`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`I.INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC (“Petitioner”)
`filed a petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 11, 16, 18, and
`22–24 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,801,304 B1 (Ex. 1004,
`“the ’304 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`preliminary response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response, and the associated evidence, we conclude Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we
`institute an inter partes review.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`Petitioner informs us that the ’304 patent is the subject of a lawsuit:
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:13-
`cv-1608-RGA (D. Del. filed Sept. 23, 2013). Pet. 1. Petitioner also informs
`us that six patents related to the ’304 patent are the subject of concurrently-
`filed petitions for inter partes review. Id.; see IPR2014-01527, IPR2014-
`01528, IPR2013-01530, IPR2014-01531, IPR2014-01533 and IPR2014-
`01534.
`
`
`2
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`C. The ’304 Patent
`The ’304 patent is titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods”
`and generally relates to a unified system of programming communication.
`Ex. 1004, Abstr. The challenged claims relate to methods of controlling the
`decryption of programming at a subscriber station or receiver station.
`Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1. A method for controlling the decryption of programming at a
`subscriber station, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving programming, said programming having a first
`encrypted digital control signal portion and an encrypted digital
`information portion;
`
`detecting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`said programming;
`
`passing said first encrypted digital control signal portion of said
`programming to a decryptor at said subscriber station;
`
`decrypting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`said programming using said decryptor at said subscriber
`station;
`
`passing said encrypted digital information portion of said
`programming to said decryptor;
`
`decrypting said encrypted digital information portion of said
`programming using said decryptor at said subscriber station
`based on the decrypted control signal portion; and
`
`presenting said programming.
`
`The Patent Owner describes claim 1 as directed to a method
`decrypting the encrypted digital information portion of programming using a
`decryptor at a subscriber station based on a decrypted control signal portion
`
`3
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22014-01532
`
`
`Patennt 7,801,3004 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of thhe programmming. Preelim. Resp.. 10. The ’’304 patennt describess access
`:39–49.
`
`
`
`
`
`contrrol to transsmitted conntent at a rreceiver staation. Ex.
`1004, 143
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 4 of thee ’304 patennt, reproduuced beloww, illustratees a receiveer station:
`
`
`
`switcching of mmatrix switcch 258, andd decryptinng by decryyptors 1077, 224, andd
`
`
`
`
`As shown abovve in Figurre 4, the ’3
`
`
`
`04 patent ddiscloses aa receiver sstation
`
`
`
`
`trol tuners 200 to contprocessor 2havinng signal p
`214, 215,
`
`and 223, tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`231. Id. at 1488:12–16. I
`
`
`
`
`n one exammple descrribed in thee Specificaation, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Waall Street WWeek” proggram is trannsmitted too the receivver station
`
`
`
`
`televvision headd end. Id. aat 149:5–8. Prior to
`
`transmissi
`
`on, the cabble head
`
`
`
`
`
`
`end ““encrypts tthe digital audio infoormation off said transsmission, iin a fashionn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ular cipher ing particuwell known in the art, usi
`algorithm
`C and cip
`
`her key Caa,
`
`the informmation of saaid programm on cablee channel 113.” Id. at
`
`then transmits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`onsisting omessage coa SPAM mrthermore, 149:8–12. Fur
`
`f an “01” hheader,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locall-cable-enaabling-messsage (#7), is transmiitted with iinstructionns that
`
`by a cablee
`
`4
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`enable the “Wall Street Week” programming. Id. at 150:5–14. Executing
`the instructions causes controller 20 to receive the cable channel
`transmission, select the information of a cipher key Ca from among the
`information portion, and transfer the cipher key to decryptor 107. Once the
`ciper key is received by decryptor 107, decryptor 107 then decrypts “using
`said key information and selected decryption cipher algorithm C, and
`output[s] the decrypted information of the audio portion of the ‘Wall Street
`Week’ program transmission.” Id. at 151:58–63; 152:25–30.
`Subsequently, a second SPAM message that consists of an “01”
`header provides “1st-stage-enable-WSW-program” instructions as the
`information segment information. Id. at 153:19–24. Executing the “1st-
`stage-enable-WSW-program” instructions causes controller 20 to affect a
`first stage of decrypting the video information of the “Wall Street Week”
`program transmission. Id. at 153:47–50. Controller 20 selects the
`decryption cipher key Ba and transfers it to selected decryptor 224. Id. at
`153:47–65; 154:10–11. Controller 20 causes decryptor 224 to commence
`decrypting the received information using decryption cipher key Ba and
`decryption cipher algorithm B. Id. at 154:10–14.
