Expert Witness Coversheet
`
`United States District Court for the District of
`Colorado
`
`Broadcast Innovation, LLC v. Echostar
`Communications Corp, Hughes Electronics Corp,
`Directv, Thomson Multimedia, Dotcast, Pegasus
`Satellite Television Inc.
`
`
`
`Court:
`
`
`Case Name:
`
`
`Docket Number:
`
`Docket Line Number: 159
`
`EXPERT WITNESS DOCUMENT:
`
`01-WY-2201 AJ
`
`
`
`
`___
`
`___
`
`__x
`____
`
`Expert transcript (ET)
`Expert deposition (ED)
`Expert report (ER)
`Partial expert testimony (EP)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`No. 01-WY-2201 AJ (BNB)
`
`BROADCAST INNOVATION, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ECHOST AR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
`HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
`DIRECTV, INC.,
`THOMSON MULTIMEDIA, INC.,
`DOTCAST, INC.,
`PEGASUS SATELLITE TELEVISION, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DIRECTV, INC., HUGHES ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION AND THOMSON MULTIMEDIA, INC.'S PRINCIPAL OPENING
`BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I ,)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, depose and declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Defendants, Hughes Electronics Corp., DirecTV, Inc., and
`
`Thomson Multimedia, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") to provide expert opinions in connection
`
`with the construction of Claims 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 4,993,066 ("the '066 Patent"). The
`
`following sets forth my qualifications, opinions, and the bases for my opinions, in addition to my
`
`personal experience. I have also provided a list of the materials I have considered in preparing
`
`this declaration, my opinions concerning the subj eel matter of the invention, and the
`
`compensation I receive for my work in this matter.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions ("EMS"), a
`
`position I have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this capacity, I perform consulting
`
`services related to commercial and consumer broadband technology, product and systems
`
`development. My focus is on broadband/multimedia product and networking solutions relating
`
`to content distribution and security systems
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Internet,
`
`satellite, cable and
`
`wireless/broadcast. This includes control and conditional access technology for pay television
`
`("TV") systems, which is the general subject matter of the '066 Patent. A copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`3.
`
`My educational background includes Bachelors and Masters degrees in Electrical
`
`Engineering, received at the University of Arizona in 1974 and San Diego State University in
`
`1979, respectively, and completion of the Executive Program for Scientists and Engineers at the
`
`University ofCalifomia, San Diego in 1984.
`
`4.
`
`I have over twenty-eight years of high technology work experience in military,
`
`commercial and consumer communications systems and networks, and twenty years in
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`
`leadership and executive positions (Engineering, Operations, Sales & Marketing and Product
`
`Management) at leading companies in those fields, such as TV/COM International, Inc. (from
`
`1990-1998) and Oak Communications, Inc. (from 1982-1990). During that time, I published or
`
`presented a number of articles and papers related to the industry's transition from analog to
`
`digital content creation, transmission and consumption in various media arenas (e.g., cable,
`
`satellite, broadcast, and the cinema industry), and security, "command and control" and
`
`"conditional access" technologies (concepts that I will discuss in more detail below). More
`
`specifically, my major area of focus over the years has been the application of signal security
`
`technologies to analog and digital TV distribution systems. I am also a named inventor on two
`
`issued patents, and currently have three patent applications pending, that are related to such
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`As a result of my extensive experience and work in this industry, I also have
`
`personal knowledge concerning the technologies and activities of other companies that develop
`
`or utilize products associated with the transmission/reception of scrambled TV signals. My
`
`familiarity with such companies dates from the early 1980s through the present, and includes
`
`security equipment suppliers such as General Instruments (now Motorola), Scientific Atlanta,
`
`Zenith, Pioneer, Sony, Viaccess, SECA and Irdeto Access. My previous employers, Oak
`
`Communications, Inc. and TV/COM International, Inc., were also major players in this area.
`
`6.
