`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/006,563
`
`03/14/2003
`
`5335277
`
`6011-226
`
`7085
`
`7590
`70813
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`
`01/19/2010
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01119/2010
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 1
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`U.S. Patent 5,335,2772
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Decided: January 19, 201 0
`
`Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`1 Personalized Media Communications, LLC is the real party in interest
`(App. Br. 2).
`2 Issued May 3, 1993 to Harvey, et al.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC appeals under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 134(b) and 306 from a final rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-15, 17-20,
`22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44-52, 55, and 56. 3 We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 306.
`
`An oral hearing was held on July 1, 2009. The record includes a
`
`written transcript of the oral hearing.
`
`We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Reexamination proceeding
`
`A first request for reexamination of U.S. Patent 5,335,277 (the '277
`
`patent), entitled "Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods," was filed on
`
`March 14, 2003 by a first third party requester Thomson, Inc. (First
`
`Requester), Reexamination Control No. 90/006,563. The '277 patent issued
`
`August 2, 1994, to John C. Harvey and James W. Cuddihy, based on
`
`Application 08/056,501 (the '501 application), filed May 3, 1993. The real
`
`party in interest is the patent owner, Personalized Media Communications,
`
`LLC. The '277 patent is said to be a continuation of Application 07/849,226,
`
`filed March 10, 1992, now U.S. Patent 5,233,654 (hereinafter referred to as
`
`the '654 patent), which is said to be a continuation of Application
`
`07/588,126, filed September 25, 1990, now U.S. Patent 5,109,414
`
`3 Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 16, 21, 24-26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 53, and
`54 have been confirmed as patentable.
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`(hereinafter referred to as the '414 patent), which is said to be a continuation
`
`of Application 07/096,096, filed September 11, 1987, now U.S. Patent
`
`4,965,825 (hereinafter referred to as the '825 patent), which is said to be a
`
`continuation in part (CIP) of Application 06/829,531, filed February 14,
`
`1986, now U.S. Patent 4,704,725 (the '725 patent), which is said to be a
`
`continuation of Application 06/317,510, filed November 3, 1981, now U.S.
`
`Patent 4,694,490 (hereinafter referred to as the '490 patent).
`
`A second request for reexamination of the '277 patent was filed on
`
`July 7, 2003 by a second third party requester Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
`
`(Second Requester), Reexamination Control No. 90/006,698. A Decision
`
`was made on December 3, 2004 to merge the reexamination proceedings
`
`(Paper #16) per 37 C.P.R. § 1.565(c).
`
`Related proceedings
`
`The Brief indicates that the '277 patent is part of a chain of patents
`
`that includes additional later issued patents and various pending patent
`
`applications (App. Br. 3). The Brief identifies six related patents that are
`
`each involved in reexamination proceedings (id.).
`
`The Brief identifies a number of related U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (USPTO), International Trade Commission, and court proceedings.
`
`(App. Br. 3-5). The Brief indicates (App. Br. 5-6) that the '277 patent is
`
`asserted in Pegasus Development Corp.v. DIRECTV Inc., No. CA 00-1020
`
`(D. Del. filed Dec. 4, 2000), which has been stayed, and is also asserted in
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. et al.,
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`No. 1:02-CV-824 (CAP) (N.D. Ga. filed Mar. 28, 2002), which also has
`
`been stayed.
`
`Appellant's invention
`
`The claimed invention relates to signal processing apparatus and
`
`methods to automate operations at an intermediate transmission station.
`
`('277 patent, abstract).
`
`The Specification teaches that various disclosed embodiments of
`
`signal processing apparatus "can be used to automate the operations of
`
`intermediate transmission stations that receive and retransmit programming."
`
`('277 patent, col. 181, ll. 58-60.) "The stations so automated may transmit
`
`any form of electronically transmitted programming, including television,
`
`radio, print, data, and combined medium programming and may range in
`
`scale of operation from wireless broadcast stations that transmit a single
`
`programming transmission to cable systems that cablecast many channels
`
`simultaneously." ('277 patent, col. 181, ll. 60-66).