`A third SPAM message provides “2nd-WSW-program enabling-
`message” instructions, causing the controller to affect a second stage of
`decrypting the digital video information of “Wall Street Week.” Id. at
`156:44–56. The second stage of decrypting the video information of the
`“Wall Street Week” program transmission is completed using the decryption
`cipher key Aa. Id. at 158:4–10. Finally, controller 20 causes the receiver
`station to commence the transfer of the decrypted television information of
`
`5
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`the “Wall Street Week” program to microcomputer 205 and monitor 202M.
`Id. at 159:36–40.
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 11, 16, 18, and 22–
`24 of the ’304 patent based on the following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`1, 11, 18, 23, and 24
`§ 103
`22
`
`Guillou1
`Guillou, Block,2 and
`Guillou ’0113
`Guillou and Block
`FIPS PUB 814
`
`
`§ 103
`§ 102
`
`11 and 16
`1, 16, and 18
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-
`Smith America Invents Act,5 the Board will interpret claims of an unexpired
`patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`Specification of the patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is a “heavy
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`1 US Patent No. 4,337,483, filed Jan. 31, 1980 (Ex. 1007) (“Guillou”).
`2 US Patent No. 4,225,884, filed Jun. 30, 1978 (Ex. 1008) (“Block”).
`3 US Patent No. 4,352,011, filed Jan. 23, 1980 (Ex. 1009) (“Guillou ’011”).
`4 DES Modes of Operation, Federal Information Processing Standards
`Publication 81), U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Nat’l Bureau of Standards,
`Dec. 2, 1980, (Ex. 1014) (“FIPS PUB 81”).
`5 Pub. L. No. 112-29,125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`6
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner argues the Board should construe the term “processor”
`to mean “a digital electronic device that processes information by operating
`on data according to instructions.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2002,
`Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983)). The exhibit relied upon by
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, provides Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary
`©1988, which does not provide the quoted definition but instead defines
`processor as “the part of a computer system that operates on data.”
`Ex. 2002, 3. An earlier edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary ©1979,
`provides the same definition for processor as “the part of a computer system
`that operates on data.” Ex. 3001, 3. The Specification of the ’304 patent
`does not expressly define “processor.”
`Petitioner alleges that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`the term “processor” can refer to a decryptor, decryption circuit, decoder,
`discriminator, unscrambler, or similar component. Pet. 13. Petitioner argues
`that the Specification of the ’304 patent discloses decryptors having the
`same functionality as a decryptor found within a processor. Pet. 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1004, 83:43–45 (“Said decryptor, 39K, is a conventional
`decryptor that is identical to decryptor, 10, of signal processor, 200”)).
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposal and argues that the
`’304 patent Specification’s disclosure of a processor 200, decoder 30, and
`decryptor 10 is inconsistent with a construction that would define a
`processor to be a decoder or decryptor. Id. at 18. We are not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s argument that a decoder or decryptor cannot constitute a
`processor. The cited “signal processor 200” disclosed in the ’304 patent is a
`processor implemented in a particular embodiment of disclosed invention
`(see Ex. 1004, 148:12–16). Furthermore, the disclosure of a particular
`
`7
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`embodiment having a “signal processor 200,” does not prohibit the
`decoder 30 or decryptor 10 disclosed in the Specification of the ’304 patent
`from also functioning as a “processor” that “operates on data.”
`Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the
`broadest reasonable construction of “processor” is “a device that operates on
`data.”
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`According to Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Wechselberger, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’304 patent would have “a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent experience, and two to four
`years of experience in the broadcast or cablecast television transmission
`fields.” Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger, Ex. 1006 ¶ 28.
