THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCf COURT
`FOR THE ~ORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`P-ERSONALIZED MEDL~
`COMMUNICATIONS, L .L.C.,_
`
`r•a_intiff,
`
`v.
`
`I
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`§.
`§
`§ Civil Action No. 1:02-CV-824:.CAP
`§ ·
`SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, IN.C. ~d
`§
`§
`PQWERTV, INC.,
`§
`Defendants.
`§
`--:-::--=-A,-:--::I:::-N::-::C:-. -an_d ___ .§
`·-s--c=I=E=N~T=I:-:::F:::-IC-=--:A-=T:-::LANT
`POW~RTV, INC.,
`§
`Counter-Plain(iffs,
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.;
`GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE
`INTE RNATIONAL, INC.; TVG-PMC,
`INC.; and STARSIGHT TELECAST,
`INC.,
`
`Received By
`MAR 0 2 2005
`Hunton & Williams UP
`
`Counter-Defendants.
`§
`--------==~~-------------§
`GEMSTAR-TVGUIDE
`§
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TVG-~MC,
`§
`INC.; and STARSIGHT TELECAST,
`§ ·
`INC.;
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNJCATIONS,·LL..C.,
`Cross-Defendants.
`
`Cross-Claimants.
`
`SPECIAL MASTER'S
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`ON
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ISSUED UNDER SEAL
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`
`eraliir do notlimit the clairnsbecause the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends
`on the claimed structure, not on the use orpurpose of that Sl‘.'l’l.lCtl1.l.'C.;'
`Id. "‘Thus, preamble lan-
`guage merely" extolling benefits or features of the claimed invention doe.s'not limit the claim scope
`without clear reliance on those benefits or features as patentahly Slgl'_l.lfi-I'.'a|!lL” id -
`
`the claims" do not recite the prearnbleinjcpson form, nor do
`With the foregoing,
`. the_ lirnitations of the claim body rely on the disputed limitation for antecedent basis, nor does the
`preamble recite important additional structure. Furthermore, it is apparent from reading thebody of
`the
`that the
`is directed'_to_an apparatus that receives television transmissions; thus, the"
`'ty” to the
`Nor did Harvey at-oi rely
`
`‘ prearnble is not necessary to give ‘I'life, meaning and vita
`
`on the preambles during prosecution to distinguish prior art or emphasize patentability. —In short,
`‘the preamble simply serves “as a convenient label for the invention as a whole," and thus should not
`be construed as
`.5}: .5‘tarag:IT:cbaa1o¢gy, 329 F.3d at 831. Thus, construction ofthe terrn
`- “television receiver system” need not be reached.
`
`c) Recommended Construction
`
`In viewiof the foregoing. therefore, the special master recommends that the Court conclude
`
`‘ .that_
`
`The preambles of claims 8, 10, 11 and 44 are not
`
`I
`
`11.
`
`I _“lprocessor" _
`
`_
`__
`duced below
`
`_tetm appears in claims 1.1‘, 12_'aud 13. Claim 11 is deemed representativn-.,'and is repro-
`reference, with the disputed
`in boldface: _
`
`11. A televisionireceivier system comprising:
`
`.
`
`-
`
`a_ first processor for receiving information of a selected television prograrn
`' transmission and detecting a specific signal in said transmission based upon a -
`location or
`pattern of_said_ specific
`in said transmission, said first -
`processor being" programmed with infonznation of a varying location or tim-
`ing‘ P““=‘.'-‘.5
`-
`'
`'
`
`. a second processor operatively connected to said firstprocessor for receit_'- '
`ing and processing information of said specific signal, and for identifying
`
`427
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`
`i when and where" to pass said information based upon said information, and
`passing said information.
`'
`
`3) The Piarties’ Proposed (ionstructions and Arguments
`
`DI-:rEidnANTs"PnoPosEo Consrn.
`.
`
`[not addressed]-
`
`_ PMC[GEMsrAn’s PROPOSED CoNs'nt_.._
`I
`.
`A
`electronic. device that processes i.nfor-
`_ matioh by operating on data according to inf
`sttuclions.
`-
`
`"first
`terms
`The
`. Post-‘Heatit_1g:
`rocessot"/“ roigessor"
`sot”/“second
`- P
`P
`_
`-
`no construction- .