`
`In particular, "FIG. 6 illustrates Signal Processing Apparatus and
`
`Methods at an intermediate transmission station that is a cable television
`
`system 'head end' and that cablecasts several channels of television
`
`programming." ('277 patent, col. 181, 1. 67 - col. 182, 1. 2). "The station
`
`receives programming from many sources," ('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 4-5)
`
`such as: (1) transmissions from a satellite received by satellite antenna 50,
`
`low noise amplifiers 51 and 52, and TV receivers 53, 54, 55, and 56;
`
`(2) microwave transmissions received by microwave antenna 57 and
`
`television video and audio receivers 58 and 59; (3) conventional TV
`
`broadcast transmissions received by antenna 60 and TV demodulator 61; and
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`( 4) other electronic programming transmissions received by other
`
`programming input means 62. ('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 5-13). After
`
`receiving the transmissions,
`
`[e]ach receiver/modulator/input apparatus, 53 through 62,
`transfers its received transmissions into the station by hard-wire
`to a conventional matrix switch, 75, well known in the art, that
`outputs to one or more recorder/players, 76 and 78, and/or to
`apparatus that outputs said transmissions over various channels
`to the cable system's field distribution system, 93, which
`apparatus includes cable channel modulators, 83, 87, and 91,
`and channel combining and multiplexing system, 92.
`Programming can also be manually delivered to said station on
`prerecorded videotapes and videodiscs. When played on video
`recorders, 76 and 78, or other similar equipment well known in
`the art, such prerecorded programming can be transmitted via
`switch 75 to field distribution system, 93.
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 14-28).
`
`According to the Specification, "[i]n the prior art, the identification of
`
`incoming programming, however received; the operation of video player and
`
`recorder equipment, 76 and 78; and the maintenance of records of
`
`programming transmissions are all largely manual operations." ('277 patent,
`
`col. 182, ll. 29-33). "FIG. 6 shows the introduction of signal processing
`
`apparatus and methods to automate these and other operations." ('277
`
`patent, col. 182, ll. 34-36).
`
`A dedicated distribution amplifier 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70 is
`
`"[i]n line between each of the aforementioned receiver/demodulator/input
`
`apparatus, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, or 62, and matrix switch, 75."
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 37-41). The distribution amplifier splits each
`
`incoming feed into two paths. (!d.). "One path is the conventional path
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`whereby programming flows from each given receiver/demodulator/input
`
`apparatus, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, or 62, to matrix switch, 75."
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 41-44 ). "The other path inputs the transmission of
`
`said given receiver/demodulator/input apparatus, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
`
`60, 61, or 62 individually to signal processor system, 71." ('277 patent,
`
`col. 182, ll. 45-48) "In other words, distribution amplifier, 63, continuously
`
`inputs the programming transmission of receiver, 53, to matrix switch, 75,
`
`and separately to signal processor system, 71; distribution amplifier, 64,
`
`inputs the programming transmission of receiver, 54, to matrix switch, 75,
`
`and separately to signal processor system, 71; etc." ('277 patent, col. 182,
`
`ll. 48-54).
`
`At signal processor system, 71 ... the outputted transmission of
`each distribution amplifier, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70, is
`inputted into a dedicated decoder ... that processes
`continuously the inputted transmission of said distribution
`amplifier, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70; selects SPAM
`[Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods] messages in said
`transmission that are addresses to ITS [Intermediate
`Transmission Station] apparatus of said intermediate
`transmission station; automatically adds, in a predetermined
`fashion, source mark information that identifies said associated
`distribution amplifier, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70; and
`transfers said selected messages, with said source mark
`information, to code reader, 72. Signal processor system, 71,
`also has signal processor means to control signal processor
`system, 71, to record meter-monitor information of said
`message information, and to transfer recorded information to
`external communications network, 97.
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, 1. 55 - col. 183, 1. 4 ).
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`The code reader 72 "buffers and passes the received SP AM message
`
`information, with source mark information, to cable program controller and
`
`computer, 73." ('277 patent, col. 183, ll. 5-7). The cable program controller
`
`and computer 73 is described as "the central automatic control unit for the
`
`transmission station[]" ('277 patent, col. 183, ll. 8-1 0) and performs various
`
`monitoring and control functions (see, e.g., '277 patent, col. 183, 1. 14 to
`
`col. 187, 1. 41).