`Patent Owner does not offer, at this time, any contrary explanation
`regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant
`to the ’304 patent. Based on our review of the ’304 patent, the types of
`problems and solutions described in the ’304 patent and cited prior art, and
`the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we adopt, for purposes of this
`decision, Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the claimed invention. Based on the stated qualifications of
`Mr. Wechselberger (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–17), Petitioner’s declarant meets the
`requirements of this definition. We note that the applied prior art also
`reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Asserrted Obvioousness Groound Baseed on Guilllou
`
`
`
`IPR22014-01532
`
`
`Patennt 7,801,3004 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. OOverview off Guillou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Guillou is titled “TText Videoo-Transmisssion Systeem Provideed With
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meaans For Conntrolling AAccess To TThe Informmation” andd describess a system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`havinng an inforrmation emmitting cennter, includding an enccryption m
`
`eans usingg
`
`
`s a decrypttion meanss
`
`
`
`
`
`an opperating keey, and recceiving stattions, whicch provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`usingg the operaating key. Ex. 1007, Abstr. Figgure 7 of GGuillou illuustrates onne
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiment off system, aand is reprooduced bellow:
`
`
`
`9
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`As shown above in Figure 7, Guillou discloses emitting center 2, including
`automatic encryption means 24, and receiving station 4, including automatic
`decryption means 38. Id. at 10:3–42. Guillou discloses that automatic
`decryption means 38 includes discriminator 42, adapted to distinguish
`among coded octets, and logic circuit 46 to output the decoded octets dj to
`display means 20. Id. at 10:42–56. Additionally, Guillou discloses restoring
`circuit 110 for restoring the operating key K from message Mi. Id. at 16:1–
`7. The message forming circuit 102 forms messages Mi using the
`subscriber’s keys Ci and the operating key K according to an algorithm,
`Mi = FCi(K). Id. at 15:51–57. Additionally, restoring circuit 110 in receiving
`station 4 receives the messages Mi and relies upon an algorithm,
`K = GCi(Mi), o restore the signal corresponding to the operating key K used
`in the emitting station. Id. at 16:1–10. Guillou also discloses that “[a]s soon
`as a distribution centre generates a new operating key K, it calculates, for
`each current subscribers’ key in use Ci for this service, a message Mi by
`means of an algorithm Mi = FCi(K), with the keys Ci acting as parameters.”
`Id. at 8:44–48.
`2. Analysis of Asserted Ground of Obviousness over Guillou
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 11, 18, 23, and 24 would have been
`obvious over Guillou. Pet. 13–37.
`a. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Guillou teaches the method recited in claim 1 by
`teaching a digital encrypted key delivery process in which the encrypted
`digital data and the encrypted digital key are transmitted from an emitter
`center and received by a subscriber station. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:8–14;
`6:62–68; 8:5–43; 9:60–64; Figs. 1, 2, 7, 9). Petitioner argues that the
`
`10
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`claimed “first encrypted digital control signal portion” is taught by the
`disclosure of Guillou’s message Mi, which contains the operating key K.
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007, 10; 8:55–58; 8:59–9:12; 15:42–16:17; 16:63–17:15;
`18:19–59; 20:53–21:14; Figs. 2, 7, 8, 10). Furthermore, Petitioner argues
`that the claimed “encrypted digital information portion” is taught by the
`disclosure of Guillou’s coded octets Dj, which are transmitted from the
`emitter center and received by the subscriber station. Pet. 18 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 2:23–27; 2:64–3:3; 5:53–57; 6:50–60; 7:33–42; 10:28–36; 11:3–
`10; Figs. 2, 7, 8).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge is insufficient because
`Guillou fails to disclose the “decryptor,” recited in claim 1. Prelim.
`Resp. 32. More particularly, Patent Owner argues that claim 1 requires a
`single decryptor to perform both decrypting of the “first encrypted digital
`control signal portion” and the “encrypted digital information portion.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner points to multiple decryptors in Guillou,
`including K-restoring circuit 110 and discriminator 42 as teaching the
`required decrypting steps. Id. (citing Pet. 19–20).
`Petitioner anticipates this argument in the Petition and states that to
`the extent Guillou is alleged to lack the “said decryptor” limitation recited in
`1(e) and 1(f), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`the art to combine both K-restoring circuit 110 and automatic decryption
`means 38 (discriminator 42 and logic circuit 46) to constitute a single
`multipurpose decryptor. Pet. 24. As a rationale for this modification,
`Petitioner states it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to consider or refer to both K-restoring circuit 110 and
`discriminator 42 logically as a single decryptor and that this would merely
`
`11
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`be a matter of design tradeoffs, such as signal processing requirements and
`cost. Id. Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Wechselberger, states that if the
`expected sales for the device were sufficiently high, it would have been cost
`effective to design an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”) to
`implement K-restoring circuit 110 and discriminator 42 in one
`semiconductor chip. Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. Patent Owner disagrees and states such
`a combination is not a trivial design tradeoff and that Petitioner fails provide
`evidence that implementing a single decryptor would have been obvious.
