
`
`illustrate
`
`how
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`“encryption/decryption”
`
`and
`
`“scrambling/descrambling” were used by a PHOSITA, but rather to clarify that
`
`they should be given distinct meanings instead of being used interchangeably, as
`
`they were at the time. Ex. 1001 ¶¶62-65; Ex. 1027. Nor does his declaration from
`
`another litigation about another patent contradict his testimony here.2 Considered
`
`in context, Mr. Wechselberger’s opinions are consistent with the Board’s
`
`construction, which should stand.
`
`“encrypted video” (claim 4)
`
`B.
`PMC’s argument that any construction of “encrypted video” must “exclude
`
`teletext” (Response at 19) is unsupported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence,
`
`and directly contradicts PMC’s prior arguments about how the term “video” is
`
`used in its specification.
`
`Previously, when construing “video” in a related PMC patent based on the
`
`same specification, PMC insisted that “video” as used in its specification refers to
`
`
`2 The declaration PMC cites refers to alleged confusion about “scrambling/
`
`descrambling,” not “decryption/encryption.” Ex. 2011.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`any information that is “visually perceivable,” including graphics, images, or text,
`
`whether these items are still or moving. Ex. 2028 at 10-12. PMC explained that in
`
`the specification, “‘video’ is contrasted with ‘audio’” and that “video” refers to the
`
`“display of static pictures, such as Figure 1A, static telephone numbers, and static
`
`dollar amounts.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at 278:21-24 (distinguishing video as visual
`
`information and audio as aural information), 258:16-19 (same), 13:38-52, 188:17-
`
`18 (video includes telephone numbers), 249:53-56 (video includes dollar amount)).
`
`The district court agreed with PMC, finding that the “specification provides
`
`examples of video that are not limited to a series of still images to provide the
`
`appearance of movement,” and that “as taught in the specification, not all video is
`
`intended to provide the appearance of movement.” Ex. 1018 at 6-7. It is impossible
`
`to square the specification and PMC’s prior position with PMC’s current
`
`statements that “video” is “distinct from static text and images” (Response at 19)
`
`and that “nowhere does the specification describe these static images as video”
`
`(Response at 21).
`
`Even assuming arguendo that “video” was required to show movement,
`
`PMC incorrectly assumes that teletext is limited to static text. Teletext included
`
`moving text and graphics, including “non-static visuals, to present a variety of
`
`programming, including news, weather, educational programs, advertising, etc.”
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶433 (citing Ex. 1021 at 17-18; Ex. 1022 at 3; Ex. 1026 at 3); Ex. 1022 at
`
`3 (describing the French teletext system, ANTIOPE, as including “flashing
`
`display[s]”). In the context of the ’635 patent, a PHOSITA would have considered
`
`embedded digital content such as teletext to be “video” programming. Ex. 1001
`
`¶46.
`
`“processor” (claim 21)
`
`C.
`PMC’s position that “processor” should be construed as “a digital electronic
`
`device that processes information by operating on data according to instructions” is
`
`neither the BRI nor supported by the evidence. In contrast, Apple and the Board’s
`
`construction of “processor” as “a device that operates on data” is fully supported
`
`by the intrinsic evidence and numerous other claim construction decisions from
`
`both the Board and district courts. Ex. 1036 at 11-12; Ex. 2025 at 59-61; Ex. 1018
`
`at 7-8. Indeed, Apple and the Board’s construction is also consistent with PMC’s
`
`own proposed construction in district court litigation. Ex. 1016 at 12; Ex. 1018 at
`
`7-8. PMC’s previous attempt to explain away those prior constructions was
`
`rejected by a district court as inconsistent with the record. Response at 26-27; Ex.
`
`2025 at 61 n.10.
`
`
`3 All emphasis added unless noted otherwise.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`PMC cannot ignore that the ’635 patent specification describes a broad range
`
`of devices that perform “processing” but do not execute instructions. See Petition
`
`at 5 (citing, for example, Ex. 1003 at 75:49-55, 135:10-15); Ex. 2025 at 61 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 at 19:14-16, 51:52-54, 75:54-55, 115:63-65, 135:10-15). While PMC
`
`cites to examples of processors that allegedly do operate according to instructions,
`
`the Board should not read this unclaimed requirement into claim 21. Nothing in
`
`claim 21,4 which recites “decrypting” under first/second “processor” control,
`
`requires the “processor” to be “a digital electronic device that processes
`
`information by operating on data according to instructions” as PMC contends.
