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 2001
`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 ............................................................................................. 7
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10
`D.
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 10
`V.
`Background Technology of the ’635 Patent .............................................. 11
`VI. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 18
`A. Decryption terms ................................................................................. 18
`B.
`“processor” .......................................................................................... 34
`C.
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission” .......... 37
`D.
`station” ................................................................................................. 39
`E.
`“executable instructions” ..................................................................... 41
`VII. Guillou........................................................................................................... 42
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 45
`A.
`i.
`transmitter station” .................................................................... 45
`
`“communicating said control signal to said remote transmitter
`
`“receiving an encrypted digital information transmission …
`
`“communicating said control signal to said remote
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`“receiving a control signal which operates at the remote
`transmitter station to control the communication of a unit
`
`“said one or more first instruct signals being transmitted
`
`“receiving at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission, wherein the at least one encrypted digital
`information transmission is unaccompanied by any non-
`
`“controlling a decryptor that decrypts encrypted digital
`data to decrypt in a specific fashion on the basis of said
`code; decrypting a portion of said at least one
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii.
`of programming and one or more first instruct signals” ........... 47
`iii.
`in accordance with said control signal” .................................... 50
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 51
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 55
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 56
`i.
`“executable instructions” .......................................................... 56
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 61
`i.
`digital information transmission” ............................................. 61
`ii.
`“passing said code to a processor” ............................................ 67
`iii.
`information transmission in said specific fashion” ................... 69
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 70
`i.
`information transmission” ......................................................... 70
`ii.
`
`“the at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission is unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`“decrypting at least one of said plurality of signals, said
`at least one decrypted signal embedded with at least one
`instruct signal which is effective to instruct; controlling
`said controllable device on the basis of decrypted
`information included in said at least one decrypted
`
`instruct signal” .......................................................................... 70
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`
`G.
`
`H.
`I.
`J.
`K.
`
`
`
`“decrypting under second processor control a second
`portion of said encrypted materials based on said step of
`
`“decrypting under first processor control a first portion of
`
`“the at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission is unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`“the at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission is unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`“selecting, by processing selection criteria, a first signal
`
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 72
`i.
`decrypting said first portion of said encrypted materials” ........ 72
`ii.
`said encrypted materials in said transmission” ......................... 75
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 75
`Claim 30 .............................................................................................. 78
`Claim 32 .............................................................................................. 80
`i.
`information transmission” ......................................................... 80
`Claim 33 .............................................................................................. 81
`i.
`information transmission” ......................................................... 81
`ii.
`of said plurality of signals including downloadable code” ....... 81
`“passing said downloadable code to a processor” .................... 83
`iii.
`VIII. Aminetzah ..................................................................................................... 83
`Encryption of Programming (Claims 3, 21, 28, 29, and 30) ............... 87
`A.
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 88
`B.
`i.
`
`“receiving a control signal which operates at the remote
`transmitter station to control the communication of a unit
`of programming and one or more first instruct signals and
`communicating said control signal to said remote
`
`transmitter station” .................................................................... 89
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`“transmitting from said remote transmitter station an
`information transmission comprising said unit of
`programming, said one or more first instruct signals, and
`
`“said one or more first instruct signals being transmitted
`
`C.
`
`“receiving a transmission comprising encrypted
`materials” and “decrypting under first processor control a
`first portion of said encrypted materials in said
`
`ii.
`said one or more second instruct signals” ................................. 91
`iii.
`in accordance with said control signal” .................................... 93
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 94
`i.
`transmission” ............................................................................. 94
`ii.
`“first processor control” and “second processor control.” ........ 95
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 98
`D.
`Claim 29 .............................................................................................. 98
`E.
`Claim 30 .............................................................................................. 99
`F.
`IX. Aminetzah and Bitzer ................................................................................ 102
`A.
`1-2, 4, 7, 18, 20, and 33) ................................................................... 103
`B.
`Claim 4 .............................................................................................. 112
`C.
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 112
`Claim 18 ............................................................................................ 114
`D.
`i.
`digital information transmission” ...........................................114
`ii.
`fashion on the basis of said code” ...........................................116
`
`Encryption of Digital Programming and Digital Signals (Claims
`
`“receiving at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission, wherein the at least one encrypted digital
`information transmission is unaccompanied by any non-
`
`“locating code” and “controlling a decryptor that
`decrypts encrypted digital data to decrypt in a specific
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`“the at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission is unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`“passing said code to a processor” ..........................................117
`iii.
`Claim 20 ............................................................................................ 118
`i.
`information transmission” .......................................................118
`ii.
`
`“decrypting at least one of said plurality of signals, said
`at least one decrypted signal embedded with at least one
`instruct signal which is effective to instruct; controlling
`said controllable device on the basis of decrypted
`information included in said at least one decrypted
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`instruct signal” ........................................................................118
`Claim 33 ............................................................................................ 119
`i.
`information transmission” .......................................................120
`ii.
`of said plurality of signals including downloadable code” .....120
`“passing said downloadable code to a processor” ..................122
`iii.
`iv.
`downloadable code” ................................................................122
`X. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 122
`
`“the at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission is unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`“selecting, by processing selection criteria, a first signal
`
`“controlling a decryptor that decrypts encrypted digital
`data to decrypt in a specific fashion on the basis of said
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`2.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT
`
`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 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`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 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`“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 Committee for the
`
`
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`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 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`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 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`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 on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`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 have been asked by PMC to determine whether claims 3-4, 7, 13, 18, 20,
`
`21, 28-30, 32, and 33 of the ’635 Patent are rendered unpatentable as alleged by
`
`Petitioner Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”). 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding whether claims 3-4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, and 33 of the ’635 Patent are novel and non-obvious
`
`over Guillou. As provided below, I find that these claims are novel and non-
`
`obvious over Guillou.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been asked to provide an is my opinion regarding whether
`
`Aminetzah, alone or in combination with Bitzer, teaches or suggests claims 3-4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, and 33 of the ’635 Patent. As provided below, 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.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`23.
`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
`I understand that to anticipate a patent claim, a single prior art reference
`
`24.
`
`must disclose every element of the claim, either explicitly or inherently to a person
`
`
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim obvious to
`
`25.
`
`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 art,
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`26.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`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. That is, a
`
`combination is not obvious if it requires the development of an additional complex
`
`infrastructure.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the
`
`avowed purpose of the inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or 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.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`