`
`I have never testified in court as an expert witness, although I have worked as an
`
`independent expert and/or technical advisor, and have been deposed as an expert witness in that
`
`capacity. My company, Entropy, is being paid by Defendants an hourly fee of $225/hour, plus
`
`any out-of-pocket expenses, for my study and testimony. This fee follows the usual and
`
`customary rate Entropy charges for such services (which may vary from time to time). A list of
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`
`all publications authored by me within the past ten years and of cases in which I have testified as
`
`an expert by deposition within the preceding four years, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`7.
`
`I have carefully reviewed the '066 Patent, including the claims, specification and
`
`prosecution history (both the original prosecution and the reexamination), as well as the prior art
`
`cited in the prosecution history. I have also considered my personal knowledge and experiences
`
`in areas that relate to the particular issues of this case.
`
`8.
`
`The '066 Patent relates to systems for "controlling the distribution of pay-per-
`
`access information services" ('066 Patent, I :5-7) (Exhibit 3), and in particular pay TV systems. I
`
`was working in this field at the time the '066 Patent was filed in February 1987. Those
`
`knowledgeable of such systems and technologies of this time would have technical experience or
`
`training (equivalent to a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science Engineering)
`
`in broadband or broadcast communications systems (e.g. cable, satellite or over-the-air
`
`transmission), and the types of security and! or conditional access solutions applied thereto.
`
`BACKGROUND OF PAY TV SYSTEMS
`
`9.
`
`The first "premium" or "pay TV" systems, where the delivery and consumption of
`
`TV programming is conditional on a consumer paying a fee, were in use commercially by the
`
`early 1970s. Early pay TV networks were mostly local single channel operations or "community
`
`antenna TV" ("CATV") distribution networks for areas where local reception of off-air
`
`programming was unavailable. The large cable operations and pay networks that we know today
`
`did not take off until the availability and widespread use of satellites for national TV distribution
`
`(led by HBO) in the early 1970s. By the late 1970s, pay TV was common for both cable and
`
`terrestrial broadcast (i.e., over-the-air) delivery systems and, by the mid-1980s, it was also
`
`available for consumers via satellite.
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`
`10.
`
`Since the programming in these pay TV systems is fee-based, some mechanism
`
`must be used to ensure that only consumers who pay for or "subscribe" to the programming
`
`service have access to the programming signals. In the industry, tbe term that is commonly used
`
`to describe this mechanism is "conditional access" (or "CA") because access by a user is
`
`conditioned or controlled in some manner.
`
`11.
`
`One of the most prevalent methods employed in tbe design and implementation of
`
`CA systems since the 1970s has been the "scrambling" of TV signals. The idea behind this
`
`metbod is to establish a base of subscribers who agree to pay a fee (e.g., monthly) for access to a
`
`particular programming service, and to install a "descrambling" device, such as a set-top box, at
`
`the homes of such subscribers. The TV signals are scrambled and transmitted, but only those
`
`subscribers with the installed descrambling devices should be able to descramble tbe signals and
`
`view them as "clear" TV signals on their TV screens.
`
`12.
`
`The use of scrambling in conjunction witb pay TV delivery has led to a cat and
`
`mouse situation - program suppliers want to offer attractive programming !bat has value to
`
`consumers such that they will pay for it, and "hackers" or program pirates have sought to
`
`develop ways to circumvent theCA or scrambling technologies developed to ensure payment.
`
`Thus, since the beginning of pay TV, there has been a trend towards increasing tbe sophistication
`
`of scrambling methods in an attempt to stay ahead of the hackers. As an introduction, and as I
`
`will describe in more detail below, simple analog scrambling processes (mid- to late-1970s) gave
`
`way to more elaborate time-varying analog scrambling processes (1980s), followed by
`
`combinations of analog scrambling and "hard encryption" based digital security processes (also
`
`in the 1980s), followed by all-digital television transmission with hard encryption (1990s).