`Prelim. Resp. 33. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see In Re Translogic Techn., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The combination of familiar elements according to
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We are persuaded, for purposes
`of this decision, that the combination of the decryptor logic in Guillou into a
`single device was a known method that would have yielded the predictable
`result of similar functionality in a single device.
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge fails
`because Guillou’s message Mi, which contains the operating key K, is not a
`“first encrypted digital control signal portion,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim.
`Resp. 36. Patent Owner argues that the Guillou discloses only that a
`“message is created using a function F with Ci and K as input,” and that
`Guillou fails to “say that K is encrypted.” Id. We are not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s arguments. Although Guillou does not expressly refer to the
`
`12
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`function F as encryption, Guillou generally refers to an “[e]ncryption and
`decryption means” for charging for services delivered by a text video-
`transmission system. Ex. 1007, 8:5–14. Furthermore, Guillou states “[a]ll
`the messages Mi in force together constitute the information for access
`control associated with the service being broadcast.” Id. at 8:55–57.
`Additionally, the receiving station implements an algorithm, K = GCi(Mi), to
`restore the operating key K used in the emitting station. Id. at 16:1–10.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded sufficiently for purposes of this decision that
`the message Mi, which contains the operating key K, disclosed in Guillou
`constitutes a “first encrypted digital control signal portion.”
`b. Claim 23
`Claim 23 requires “a controller operatively connected to said digital
`detector or said decryptor for controlling said decryptor,” which Petitioner
`argues is taught by the disclosure of Guillou’s decoding circuit 145 and K-
`restoring circuit 110 operatively connected to and controlling the automatic
`decryption means. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:48–58; 10:41–50; 19:4–30;
`19:65–20:52; Figs. 2, 7, 9, 10). Additionally, claim 23 requires “receiving a
`plurality of signals including digital programming,” which Petitioner argues
`is taught by the disclosure of Guillou’s receiver station receiving a plurality
`of signals, including encrypted digital data and an encrypted digital control
`signal message Mi. Pet. 18, 27 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:55–9:12; 17:19–18:51;
`19:42–20:17; 20:40–52; Figs. 7, 9, 10). Claim 23 further requires “detecting
`said encrypted digital data in said at least some of said plurality of signals in
`accordance with a varying pattern of timing or location.” Petitioner argues
`this limitation is taught by the disclosure in Guillou of a new operating key
`K being generated at random every five minutes and the storage of the
`
`13
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 13
`
`
`
`–s. Pet. 28–y locationsge memoryndexed pagdifferent insages Mi inn spatially
`
`2
`
`IPR22014-0153
`
`
`Patennt 7,801,3004 B1
`
`mess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1007, 8:11
`
`29 (cciting Ex.
`
`
`–14; 8:39––43; 8:55––9:2, 17:39
`
`–43; 18:255–51).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt Owner aargues thatt Petitionerr’s challennge fails forr multiple
`reasons.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`First, Paatent Owneer argues thhat Guillouu fails to teeach the coontroller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recitted in claimm 23. Preliim. Resp. 440. More pparticularlly, Patent OOwner
`
`
`
`
`
`arguues that Pettitioner citees to K-resstoring circcuit 110 as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`decryyptor and tthe controlller. Prelimm. Resp. 4
`
` not persuaaded by
`1. We are
`e as both
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt Owner’s argumennt that K-reestoring cirrcuit 110 caannot serv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an ellement of tthe controlller and thee decryptorr. Figure 110 of Guilllou,
`
`
`
`
`reprooduced bellow, illustrrates an emmbodiment
`
`
`of the archhitecture oof the
`
`
`
`
`
`varioous compoonents of thhe receivinng station 44.
`
`
`both a porrtion of thee
`
`
`
`14
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`As illustrated above in Figure 10, Guillou discloses that decoding circuit 145
`and K-restoring circuit 110 are in communication with each other, generator
`26’, and discriminator 42. See Pet. 19–20, 30 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:59–
`9:12;16:63–17:15; 20:6–17; 20:40–52; 20:6–21:14, Figs. 7, 9, 10).
