throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Filed: May 24, 1995
`
`Issued: October 15, 2013
`
`Inventor(s): John Christopher Harvey, James
`William Cuddihy
`
`Assignee: Personalized Media Communications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,559,635
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ........... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based ........................................ 1
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................... 2
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`“decrypting”-related terms (all Challenged Claims) ........ 3
`
`“processor” (Claims 18, 21, 33) ....................................... 4
`
`“encrypted digital information transmission …
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information
`transmission” (Claims 18, 20, 32, 33) .............................. 5
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable .............. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .................. 7
`
`II.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS
`OF THE ’635 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 7
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’635 Patent ...................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’635 Patent ...................... 9
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability .............................................. 9
`
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability ............ 10
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 13, 18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32-33 Are Invalid Based on
`Guillou ............................................................................ 11
`
`(1) Claim 2 Is Anticipated By Guillou ................................. 11
`
`(2) Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................... 16
`
`(3) Claim 7 Is Anticipated By Guillou ................................. 16
`
`(4) Claim 1 is Anticipated by Guillou .................................. 17
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(5) Claim 21 Is Anticipated By Guillou ............................... 18
`
`(6) Claim 28 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 20
`
`(7) Claim 29 Is Anticipated By Guillou ............................... 21
`
`(8) Claim 30 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 22
`
`(9) Claim 13 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 22
`
`(10) Claim 18 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 26
`
`(11) Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 30
`
`(12) Claim 20 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 33
`
`(13) Claim 32 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 34
`
`(14) Claim 3 Is Anticipated By Guillou ................................. 36
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 18, 20-21, 28-30, and 33 Are Invalid Based on
`Aminetzah ....................................................................... 40
`
`(1) Claim 2 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 40
`
`(2) Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 45
`
`(3) Claim 7 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 45
`
`(4) Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 45
`
`(5) Claim 21 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 47
`
`(6) Claim 28 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 49
`
`(7) Claim 29 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 49
`
`(8) Claim 30 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 49
`
`(9) Claim 18 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`of Bitzer .......................................................................... 50
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`(10) Claim 33 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`(10) Claim 33 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`of Bitzer .......................................................................... 52
`of Bitzer ........................................................................ ..52
`
`(11) Claim 20 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`(11) Claim 20 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`of Bitzer .......................................................................... 54
`of Bitzer ........................................................................ ..54
`
`(12) Claim 3 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ............................. 55
`(12) Claim 3 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... ..55
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .................. 59
`MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) ................ ..59
`
`III.
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`D.
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .................................... 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(l): Real Party—In—Interest .................................. ..59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................. 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ........................................... ..59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Lead and Back-Up Counsel .......................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Lead and Back—Up Counsel ........................ ..60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ....................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ..................................... ..6O
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 60
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................... ..6O
`
`IV.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 60
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ ..60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, 32, and 33 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,559,635 (“the ’635 patent”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`In 1981, the named inventors of the ’635 patent filed U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`06/317,510, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’490 patent”) to
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”). Ex. 1004. In 1987, PMC
`
`then filed a continuation-in-part of that application, which discarded the original
`
`22-column specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification that
`
`spanned over 300 columns. Ex. 1003. In the months leading up to June 8, 1995,
`
`PMC filed 328 continuations from that 1987 application, having tens of thousands
`
`of claims and deluging the Patent Office with thousands of prior art references. Ex.
`
`1005; Ex. 1032. The ’635 patent is one of the patents that issued from that flurry of
`
`activity.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`Apple requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’635 patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based
`IPR of the Challenged Claims is requested in view of the prior art listed
`
`below. In the district court (and during prosecution), PMC has asserted the
`
`Challenged Claims are entitled to the Nov. 3, 1981 priority date. Ex. 1019 at 6.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`For purposes of this IPR only, Apple assumes the Nov. 3, 1981 priority date.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483 to Guillou (“Guillou”) (Ex. 1006), filed January 31,
`1980. Guillou is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)1 and § 102(b)2.
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,388,643 to Aminetzah (“Aminetzah”) (Ex. 1008), filed April
`6, 1981. Aminetzah3 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,743,767 to Bitzer et al. (“Bitzer”) (Ex. 1009), issued July 3,
`1973. Bitzer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Apple requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’635 Patent
`Guillou anticipates Claims 1-3, 7, 21, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Guillou renders obvious Claims 4, 13, 18, 20, 28, 30, 32, and 33 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103.
