`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00755
`Patent No.: 8,191,091
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE &
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Opinions In Support of Petitioner’s Reply .................................................. 2
`A.
`PMC and Dr. Weaver’s Arguments Regarding Frezza ......................... 2
`B.
`PMC and Dr. Weaver’s Arguments Regarding Block .......................... 3
`
`Substitute Claims Are Not Supported By The ’507 Application .............. 5
`A.
`Substitute Claims 32-36 Are Not Supported by the ’507
`Application ............................................................................................ 5
`Substitute Claims 37-40 Are Not Supported by the ’507
`Application ............................................................................................ 9
`Substitute Claims 41-43 Are Not Supported by the ’507
`Application .......................................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. Substitute Claims 32-43 Are Unpatentable Over Guilhousen ................ 12
`A.
`Substitute Claim 32 Is Obvious Over Gilhousen ................................ 12
`B.
`Substitute Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Gilhousen ................................ 17
`C.
`Substitute Claim 37 Is Obvious Over Gilhousen In View of
`Campbell ............................................................................................. 17
`Substitute Claims 34 and 39 Are Obvious Over Gilhousen ............... 21
`Substitute Claims 35 and 38 Are Obvious Over Gilhousen ............... 21
`Substitute Claims 36 and 40 Are Obvious Over Gilhousen ............... 21
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`IV. Substitute Claims 32-43 Are Unpatentable Over Seth-Smith ................. 22
`A.
`Substitute Claim 32 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 22
`B.
`Substitute Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 29
`C.
`Substitute Claim 37 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 30
`D.
`Substitute Claims 34 and 39 Are Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............. 35
`E.
`Substitute Claims 35 and 38 Are Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............. 36
`F.
`Substitute Claims 36 and 40 Are Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............. 36
`G.
`Substitute Claim 41 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 37
`H.
`Substitute Claim 42 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 39
`I.
`Substitute Claim 43 Is Obvious Over Seth-Smith .............................. 40
`
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`V. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`2
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`lPR2016-00755
`
`Page 3
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I previously prepared and executed a declaration (Ex. 1001) in IPR2016-
`
`00755. I submit this declaration in support of Petitioner Apple’s opposition
`
`to Patent Owner PMC’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 21). This
`
`declaration also responds to arguments raised in PMC’s Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 20) and Dr. Weaver’s declaration (Ex. 2022).
`
`2.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed and considered the following:
`
`• The Board’s Decisions Instituting Inter Partes Review (Paper 14)
`• PMC’s Patent Owner Response (Paper 20)
`• Declaration of Dr. Weaver (Ex. 2022)
`• Deposition Testimony of Dr. Weaver (Ex. 1054)
`• Declaration of Dr. Dorney (Ex. 2130)
`• Deposition Testimony of Dr. Dorney (Ex. 1052)
`• Additional prior art and materials discussed in Sections II-IV
`This material is in addition to the material I reviewed and considered
`
`while preparing my original declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`3.
`
`OPINIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`A.
`Dr. Weaver argues that Frezza does not describe “detecting” an initialization
`
`PMC and Dr. Weaver’s Arguments Regarding Frezza
`
`program in the BOOT ROM because “retrieving data from its known
`
`‘correct location’ does not require any ‘detecting.’” (Ex. 2022 ¶ 228.) Dr.
`
`Weaver goes on to explain that “A POSITA would understand ‘detect’ to
`
`mean ‘to discover or identify the presence or existence of’ something …
`
`which necessarily involves searching for and discovering the unknown.”
`
`(Ex. 2022 ¶ 228.)
`
`4.
`
`That is nonsense. Nothing in the ’507 Application, PMC’s proposed
`
`construction of “detecting,” or what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`generally understand limits detection to those instances in which the thing
`
`being detected “was previously unknown.”
`
`5.
`
`Dr. Weaver also argues that the initialization program described by Frezza
`
`might not designate the described “booter channel” because “[i]t is entirely
`
`possible that the initialization program … simply invokes a hardwired
`
`function which in turn operates the frequency agile FM receiver 18 in
`
`Frezza’s system.” (Ex. 2022 ¶ 230.)