`
`As the Board and district court held, PMC’s attempt to narrowly construe
`
`“processor” is also inconsistent with contemporaneous dictionary definitions. Ex.
`
`1036 at 11; Ex. 1039; Ex. 1040; Ex. 2025 at 61. The Board’s construction of
`
`“processor” should stand. Institution Decision at 9.
`
`
`4 PMC quotes language from an un-instituted claim as allegedly supporting its
`
`construction. Response at 22 (quoting claim 18). If anything, the fact that some
`
`claims require processing based on instructions, while others claims do not,
`
`shows that not all processors must operate according to instructions.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`“executable instructions” (claim 13)
`
`D.
`PMC attempts to narrowly construe “executable instructions” to mean
`
`“instructions of a computer program that cause a computer to carry out operations
`
`on the computer according to the instructions.” Response at 27. This heavily
`
`loaded construction is unsupported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, and is
`
`not the BRI.
`
`PMC’s narrow interpretation of “executable instructions” is at odds with the
`
`claim language. In claim 13, “executable instructions” are passed to a “controllable
`
`device,” a device controlled on the basis of the executable instructions. Ex. 1003 at
`
`claim 13. Nothing in the claim language limits the controllable device to a
`
`programmable computer that runs computer programs, as required by PMC’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`The intrinsic evidence does not limit “executable instructions” to computer
`
`program instructions either. For example, PMC cites to “control signals” in the
`
`’490 patent that are processed by a controller to facilitate signal processing as an
`
`example of “executable instructions.” Response at 28 (citing Ex. 1004 at 8:56-65).
`
`But nothing in the cited text suggests that these control signals must be computer
`
`program instructions instead of, for example, signals that cause the controller to
`
`respond in some preprogrammed/predetermined fashion. Likewise, PMC’s citation
`
`to its “Wall Street Week” example undermines its own argument. Response at 28
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 at 19:42-20:7). The ’490 patent states that the receiver is
`
`“preprogrammed to respond in a predetermined fashion to instruction signals,” and
`
`thus does not limit the instruction signals to those carried out by a computer
`
`program. Ex. 1004 at 19:42-43, 19:60-65 (receiver may be preprogrammed to
`
`respond to an instruction).
`
`PMC’s attempt to rely on extrinsic evidence is equally unavailing. PMC
`
`provides a dictionary definition for “execution (software),” an altogether different
`
`term than that at issue. Response at 27. There is no reason that “executable
`
`instructions” should be limited to “computer program” instructions. Rather, the
`
`Board should apply the plain meaning of the term.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.
`A. Guillou Anticipates or Renders Obvious Claims 4, 7, 13, 21, and
`28-30
`
`PMC’s arguments about Guillou are premised on impermissibly narrow
`
`readings of the claim language and mischaracterizations of Apple’s positions and
`
`the prior art.
`
`1.
`
`Guillou suggests receiving programming that includes
`“encrypted video” (claim 4)
`
`PMC’s argument regarding this limitation is premised entirely on its unduly
`
`narrow construction of “encrypted video” to exclude teletext, which is unsupported
`
`by the evidence. Response at 55-57. Guillou itself refers to its teletext system as a
`
`“video-transmission” system. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at Title, Abstract, 1:7-12.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`Further, PMC mischaracterizes Apple’s argument. According to PMC,
`
`Apple argued that a PHOSITA could have modified Guillou to display a video
`
`stock ticker but failed to explain how to perform such a modification. Response at
`
`56-57. Not so. Apple explained that it would have been obvious for the teletext
`
`programming described in Guillou to include video, for example, when the
`
`programming is a stock ticker. Petition at 16. It was well known that teletext
`
`programming included text and/or graphics used to generate visuals, which may be
`
`non-static, for a variety of programming, including news programs, weather
`
`services, and educational programs. Ex. 1001 ¶141.
`
`2.
`
`Guillou discloses detecting “a second control signal portion
`used to decrypt the first control signal portion” (claim 7)
`
`Apple explained
`
`that Guillou’s subscriber station detects a
`
`line
`
`number/subscription index (second control signal portion) that is used to decrypt
`
`encrypted message Mi (first control signal portion). Petition at 16-17. PMC does
`
`not dispute that the line number/subscription index is used to identify and extract
`
`message Mi for decryption by K restoring circuit 110, but argues this does not
`
`satisfy the “used to decrypt” limitation. Response at 50-51. PMC’s argument
`
`suggests the line number/subscription index must be a direct input to K restoring
`
`circuit 110, but PMC offers only a conclusory statement from its expert in support
`
`of its argument, and does not identify any intrinsic evidence that supports this
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`interpretation. The Board properly rejected this argument. Institution Decision at
`
`21.