`
`p_toces- '
`re uire
`'9
`
`.
`
`.
`E [no change]
`I
`Plainriffs? I-ilariveyilvili chm at4i11;_]ointlS1_1n1ma1-y at 65-
`Defendants urge that the construction of "processor" should apply to that tern] as‘ it appears
`in claim 44.
`I
`'
`I
`1
`
`defined as.“a digital
`According to the-]CiCS, the parties agree that “processoi” should
`electronic device that processes information by operating on data according to._i_.nstruc1:1ons." JCCS I
`I at 10.
`-
`I
`'
`I
`I
`I
`I
`
`b) - Discussion
`
`As discussed above in connection with construction of the term "first processor means'’'
`I called for in Harvey , a “.processot"_i.-1 “a digital electronic deviccithat processes information by
`operating on data according to instructions.” That constrdcfion applies here.
`
`c) Recommended Construction"
`
`In View of the foregoing. therefore, the special master recommends rhatthe Court conclude.
`
`_
`
`.
`
`that:
`
`electronic dejvice that processes itifonnalion by ‘operat-
`A “processor” isia
`ing on data according to instructions.
`_
`'
`'
`
`428
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`.
`
`. Page 3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`
`ing one or more lines or a portion ofa line from dnevicleo that contain embedded digital signals;'’
`n
`-
`'
`
`tl1e_claI.m uses the word “select1ng" —' not “accessmg" or "choosing" -— and Is readily understandable. '
`
`Furtherrnore,
`
`the claim calls for “selecting portions of one or more lines,” not selecting ‘lone or
`
`_ more lines or apottion of a line."
`
`-
`
`_
`
`o
`
`" As for the plaintiffs’ other contention that "changing the sriecific portions ofsaid video lines '
`that are selected” means that "the line receiver can be controlled or caused to change the lines or
`
`portions of a line‘ that it examines for digital signals," again, that is_ not what the
`
`says.‘ The
`
`claim uses ‘the words '“receiving" and “selecting,” not “e:Ita_mining."- Again, the claim calls fOt_“pOI-
`.
`.
`I‘
`.
`.
`-
`.
`'
`.
`,,
`tions of one or more lines," not “one or more lines or a portion of a line.
`
`' Finally, as for whether this terrn exclude; a "full field receiver" (whatever that
`
`ot not, that
`
`is a question for the later infringement stage.
`
`c) Recommended Cons truction-
`
`'In View of the foregoing, ‘therefore, the special rnasterirecornmends that the Court conclude
`'
`
`that
`
`In the phrase “a line receiver for receiving * ‘ * and selecting * *. *,”'a "line re-
`ceiver" is a device for receiving electrical signals. The claim expressly requires
`that the "line receiver" have two functions: (1) “receiving a video signal of an
`analog television transmission” and (2) ‘.‘selecl:ing portions of one or more lines
`of said video that contain embedded signals." The claim also requires that the
`“line receiver" be “capable of-changing the specific portions of said video lines
`that are selected.”
`-
`I
`'
`-
`
`' SB. “alter its decryption pattern or technique"
`
`This tenn appears in claim 17, below (the disputed term isinboldface):
`
`system for controlling a decryptor, said system cornpiising:
`
`_
`
`"detector for receiving at leastia portion. of a television progtani
`a
`transmission, said program transmission comprising a program and _a plural-_
`ity of signals emheddedin said transmission, said detector detecting said sig-
`nals;
`
`476
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754 .
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`
`.
`
`'
`
`I
`
`la decryptor operalively connected to said detector for receiving and decrypt-
`ing said detected ‘signals; and
`'
`U
`
`a controller operatively connected to said decryptor for causing said de- -
`I
`-
`.
`cryptor to alter its decryption pattentor technique.
`
`a) The Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Arguments
`
`-i_°M _ Gemsrasfis Pnorosen-Comsrn.
`
`_'
`
`[T]he controller can cause the decryptor to alter The terrn "alter its decryption pattern‘ or _te_ch-
`either the decryption key (pattern) or theidecryp-_ uique’_’-requires a-charlge in the decryption algo-
`tiou algorithm (technique) used to -decrypt the
`rithni itself or in a plan or rnodel of which the
`gig"-mg},
`_.