`
`
`
`I further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that the
`
`product, not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on
`
`whether the claim would have been obvious.
`
`29.
`
`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. I am unaware of any such secondary considerations.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`D.
`I believe that the ’635 Patent is addressed to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`31.
`
`art (“POSITA”), i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the art with at least a bachelor’s
`
`
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`32. At a high level, the ’635 Patent describes an integrated system for
`
`programming creation and communication that involves the fields of computer
`
`processing, computer communications, television, radio, and other electronic
`
`communications. Ex. 1003 at 1:25-32. The inventors understood that there was
`
`great potential for combining the capacity of broadcast communications media to
`
`convey ideas with the capacity of computers to process and output user-specific
`
`information. For example, such a system could combine the capacity for
`
`conveying general information to large audiences (such as telling them that stock
`
`prices rose today in heavy trading) with information of specific relevance to each
`
`particular user in the audience (such as telling a particular person “but the value of
`
`your stock portfolio went down”). Ex. 1003 at 1:57-67.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 17
`
`

`
`
`
`33. As the patent explains, “Unlocking this potential is desirable because
`
`these new media will add substantial richness and variety to the communication of
`
`ideas, information and entertainment. Understanding complex subjects and
`
`making informed decisions will become easier. To unlock this potential fully
`
`requires means and methods for combining and controlling receiver systems that
`
`are now separate.” Ex. 1003 at 2:1-8.
`
`34. While the ’635 Patent describes a large networked system for
`
`delivering many types of personalized programming, the inventors recognized that
`
`in specific situations fewer functions would be required, and that in such situations,
`
`one or more of the specific operating elements described in the patent could be
`
`omitted. Indeed, a central objective of the invention was to provide flexibility
`
`regarding the installed equipment. By including such a capacity for wide variation,
`
`individual subscribers were given the widest range of information options
`
`supported by their installed equipment. The inventors described a system with
`
`flexibility for expanding the capacity of installed systems through transmitted
`
`software, for altering installed systems in a modular fashion by adding or removing
`
`components, and for restricting the programming to only certain subscribers if such
`
`was desired. Ex. 1003 at 9:6-21.
`
`35. The specification is organized around a set of examples that show
`
`numerous ways in which the inventions can be practiced. The patent specification
`
`
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 18
`
`

`
`
`
`shared by the ’635 Patent begins by describing an example that creates a
`
`personalized presentation using the “Wall Street Week” television program
`
`combined with local data about the subscriber’s own stock portfolio. Ex. 1003 at
`
`11:23-50. That introductory example is then followed with ten additional
`
`examples that show applications of the inventions to such areas as the sale of pork
`
`bellies, the preparation of Indian food, and the coordination of farming activities.
`
`36. As discussed above, the inventions in the ’635 Patent are explained
`
`using numerous examples and platforms as illustrations, but, as the ’635 Patent
`
`also explains, the inventions are not limited to just those examples and platforms.
`
`The disclosed system has wide applicability, involving “the fields of computer
`
`processing, computer communications, television, radio, and other electronic
`
`communications.” Ex. 1003 at 1:25-32. “The programming may be delivered by
`
`any means including over-the-air, hard-wire, and manual means.” Ex. 1003 at
`
`7:11-13. The term “programming” is defined broadly: “The present invention
`
`consists of an integrated system of methods and apparatus for communicating
`
`programming. The term ‘programming’ refers to everything that is transmitted
`
`electronically to entertain, instruct, or inform, including television, radio, broadcast
`
`print, and computer programming was well as combined medium programming.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at 6:29-34.
`
`
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 19
`
`

`
`
`
`37. Further, a key feature of the disclosed invention is expandability: “Yet
`
`another objective is expandability. As the operating capacities of computer
`
`hardware have grown in recent decades, increasingly sophisticated software
`
`systems have been developed to operate computers. Often incompatibilities have
`
`existed between newly developed operating system software and older generations
`
`of computer hardware. It is the objective of the system of signal composition of
`
`the present invention to have capacity for expanding to accommodate newly
`
`developed subscriber station hardware while still serving older hardware
`
`generations.” Ex. 1003 at 22:58-67.
`
`38. Flexibility is another key feature: “A central objective of the present
`
`invention is to provide flexibility with regard to installed station apparatus. At any
`
`given time, the system must have capacity for wide variation in individual station
`
`apparatus in order to provide individual subscribers with the widest range of
`
`information options at the least cost in terms of installed equipment. Flexibility
`
`must exist for expanding the capacity of installed systems by means of transmitted
`
`software and for altering installed systems in a modular fashion by adding or
`
`removing components.” Ex. 1003 at 9:10-19.
`
`39. The inventors saw “great potenti