`Aminetzah renders obvious Claims 3, 21, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103.
`Aminetzah, in view of Bitzer, renders obvious Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 18, 20,
`and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`A claim in an IPR is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in
`
`light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 are to the pre-AIA versions applicable here.
`
`2 Guillou was published on Aug. 7, 1980 as WO 80/01636. Ex. 1007.
`
`3 Aminetzah incorporates U.S. Patent No. 4,390,898 (“Bond”) (Ex. 1024).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`(1) “decrypting”-related terms (all Challenged Claims)
`Each Challenged Claim recites a step of “decrypting” data (Claims 1, 2, 4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, 32, 33) or operating to “decrypt” data (Claim 3). Some
`
`claims recite decrypting “digital” data (e.g., Claim 1, 2), whereas other claims do
`
`not limit the type of data decrypted (e.g., Claim 3, 13, 21). Apple submits, for
`
`purposes of this IPR only, that limiting “decrypting” to apply to digital data only
`
`and excluding “descrambling” from its scope (as PMC previously argued), is not
`
`the “broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the ’635 patent specification.
`
`In IPR proceedings addressing related PMC patents with overlapping claim
`
`terms, the Board properly rejected PMC’s attempt to limit “decrypting” to digital
`
`data and to exclude descrambling. Ex. 1011 (IPR2014-01533, Paper 7) at 7-11
`
`(“[W]e find the broadest reasonable construction of ‘decryption,’ for purposes of
`
`this decision, to encompass analog descrambling.”); Ex. 1013 (IPR2014-01532,
`
`Paper 8) at 25-26 (“We fail
`
`to find a significant distinction between
`
`encryption/decryption and scrambling/unscrambling.”); see also Ex. 1012 at 2-5
`
`(denying rehearing request); Ex. 1014 at 2-4 (same). As the Board recognized, the
`
`express statement in the specification of those patents (shared by the ’635 patent)
`
`that “decryptors … may be conventional descramblers, well, known in the art, that
`
`descramble analog television transmissions” undermines PMC’s argument by
`
`equating decryption and descrambling. Ex. 1013 at 25-26; Ex. 1003 at 160:52-55.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`PMC based part of its argument in those IPR proceedings on an alleged
`
`prosecution history disclaimer, which it argued had been relied upon by other
`
`panels to limit “decrypting.” Ex. 1012 at 2; Ex. 1014 at 2. The Board also rejected
`
`that argument, finding that “the prior decisions of other panels of the Board appear
`
`to have relied upon characterizations of the invention and the specification,” not
`
`prosecution history disclaimer. Ex. 1012 at 3; Ex. 1014 at 3. The Board also noted
`
`that those other panels did not rely on the disclosure in the specification that
`
`specifically states that “decryptors … may be conventional descramblers,” citing to
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Ex. 1014
`
`at 3; see also Ex. 1012 at 2-4.
`
`The same district court in which PMC has sued Apple also previously
`
`rejected PMC’s argument that decrypting excludes descrambling. Ex. 1017 (PMC
`
`v. Motorola) at 29 (“The court rejects PMC’s attempt to limit the encrypt/decrypt
`
`terms to digital data.”). And a PHOSITA would have understood “decrypt” and
`
`“descramble” as interchangeable terms that would apply to both analog and digital
`
`data. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 62-65.
`
`(2) “processor” (Claims 18, 21, 33)
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of “processor” is
`
`“a device that operates on data.” This construction is consistent with the plain
`
`meaning of the term, in the context of the ’635 patent, and is supported by the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`Nothing in the claims limits the functionality of the “processor.” The term
`
`“processor” appears throughout the specification, but the specification does not
`
`provide any definition or limitation on the functionality of the processor. Rather,
`
`the specification describes a variety of processors, including hardwired devices that
`
`process data. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 135:10-15 (decoders 30 and 40 process
`
`information), 75:49-55 (buffer/comparator 8 processes).