`
`6.
`
`That is simply not how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the teachings of Frezza, which clearly describes that the “initialization
`
`2
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`program … force tunes receiver 18 (via microprocessor 24) to the booter
`
`channel.” (Ex. 1006 at 2:65-68.) The obvious understanding of that
`
`statement to a person of ordinary skill in the art is that the initialization
`
`program specifies the booter channel to which the receiver is to tune. By
`
`contrast, Dr. Weaver’s hypothetical alternative requires that one assume the
`
`existence of a “hardwired function” which is not described or suggested
`
`anywhere in Frezza. (See Ex. 1006.)
`
`PMC and Dr. Weaver’s Arguments Regarding Block
`
`B.
`Dr. Weaver argues that Block fails to disclose “storing information
`
`7.
`
`evidencing said step of decrypting,” particularly because “the STV Program
`
`controlling ‘the decoding of the microprocessor ‘decode control’ circuit 98’
`
`… could still thwart the descrambling of the purchased program.” (Ex. 2022
`
`¶ 244.)
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Weaver’s argument, however, suggests that he fails to understand Block.
`
`Block describes a receiver capable of processing both “normal programming
`
`(e.g., ‘unscrambled’, non-pay, commercial programming) and scrambled
`
`STV programming.” (Ex. 1008 at 5:11-17.) Block explains that “STV”
`
`refers to “subscription television.” (Ex. 1008 at 4:65-5:1.) Impulse
`
`purchase programs are described as a special category of programs within
`
`the larger class of STV programming. (Ex. 1008 at 5:26-36, 5:50-54.)
`
`3
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
` Block further explains that “[n]ormal unscrambled programming passes
`
`either through or around the encoder and decoder unaffected.” (Ex. 1008 at
`
`5:23-26.) By contrast, “[i]n STV mode, the video and/or audio signals are
`
`encoded (scrambled)” and must be processed by “a decoder with the proper
`
`decoding (unscrambling) and tier data.” (Ex. 1008 at 7:10-17.)
`
`10. Block describes that incoming television signals are checked to determine
`
`“[i]f the incoming program material is STV (pay) material.” (Ex. 1008 at
`
`9:60-63.) As referenced by Dr. Weaver, Block also describes that
`
`The STV program signal detected in the incoming data
`may control the decoding of the microprocessor "decode
`control" circuit 98 as illustrated, or the mode of operation
`of the decoder may be selected manually by the
`subscriber.
`
`(Ex. 1008 at 11:55-59.)
`
`11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Block to be describing
`
`that “decode control circuit 98” is activated by the receiver’s detection of
`
`STV programming. By contrast, when the receiver detects “normal
`
`programming” the decoder remains inactive because, as explained above,
`
`such programming passes through the decoder unaffected.
`
`12. Because Block describes that impulse purchase programs are a subset of the
`
`larger class of STV programming, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`4
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`understand that the “STV program signal” which activates “decode control
`
`circuit 98” would always be present when a transmission contains an
`
`impulse purchase program and its accompanying use code.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ’507
`APPLICATION
`A.
`
`Substitute Claims 32-36 Are Not Supported by the ’507
`Application
`13. Substitute Claim 32, and Substitute Claims 33-36 (which depend from
`
`Substitute Claim 32) are not supported by the written description of the ’507
`
`Application. First, Substitute Claim 32 recites, in part, “receiving an
`
`encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted digital
`
`information and unencrypted digital information.” PMC identifies “local-
`
`cable-enabling-message (#7)” as the unencrypted digital information of the
`
`claim and the “so-called ‘digital video’ and ‘digital audio’” of the Wall
`
`Street Week Program as the encrypted digital information of the claim. (Ex.
`
`2130 at 12; Ex. 1054 at 46:17-47:12.)
`
`14. But the ’507 Application simply does not enable one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to transmit “so-called ‘digital video’ and ‘digital audio’” over
`
`conventional cable television channels and the ’507 Application does not
`
`describe any other kind. (See Ex. 2050 at 291 (286:9-17).) As PMC’s
`
`expert Dr. Weaver has testified, “[i]n the 1980’s, a television cable head end
`
`5
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`would not have been able to transmit digital video in an NTSC television
`
`channel signal.” (Ex. 1061 at 88:11-15.)