`
`The claims
`
`Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 19, and 56 are exemplary and reproduced below
`
`(with minor formatting added):
`
`2. A method of processing control signals and controlling
`equipment at a remote site based on a broadcast transmission,
`including:
`(a) the step of receiving at a remote site a broadcast carrier
`transmission;
`(b) the step of demodulating said broadcast carrier transmission
`to detect an information transmission therein;
`(c) the step of detecting and identifying at said remote site
`control signals associated with said information transmission;
`(d) the step of passing at least a portion of control signals to a
`computer control means at said remote site;
`(e) the step of comparing a selected position of said control
`signals with a code imputed into said computer control means
`on the basis of information contained in said information
`transmission; and
`(f) the step of activating a printing means when the comparison
`step provides a match between the inputted code and the
`selected portion of the control signals.
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`4. A data receiver system comprising:
`a switch operatively connected to a first input of a broadcast
`transmission and a second input of a cablecast transmission for
`selecting either said first input or said second input and
`transferring the selected transmission to a digital detector;
`a controller operatively connected to said switch for causing
`said switch to select either said first input or said second input;
`and
`a digital detector operatively connected to said switch for
`detecting digital data in said selected transmission and for
`relaying said data to a data processor.
`
`6. A system for identifying a predetermined signal in a television
`program transmission in which a plurality of signal types are
`transmitted said signal being transmitted in a varying location
`or a varying timing pattern, said television program
`transmission being separately defined from standard analog
`video and audio television, said system comprising:
`a digital detector for receiving said transmission and detecting
`said predetermined signal in said transmission based on either a
`specific location or a specific time; and
`a controller operatively connected to said detector for causing
`said detector to detect said predetermined signal based on either
`a specific location or time, said controller being programmed
`with either the varying locations or the varying timing pattern
`of said signal.
`
`10. A television receiver system comprising:
`a receiver for receiving a selected portion of a television
`program transmission that is not a standard television signal;
`a digital detector operatively connected to said receiver for
`receiving said selected portion and detecting a digital signal;
`a storage device operatively connected to said digital detector
`for receiving detected digital information and assembling said
`detected information into message units;
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`a controller operatively connected to said receiver, said detector
`and said storage device, said controller controlling said receiver
`to pass selected information to said detector, said detector to
`pass detected information to said storage device, and said
`storage device to assemble detected information into message
`units.
`
`19. A television subscriber station comprising:
`a plurality of decryptors, each decryptor capable of decrypting a
`selected one of a plurality of portions of a television program
`transmission; and
`a processor operatively connected to some of said decryptors
`for identifying and passing to a selected decryptor an instruct(cid:173)
`to-decrypt signal that instructs the selected decryptor to decrypt
`some of the video portion of said transmission, said instruct-to(cid:173)
`decrypt signal comprising a code necessary for the decryption
`of said program transmission.
`
`56. A computer station comprising:
`a storage device for storing encrypted data;
`a computer operatively connected to said storage device for