`Accordingly, K-restoring circuit 110 receives input from decoding circuit
`145 and also provides the operating key K to generator 26’. See id. Thus,
`we are persuaded for purposes of this decision that K-restoring circuit 110
`can serve as both a portion of the controller and decryptor.
`Second, similar to the arguments raised for claim 1, Patent Owner
`argues that Guillou fails to teach the single decryptor limitation recited in
`claim 23. Prelim. Resp. 43 (“Petitioner[] never identif[ies] a single
`decryptor that performs each of the claimed operations, and instead rel[ies]
`on multiple circuits.”). With respect to the “decryptor” limitation in claim
`23, Petitioner relies upon its allegations of obviousness of the “decryptor”
`limitation in claim 1. Pet. 30. Accordingly, similar to our findings for claim
`1, we are persuaded, for purposes of this decision, that the claimed
`“decryptor” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`view of the decryptor logic in Guillou.
`Third, Patent Owner argues that Guillou fails to teach the claimed
`“detecting said encrypted digital data in said at least some of said plurality of
`signals in accordance with a varying pattern of timing or location.” Prelim.
`Resp. 44. Petitioner relies upon Guillou’s teaching that a “new operating
`key K is generated (and therefore also messages Mi) every five minutes” as
`teaching the claimed “varying pattern of timing,” recited in claim 23.
`Petitioner further argues that Guillou discloses that the system user is in
`control of the service life of key K and it would have been obvious to one of
`
`15
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`ordinary skill in the art to vary the service life of key K and, thereby vary the
`pattern of timing of the transmission of messages Mi. Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex.
`1006 ¶¶ 58, 69–72; Ex. 1007, 18:52–55). Patent Owner argues that this
`modification would not satisfy the claim limitation because, even if the rate
`at which the operating key K can be modified is changed from 5 minutes to
`1 minute, the system will transmit at a fixed time interval. Prelim. Resp. 45.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because it
`mischaracterizes the Petitioner’s challenge. Petitioner alleges that the
`“system operator may vary the service life of the key K randomly or on an
`as-needed basis.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69). Furthermore, Guillou
`discloses that the messages Mi are calculated as soon as the new operating
`key K is generated. Ex. 1007, 8:44–48. Thus, if a new operating key K is
`generated a varying times, then the message Mi would be calculated at
`varying times. See id. Accordingly, we are persuaded, for purposes of this
`decision, that the claimed “varying pattern of timing” would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the varying operating
`key K disclosed in Guillou.
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that Guillou fails to teach the claim 23
`requirement of “decrypting at least a portion of said digital programming
`using a selected decryption pattern or technique.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19.
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Guillou’s operating key K is not
`“selected” to decrypt because there is no evidence that the subscriber station
`in Guillou chooses an operating key K from alternative possibilities. Prelim.
`Resp. 47. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`“selected” in claim 23 is “to choose between alternatives.” Id. at 19. We do
`not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “selected” in claim
`
`16
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`23. Claim 23 recites that decryption must occur “using a selected decryption
`pattern or technique based on said step of detecting.” Claim 23 (emphasis
`added). The use of the past tense of the term “select” indicates that the
`pattern or technique has already been chosen and, in fact, the claim requires
`that the “decryption pattern or technique” be “based on said step of
`detecting.” Accordingly, we do not construe the limitation “selected
`decryption pattern or technique” to require choosing from a set of alternative
`possibilities but rather that it be the “selected decryption pattern or
`technique” based on the previous step of detecting. Petitioner alleges that
`the step of detecting in claim 23 is taught by the disclosure in Guillou of
`passing the message Mi to a decryptor including K-restoring circuit 110 to
`decrypt the operating key K. Pet. 28. Accordingly, we are persuaded, for
`purposes of this decision, that the claimed “selected decryption pattern or
`technique” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`view of the cited disclosure in Guillou regarding operating key K.
`c. Claim 24
`Claim 24 requires “detecting data of said plurality of signal types and
`transferring said detected data to a processor,” which Petitioner argues is
`taught by the disclosure in Guillou of message Mi and encrypted digital data
`octets Dj being detected by video-data-separator 142, selection circuit 143,
`decoding circuit 145, K-restoring circuit 110, and automatic decryption
`means 38. Pet. 18, 34 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:55–9:12; 17:19–18:51; 19:42–
`20:17; 20:40–52; Figs. 7, 9, 10). Furthermore, claim 24 requires
`“identifying or locating said specific digital instruct-to-decrypt signal by
`processing said detected data in accordance with said stored information.”