`
`15. Additionally, “local-cable-enabling-message (#7)” is not received in the
`
`same “encrypted digital information transmission” as the “digital video and
`
`audio.” The ’507 Application explains that “local-cable-enabling-message
`
`(#7)” is transmitted “[i]n the interval between said commence-enabling time
`
`and said 8:30 PM time … on the frequency of said master control channel.”
`
`(Ex. 2050 at 296 (291:9-20); Ex. 1054 at 56:14-19.) By contrast, the “digital
`
`video and audio” of the Wall Street Week program are transmitted “on cable
`
`channel 13, commencing at a particular 8:30 PM time.” (Ex. 2050 at 294
`
`(289:12-19); Ex. 1054 at 47:13-19.) Indeed, PMC itself contends that the
`
`information in “local-cable-enabling-message (#7)” “causes a selected tuner,
`
`214, to tune to the frequency of cable channel 13.” (Ex. 2130 at 36.) Thus,
`
`the encrypted digital information and unencrypted digital information
`
`identified by PMC are actually transmitted on different channels and at
`
`different times.
`
`16. Second, Substitute Claim 32 recites “creating based on at least a portion of
`
`said encrypted digital information transmission, a digital record including a
`
`unique digital code identifying said receiver station” and “automatically
`
`transmitting said digital record to a remote station.” However, the portions
`
`6
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`of the ’507 Application cited by PMC fail to support these limitations. In
`
`particular, Dr. Dorney cites portions of the ’507 Application which describe
`
`“creat[ing] a meter record that documents the decryption of the cable audio
`
`transmission” and “transfer[ring] selected record information.” (Ex. 2130 at
`
`14-17.) But nothing in the cited portions of the ’507 Application indicates
`
`that these meter records “includ[e] a unique digital code identifying said
`
`receiver station” as required by the substitute claim. (Ex. 2130 at 14-17; Ex.
`
`1054 at 66:22-67:20.)
`
`17.
`
`In an attempt to overcome this deficiency, Dr. Dorney cites a completely
`
`unrelated portion of the ’507 Application which describes “determin[ing]
`
`whether unauthorized tampering has occurred at said station, … select[ing]
`
`information of the unique digital code at ROM, 21, that identifies signal
`
`processor, 200, and the subscriber station of FIG. 4 uniquely,” and in the
`
`event of such tampering, “transmit[ting] information of the aforementioned
`
`unique digital code … as well as particular predetermined appearance-of-
`
`tampering information.” (Ex. 2130 at 14-17; Ex. 1054 at 66:22-67:20.) But
`
`these two processes are entirely distinct from one another and, in fact,
`
`mutually exclusive. As the ’507 Application explains, the detection of any
`
`such tampering “prevents the apparatus of said station from decrypting the
`
`7
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`encrypted information of said ‘Wall Street Week’ program.” (Ex. 2050 at
`
`298-99 (293:32-294:19).)
`
`18. Third, Substitute Claim 32 recites “determining a fashion in which said
`
`receiver station locates a first decryption key by processing said instruct-to-
`
`enable signal.” PMC has identified “1st-WSW-program-enabling message
`
`(#7)” as the claimed “instruct-to-enable signal” and “Ba cipher information”
`
`as the claimed “first decryption key.” (Ex. 2130 at 13-14; Ex. 1054 at 50:1-
`
`7, 57:5-9, 64:21-65:4.) However, PMC has failed to identify any disclosure
`
`in the ’507 Application that explains how “1st-WSW-program-enabling
`
`message (#7)” in any way determines the fashion in which “Ba cipher
`
`information” is located.
`
`19.
`
`In fact, the ’507 Application describes that “Ba cipher information can be
`
`preprogrammed at eight different RAM locations and the particular location
`
`that applies at any given station … relates to the last three significant digits
`
`of the unique digital code of said station.” (Ex. 2050 at 304 (299:1-13).)