`controlling said storage device, locating a selected portion of
`said data, and transferring said selected portion to a decryptor
`or a processor;
`a decryptor operatively connected to said storage device or said
`computer for decrypting encrypted data; and
`a process for locating or identifying selected information
`associated with said selected portion and causing said decryptor
`to decrypt said selected portion on the basis of said selected
`information.
`
`The references
`
`The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
`
`appeal is:
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Jan. 15, 1974
`3,786,420
`Stambler
`Summers '082
`3,848,082 Nov. 12, 1974
`3,866,123 Feb. 11, 1975
`Hetrich
`3,886,302 May 27, 1975
`Kosco
`3,919,462 Nov. 11, 1975
`Hartung '462
`3,936,595 Feb.3, 1976
`Y anagimachi
`4,025,851 May 24, 1977
`Haselwood
`4,042,958 Aug. 16, 1977
`Saylor
`4,045,814 Aug. 30, 1977
`Hartung '814
`4,054,911 Oct. 18, 1977
`Fletcher
`4,135,213
`Jan. 16, 1979
`Wintfeld
`4,142,156 Feb.27, 1979
`Freund
`4,163,254
`Jul. 31, 1979
`Block '254
`4,205,343 May 27, 1980
`Barrett
`4,233,628 Nov. 11, 1980
`Ciciora
`4,295,223 Oct. 13, 1981
`Shutterly
`Yarbrough '101 4,305,101 Dec. 8, 1981
`Summers '250
`4,306,250 Dec. 15, 1981
`Tabata
`4,317,215 Feb.23, 1982
`4,322,745 Mar. 30, 1982
`Saeki
`Guillou '921
`4,323,921 Apr. 6, 1982
`den Toonder
`4,323,922 Apr. 6, 1982
`Monteath
`4,329,684 May 11, 1982
`Eskin
`4,331,973 May 25, 1982
`Cogswell
`4,331,974 May 25, 1982
`Guillou '483
`4,337,483
`Jun.29, 1982
`Hedges
`4,339,798
`Jul. 13, 1982
`Aminetzah
`4,388,643
`Jun. 14, 1983
`4,390,901
`Jun.28, 1983
`Keiser
`Block '942
`4,405,942 Sep.20, 1983
`Lee
`4,484,027 Nov. 20, 1984
`Kruger
`4,488,179 Dec. 11, 1984
`4,503,462 Mar. 5, 1985
`Kelly
`Block '589
`4,528,589
`Jul. 9, 1985
`Bluestein
`4,531,021
`Jul. 23, 1985
`Arn
`4,535,355 Aug. 13, 1985
`Scordo
`4,558,180 Dec. 10, 1985
`Jul. 1, 1986
`Yarbrough '288 4,598,288
`
`10
`
`(filed Apr. 25, 1979)
`(filed Apr. 16, 1979)
`(filed Aug. 18, 1980)
`(filed Sep. 11, 1979)
`(filed Mar. 21, 1980)
`(filed Jan. 23, 1980)
`(filed Dec. 17, 1979)
`(filed Jan. 15, 1980)
`(filed Oct. 21, 1980)
`(filed Oct. 21, 1980)
`(filed Jan. 31, 1980)
`(filed Dec. 17, 1979)
`(filed Apr. 6, 1981)
`(filed Oct. 16, 1980)
`(filed Mar. 3, 1982)
`(filed Nov. 19, 1981)
`(filed Sep. 23, 1981)
`(filed Oct. 16, 1981)
`(filed Feb. 1, 1984)
`(filed Aug. 13, 1984)
`(filed Sep. 7, 1982)
`(filed Oct. 25, 1983)
`(filed Dec. 20, 1983)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`George
`Gilhousen
`Moerder
`Crowther
`Jeffers
`Robbins
`Seth-Smith
`Horne
`
`Ikeda
`Jahnel
`Zaboklicki
`Betts
`Wright
`Okada
`
`Jul. 8, 1986
`4,599,647
`4,613,901 Sep.23, 1986
`4,634,808
`Jan.6, 1987
`4,636,854
`Jan. 13, 1987
`4,739,510 Apr. 19, 1988
`4,821,097 Apr. 11, 1989
`4,829,569 May 9, 1989
`4,887,296 Dec. 12, 1989
`
`(filed Nov. 3, 1983)
`(filed May 27, 1983)
`(filed Mar. 15, 1984)
`(filed Jun. 20, 1984)
`(filed Apr. 2, 1987)
`(filed Mar. 5, 1987)
`(filed Jul. 8, 1986)
`(filed Oct. 16, 1987)
`
`JP 51-138317 A
`DE 2614188 A1
`DE 2904981 A1
`GB 1556366 A
`GB 2034995 A
`JP 56-8975
`
`Nov. 29, 1976
`Nov. 6, 1977
`Aug. 16, 1979
`Nov. 21, 1979
`Jun. 11, 1980
`Jan.29, 1981
`
`H. Etkin, Vertical Interval Signal Applications, Broadcast
`Engineering, pp. 30-35, April1970 ("Etkin").
`S. Soejima, A Television Facsimile System, Japan Electronic
`Engineering, pp. 24-37, Nov. 1970 ("Soejima").
`N. Doyle et al., Some Application of Digital Techniques in TV
`Receivers, IEEE Transactions on Broadcast and Television
`Receivers, vol. BTR-18(4), pp. 245-249, Nov. 1972 ("Doyle").
`P.R. Hutt, A System of Data Transmission in the Field
`Blanking Period of the Television Signal, SLICE, pp. 37-43,
`June 1973 ("Hutt").
`James, ORACLE-Broadcasting the Written World, Wireless
`World, pp. 314-316, Jul. 1973 ("James").
`S.M. Edwardson, CEEFAX: A Proposed New Broadcasting
`Service, Journal of the SMPTE, pp. 14-19, Jan. 1974
`("Edwardson").
`T. Imai et al., Television Frame Synchronizer, Journal of the
`SMPTE, Vol. 84, pp. 129-134, Mar. 1975 ("Imai").