`
`The line number/subscription index is used to identify and extract message
`
`Mi for decryption by K restoring circuit 110, and thus it is used to decrypt
`
`encrypted message Mi. There is no dispute that but for identifying and extracting
`
`the appropriate message Mi for decryption, it would not be decrypted. Ex. 1054 at
`
`133:17-134:12.
`
`3.
`
`Guillou suggests receiving signals embedded with “executable
`instructions” and “controlling said controllable device on the
`basis of said embedded executable instructions” (claim 13)
`
`PMC argues that an individual data octet dj is not an “executable instruction”
`
`based on its unduly narrow construction of the term, which is not supported by the
`
`evidence. Response at 57. As properly construed, this limitation is met. Each
`
`individual data octet dj is executed by character generator 148 and instructs it how
`
`to manipulate display means 20. Petition at 24-25 (citing Ex. 1006 at 10:51-56,
`
`19:17-21, Fig. 9; Ex. 1001 ¶157). PMC’s argument that the character generator
`
`simply “converts” the data ignores that the operation of the character generator is
`
`controlled by each individual data octet dj, which are thus instructions to the
`
`character generator. Ex. 1055 ¶3; Institution Decision at 26-27.
`
`Apple also argued in the alternative that it was well-known to a PHOSITA
`
`that command and control instructions provided desirable capabilities, such as
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`emergency alerts, control of video recorders, and home security services, and it
`
`would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to embed these types of command and
`
`control instructions in Guillou. Petition at 25-26; Ex. 1001 ¶¶159-160, 48-51.
`
`PMC does not dispute that prior art references Campbell, Hartung, and
`
`Anderson teach embedding “executable instructions” under Apple’s construction
`
`of the term. Instead, PMC’s argument is once again premised on its restrictive
`
`interpretation of “executable instructions.” Response at 58-59. Additionally,
`
`PMC’s argument that a PHOSITA would be unable to apply these well-known
`
`techniques in Guillou’s system is not credible. As Mr. Wechselberger explained,
`
`“[t]here is no fundamental difference in transmitting digital data that represents
`
`text and/or graphics displayed to a viewer (e.g., teletext) [and] control instructions
`
`that when executed cause a STB to perform particular functions (e.g., emergency
`
`alert notifications).” Ex. 1001 ¶51. Contrary to PMC’s suggestion, no complicated
`
`overhaul of Guillou would be required. Ex. 1055 ¶4-6.
`
`4.
`
`Guillou discloses “decrypting under first processor control” and
`“decrypting under second processor control” (claim 21)
`
`None of PMC’s three arguments disputing that Guillou’s K restoring circuit
`
`110 and decoding circuit 145 are the claimed first and second “processors,”
`
`respectively, have merit.
`
`First, PMC argues that Apple and its expert have “improperly relie[d] on
`
`two different, distinct embodiments of Guillou” because Figures 9 and 10 allegedly
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`represent two distinct embodiments. Response at 51-53. Even PMC’s expert
`
`admitted this argument is baseless. Ex. 1054 at 118:12-119:20 (Figure 10 “is meant
`
`to augment the diagram of Figure 9”). Figures 9 and 10 go hand-in-hand: Figure 9
`
`describes “a receiver according to the prior art” (Ex. 1006 at 9:40-41), and Figure
`
`10 describes “the means to be inserted in the receiver of the type shown in the
`
`previous figure [Figure 9], in order to decrypt the information” (Ex. 1006 at 9:42-
`
`44). That is, the decryption means of Figure 10 is added to the receiver system of
`
`Figure 9. See Ex. 1006 at 18:56-21:14 (describing the receiver and modification of
`
`components of the receiver to enable decryption).5
`
`Second, PMC argues that decoding circuit 145 of Figure 10 cannot be the
`
`second processor because it does not control decryption. Response at 53-54.