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`
`"SCRAMBLING"
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the construction of the term "scrambling," as that term is used in
`
`the asserted Claims 9-11 of the '066 Patent, is in dispute. As I will explain in more detail below,
`
`the term "scrambling" has different meanings in the art of pay TV systems, depending on t~e
`
`time period. For purposes of my opinion, the time period can be viewed as from the beginning
`
`of pay TV (i.e., the early 1970s, as described above) to the present. There have been important
`
`technological changes during this time period that involve both the manner in which security
`
`systems for television have been implemented, as well as the nature of how the TV signals
`
`themselves have been delivered. I have taken these differences into account to give meaning and
`
`definition to the term "scrambling" as it is used in the '066 Patent.
`
`"Scrambling" versus "Encryption"
`
`14.
`
`A major underlying issue in defining "scrambling" involves whether the signal to
`
`be scrambled is analog or digital. An analog signal is a "continuous" signal, and is usually
`
`pictured or described as a wavy line that is "analogous" (hence the term analog) to the actual
`
`information being represented. An example is an analog audio signal going to a speaker. The
`
`analog audio signal is a continuously varying electrical signal that will cause the speaker to
`
`impart similarly continuous "waves" into the air to our ears via the speaker's cone. But, as most
`
`of us are aware, with today's modem audio equipment, that audio signal may have originated in
`
`our living room in digital form, for example, from a CD. A music CD represents the audio
`
`signal "digitally." A digital signal is "discontinuous"- that is, it attempts to represent an analog
`
`waveform in a "binary" or "digital" way, which means using a succession of I 's and O's (or more
`
`accurately, computer words that are made up of groups of 1 'sand O's). The use of discontinuous
`
`digital representations of signals that are inherently analog (we live in an essentially analog
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`
`world) may seem odd, but it turns out that if we need to electrically process signals (to transmit
`
`them, for example) there are many advantages to transforming signals into digital form, do the
`
`processing, and then transform them back to analog (or just leave them digital, for a while, as in
`
`the case of the CD) for purposes of human consumption (e.g., to listen to the music). Unlike
`
`human beings, computers are digital "processing machines" which require information in digital
`
`form.
`
`15.
`
`Until digital processing and digital computing became the preferred methodology
`
`of processing signals or information, most such signals/information were maintained in their
`
`original analog form. This is still true for TV signals, where 99% of our home "processing
`
`equipment" (e.g., a TV set or VCR) is analog. But, the transformation to digital has begun.
`
`Many forms of TV delivery are now digital, as with digital satellite and cable TV, and DVDs
`
`(like CDs for audio) are digital recording/playback devices. However, one cannot process
`
`analog signals using digital circuits (in a computer, for example), nor can one process digital
`
`signals using analog circuits. In other words, one must match the processing enviromnent with
`
`the signal type. Getting back to the issues of this case, it can now be understood that with TV
`
`signals being analog in nature until recently, the "scrambling processes" used - until recently -
`
`were also analog processes. This is true for the scrambling and descrambling processes used at
`
`the transmit and receive locations, respectively.
`
`16.
`
`Since TV signals were originally always analog signals, the term "scrambling"
`
`was initially associated only with analog TV signals and analog scrambling techniques. By the
`
`early 1980s, however, more advanced methods for implementing security systems for TV were
`
`under development that used digital signals and digital security processing. For example,
`
`begirming in 1980, at Oak Industries, Inc., I was involved with designing TV security products
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`
`that transmitted analog TV video (image) signals in combination with digital TV audio signals.
`
`For securing these signals, we used traditional analog scrambling techniques for the analog video
`
`part of the signal, and we used digital "encryption" technology for securing the digital audio part
`
`of the signal. This is also how the Video-Cipher II system, described in the '066 Patent,
`
`operated.
`
`17.
`
`During the early 1980s, TV security systems also began to employ what is
`
`referred to as "time-varying scrambling," which is the varying of the scrambling process over
`
`time. Generally, these systems use "control channels" that accompany the scrambled TV
`
`programming signals. A control channel is an additional channel of information - that is, in
`
`addition to the TV video (image) and audio (sound) information- that is sent along with the TV
`
`programming. These control channels allow computers at the transmission location to control
`
`subscriber set-top boxes (which is where the "descrambling" process takes place). Part of what
`
`the transmission end can control at the descrambling location is this time-varying scrambling.