`
`In an IPR proceeding addressing a related PMC patent, the Board properly
`
`ruled that a “processor” is “a device that operates on data.” Ex. 1013 (IPR2014-
`
`01532, Paper 8) at 7-8. In fact, PMC proposed a similar construction in district
`
`court for a related PMC patent having the same specification: “any device capable
`
`of performing operations on data.” Ex. 1016 (PMC v. Amazon) at 12. Similarly, the
`
`district court in which PMC has sued Apple previously construed “processor” in a
`
`related PMC patent having the same specification as “any device capable of
`
`performing operations on data.” Ex. 1018 (PMC v. Zynga) at 7-8.
`
`(3) “encrypted digital information transmission … unaccompanied by
`any non-digital information transmission” (Claims 18, 20, 32, 33)
`
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of an “encrypted
`
`digital information transmission … unaccompanied by any non-digital information
`
`transmission” is “a digital information transmission, unaccompanied by any non-
`
`digital information transmission, at least a portion of which is encrypted.” This
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the phrase in the context of the
`
`’635 patent.
`
`The entire digital information transmission does not need to be encrypted for
`
`it to be an “encrypted digital information transmission.” The parent ’490 patent, to
`
`which PMC asserts the Challenged Claims are entitled to priority, explains that
`
`“Encrypted transmissions may be only partially encrypted. For example, only the
`
`video portion of the transmission may be encrypted. The audio portion may remain
`
`unencrypted.” Ex. 1004 at 14:1-14:4. Thus, as long as some digital information is
`
`encrypted, it is an encrypted digital information transmission. The plain language
`
`of the claim does not require that the transmission be of only encrypted
`
`information.
`
`Similar to Apple’s proposed construction, PMC has proposed in the district
`
`court that “encrypted digital information transmission” should be construed as
`
`“signals sent or passed from one location to another location to convey digital
`
`information which is in encrypted form” and that “unaccompanied by any non-
`
`digital information transmission” should be construed as “a transmission of
`
`digitally encoded content only, absent any content encoded in an analog format.”
`
`Ex. 1015 at 1, 2.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable
`
`D.
`How the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is detailed in Section II.D.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits is attached. Relevance of the evidence, including
`
`identifying the specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, may be
`
`found in Section II.D. Apple submits a declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger,
`
`an expert with over 40 years of experience in the relevant fields, in support of this
`
`Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 (Ex. 1001).
`
`II. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS
`OF THE ’635 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’635 Patent
`The Challenged Claims of the ’635 patent are all method claims, generally
`
`directed to controlling the operation of receivers and the decryption of data.
`
`Independent Claim 1 is largely representative and recites:
`
`1. A method for controlling the decryption of encrypted programming
`at a subscriber station, said method comprising the steps of:
`[a] receiving encrypted digital programming, said encrypted digital
`programming having an encrypted digital control signal;
`[b] detecting said control signal;
`[c] passing said control signal to a decryptor that decrypts encrypted
`digital data at said subscriber station;
`[d] decrypting said control signal;
`[e] decrypting said encrypted digital programming to form decrypted
`programming based on said control signal; and
`[f] presenting said decrypted programming to a viewer or listener.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Independent Claim 2 is similar to Claim 1, and additionally recites passing
`
`the programming to a second decryptor. Claim 2 is virtually identical to Claim 1 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,801,304 (“the ’304 patent”), which is also assigned to PMC. The
`
`Board instituted IPR of Claim 1 of the ’304 in view of Guillou in IPR2014-01532.
`
`Ex. 1013 at 6-27.
`
`Independent Claim 21 is directed to a method of decryptor activation in a
`
`network. Claim 21 requires receiving a transmission comprising encrypted
`
`materials, with a first portion of the encrypted materials being decrypted under first
`
`processor control, and a second portion of the encrypted materials being decrypted
`
`under second processor control based on the first decrypted portion.
`
`Independent Claims 13, 18, 20, 32, and 33 are directed to processing signals
`
`at a receiver station. Claim 13 recites detecting signals in a received information
`
`transmission, changing a decryption technique based on a first signal, and
`
`decrypting a second signal based on the changed technique. The second signal is
`
`then passed to a device controlled based on instructions embedded in the decrypted
`
`signal. Claims 18, 20, 32, and 33 are similar to Claim 13, and each recites the
`
`additional requirement that the received encrypted digital information transmission
`
`is unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission.