`
`According to PMC, decoding circuit 145 “is only responsible for extracting
`
`selected teletext pages from the transmission and inputting the extracted pages for
`
`further processing by the other components of the system.” Response at 53. This
`
`completely dismisses Guillou’s express disclosure that decoding circuit 145 also
`
`initializes octet generator 26’, causes the generation of decoding octets Cj, and
`
`
`5 PMC’s argument that Apple relied on decoding circuit 145 of Figure 9, rather
`
`than decoding circuit 145 in operation with the decryption means of Figure 10
`
`(Response at 51-52), is meritless. See Petition at 19-20.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`combines decoding octets with encrypted octets Dj to generate decoded octets dj,
`
`thereby controlling the decryption of the encrypted teletext data Dj. Petition at 20;
`
`Ex. 1006 at 20:29-39; Ex. 1055 ¶¶7-8.
`
`PMC then argues that if decoding circuit 145 is the claimed second
`
`processor, it also is the first processor because it allegedly controls decryption of
`
`message Mi at K restoring circuit 110. Response at 54. This is incorrect. The mere
`
`fact that decoding circuit 145 provides message Mi as an input value to K restoring
`
`circuit 110 does not mean that it “controls” the K restoring circuit. Ex. 1055 ¶¶9-
`
`10. Rather, decryption of message Mi is controlled by the microprocessor of K
`
`restoring circuit 110. Petition at 19; Ex. 1001 ¶194. Regardless, nothing in the
`
`claim language of claim 21 requires decrypting solely under first/second
`
`“processor control,” and PMC never once disputes that the microprocessor of K
`
`restoring circuit 110 controls decryption of message Mi. Response at 51-55.
`
`Third, PMC argues that K restoring circuit 110 and decoding circuit 145 are
`
`not “processors” based on its narrow construction of the term. Response at 54-55.
`
`PMC does not and cannot challenge that K restoring circuit 110 and decoding
`
`circuit 145 are “processors” under Apple and the Board’s proper construction of
`
`the term. Ex. 1054 at 135:8-20.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`5.
`
`Guillou suggests receiving encrypted materials that include “a
`portion of a television program” (claim 28)
`
`PMC argues, without any support, that teletext cannot be part of a television
`
`program. Response at 60-61. But the ANTIOPE system described in Guillou could
`
`not only provide subtitles for television programs, it could “broadcast special pages
`
`to display news flashes superimposed on the television program.” Ex. 1022 at 3-
`
`4; Ex. 1006 at 1:11-13, 2:23-25 (the received encrypted teletext programming,
`
`displayed on “television receivers for purposes of entertainment, information or
`
`education,” may be news programming, weather programming, educational
`
`programming, etc.); Ex. 1055 ¶12. To the extent not expressly disclosed, “it would
`
`have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use teletext in accordance with its well-
`
`known capabilities as part of a television program.” Petition at 21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶201,
`
`41-43.
`
`PMC argues that a PHOSITA could not modify Guillou to provide teletext
`
`type programming as part of a television program. Response at 60-61. But no
`
`modification is required—the ANTIOPE system is already compatible with
`
`providing teletext as part of a television program. Ex. 1055 ¶13; Ex. 1022 at 3-4;
`
`Ex. 1006 at 1:11-12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶41-43. In contrast to PMC’s argument that
`
`encrypting teletext would cause delay, Guillou’s system processes programming in
`
`real-time. Ex. 1055 ¶13; Ex. 1006 at 2:28-43.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`6.
`
`Guillou suggests “contacting a remote transmitter station to
`receive one of said transmission and said signal necessary for
`decryption” (claim 30)
`
`PMC argues that Guillou does not teach this limitation or “receiving a
`
`transmission and ‘a signal necessary for decryption …from different sources’” as
`
`set forth in parent claim 29. PMC is wrong on both counts.
`
`PMC argues that viewdata systems do not have the capability to receive “a
`
`transmission and a signal necessary for decryption . . . from different sources” as
`
`required by claim 29 (from which claim 30 depends). Response at 62. PMC does
`
`not dispute that Guillou discloses that the transmission in the step of receiving a
`
`transmission (i.e., encrypted message Mi and encrypted teletext data Dj) and a
`
`signal necessary for decryption (i.e., subscriber key Ci) are received from different
`
`sources (emitting center 2 and subscription center 100/charging station 112,
`
`respectively). Petition at 21. And Guillou expressly discloses that its access control
`
`scheme is applicable to two-way, interactive systems (e.g., viewdata). Ex. 1006 at
`
`1:10-20, 21:23-28; see also Ex. 1030 at 11, 17 (Guillou applies to viewdata
`
`systems).