`decryptor ispreinforrned and which determines
`'
`g
`_ what bits of'a received rnessageare and are not
`decrypted. This term should .be_ construed to
`exclude merely changing the decryption key.
`
`[l2t__O change]
`
`'
`
`I
`
`.
`
`I
`
`_
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Po§t-Hearing: [no change]
`
`Plaintiffs’ Harvey VI Chart at 113; Defendants’ Harvey VI Chart at 67;j_oint
`
`at 49.
`
`‘The plaintiffs say thahthe parties agree that the teizrns "decryption pattern or technique” and
`
`“manner of decryption” should be interpreted consistently. The plaintiffs. contend "that "both of '
`those terms should include both a decryption key (pattern) and algorithm (technique), and that the
`defendants exclude a decryption key. The plaintiffs urge that their proposed 'construc'l:ion is consis-
`
`special master Harmon's construction of the tenrt “controller operatively connected to said
`tent
`decryptex for causing said decrypter to alter its decryption pattern or technique,” and that the 1.931. '_
`' and 1937 specifications support their construction. In particular, the plaintiffs urge, example 4 of
`the 1987 specification demonstrates that the disclosed system is capable of changing both its decryp-
`tionipattenaagid technique. According to the plaintiffs, theldefendants ignore the intrinsic evidence‘.
`and rely on. obscure, non-technical 'defin.itions_ to conclude that the term “pattern” refers ‘notto a
`decryption key, but to a “plan "or mode l’ in which the receiver determines what to decrypt and what"
`not to decrypt. According to the plaintiffs, the opinion of the defendants’ expert, MIL Arnold, is
`incorrect because itignores the-_expl.icit support set forth in the Harvey specifications demonstrating
`' that “patterI1" corresponds to “ltey." Plaintiffs’ Opening Mar;eman'Bdef at'80—84.
`
`Accordingito the.defendants, the dispute concerns _\ITl1&tllEI changing a key is "altedng a_ de-
`cry'ption.” The defendants urge that a person of ordinary skill would understand that altering the
`
`4??
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`
`decryption p_attern'refers to something more than a key change, :'._.r., a plan for control of the decryp—_
`ter in its determination of what bits of a message are to be decrypted and what-bits are not to be de-
`crypted, and that is supported by the specification. Defendants’ Maraéman Brief at 83-84.
`
`1:) Discussion
`
`keyin
`The parties agree that “decryption” “reqni.te[s]s a device or method that uses a
`‘conjunction with an ‘associated mathematical algorithm to decipher (render intelligible orusable)
`digital data that has been encipherecl (rendered unintelligible or unusable). These terms do not en-I
`compass the descrarnbling of an analog television transmission.”
`at ll._ Based on the forego-
`ing proposed constructionsgthe parties also apparently agree that “decryption tech.nique”' means
`_"decryption algorithm.” The dispute is whether a "decryption pattern” means “decryption ltey.’l’
`
`Neither party has submitted a dictionary or treatise definition of “decryption pattern” perse-
`' or for “decryption key,” not have definitions been located in any of the available references- Ac-
`cordingly, the term does not appear to be -a term of art, as discussed further below- Turning to the
`individual words, a “pattern,” of course, is simply “a plan,
`or model to be followed in mak-
`ing things,” Ausmcan I-IE1u'r_AoI.=. mcnonm 911 (2'*' ed. 1935). Altliongh that is not specific to
`the cryptography context, that is the word Harvey at at neirertheless used. A “key,” though, is
`commonly used in the cryptography context, and is definedlin that context
`“the set of instruc-
`tions governing the enciphertnent and decipherrnent of messages." MERRIAM-W’EBSTER’S ONLINE
`_DICI'lONA1?.Y.93 Those definitions
`at least initially, a difference between a “key” and a- “pat-
`tern.” How a “key”'and/or "pattern" fits into the scheme of “encryption,” then, requires further
`review.
`
`'
`
`Turning to_ other sources at hand, one sonrce explains that "[e]ncryption is the process of
`
`turning a plaintext message into an alternate ciphertextrnessage. The ciphettext message contains
`all the information of the plaintext message, but
`not in a format readable by a human or corn"-
`
`
`
`93 http:/lwwuinm-w.comfcgi—binfdictionax-y?.book:DicIion.ary8cva=ltey (last visited-june 3, 2004).