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`B. Marti, The Concept of a Universal 'Teletext' (broadcast and
`interactive videotext) Decoder, Microprocessor Based,
`Symposium Record of the 11th International Television
`Symposium, Sess. VII A, Paper 3A, pp. 1-6, Jun. 1979 ("Marti-
`1 ").
`J. Hedger, Telesoftware: Home Computing Via Broadcast
`Teletext, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. CE-
`25(3), pp. 280-286, Jul. 1979 ("Hedger").
`G. Robinson et al., 'Touch-Tone' Teletext: A Combined
`Teletext-Viewdata System, IEEE Transactions on Consumer
`Electronics, Vol. CE-25(3), pp. 298-303, Jul. 1979
`("Robinson").
`Videotex Services, National Cable Television Association
`Executive Seminar Series, p. 78, 1980 ("Videotex").
`A. Davis, Satellite Security, Visions of the 80's, pp. 99-100,
`1980 ("Davis").
`B. Marti, Broadcast Text Information in France, Viewdata '80,
`pp. 359-366, Mar. 1980 ("Marti-2").
`
`The rejections
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 27, 28,
`30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44-52, 55, and 564 as being unpatentable over the
`prior art and commonly-assigned patents5
`
`.
`
`4 These claims have not been amended during the instant reexamination
`proceeding.
`5 Additional rejections made in the Final Office Action were withdrawn per
`the Examiner's Answer: claim 10 rejected as being anticipated by Marti-2
`(Ans. 148); claim 30 rejected as being anticipated by Anderson (Ans. 150);
`claim 10 rejected as being unpatentable over Marti-2 and Graf (Ans. 164).
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Anticipation
`
`1) Claims 10, 12, 13, and 47-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Zaboklicki. (Ans. 20-31).
`
`2) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Soejima. (Ans. 32).
`
`3) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Saylor. (Ans. 33-36).
`
`4) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Summers '082. (Ans. 40-42).
`
`5) Claims 6, 7, 10, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
`
`(e) as being anticipated by Shutterly. (Ans. 37-39,43-45, 50-51, 144-145).
`
`6) Claims 7, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by Seth-Smith. (Ans. 46-47, 82, 88).
`
`7) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Marti-1. (Ans. 48-49).
`
`8) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Block '589. (Ans. 52).
`
`9) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hedger. (Ans. 53-54).
`
`10) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Fletcher. (Ans. 55-56).
`
`11) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Keiser. (Ans. 57 -58).
`
`12) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Kelly. (Ans. 59-60).
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`13) Claims 15, 32-35, 38, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kruger. (Ans. 61-62, 106-113, 119-120,
`
`123-124, 129-130).
`
`14) Claims 15 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e)
`
`as being anticipated by den Toonder. (Ans. 63-64, 142-143).
`
`15) Claims 15, 45, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`or (e) as being anticipated by Eskin. (Ans. 65-66, 127-128, 134-135, 138-
`
`139).
`
`16) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Barrett. (Ans. 67 -69).
`
`17) Claims 17, 18, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
`
`(e) as being anticipated by Guillou '483. (Ans. 70, 85, 146-147).
`
`18) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Guillou '921. (Ans. 71).
`
`19) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Lee. (Ans. 72).
`
`20) Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Bluestein. (Ans. 73, 86).
`
`21) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Arn. (Ans. 74).
`
`22) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Yarbrough '288. (Ans. 75).
`
`23) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by George. (Ans. 76).
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`24) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Gilhousen. (Ans. 77).
`
`25) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Moerder. (Ans. 78).
`
`26) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Crowther. (Ans. 79).
`
`27) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Jeffers. (Ans. 80).
`
`28) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Robbins. (Ans. 81).
`
`29) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Horne. (Ans. 83).
`
`30) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Hedges. (Ans. 84 ).
`
`31) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Scordo. (Ans. 87).
`
`32) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hartung '814. (Ans. 89-90).
`
`33) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hartung '462. (Ans. 97-98).
`
`34) Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Aminetzah. (Ans. 95-96).
`
`35) Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Freund. (Ans. 101-102).
`
`15
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`36) Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Yarbrough '1 01. (Ans. 103-1 05).
`
`37) Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Cogswell. (Ans. 114-115).
`
`38) Claims 17, 18, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`or (e) as being anticipated by Block '942. (Ans. 151-157).