`
`That unique digital code is stored at the receiver station itself, not received
`
`in “1st-WSW-program-enabling message (#7).” (Ex. 2050 at 38 (33:7-12).)
`
`8
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Substitute Claims 37-40 Are Not Supported by the ’507
`Application
`20. Substitute Claim 37, and Substitute Claims 38-40 (which depend from
`
`Substitute Claim 37), are not supported by the ’507 Application. First,
`
`Substitute Claim 37 recites, in part, “receiving an encrypted digital
`
`information transmission including encrypted digital information and
`
`unencrypted digital information.” This is the same as the limitation that
`
`appears in Substitute Claim 32, and PMC once again has identified “local-
`
`cable-enabling-message (#7)” as the unencrypted digital information of the
`
`claim and the “so-called ‘digital video’ and ‘digital audio’” of the Wall
`
`Street Week Program as the encrypted digital information of the claim. (Ex.
`
`2130 at 22-23; Ex. 1054 at 82:14-21.) For the reasons described above, this
`
`limitation fails to find support in the ’507 Application.
`
`21. Second, Substitute Claim 37 requires “detecting in said encrypted digital
`
`information transmission the presence of a second instruct-to-enable
`
`signal.” PMC has identified “2nd-WSW-program-enabling-message (#7)”
`
`as supporting this “second instruct-to-enable signal.” (Ex. 2130 at 25; Ex.
`
`1054 at 85:13-16. But “2nd-WSW-program-enabling-message (#7)” is
`
`received as part of an analog television transmission, not the “encrypted
`
`digital information transmission” which contains the “so-called ‘digital
`
`9
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`video’ and ‘digital audio’” of the Wall Street Week Program. As the ’507
`
`Application explains
`
`In due course, but still before said 8:30 PM time, said
`program originating studio commences
`transmitting
`analog
`television
`information on
`its
`transmission
`frequency and embeds and transmits particular SPAM
`message information . . . . (Hereinafter, each of said
`SPAM messages
`is called a “2nd-WSW-program-
`enabling-message (#7).”) Then said program originating
`studio ceases transmitting analog television information.
`
`(Ex. 2050 at 308-09 (303:19-304:13).)
`
` Thus, “2nd-WSW-program-
`
`enabling-message (#7)” is not “detect[ed] in said encrypted digital
`
`information transmission.”
`
`C.
`
`Substitute Claims 41-43 Are Not Supported by the ’507
`Application
`22. Substitute Claim 41, and Substitute Claims 42-43 (which depend from
`
`Substitute Claim 41), are not supported by the ’507 Application. First,
`
`Substitute Claim 41 recites, in part, “receiving an encrypted digital
`
`information transmission including encrypted digital information and
`
`unencrypted digital information.” This is the same as the limitation that
`
`appears in Substitute Claim 32, and PMC once again has identified “local-
`
`cable-enabling-message (#7)” as the unencrypted digital information of the
`
`10
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`claim and the “so-called ‘digital video’ and ‘digital audio’” of the Wall
`
`Street Week Program as the encrypted digital information of the claim. (Ex.
`
`2130 at 34-35; Ex. 1054 at 89:1-7.) For the reasons described above in
`
`Section II. A., this limitation fails to find support in the ’507 Application.
`
`23. Second, Substitute Claim 41 requires “detecting in said encrypted digital
`
`information transmission the presence of an instruct-to-enable signal” and
`
`“automatically tuning said receiver station to a channel designated by said
`
`instruct-to-enable signal.” Here PMC identifies “enable-CC13 instructions”
`
`received as part of “local-cable-enabling-message (#7)” as the “instruct-to-
`
`enable signal.” (Ex. 2130 at 35; Ex. 1054 at 89:14-18.) Without explaining
`
`how it relates to the identified “instruct-to-enable signal,” PMC identifies as
`
`support for the “automatically tuning” limitation the disclosure which states
`
`“‘[t]hen, automatically, controller, 20, causes a selected tuner, 214, to tune to
`
`the frequency of cable channel 13.’” (Ex. 2130 at 36.)