`
`This method is used to vary the scramblingldescrambling in ways that attempt to prevent would(cid:173)
`
`be signal pirates from keeping up with the requirements for illegally descrambling the signals.
`
`That is, if a pirate has compromised a scrambling method, it is the objective of time-varying
`
`scrambling to alter one or more parameters of the method in some way, and force the pirate to
`
`follow the variance. The control channels are used to enable this time-varying process to happen
`
`automatically within the descrambler (i.e., in the set-top box) without subscriber interaction.
`
`18.
`
`I introduced the term "encryption" above, in my reference to my work at Oak
`
`Communications with security systems that employed combinations of analog video scrambling
`
`and digitally encrypted audio. The advantages of this approach in terms of providing very good
`
`programming protection became well known, and it was adopted by many equipment suppliers.
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`
`By the mid-1980s, a convention for using the terms "scrambling" for modifying analog signals
`
`and "encryption" for transforming digital signals had developed in the field of TV security
`
`systems. 1 As will be discussed below, the evolution of digital encryption-based security systems
`
`ultimately resulted in more than one meaning for "scrambling" in the TV security fteld. 2 The
`
`differences between these terms ("scrambling" for analog and "encryption" for digital) are
`
`important, because the nature of what happens, what is possible, and how one describes the
`
`characteristics of each is very different. These differences provide the context for determining
`
`whether an analog signal or digital signal is being described with respect to a particular TV
`
`security system.
`
`In, 15, I described how digital signals must be processed using digital processing
`
`19.
`
`circuits. It is understood and accepted by those knowledgeable in the art that "encryption" is a
`
`digital process, meaning that the signal to be secured is a binary or digital signal, and the process
`
`that "secures" the signal is a digital process. 3 The securing of a digital signal by the application
`
`of encryption uses what is called an "algorithm." The digital signal is said to be "encrypted" by
`
`1 See. e.g., V. Bhaskaran & M. Davidov, Video Scrambling- An Overview, 1984 NCTA Technical
`Papers (reprint) (Exhibit 4); Anthony Wechselberger, Encryption-Based Securitv Systems: What Makes
`Them Different And How Well Are They Working?, 1987 NCTA Technical Papers (reprint) (Exhibit 5);
`Lawrence W. Lockwood, Video Signal Securitv, Comm. Tech. 24 (June 1987) (Exhibit 6).
`2 ln February 1987, when the '066 Patent application was filed, "scrambling" was still generally accepted
`as limited to processes performed on analog signals. Nevertheless, I aclmowledge that due to the
`evolution of the technology it would not be surprising to find references from that time where
`"scrambling" was used (albeit, incorrectly) to also describe hard encryption processes performed on
`digital signals. However, the specific system described would typically indicate to one of skill in the art
`which meaning was intended.
`3 See. e.g .. Bhaslcaran, supra note 1 (Exhibit 4); M. Davidov et al., Commercial Applications of Encrypted
`Signals (Oak Indus. Inc.), 1984 (Exhibit 7); Wechselberger supra note 1 (Exhibit 5); Lockwood, supra
`note I (Exhibit 6); Anthony Wechselberger, Conditional Access and Encryption Options for Digital
`Systems, Comm. Tech. 20 (Nov. 1993 ) (Exhibit 8); EBU Project Group BICA, Functional Model of a
`Conditional Access System, 266 EBU Technical Review 2 (1995-96) (Exhibit 9); and David J. Cutts,
`DVB Conditional Access, Feb. 1997 Elec. & Comm. Eng' g Journal 21 (Exhibit 1 0).
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`
`the algorithm; the algorithm is fixed and can be (and generally is) publicly known. The
`
`algorithm uses what is referred to as a "key variable" (or simply "key''), which is a parameter
`
`that is used by the algorithm and can be changed in order to make the encryption itself variable.