`
`39) Claims 38, 50,51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated byMonteath. (Ans. 116-118,131-133, and 136-137).
`
`40) Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Ciciora. (Ans. 121-122).
`
`41) Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Edwardson. (Ans. 125-126).
`
`42) Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Kosco. (Ans. 131 ).
`
`43) Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Y anagimachi. (Ans. 140-141 ).
`
`44) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Jahnel. (Ans. 149).
`
`45) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Winfield. (Ans. 157-158).
`
`46) Claims 19 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e)
`
`as being anticipated by Block '254. (Ans. 91-94).
`
`16
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Obviousness
`
`47) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Betts and Okada. (Ans. 161-162).
`
`48) Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Ciciora and either Videotex or Robinson. (Ans. 163-164).
`
`49) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Marti-2. (Ans. 166-167).
`
`50) Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Stambler. (Ans. 168-169).
`
`51) Claims 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being obvious over Saeki and Davis. (Ans. 170-172).
`
`52) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Summers '250 and Ikeda. (Ans. 173).
`
`53) Claim 51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Tabata and Doyle. (Ans. 17 4-17 5).
`
`54) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Haselwood, Imai, and either Etkin or Hetrich. (Ans. 178-182).
`
`55) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Haselwood, Imai, and Hutt. (Ans. 183-187).
`
`56) Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Monteath and Wright. (Ans. 188-189).
`
`57) Claims 7, 11, 12, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Summers '082. (Ans. 190-191).
`
`58) Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over James and Guillou '921. (Ans. 192-193).
`
`17
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`59) Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Edwardson and Guillou '921. (Ans. 194-195).
`
`Obviousness-type Double Patenting
`
`60) Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine
`
`of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,965,825 (Ans. 197-198).
`
`61) Claim 20 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,965,825 (Ans. 199).
`
`62) Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under the judicially created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 4 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,965,825 (Ans. 200, 202).
`
`63) Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under the judicially created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 5 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,965,825 (Ans. 201, 203).
`
`18
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Zaboklicki
`
`(References made to PTO supplied translation)
`
`1. Zaboklicki describes a system where a TV receiver receives a TV
`
`signal containing embedded teletext data, where the teletext data are
`
`supplied to a teletext decoder. Portions of the detected teletext data
`
`corresponding to computer software are provided to a processor. The
`
`software is stored in memory and executed by a CPU. (P. 15, 1. 3- p.
`
`16, 1. 25; Fig. 3, elements 34, 35, 39, 40, 49, 52, 54, and 56).
`
`2. Various fragments or segments of an interactive video and/or audio
`
`mass-medium TV program are assembled to form a coordinated TV
`
`presentation that is tailored to inputs by the user. (P. 17, 1. 19- p. 18,
`
`1. 4). The programs can be "dialogue television programs" where the
`
`viewer can receive "supplementary information, explanations or other
`
`data" (P. 9, 11. 13-18).
`
`3. Zaboklicki explicitly recites the term "telesoftware" in different
`
`portions of the English translation. (P. 19, ref. 3; p. 21, ref. 40; pp.
`
`21-22, ref. 41).
`
`19
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Soejima
`
`4. Soejima describes a system that multiplexes character data on
`
`television signals, where the characters provide sufficient resolution
`
`for printing Chinese characters (Abs.).
`
`5. The system includes an antenna and a tuner for receiving the
`
`television signal and circuitry (A-E, Fig. 7) for detecting and
`
`identifying control signals. The control signals are passed on to
`
`processing circuitry (F-H, Fig. 7) to provide a starting signal (P. 30,
`
`col. 1, 11. 5-12).
`
`6. A comparison is made between the start signal and the viewer's input,
`
`made through a pushbutton, and "the printer works only when it
`
`coincides with the program selecting signal of the transmitter" (P. 30,
`
`col. 1, 11. 5-12).
`
`Saylor
`
`7. Saylor describes a real time frame grabbing system that receives a
`
`broadcast carrier transmission, which is demodulated to detect
`
`information therein. The detected information is passed to a computer
`
`control, where a selected position within the information is compared
`
`with a specific code to see if a match occurs (Col. 6, 1. 65 - col. 7, 1.
`
`27; Figs. 19, 20).
`
`8. Printing of received pages can occur through initiation of the operator
`
`or in a special print mode where a row or page is printed whenever the
`
`same is changed without operator involvement (Col. 68, 11. 18-34).
`
`20
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Shutterl