`
`24. But, the “enable-CC13 instructions” received as part of “local-cable-
`
`enabling-message (#7)” cannot possibly be detected “in said encrypted
`
`digital information transmission” if the “enable-CC13 instructions” are what
`
`causes the receiver station to be tune to cable channel 13 on which the “so-
`
`called ‘digital video’ and ‘digital audio’” of the Wall Street Week Program
`
`is received at a later time. As the ’507 Application explains, “local-cable-
`
`11
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`enabling-message (#7)” is transmitted “[i]n the interval between said
`
`commence-enabling time and said 8:30 PM time … on the frequency of said
`
`master control channel” (Ex. 2050 at 296 (291:9-20)) while the “so-called
`
`‘digital video’ and ‘digital audio’” of the Wall Street Week program are
`
`transmitted “on cable channel 13, commencing at a particular 8:30 PM time”
`
`(Ex. 2050 at 294 (289:12-19)). To the extent PMC contends that the master
`
`control channel and cable channel 13 are one and the same, that would
`
`render the “automatically tuning” step redundant and meaningless.
`
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 32-43 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`GUILHOUSEN
`Substitute Claim 32 Is Obvious Over Gilhousen
`A.
`25. The limitations added in substitute claim 32 are either expressly disclosed or
`
`suggested by Gilhousen.
`
`1.
`
`receiving an encrypted digital information transmission
`including encrypted digital information and unencrypted
`digital information, wherein said encrypted digital
`information transmission is unaccompanied by any
`scrambled analog encoded information
`26. Gilhousen discloses receiving encrypted digital information and unencrypted
`
`digital information. Besides digitally scrambled video/audio, Gilhousen also
`
`discloses receiving an IV frame count signal, subscriber key generation
`
`number, encrypted channel key, and encrypted category key. (Ex. 1004 at
`
`12:17-28.) These are all digital signals, and the IV frame count and
`12
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`subscriber key generation number are unencrypted while the channel key
`
`and category key signals are encrypted. (Ex. 1004 at 4:43-49, 4:60-62, 5:36-
`
`56.)
`
`27. The received transmission is unaccompanied by any “scrambled analog
`
`encoded information.” The video and audio signals received in Gilhousen’s
`
`system are scrambled/descrambled in the digital domain. (Ex. 1004 at 6:46-
`
`7:13, 8:46-50, 9:35-10:20, 11:66-12:2, 16:26-17:3.) All other received
`
`signals are digital command and control signals (e.g., IV frame count,
`
`channel key, etc.) (Ex. 1004 at 4:43-49, 4:60-62, 5:36-56.) Just because
`
`Gilhousen’s video passes through a D/A converter before transmission (or
`
`display on a TV set) does not change the fact that the video/audio was
`
`scrambled/descrambled as digitally encoded information.
`
`2.
`
`creating, based on at least a portion of said encrypted
`digital information transmission, a digital record including
`a unique digital code identifying said receiver station
`28. Gilhousen discloses that the subscriber stations in its system are uniquely
`
`addressable, using a unique 32-bit address (a unique digital code identifying
`
`the subscriber station). (Ex. 1004 at 4:50-53, 23:64-65.) Gilhousen’s
`
`system also expressly discloses the ability to uniquely track “special events”
`
`or pay-per-view programming specifically ordered by a subscriber. (Ex.
`
`1004 at 21:60-68.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`13
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`in the art to use the unique subscriber address and special events
`
`programming code to create a record of any pay-per-view programming
`
`viewed by a subscriber for billing.
`
`29. Alternatively, it would also have been obvious to modify Gilhousen’s
`
`system in accordance with Jeffers’s teachings to create, “based on at least a
`
`portion of said encrypted digital information transmission, a digital record.”
`
`Jeffers describes a secure transmission system for video, audio, and control
`
`signals for use in cable, satellite, and microwave communications. (Ex.