`
`An analogy is a door lock used to control access to a horne -
`
`the lock (algorithm) is a
`
`standardized item, the key is unique to a particular situation (my door vs. yours), and the lock
`
`can be re-keyed if necessary. In encryption systems, keys are long digital words (56 or more
`
`bits, typically) and they can and are changed frequently in broadcast applications.
`
`20.
`
`The basic characteristics of encryption-based security systems are as follows: (a)
`
`they are digital systems, and the signal to be secured must be digital in order to be encrypted; (b)
`
`the security or encryption process (algorithm) is not secret or time-varying (i.e., only one
`
`"technique" is employed, which often is publicly available); and (c) by the proper use of time-
`
`varying keys in the encryption and decryption processes, these systems stay secnre over long
`
`periods of tirne. 4 None of the above are characteristics one would use in a description of analog
`
`scrambling secnrity systems of the type described in the '066 Patent, which depend upon the
`
`secrecy of and changing of the scrambling techniques. See '066 Patent, 5:3-8 ("Note that even
`
`the knowledge of the full range of available scrambling techniques does one no good if one does
`
`not know which combination of techniques would be utilized at any given time in a given
`
`area.").
`
`21.
`
`Encryption is inherently a "randomizing process," so it can be used as part of (i.e.,
`
`to aid in) the time-varying analog scrambling process described above. The TV signal can still
`
`4 There are hundreds of thousands of networks and appliances today that utilize encryption-based
`security. The Data Encryption Standard ("DES") is the most commonly used algorithm, and it has been
`published since its introduction in about 1977.
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`
`be analog, as well as the scrambling process, and the encryption can be used with the control
`
`channels previously described to control the time-varying analog scrambling. Importantly, the
`
`TV signal itself is not encrypted, but scrambled. It is this type of hybrid security technology(cid:173)
`
`where part of the overall transmitted signal (i.e., the command and control signal) is digital, and
`
`part of the signal (i.e., the TV programming signal) is analog - that is important to understand.
`
`Using this arrangement, it is possible to develop effective overall security systems and employ
`
`encryption with the digital control signals, and use the nature of this control to securely time vary
`
`the analog scrambling of analog TV signals.
`
`22.
`
`An example of hybrid security technology is provided in UK Patent Application
`
`No. GB 2 132 860 A to Chambers et a!. ("the Chambers Patent") (Exhibit 11), a prior-art
`
`reference that was cited in the reexamination application for the '066 Patent. The Chambers
`
`Patent shows, in Figs. 1 and 2, the "descrambler" and "decryptor" portions of the consumer
`
`reception part of a system for receiving satellite TV broadcasts. The former "descrambler"
`
`subsystem descrambles the analog video and audio portions of the information signal, and the
`
`latter "decryptor" subsystem is encryption-based (using the DES algorithm) and used to control
`
`the descrambling subsystem. The use of encryption in the second subsystem is made possible
`
`because the associated signals (control) are digital in nature, and readily adapted to digital
`
`encryption security techniques.
`
`I note that the Chambers Patent describes "scrambling,"
`
`"encryption," and "control" in the same manner that I have described above. See Chambers
`
`Patent, page 1, lines 17-27 (Exhibit 11).
`
`23.
`
`An important result from the above explanation that the TV security community
`
`has adopted from tbis terminology and usage scenario is that the term "scrambling," as the term
`
`is used today can mean either: (a) an analog signal process (e.g., "distortion or interference")
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`
`used to make an analog signal unusable; or (b) a true "encryption" process applied to a digital
`
`TV programming or content signal itself (as distinct from the command and control part of the
`
`signal). The reason the latter context has been adopted is to separate the processes associated
`
`with what is done to the "content" (i.e., TV programming) signals from those associated with
`
`"command and control" signals. 5 I have explained that the signals used in pay TV networks are
`
`fundamentally "content" and "control," and I have shown how the latter can be used to control
`
`the scrambling/descrambling processes. It is worth noting that either of these signals might be
`
`attacked by a hacker, so both of these signals need to be protected from the hacker. Thus, it has
`
`become the convention in the art to refer to what is done to protect the content itself as
`
`"scrambling/descrambling,"
`
`and what
`
`ts
`
`done with
`
`the
`
`control
`
`channel(s)
`
`as
`
`"encryption/decryption." It is understood by those in the art that referring to the process for
`
`protecting the programming content as "scrambling," even though in modern all-digital networks
`
`this digital signal is actually "encrypted" is a holdover from the earlier analog days, and that the
`
`reference applies only to the content signal. However, determining which meaning of
`
`"scrambling" is being used in describing a particular system requires an analysis of the context in
`
`which it is being used.