`
`Contrary to PMC’s argument, nothing in Guillou suggests that a two-way
`
`implementation would render the subscription center 100/charging station 112
`
`superfluous. Ex. 1006 at 21:23-28; Ex. 1001 ¶¶204-205, 207-211. Subscribers
`
`contacting the emitting center to request the transmission of encrypted message Mi
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`and encrypted teletext data Dj would still require subscriber key Ci, received from
`
`subscription center 100/charging station 112, in order to decrypt that transmission.
`
`Id. PMC’s argument assumes a phone-only viewdata system as a starting point,
`
`and adds Guillou’s encryption scheme to such a system. That is not what Apple
`
`presented in its Petition, and it is not what Apple is arguing now. Including two-
`
`way, interactive functionality in Guillou’s system does not alter the basic
`
`architecture of Guillou’s encryption scheme. Ex. 1001 ¶¶207-211.
`
`Despite Guillou’s express disclosure of viewdata, PMC argues that a
`
`PHOSITA would not apply Guillou’s teachings to two-way, interactive systems
`
`because such systems transmit data “over a telephone line, where there were no
`
`security concerns in 1981.” Response at 62. This argument ignores the fact that,
`
`depending on the implementation, viewdata systems returned information “to the
`
`subscriber through either the telephone line or a TV channel carrying the
`
`information as embedded digital data.” Ex. 1001 ¶42 (citing Ex. 1021 at 32-33,
`
`Ex. 1026 at 3). Mr. Wechselberger explicitly stated that his analysis was based on
`
`viewdata systems “that used a television channel to return information in response
`
`to subscriber requests.” Id.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`B. Aminetzah Renders Obvious Claims 21 and 28-30
`1.
`Aminetzah discloses “decrypting” (claim 21)
`
`PMC’s argument that Aminetzah does not disclose decrypting programming
`
`is based entirely on its improperly narrow construction of “decrypting” as applying
`
`only to digital data. Response at 32-33. Aminetzah describes descrambling analog
`
`television signals, meeting this limitation. Petition at 48-49.
`
`2.
`
`Aminetzah suggests “receiving a transmission comprising
`encrypted materials” (claim 21)
`
`Claim 21 requires receiving a transmission that includes both a first portion
`
`and a second portion of encrypted materials. Ex. 1003 at claim 21. Aminetzah
`
`discloses receiving scrambled television programming and an encrypted variable
`
`DK that is used to decrypt the programming, both encrypted materials. Petition at
`
`47, 41-42; Ex. 1008 at 2:15-33, 2:58-3:3. Apple explained that while Aminetzah
`
`does not expressly disclose sending encrypted DK with the programming to have
`
`one transmission with two portions of encrypted materials, it would have been
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA to transmit DK more frequently and in-band with the
`
`programming to increase system security. Petition at 47, 41-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶239-
`
`42. PMC disputes whether it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA for two
`
`reasons, neither of which have merit. Response at 36-39.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response: IPR2016-00754
`
`a.
`
`A PHOSITA would have been motivated to transmit DK
`in-band more frequently to increase system security
`
`PMC does not dispute that increasing the frequency of DK transmission
`
`would increase system security, but argues that a PHOSITA would recognize that
`
`Aminetzah’s system “already provides the flexibility to transmit the variable DK
`
`more frequently over the telephone line as a design choice.” Response at 36. But
`
`PMC fails to recognize that transmitting DK more frequently over the telephone
`
`line would be undesirable, because it would tie up the subscriber’s phone line and
`
`render it unusable for calls. Ex. 1001 ¶241. For example, another signal used to
`
`descramble the television signal, PD, changes for every field of the received signal.
`
`Ex. 1008 at 2:65-3:3. If DK changed hourly, let alone with every field, the
`
`subscriber’s phone line would be in constant use. Ex. 1055 ¶15.
`
`PMC also argues that a single sentence in Bond about system security, taken
`
`out of context, leads Aminetzah to “teach away” from transmitting DK in-band.
`
`Response at 36-37. Aminetzah expressly states that system security can be
`
`increased by changing the variable DK more frequently. Ex. 1008 at 7:4-7. Rather
`
`than teach away, a PHOSITA would have understood that Bond and Aminetzah
`
`teach d