`
`1066 at 1:7-27.) Jeffers discloses impulse pay-per-view features, including
`
`that “[f]or each program viewed on an impulse pay-per-view basis, the
`
`decoder will store the program tag number” and that “[t]his information is
`
`passed to the impulse pay-per-view data communications processor at the
`
`billing center … by the telephone modem … on the day of the month set as
`
`the billing period.” (Ex.1066 at 14:58-68, 15:22-25, 15:34-40.) Like
`
`Gilhousen’s address, Jeffers also discloses a unique digital code used to
`
`identify the subscriber station. (Ex. 1066 at 14:37-41.) It would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Jeffers’s teachings to
`
`Gilhousen’s system to create a digital record of pay-per-view purchases as
`
`taught by Jeffers and to include the subscriber address (or identity code) to
`
`accurately bill for programming viewed by a subscriber.
`
`14
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`automatically transmitting said digital record to a remote
`station, wherein said transmitting transmits digital
`information unaccompanied by any non-digital information
`transmission
`
`30.
`
`Implementing two-way communications in Gilhousen’s system would have
`
`been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art so as to
`
`enhance pay-per-view services (e.g., automatically sending billing data) and
`
`provide additional data services (e.g., viewdata). A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known that two-way communications in Gilhousen’s
`
`system could be provided in multiple ways (e.g., via return path in a cable
`
`implementation or over a telephone line in an over-the-air system). Further,
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had available to him/her
`
`various examples of such implementations, providing a variety of services
`
`such as pay-per-view billing, home security, data services, etc. (Ex. 1066 at
`
`14:58-68, 15:22-25, 15:34-40; Ex. 1067 at 2:64-3:7, 3:19-26, 17:42-18:49.)
`
`Adding such two-way communications to Gilhousen’s system would have
`
`been well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus it
`
`would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`automatically communicate billing data including unique the subscriber
`
`address and special events programming code to improve Gilhousen’s pay-
`
`per-view billing system.
`
`15
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`31. Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such
`
`digital records would be transmitted back (e.g., over a telephone line)
`
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission.
`
`32. Alternatively, it would also have been obvious to modify Gilhousen’s
`
`system in accordance with Jeffers’s teachings to “automatically transmitting
`
`said digital record to a remote station, wherein said transmitting transmits
`
`digital
`
`information unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`information
`
`transmission.” As explained above, Jeffers discloses impulse pay-per-view
`
`features, including that “[f]or each program viewed on an impulse pay-per-
`
`view basis, the decoder will store the program tag number” and that “[t]his
`
`information is passed to the impulse pay-per-view data communications
`
`processor at the billing center … by the telephone modem … on the day of
`
`the month set as the billing period.” (Ex. 1066 at 14:58-68, 15:22-25, 15:34-
`
`40.) At a preset time, the subscriber station automatically initiates
`
`communications with the billing center to transmit billing data. (Ex. 1066 at
`
`14:58-68, 15:22-25, 15:34-40.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that this communication of digital data via modem over the
`
`telephone
`
`line
`
`is unaccompanied by any non-digital
`
`information
`
`transmission.
`
`16
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Substitute Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Gilhousen
`B.
`33. As explained above in substitute claim 32, ¶¶ 26-27, Gilhousen discloses
`
`decrypting digital video information. The digital video information is
`
`decrypted using both a first and second decryption key (i.e., keystream and
`
`subscriber key). (Ex. 1004 at 6:46-7:13, 8:46-50, 9:35-10:20, 11:66-12:2,
`
`16:26-17:3.)
`
`C.
`
`Substitute Claim 37 Is Obvious Over Gilhousen In View of
`Campbell
`34. The added limitations in substitute claim 37 are almost identical to those
`
`added in substitute claim 32. Where the limitations of substitute claim 37
`
`differ from substitute claim 32, they are disclosed Gilhousen alone or in
`
`combination with Campbell or Jeffers.
`
`1.
`
`executing second processor instructions “of said second
`instruct-to-enable signal.”
`35. Gilhousen discloses this limitation.
`
` Gilhousen discloses that “[t]he
`
`subscriber key generator 165” executes the second processor instructions
`
`“by processing the subscriber key generation signal on line 180 in
`
`accordance with the DES encryption algorithm.” (Ex. 1004 at 12:63-68.)
`
`Executing those processor instructions “generates a unique 64-bit subscriber
`
`key generation signal on line 181,” the last eight bits of which are truncated
`
`17
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`“to provide a unique 56-bit subscriber key signal on line 182.” (Ex. 1004 at
`
`12:63-13:3.)