`
`' See, M,_, Functional Model of a Conditional Access System, supra note 3 at 2 (Exhibit 9) (describing
`an all-digital system):
`A conditional access (CA) system comprises a combination of scrambling and encryption to
`prevent unauthorized reception. Scrambling is the process of rendering the sound, pictures and
`data unintelligible. Encryption is the process of protecting the secret keys that have to be
`transmitted with the scrambled signal in order for the descrambler to work. After descrambling,
`any defects on the sound and pictures should be imperceptible, i.e., the CA system should be
`transparent.
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`
`"Scrambling" in the '066 Patent
`
`24.
`
`Separation of contextual meaning between "scrambling" and "encryption" for TV
`
`delivery systems developed as a result of the widespread use of what I have described above as
`
`hybrid security technologies.
`
`I wish to note that any confusion about whether the term
`
`"scrambling" refers to "analog scrambling" or "digital encryption" arose commensurate with the
`
`development of all-digital TV delivery technologies beginning in about 1990 well after the
`
`filing of the '066 Patent. For this reason, and those to follow, it is my opinion that one of skill in
`
`the art as of the filing of the '066 Patent application in 1987 would understand "scrambling" as
`
`used in the asserted claims of the '066 Patent to refer to an analog process applied to an analog
`
`signal.
`
`25.
`
`The specification of the '066 Patent effectively defines the "scrambling" process
`
`as introducing objectionable interference or distortion into the signals: "in practice any method
`
`of [scrambling], active or passive, can be utilized that introduces some kind of objectionable
`
`interference or distortion into the signal path."
`
`'066 Patent, 2:47-50 (Exhibit 3).6 Both
`
`"interference" and "distortion" are terms that have meaning in the context of analog scrambling
`
`techniques, but not with respect to processes for securing digital signals. For example, many
`
`references can be found for descriptions of approaches to TV signal security "at baseband" or
`
`"RF."7 These terms describe where in the signal's processing chain the scramblingldescrambling
`
`process is applied or removed (at the transmit or receive sites), and interference and distortion of
`
`a TV signal can be (and was) done at both baseband and RF locations in actual systems. On the
`
`6 Moreover, Claim 9 refers specifically to the "scrambling means" as "introducing some kind of
`interference or distortion into the signal." '066 Patent (Exhibit 3), 6:31-33.
`7 Bhaskaran, supra note 1 (Exhibit 4); Wechselberger supra note 1 (Exhibit 5); Lockwood, supra note 1
`(Exhibit 6).
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`
`other hand, one does not "distort" or "interfere" with binary or digital signals in order to secure
`
`them - one encrypts them, or uses another similar digital technique (such as a modulo 2
`
`operation with a pseudo-random bit stream process) to "transform" the digital signal into another
`
`digital signal. This is not an analog process, for reasons which will become clearer below.
`
`26.
`
`The only examples of scrambling techniques provided in the specification- signal
`
`emphasis/deemphasis, voltage spikes, sync removal and frequency shifts (id. at 2:45-47) - are
`
`well-known analog scrambling techniques that are added to or superimposed upon analog signals
`
`(or the carriers thereof) to introduce interference or distortion into those signals. Each of these
`
`techniques will be described in more detail below.
`
`27.