`
`478
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`
`' purer. ' The inverse process, of eittracting the original information, is called" decryption, and can only‘
`. be accomplished by using auxiliary informa tion, called a keyi"9‘
`
`9‘ httrp:/)'encyc'lopedia.the_freed.icti'onary.com/li-'.ncrypI:ion%2iJkey (last visited June 8,
`com explains:
`working.
`
`The website Search.Net-
`
`Encryption is the conversion of data into a form, called a ciplrertest, that cannot be easily understood
`by unauthorized people- Decryption is the process of converting cncrypteddata back into its original
`form, so it can be understood.
`_
`'
`.
`
`The use of encryption/ decryption is as old as the art_of communication. In _w-artirne, a cipher, often
`incorrectly called a "code," can be employed to keep the enemy from obtaining the contents of
`transmissions. (Iechnically, a code is a means of representing a signal without the intent of keeping" it
`secret; examples are Morse code and ASCII.) Simple ciphers include the substitution of letters for
`numbers, the rotation of letters in the alphabet, and the “scrambling” of voice signals by inverting the
`sideband frequencies. More complex ciphers work acoordingto sophisticated computer algorithms
`that rearrange the data bits in digital signals.
`_
`‘
`'
`
`recover the contentsof an encrypted signal, the comm!- is required.
`U .4
`I
`'4!
`'
`"
`"
`.
`_
`’
`'
`_
`‘ _n__u . Alternatively, a com-
`
`puter can be
`in an atpt
`the cipher. Theimore complex the encryption algorithrn,
`the more difficult it becomes to eavesdrop. on the communications without access to the key.
`
`Encryplzionfilecryption is especially important in wireless communications. This is because wireless
`circuits are easier to ‘‘tap'’ than their hard-wired counterparts- Nevertheless, encryption/decryption is
`a good idea when carrying out any kind of sensitive transaction, such as a credit-card purchase online,
`or "the disctlssion of a corppany secret between different departments in the organization The
`stronger the cipher — that is, the harder it is for unauthorized people to break it — the better, in gen-
`eral. However; as the strcngtlr of encry'p_tion[decryption increases, so does the cost.
`In recent years, a controversy has arisen over so-called strong encryption. This refers to ciphers that
`are
`unbreakable without the decryption keys. While most cornpanies and
`customers
`viewitas a means of keeping secrets and
`fraud, some governments view strong encryp-
`tion asa potential vehicle by which terrorists might evade authorities- These goirernments, including
`that of the United States, want to set up a ltey—escrow arrangement. This means everyone who uses a
`cipher would be required toprovide the government with a copy of the key. Decryption keys would
`' be stored in a supposedly secure place, used only by authorities,-and used only ifbackui up by a court
`order. Opponents of this scheme argue that
`could hack into the key-escrow database
`ii‘-
`legally obtain, steal, or alter the keys. Supporters claim that while this is a possibility, implementing the
`key‘ escrow scheme would be better than doing nothing to prevent
`from freely using encryp-
`tionfdecryption. [Emphasis added]
`
`479
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`
`That source provides the foliowing illusttstioni
`
`_ Piaintext
`
`.'
`
`'
`
`_'
`'
`KEY ---"'
`
`_
`
`-Biocllc Cipher
`Encryption
`
`Ciphertext
`
`Another source equates an encryption "pattern” with a “key:”95
`
`Encryption in its simplest form is scrmnbhng a message so that it catttiot be read
`until itis unscrarnbled later by the receiver." The sender uses ‘an algorithmic pat-.
`trim {or keg] to scramble for encggptl the -message. The receiirer has the decryp-
`tion key. Encryption ensures pctvacjr-and confidetitiality in transmissions sent
`over. the Internet [Emphasis added]
`'
`I
`
`‘ A different source, though, uirhile stating the same thing, seems to draw a ‘distinction between the
`I two,
`for “asymmetric keys,” but indicates that they are related, is, the "Encryption pat-
`teen" is what the "key" is
`out“
`
`Encryption in its siuzplest forrn is scrambling a message so that it cannot be read
`until_ it is unscrambled later by the receiver. The sender uses an algotidnmic pat— _
`tern, or key, to scramble, or encrypt, the message. The receiver has the decryp-
`tion. key. Encryption ensures c_oni_ic_lenti2Jit}-
`transmissions sent over the inter-
`net.