`
`2.
`
`wherein said receiver station comprises a central processing
`unit, said central processing unit interacting with random
`access memory, and reprogrammable nonvolatile memory
`36. Gilhousen discloses this limitation. Gilhousen discloses that the subscriber’s
`
`receiver station comprises control processor 202. (Ex. 1004 at 14:36-44,
`
`Fig. 7.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`control processor to be a central processing unit because it controls the
`
`receiver’s operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also
`
`understood that the control processor would interact with RAM (for
`
`temporary storage) and reprogrammable nonvolatile memory (for permanent
`
`storage, e.g., firmware storage).
`
`3.
`
`wherein said receiver station stores a unique digital code
`capable of identifying said receiver station
`37. Gilhousen discloses that the receiver station stores a unique digital code
`
`capable of identifying the receiver station. Gilhousen stores in memory 164
`
`a subscriber address, which uniquely identifies a subscriber station. (Ex.
`
`1004 at 4:50-53, 12:59-60, 23:64-65.) The subscriber address is a unique
`
`digital code capable of identifying the subscriber station.
`
`4.
`
`storing digital data comprising information particular to a
`subscriber at said receiver station and originated at said
`
`18
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`receiver station / outputting said digital programming
`…wherein said outputting also outputs information
`dependent on said digital data
`38. Gilhousen, in combination with Campbell, discloses storing digital data
`
`comprising
`
`information particular
`
`to a subscriber, and outputting
`
`information dependent on said digital data.
`
`39. Campbell discloses using a program’s content rating and a subscriber’s
`
`personally chosen content rating threshold to enable/disable viewing of a
`
`particular program. (1067 at 14:9-22, 15:54-16:14.) A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that a content rating threshold would
`
`constitute information particular to a subscriber. For example, a subscriber
`
`with young children may set the threshold such that only family friendly
`
`programming is viewable while a subscriber without young children in the
`
`house may set a higher threshold. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that employing such a program rating would have
`
`been a simple modification in Gilhousen’s system as Gilhousen already
`
`discloses transmitting and processing digital command and control data.
`
`Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also known that such
`
`thresholds may be frequently changed (as household needs change). Thus a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to store such
`
`information in reprogrammable nonvolatile memory at the subscriber’s
`
`19
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`decoder, and understood that such subscriber selected information is
`
`originated at the subscriber decoder.
`
`40. Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`programing would be output dependent on such data (e.g., content rating
`
`threshold).
`
`41.
`
`In the alternative, Gilhousen, in combination with Jeffers, also discloses
`
`storing digital data comprising information particular to a subscriber, and
`
`outputting information dependent on said digital data.
`
`42.
`
`Jeffers discloses that “[t]he subscriber has the option of recording a unique
`
`pass code which will then be required to authorize the viewing of an impulse
`
`pay-per-view program,” that [t]he password is entered into the receiver
`
`keyboard and is transferred to and stored in the decoder in a non-volatile
`
`RAM,” and that “[t]hereafter, the pass code must be entered into the receiver
`
`to view a scrambled event.” (Ex. 1066 at 11:11-18.) Jeffers also discloses
`
`that the receiving unit has the ability to implement parental controls to
`
`selectively enable program viewing based on the program’s rating and
`
`entering the correct subscriber password. (Ex. 1066 at 11:19-34.) Thus,
`
`Jeffers discloses “storing digital data comprising information particular to a
`
`subscriber at said receiver station and originated at said receiver station” and
`
`“outputting … information dependent on said digital data.” A person of
`
`20
`
`
`APPLE EXHIBIT 1055
`APPLE v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 23
`
`

`

`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it trivial to add these features to
`
`Gilhousen’s system and would have been motivated to do so to provide
`
`improved functionality such as that disclosed in Jeffers.
`
`Substitute Claims 34 and 39 Are Obvious Over Gilhousen
`D.
`43. As explained above in substitute claim 32, ¶¶ 26-27, the video and audio
`
`signals received and decrypted in Gilhousen’s system are scrambled in the
`
`digital domain. When these signals are scrambled/des