`
`Independent Claim 3 is directed to a method of controlling a transmitter
`
`station to communicate programming to a subscriber station.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’635 Patent
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,413, which led to the ’635 patent, was filed on
`
`May 24, 1995. Ex. 1003 at Cover. The ’635 patent claims priority to November 3,
`
`1981, but did not issue until October 15, 2013. Id.
`
`In 2001, the Examiner filed a notice of abandonment describing the
`
`applicants’ improper conduct and abuse of the Patent Office. Ex. 1033. Among
`
`other allegations, the Examiner expressly rejected that the applicants’ 1981 patent
`
`relates to downloading software. Ex. 1033 at 37. Rather, the Examiner explained
`
`the applicants’ 1981 disclosure “described a television distribution system that
`
`distributed digitally encoded instructions within the VBI of its distributed TV
`
`programming,” and any attempt by PMC to read the claims as limited to “computer
`
`software/programming” should be rejected. Ex. 1033 at 37-38. The notice of
`
`abandonment was ultimately withdrawn and prosecution was suspended.
`
`In 2011, prosecution resumed and the applicants filed an entirely new set of
`
`claims. Ex. 1034. After various rejections and amendments, the claims were
`
`allowed in 2013. Ex. 1035. The Notice of Allowance did not include any reasons
`
`for allowance. Ex. 1035 at 7.
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`C.
`Grounds 1-2 (Guillou-based Grounds): Guillou was analyzed by the
`
`Board
`
`in
`
`IPR2014-01532
`
`and
`
`IPR2014-01533. Guillou describes
`
`a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`teletext/viewdata video transmission system that controls a subscriber’s access to
`
`programming using a “double-key” (i.e., two-layer) encryption/decryption scheme.
`
`On the transmitter side, teletext data dj is encrypted using operating key K, which
`
`is in turn encrypted to form an access control message Mi sent to a subscriber with
`
`encrypted teletext data Dj. On the subscriber side, the access control message Mi is
`
`decrypted to restore operating key K, which is then used to decrypt the teletext data
`
`for viewing. Guillou anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Grounds 3-4 (Aminetzah-based Grounds): Aminetzah describes a pay TV
`
`system that scrambles programming using digital variable DK, which is itself
`
`encrypted and transmitted to a subscriber. The subscriber decrypts encrypted
`
`variable DK and uses it to descramble the programming for viewing. Bitzer
`
`describes transmitting/receiving digital data embedded in standard television
`
`signals. Aminetzah, either alone or in combination with Bitzer, renders obvious
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, and 33
`
`The Grounds are distinct, as Guillou describes an all-digital teletext/
`
`viewdata transmission system (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 90-92), whereas Aminetzah describes a
`
`pay TV system that transmits scrambled video programming (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 93-96).
`
`D. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability
`Apple provides a detailed discussion of how the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’635 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 13, 18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32-33 Are Invalid Based on Guillou
`(1) Claim 2 Is Anticipated By Guillou
`Claim 2 is virtually identical to Claim 1 of the ’304 patent at issue in
`
`IPR2014-01532. See Ex. 1001 ¶ 114 (comparing Claim 2 of the ’635 patent to
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent). In IPR2014-01532, PMC did not dispute that Guillou
`
`discloses the Claim 2 preamble or Claim 2 elements [a], [b], [c], [d], [e], and [h]
`
`identified below. Ex. 1010 (IPR2014-01532, Paper 24) at 51-55. The only element
`
`of Claim 1 of the ’304 patent that PMC disputed was whether Guillou discloses a
`
`single decryptor. Id. Claim 2 of the ’635 patent (at issue here), in contrast, recites
`
`use of a first and second decryptor, just as PMC contended is disclosed by Guillou.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 52; Ex. 1001 ¶ 114.
`
`a.
`Claim 2, preamble: “a method for controlling the
`decryption of programming at a subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches a method for controlling the decryption of programming
`
`(i.e., teletext programming) at a subscriber station (i.e., receiving station 4). Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 115, 100-102. Guillou discloses a video transmission system that uses a
`
`“double-key” encryption scheme to control access to teletext programming at a
`
`receiver. Ex. 1006 at Abstract, 1:7-12, 8:15-9:12, 9:48-10:66, 15:42-16:17.