`3
`-
`'
`
`I
`
`used for encryption (as welllas for digital
`There are two kinds of keys that
`signature and authentication): Symmetric [and] Asymmetric
`_
`
`' —old modei of the sen_der'and recei er shaiin some
`s foliow an a'
`ettic it
`S
`kind ofpattern. This same pattern is ting ‘used by the sender tg engyjpt the mes— ‘
`sggg and by the receiver to deep".t the message.'You_n'1ay have used this model“
`
`95 IBM Lotus support documents, http://wwv.r—306113-mram/sofnsmrefwebservtrsfdgui/editions.htIn"(last visited June
`'8, 2004). In aim RSA Security, http://www.rsasecudqncomfrsslabs/node.ssp?id=21 5? ‘(last
`June 9, 2004)-
`'
`
`'
`
`9‘ The Webmsslefs Guide, http:/;’dv.bs.d.h.de/Docs/icswgsec.hu-n#Header_BDO (last visited June 8,
`
`'
`
`480
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 8
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`
`'
`
`I
`
`1
`
`when you decoded the secret "message on "the,back of a cereal box using your se-
`cret decoder ring. The rislrinvolved with symmetric keys is that you have to End
`a safe t.ra'nsportation method to use when'sharing your secret key with the people
`with which you want to communicate.
`'
`'
`'
`
`‘
`
`air is made u of a ublic
`it. The lr
`With as rnmetric I-tel s on create "a lt
`key and a private key, which are different from each other. The private key holds
`more of the secret enc
`tion attern than the ublic ken. Asa sender, you.ean-
`then broadcast your public key to whomever ‘you want to communicate securely.
`You hold on to the private key and protect it with a password- Unlike symrnetric
`keys, the private key and the "public key are not the same. As a result, only you
`can decrypt a message that has "been encrypted with your public key, because
`only you have the private key. [Emphasis added._}
`'
`,
`
`- That is, for “syrnni_en:ic keys," the encryption “pattern" is the same as the "key." For “asymmetric
`keys,” the encryption “pattern," and hence the "key,-” is different for each party, and each “key”
`holds a diflierent, or overlapping parts of the “patten:|-"97 Thus far, it appears that in some contexts,
`the word “pattern" refers to the encryption "key,” but
`other contexts apparently not._' In any case,
`the term "decryption pattern’: is clearly not a term of art. -Indeed, the experts of both parties agree
`in that regard. Sn, :.3., Mwénian Tr- _at 258: 7-19 (direct
`of Plaintiffs’ expert, -Dr. Stub-
`blebine: “Q. In forrning your opinions as to the meaning of the term decryption pattern, did you
`rely on any dictionary definitions? A. No.
`Why not?
`I knew it was not a term of the art and, .
`again, going back to the-scheduling order, I looked first towards the specification, intrinsic evidence.
`Oltay- Did you find that the specification expressly defined the term decryption pattern? A. No. Q.
`Did you find that the specification informed the definition of the term encryption pattern"? A. Yes.
`Yes”); Defendants’ Opening Marilvnqn Brief.
`30: Decl. of hit. Arnoldat 1] 16 '(“The term ‘pat-
`
`tern of decryption’ is not a "term of art in cryptography. A5 a result, definition of this term de-
`
`'
`
`_
`
`_'97 Harvey er as! do not appear to have used a "hashing," or one-uray, method of encryption, in which there is no separate
`“ltey" per .r:. 55: hrrpzl/horw-ired.lycos.corn/webmonkey/00f20/ii1dex4a_huol (last visited _]t.I'.nc_ 9, 2004)(“V7hen you
`create a hash, you're only creating a digital surnrnary of the string or file in question. You're not
`the string or
`file, and therefore the string or file can't be decrypted. On most systems, passwords are stored as hashes, so should
`someone break into your system and grab your password file, said rogue user doesn't necessarily have your passwords,
`just hashes of the passwords. begs the questions ‘Wefl then, how does the system thatch my password iwlien I enter
`‘banana’ and it has stored ‘ZTltvRRZNsOUik' in the password file?’ It’s simple (for once," a simple erp!ana'tionl):-When.