`
`Signal ernpbasis/deernphasis. Signal emphasis/deemphasis are analog signal
`
`processing techniques which amplify (boost) or suppress (reduce) selected portions of an analog
`
`signal in either the time or frequency domain. Such techniques are common in the field of
`
`electronics and can be used to purposefully distort an analog signal to achieve a cleaner signal
`
`with less noise (e.g., Dolby noise reduction), or to scramble an analog TV signal. For example,
`
`scrambling systems were developed in the late 1970s based upon adding a sinusoid waveform to
`
`a TV signal, to "emphasize" the visible part of the TV signal and "deemphasize" the edges of the
`
`TV signal. This had the effect of causing the TV picture to roll and tear apart. The process was
`
`reversed by adding the same distortion waveform (but reversed in polarity) to the received signal
`
`at the receiver, thereby restoring (unscrambling) the TV signal.
`
`28.
`
`Voltage Spikes. Scrambling with a "voltage spike" can be accomplished by
`
`introducing a short duration burst of amplitude or frequency interference into an analog TV
`
`signal. This technique "jams" a TV set's ability to properly reconstruct a clearer picture, unless
`
`the spike is removed. At the receiver, removing the spike was/is commonly performed by using
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`

`
`a timed "windowing" pulse (for removing an amplitude spike) or a narrow filter at the frequency
`
`location of the spike (for removing a frequency spike).
`
`29.
`
`Sync Removal. Sync removal was (and in some locations, still is) the most
`
`common form of analog scrambling. A TV signal contains both vertical and horizontal
`
`"synchronization pulses" (or "sync pulses"), and a TV set relies upon such pulses to lock to the
`
`incoming signal in order to present a clean, jitter-free picture. Removal of, or serious distortion
`
`or interference to, either vertical or horizontal synchronization pulses can cause loss of signal
`
`lock, and the picture will roll or tear.
`
`30.
`
`Frequency shifts. TV signals have standard locations where picture, sound and
`
`color RF "carriers" are placed. Interfering with these carrier frequencies by shifting them (or
`
`otherwise fooling the TV set so that it cannot find and/or lock to these carriers) can result in a
`
`loss of picture and/ or sound.
`
`31.
`
`All of the above techniques described in ~~ 27-30 are examples of analog
`
`scrambling techniques that are performed only on analog signals. None of these techniques
`
`would work to secure a digital signal, which is always a "binary" signal that is comprised of"l"s
`
`and/or "O"s (sometimes referred to as "on" or "off', or "set" or "reset"). Indeed, if "interference
`
`or distortion," such as any one of the above techniques, were used on a digital signal, the signal
`
`would be destroyed. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would understand that the scope of the
`
`invention of the '066 Patent is limited to analog scrambling techniques performed on analog
`
`signals.
`
`32.
`
`In ~~ 19-21, I described the characteristics of digital encryption-based systems
`
`and the use of control signals containing key variables as time-varying parameters that are used
`
`with a fixed algorithm as the basis of providing security for such systems. In such systems,
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2011
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 16
`
`

`
`using the inventor's terminology, the "technique," i.e., the algorithm, never changes - only the
`
`"seeds" or key variables change:
`
`The ['034 patent] shows only the use of a removable memory 26 for containing
`deencryption keys for use in a non-changeable microprocessor 22. The algorithm
`performed by the microprocessor using the seeds provided by the readable memory does
`not change. This is in contrast to the Jenkins invention, wherein the algorithm, provided
`on a removable card, would change with the insertion of a new card, thereby providing,
`with the change of cards, a very high degree of system security not obtainable with an
`unchangeable resonant deencryption algorithm.
`
`Response to Reexamination Office Action dated July 18, 2000 at 4 (Exhibit 12). Moreover, the
`
`specification emphasizes that it is the number of these teclmiques that defines the invention:
`
`In contrast with normal scrambling techniques the number of different techniques is more
`important to the invention than the sophistication of any particular one technique.
`
`'066 Patent, 2:51-54 (Exhibit 3). The implications of these positions taken on the part of the
`
`inventor are very important: (I) using time-varying keys with a fixed and publicly
`
`accepted/known algorithm is one of the basic foundational precepts for the use of encryption in
`
`broadcast systems - ev