`
`Teletext is digital data transmitted over standard television lines that includes text
`
`and/or simple graphics to present a variety of programming, such as news, weather,
`
`educational programs, etc. Ex. 1006 at 1:11-13; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 41, 43.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`b.
`Claim 2, element [a]: “receiving programming, said
`programming having a first encrypted digital control signal portion and
`an encrypted digital information portion”
`
`Guillou teaches receiving programming having a first encrypted digital
`
`control signal portion (i.e., encrypted message Mi) and an encrypted digital
`
`information portion (i.e., encrypted teletext data Dj). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 116, 103-106.
`
`Teletext programming is digital. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 41, 43. Guillou discloses that
`
`teletext data dj is encrypted using operating key K at emitting center 2 to form
`
`encrypted teletext data Dj. Ex. 1006 at 5:30-57, 14:20-31; Ex. 1001 ¶ 104.
`
`Operating key K is, in turn, encrypted using each subscriber key Ci to form a set of
`
`encrypted messages Mi (one for each subscriber key Ci). Ex. 1006 at 8:39-48,
`
`15:42-64, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 106. Each encrypted message Mi is an encrypted
`
`digital control signal, and “[a]ll the messages Mi in force together constitute the
`
`information for access control associated with the service being broadcast.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 8:55-57. Messages Mi are grouped in an access control page for
`
`distribution to the receiver. Ex. 1006 at 8:59-9:12, 15:42-64; Ex. 1001 ¶ 106.
`
`The encrypted teletext data Dj and the set of encrypted messages Mi (in an
`
`access control page) are sent together from emitting center 2 to each receiving
`
`station 4. Ex. 1006 at 8:15-9:12, 15:42-16:17, 19:55-20:5, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 106.
`
`c.
`Claim 2, element [b]: “detecting said first encrypted digital
`control signal portion of said programming”
`
`Guillou teaches detecting the first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`the programming (i.e., encrypted message Mi). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 117, 107-108.
`
`Guillou discloses detecting and extracting the received digital data,
`
`including the appropriate encrypted message Mi and and encrypted teletext data Dj,
`
`from the received transmission using video-data separator 142, selection circuit
`
`143, and decoding circuit 145. Ex. 1006 at 15:64-16:10, 19:4-15, 19:55-20:17,
`
`20:40-52, Fig. 9; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 107-108.
`
`d.
`Claim 2, element [c]: “passing said first encrypted digital
`control signal portion of said programming to a first decryptor at said
`subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches passing the first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`
`the programming (i.e., encrypted message Mi) to a first decryptor (i.e., K restoring
`
`circuit 110) at the subscriber station. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 118, 109.
`
`Guillou discloses passing the appropriate encrypted message Mi from
`
`decoding circuit 145 to K restoring circuit 110. Ex. 1006 at 15:64-16:10, 19:55-
`
`20:17, 20:40-52, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 109. K restoring circuit 110 is a decryptor, as
`
`it decrypts message Mi to recover operating key K. See Claim 2[d].
`
`e.
`Claim 2, element [d]: “decrypting said first encrypted
`digital control signal portion of said programming using said first
`decryptor at said subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches decrypting the first encrypted digital control signal portion
`
`of the programming (i.e., encrypted message Mi) using the first decryptor (i.e., K
`
`restoring circuit 110) at the subscriber station. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 119, 110.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Guillou discloses that K restoring circuit 110 decrypts the appropriate
`
`message Mi using the subscriber’s key Ci to restore operating key K. Ex. 1006 at
`
`15:64-16:10, 20:53-21:14, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 110.
`
`f.
`Claim 2, element [e]: “passing said encrypted digital
`information portion of said programming and the decrypted control
`signal portion to a second decryptor at said subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches passing the encrypted digital information portion of the
`
`programming (i.e., encrypted teletext data Dj) and the decrypted control signal
`
`portion (i.e., operating key K) to a second decryptor (i.e., digital logic comprising
`
`decoding octet generator 26’, discriminator 42, and XOR gate 46) at the subscriber
`
`station. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 120-121.
`
`Figure 7 depicts Guillou’s access control system. Ex. 1006 at 15:42-45, Fig.