`you enter the password, the system will has]: the input, and atternpt to match this lI1Sl'l€'.d
`input to the hash it has stored '
`in
`the
`password
`file.
`31f
`the
`two
`hashes
`match,‘
`you're.
`_
`_
`_
`allowed
`in").
`' 5}:
`do
`http:/'/www.rsasecunilycomltsalabsfno-de.asp?id=21 '36 (last visited june 9, 2004).
`
`'
`
`431'
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`
`I pendant on the ‘context whereit is used.’l)- Thus, it seei‘ns_t.hat Harvey at at coined that term. Ac-
`
`" icordingly, the focus turns to the specification. I
`
`In their "Summary of the invention,” Harvey at :31 used the word “pattern” in connection
`ehcryption]decryption, butnot the word “lte}r." For 'examp_le,.Harvi:y and. explain;
`
`-
`
`It is aifurther purpose of this invention to provide a variety of means and l'neth—.-
`ods for restricting the use of_ transmitted communications to only duIy_-author-
`ized subscribers. Such means and methods include techniques for encrypting
`prQg1_-amrning andzor instructions and decrypting them at subscriber stations.
`They also include r;ec_}1£'c]E whereby the m of the composition,‘ timing,
`and location of embedded signals may vary in such fashions that only receiving.
`apparatus that are preinformed regarding the patterns that obtain at any given
`time will be able to process the signals correctly- [Emphasis added.] .
`I
`Harvey VI, col. 9, lines 37-47. Then, in that same section, in descdbing the signal processor, Harvey
`at al. explain:
`'
`I
`I
`
`I'
`
`In the present invention, particular signal processing apparatus (hereinafter called
`the "signal processor") detect signals and, in accordance with instructions in the"
`signals and preprogramming in the signal processor,‘ § and/or record
`_ and/or control station apparatus by means of the signals and/'or discard the sig-
`nals. The apparatus include one or more devices that can selectively scan trans-
`- mission frequencies as directed * * *. The frequencies may convey television, ra-'
`dio, or other programming "transmissions- The input transmissions may be re-
`ceived by means of antennas or
`from hard—wire connections. The scan-
`nets/'switches, working in parallel or series or combinations, transfer the trans-
`missions to receiver/decoder/_detect'ors' that identify
`encoded in pro-
`gramming transmissions and convert the-encoded signals to
`information;
`deggptors that may convert the received infoggtion, in pa_.t_§ or in whole, tg
`other
`'tai information according to preset methods or patterns; and one or
`more processor/monitors and/'or buffer/comparators that organize and transfer
`the information stream. The processors and buffers can have inputs from each
`of the receiver]detector lines and. evaluate information continuously. * * * [Em-
`phasis added.]
`‘
`
`rat at col. 10, lines 34-58. "
`
`‘In the remainder ofthe specification, though, and including the “Background of the Inver1—. '
`lion,” Harvey at mi did exactly the opposite:
`they used the word "key" — as in"‘decryption lief’ '——
`
`
`
`432
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`
`connection 'with encrfption/decryption, not the word “pattern.". For example, Harvey at at pointed
`outthat the prior art did not allow decryption:
`
`As regards decoders and decggptors, many different systems exist, at present, that
`enable programming suppliers to restrict the use of transmitted programming to
`only duly authorized-subscribers. The prior art includes so-called "addressable"
`systems that have capacity" for controlling specific individualsubscriber station
`apparatus by means of control instructions transmitted in broadcasts. Such sjrs-,_
`terns enable broadcasters to turn off subscriber station decoder/decryptor appa-
`ratus of subscribers who do not pay their bills and turn them back on when the
`bills are paid.
`_
`'
`
`This prior art, tm, is limited. It has no capacityfor decrypting combined media-
`prograrnnring. It has no ca aci
`for identi
`'
`then selecnvel dec
`tin con-
`trol instructions embedded in unencgyjpted proggagfig transniissions. It has no
`capacity for identifying programming transmissions or control instructions selec-
`tively and transferring them to a decryptor for decryption- It has no capacity for
`transferring the output of a decqrptor selectively to one of a_ plurality of output
`apparatus. It has no capacity for automatically: identifying degjggtion keys and
`mputling them to a decfitgr to serve as the key for any step of decggptign. _It
`has no capacity for identifying and recording the idenI:lt}' of what is input to oi:
`output from a decryptor. It has no capacity for dec-ry'pti.ng_a transmission" then
`embedding a signal in the transmission--let alone for simultaneously embedding
`user specific signals at a plurality of subscriber stations-" It has no capacity for dis-
`the absence of an expected signal or controlling any operation when
`"such absence occurs. [Emphasis added]
`'
`.
`-
`.
`
`Id at col. 7, lines 13.43.
`
`483
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`
`In describing their invention in the “Signal Processing-'Prog1:an1ming Reception and.Use
`Regulating System" embodiment depicted in
`4:
`
`mun-canmun cast: sirsrau TRflNSfillS5‘u'ON
`
` _|
`
`
`
`-_...._.J_Q‘;l_.r:_::'::.:.._ I‘
`
`TELEPH
`NEfl:|lOfll'l(NE
`
`- Harvey _e!a£ explain that the “subscl_:ibc1: station” “configuxa-Izionl FIG. 4 differs from the configum-
`'
`tion er FIGS- 1 and 3 in digs. television tuner, 215, outputs its aiudio and video outputs to said mauix
`
`"switch, 253, rather than to monitor, 202M, and divider, 4, respectively.
`Instead, in FIG. 4, it is said.
`‘switch, 255, that outputs "die inforrnation that is input to said nznonitor, 202M, and divider, '4. _FIG-. 4_
`shows fine addiiional ‘defim-- a signal stripper, 229,, {and a
`geseiscei-, 230-sssocisted with matrix switch", 253. lggpcoss 107 224 and 231 sre conventional .-
`'de
`'
`ors ‘known in the
`with ca_ aci
`‘for receivin en
`ed di ‘ml information de
`t-
`ing §g'd information by means of a selected cipher alggzithrn and a selected cipher kg, and output-
`ting the decggplted-information.‘ Signal stripper, 229, is a conirentional
`stripper, * * *- * * * *
`_- Maoix switch, 258, hascapacity for outputting selected inputted transmissions to each said five de-
`vices, and each of said devices processes 'inp_i1tted information-in its specific fashion and "outputs I
`its ptocessed inforn1ation_to said switch, 253." [Emphasis added.]1d at col. 151, lines 12.41. That
`is, the deciyptois decqipt inforrnationhy using (1) a “selected cipher algorithm” and (2) :1 “selected
`cipher_ key-” Harvey .4: all further explain that “signal processor, 200, controls all the aforementioned I
`
`484
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page_12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`
`apparatus.‘ Signal processor, 200, controls‘ the tuning of tuners, 214, 215, and 223; controls the
`' switching \Of matrix switch, 253; supp.lies cipher algorithm and cipher key information to and con-
`trols the decrypting of deggfptors, 107,
`and 230; controls signal stripper, 229, in selecti.ng_trans-
`rnissiop locations and/or inforriiation to strip in signal stripping; and controls signal -generator,
`230,
`selecting transmission lbcations at which to insert signals,"in_ generating specific signals to
`‘insert, and in inserting.” [Emphasis added.]
`Id. at col.- 161, lines 42-52.
`In V‘lCW' of ‘the parties’
`agreement t_hat the claimed “decryption technique" corresponds to the disclosed “cipher algorithm,”
`it seems plausible that the clai.niecl."decry'ption pattern” would correspond to the disclosed “cipher
`key.” In any case, Harvey at all then describe the process of encryption and decryption in connec-
`- tion with Fig. 4, using the "Wall Street Week” eiiarnple. With regard to encryption at the "program
`otiginaltiiig studio,” Harvey at at explain that:
`
`-
`
`i
`
`In example #7, the program originating studio that originates the “\‘Jl7all Street
`Weelf’ transrnissioia transmits a television
`that consists of so—called “digital
`video" and “digital audio." Well known in the art. Prior to bg1g' transmitted, the
`digital video infoggation is doubly enc%'teQ,_' by means of particular cipher @-
`rithrns ‘Q, and B and cipher kegs Aa and Ba in such a way that said information
`rgnires deggjption at subscriber stations in the fashion described below. The '
`digital audio is transmitted in the clear. [Emphasis added]
`
`id. at col 1152, lines IQ-25. The encrypted information is transmitted to "various “intermediate
`transmission stations.” "Each of said intermediate transmission stations receives the transmission
`
`originated by said studio and retransmits the information of said transmission to a plurality of ulti-
`
`mate receiver stations.” Prior to retransmission, though, according to Harvey at a!.,_ the intermediate
`transmission station “encrypts the
`audio information of said transmission, in a fashion well
`er al
`known in the art, usin
`‘cola: ci
`rithrn C and ci -her l-re
`then transmits the informa-_
`tion of said program on cable channel 13, commencing at a particular 8:30 PM time on a particular
`
`485
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Friday night." Id. atlllines 3'0-43.93‘ Thus, prior to final t.rat1smission to the subscriber station‘, the
`information has -been thrice-encrypted with cipher algorithrns A, B and C using cipher keys Ra,‘ Ba
`and Ca.
`.
`i
`I
`'
`'
`'
`i
`
`The information is then transmitted to the subscriber station'in the program transmission
`_-and detected. For sirnplicity, orilf decryption of the-"algorithm C encrypted" information u!_il1_i3e
`disciissed here. Basically, algorithm C encrypts audio inforrr-_1atio:_1, algorithm B ‘encrypts video in.
`fonnation, etc Beiefly, then, “controller, 20, causes
`switch, 258, to etansfer the irilforrnation of
`audio gortion inputted from said tuner, 215, to the output that outputs to -a selected decryptor,'
`107, thereby causing said dec}-yptot, 107. to "receive the informatiorl of"said "audio portion (said 'in-.
`
`formation being, as explained above, encryinted digital audio). Automatically, controller 20 selects
`
`I
`
`infonnation at ci her Ire Ca from arnon ' the inf rmation of said orliorr transfers said ci her ken
`
`
`
`
`mforrnatzion todec tor 107- and causes dec to: 107 to c
`' ence dec
`tin its received an-
`
`_93 As discussed previously, the "inlerm'ed.iate transmission. station” is depicted in Figs 6A'and 6B (reproduced together
`above). In connection with Fig. 6A, once again:
`-
`'
`'
`'
`
`
`
`-
`
`Hanrey er}:-I explain. that "[e]xecuting said last named instructions causes said computer, 73, to cause apparatus of said
`station to receive the’t.ransmissio_n of the program originating studio of the We“ Street Week’ program; to input said .
`transmission, via the rn.aI:I:i:x switch, -75, of said station, to particular apparatus, well known in the art,'that encrypt the
`‘ssi n‘
`a'udio‘por1:ion of said transmission and
`'deo an .en
`
`H I d ci
`1 o '
`a "d i
`' h
`I
`a- and to transfer the output of said aptus, viamaswilch, 5 to
`‘field distribution systern, 93, via {he pa11icular- modulator, 32, 86, or 90, of cable channel 13.” [Emphasis added.] Id at
`car 24z_"nu=.-. 45-59.
`
`486
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2004
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`
`I
`
`'
`
`' din inforrnafion using saiel keg infonnation and seleeted'dect_';p.tion cipher" algorithm C, and output-'
`.
`ling decrypted information of the audio portion of the ‘W:-all Street Week’ program transmission to
`t
`.matrix switch, 258.
`i‘\utornat.itall}', controller, 20', causes matriic switch," 253, to Lransferthe irifomiae -H
`tion inputted "from decqrptor,'~10T, to the output that that outputs to signal processor, 200 * * *3’-
`[Emphasis -added.]
`In’. at col. 1.6S,.line 68'to col. 13, line 20. Thus, encrjrption and decryption takes
`jplaee using (1) 21-Cipher 2lgocithn_i‘and (2) a cipher key; Harvey at at donor‘ otherwise mention _a'_
`Y,
`“decryption pattern. But again, based on the foregoing portions of the specificafion, it is more
`
`.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`in
`plausible ‘to view