`Petitioner alleges that this claim limitation is taught by the disclosure in
`
`17
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`Guillou of data octets Dj that do not include control codes and different
`octets having a “0” in both columns 0 and 1, which are digital instruct-to-
`decrypt signals that are identified by the discriminator 42. Pet. 17, 34 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 8:55–58; 8:59–9:12; 15:42–16:17; 16:63–17:15; 18:19–59; 20:53–
`21:14; Figs. 2, 7, 8, 10). Specifically, Petitioner relies upon the following
`disclosure in Guillou: “‘[A]utomatic decryption means 38 comprising: (i) a
`discriminator 42 with an input receiving the encrypted octets; this
`discriminator is adapted to distinguish, among these coded octets, those
`wherein the 7th and 6th binary elements are zero.’” Pet. 33 (quoting Ex.
`1007, 10:41–50).
`Patent Owner argues that Guillou fails to teach the “processor,”
`recited in claim 24 because the discriminator 42 and XOR gate 46, included
`in automatic decryption means 38, are not “processing information by
`operating on data according to instructions.” Prelim. Resp. 49. We are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner arguments. First, as discussed above, we do not
`adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “processor” but construe a
`“processor” to mean “a device that operates on data.” Second, for purposes
`of this decision, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that
`discriminator 42 is distinguishing among coded octets by analyzing the
`binary elements in those coded octets and routing the data accordingly; thus,
`discriminator 42 is operating on data. See Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 10:41–
`50). Additionally, Petitioner argues that to the extent Guillou is alleged to
`lack a “processor,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to replace discriminator 42 with a “processor” to perform the
`function of identifying and distinguishing between the encrypted and clear
`digital data octets. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73–74). Accordingly, we are
`
`18
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`persuaded, for purposes of this decision, that the “processor,” recited in
`claim 24 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view
`of the cited disclosure in Guillou.
`In opposing the challenge to claim 24, Patent Owner also argues that
`Guillou fails to teach or suggest the following claim recitation: “storing a
`procedure for locating or identifying a specific digital instruct-to-decrypt
`signal in a plurality of signal types.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Patent Owner argues
`that Petitioner fails to identify the stored procedure in Guillou because
`Guillou is a hard-wired system without any stored software to control
`operations. Id. Petitioner argues, however, that Guillou inherently discloses
`“storing a procedure” because the system has a procedure for locating or
`identifying a specific digital instruct-to-decrypt signal. Pet. 35–36 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 58). Specifically, decoding circuit 145 and automatic decryption
`means 38, including discriminator 42 and logic circuit 46, work together to
`identify which data octets Dj need to be decrypted. Id. Patent Owner
`counters that this logic disclosed in Guillou fails to provide “for the storage
`of software to control operations required by claim 24.” Prelim. Resp. 51.
`We disagree because, among other things, Patent Owner’s characterization
`of the requirements of claim 24 are not commensurate with the scope of the
`claim. Claim 24 does not require the storage of software but rather “storing
`a procedure,” which encompasses the procedures used by Guillou’s
`automatic decryption means 38 to identify data octets Dj that need to be
`decrypted. Accordingly, we are persuaded, for purposes of this decision,
`that “storing a procedure” recited in claim 24 would have been obvious to
`one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the cited disclosure in Guillou.
`
`19
`
`APPLE EX. 1013
`Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`d. Claims 11 and 18
`Claim 11 requires that the programming and signal necessary for
`decryption recited in the claim must be received from different sources. For
`this claim, Petitioner relies upon the disclosure in Guillou that the
`subscriber’s keys Ci are received from subscription-card-charging station
`112 and subscription center 100 and the programming is received from a
`different source, the emitting center 2. Pet 25 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:5–38;
`15:46–16:38; 16:55–62; 20:40–57; Figs. 7, 10). Patent Owner does not
`rebut specifically this challenge.
`Claim 18 requires that the digital programming recited in claim 1
`include computer data. For this claim, Petitioner argues that the encrypted
`digital signals received via digital line 18 could include computer data and,
`in fact, Guillou discloses that the disclosed broadcasting system could be
`applied to other systems, such as Ceefax, Oracle, ViewData, or Prestel
`systems. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:10–20; 21:23–28; Figs. 1, 2, 7).
`Patent Owner does not rebut specifically this challenge.
`e. Conclusion
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis and sup