`
`7. The second decryptor (comprising decoding octet generator 26’, discriminator
`
`42, and XOR gate 46) is depicted within a dashed box of receiving station 4 in
`
`Figure 7 (outlined in red below). Ex. 1001 ¶ 120. As shown in Figure 10 depicting
`
`the interaction between Guillou’s decrypting components (second decryptor
`
`highlighted in yellow below), the encrypted teletext data Dj is passed to
`
`discriminator 42 and then XOR gate 46. Ex. 1006 at 10:41-56, 20:29-39, Fig. 10;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶ 121. Operating key K (restored from message Mi), used to decrypt data
`
`Dj, is passed to generator 26’ to generate decoding octets Cj, which are combined
`
`with encrypted data Dj. Ex. 1006 at 10:57-66, 20:29-39, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 121.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`
`
`g.
`Claim 2, element [f]: “decrypting said encrypted digital
`information portion of said programming using said second decryptor
`at said subscriber station based on the decrypted control signal portion”
`
`Guillou teaches decrypting the encrypted digital information portion of the
`
`programming (i.e., encrypted teletext data Dj) using the second decryptor (i.e.,
`
`digital logic comprising decoding octet generator 26’, discriminator 42, and XOR
`
`gate 46) at the subscriber station based on the decrypted control signal portion (i.e.,
`
`operating key K). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 122, 111-112.
`
`As described in Claim 2[e], the encrypted teletext data Dj is passed to
`
`discriminator 42 and XOR gate 46. Ex. 1006 at 10:41-56, 20:29-39, Fig. 10.
`
`Operating key K (restored from message Mi) is passed to generator 26’ to generate
`
`decoding octets Cj. Ex. 1006 at 10:57-66, 20:29-39, Fig. 10. The encrypted teletext
`
`data Dj is decrypted by combining it with decoding octets Cj to form decrypted
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`teletext data dj. Ex. 1006 at 10:41-66, 20:29-39, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 112.
`
`In IPR2014-01532, PMC admitted that Guillou teaches a first decryptor that
`
`decrypts Mi (i.e., encrypted digital control signal portion) and a second decryptor
`
`that decrypts Dj (i.e., encrypted digital information portion). Ex. 1010 at 52.
`
`Claim 2, element [g]: “presenting said programming”
`
`h.
`Guillou teaches presenting the teletext programming to a subscriber via
`
`display means 20. Ex. 1006 at 1:7-12, 18:61-19:3, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 123, 113.
`
`(2) Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Guillou
`a.
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 2, wherein said
`programming further includes encrypted video”
`
`Guillou suggests the programming further includes encrypted video. Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 140-142. Guillou describes a “video-transmission” system, and the
`
`encrypted teletext programming (also referred to as “digital video”) includes text
`
`and simple graphics, which may be non-static, and when presented in successive
`
`frames is video. Ex. 1006 at 1:7-62; Ex. 1001 ¶ 141. While arguably not expressly
`
`described in Guillou, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use teletext
`
`video for a variety of programming (e.g., stock ticker). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 141-142.
`
`(3) Claim 7 Is Anticipated By Guillou
`a.
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 2, 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”
`
`Guillou teaches the subscriber station detects, in a transmission channel
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`including the programming, a second control signal portion (i.e., access control
`
`page line number or subscription index) used to decrypt the first control signal
`
`portion (i.e., encrypted message Mi). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 144-146. Within the access
`
`control page that groups messages Mi, each access block is preceded by a line
`
`number or subscription index, which is detected in the transmission channel with
`
`the programming. Ex. 1006 at 8:55-65, 17:48-68, 20:40-52; Ex. 1001 ¶ 146. The
`
`line number or index is used to extract the appropriate message Mi for decryption
`
`by K restoring circuit 110. Ex. 1006 at 17:48-68, 20:40-52; Ex. 1001 ¶ 146.
`
`(4) Claim 1 is Anticipated by Guillou
`a.
`Claim 1, preamble: “a method for controlling the
`decryption of encrypted programming at a subscriber station”
`
`As explained in Claim 2, Guillou teaches the preamble. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 100-102.
`
`b.
`Claim 1, element [a]: “receiving encrypted digital
`programming, said encrypted digital programming having an encrypted
`digital control signal”
`
`As explained in Claim 2[a], Guillou teaches receiving encrypted digital
`
`programming (i.e., encrypted teletext programming) having an encrypted digital
`
`control signal (i.e., encrypted message Mi). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 103-1

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket