`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00755
`Patent No.: 8,191,091
`For: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALFRED C. WEAVER, PH.D.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I. Qualifications & Engagement ............................................................................. 1
`II. Materials Reviewed and Relied upon ............................................................... 5
`III. Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................. 6
`IV. Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 8
`A.
`Priority Date .................................................................................................. 8
`B. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 9
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 9
`D. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 11
`E. Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 12
`V. Background Technology of the ’091 Patent ................................................... 13
`VI. Priority Date ................................................................................................... 14
`VII. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 42
`A.
`“decrypting” / “encrypted” .......................................................................... 42
`B.
`“an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted
`information” .......................................................................................................... 58
`C.
`“locate” / “locating” .................................................................................... 63
`D.
`“designated” ................................................................................................ 65
`E. “processor” ..................................................................................................... 65
`F. “processor instructions” .................................................................................. 67
`VIII. Gilhousen (Ground 1) .................................................................................. 68
` Gilhousen does not qualify as prior art and is cumulative. ......................... 68
`A.
` Gilhousen fails to disclose “receiving an encrypted digital information
`B.
`transmission” as recited in claims 13 and 20. ....................................................... 69
`C.
` Gilhousen fails to disclose “determining a fashion in which said receiver
`station locates a first decryption key …” or “locating said first decryption key
`…” as recited in claim 13. .................................................................................... 74
`D.
` Gilhousen fails to disclose “decrypting said encrypted information …” as
`recited in claims 13 and 20. .................................................................................. 77
`
`i
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`E.
` Gilhousen fails to disclose “a first instruct-to-enable signal including first
`processor instructions” and “executing said first processor instructions …” or “a
`second instruct-to-enable signal including second processor instructions” and
`“executing said second processor instructions …” as recited in claim 20. .......... 78
`IX. Gilhousen in view of Block (Ground 2) ......................................................... 81
`A.
` The Gilhousen-Block combination does not qualify as prior art and is
`cumulative. ............................................................................................................ 81
` Block does not teach or suggest “storing information evidencing said step
`B.
`of decrypting.” ...................................................................................................... 83
`C.
`
`It would not be obvious to combine Gilhousen with Block. ....................... 87
`X. Mason (Ground 3) .......................................................................................... 90
` Mason does not qualify as prior art and is cumulative. .............................. 90
`A.
` Mason fails to disclose “receiving an encrypted digital information
`B.
`transmission” as recited in claims 13 and 20. ....................................................... 92
`C.
` Mason fails to disclose “decrypting said encrypted information …” as
`recited in claims 13 and 20. .................................................................................. 94
`D.
` Mason fails to disclose “a first instruct-to-enable signal including first
`processor instructions” and “executing said first processor instructions …” or “a
`second instruct-to-enable signal including second processor instructions” and
`“executing said second processor instructions …” as recited in claim 20. .......... 94
`XI. Mason in view of Block (Ground 4) .............................................................. 97
`A.
` The Mason-Block combination does not qualify as prior art and is
`cumulative. ............................................................................................................ 97
`B.
` Block does not teach or suggest “storing information evidencing said step
`of decrypting.” ...................................................................................................... 98
`C.
`
`It would not be obvious to combine Mason with Block. ............................ 99
`XII. Frezza (Ground 5) .........................................................................................101
`
`Frezza does not qualify as prior art and is cumulative. .............................101
`A.
`
`Frezza fails to disclose “receiving an information transmission including
`B.
`encrypted information” or “decrypting said encrypted information …” as recited
`in claim 26. ..........................................................................................................103
`C.
`
`Frezza fails to disclose “detecting the presence of an instruct-to-enable
`signal” as recited in claim 26. .............................................................................104
`XIII. Frezza in view of Block (Ground 6) ..........................................................106
`
`ii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 3
`
`

`
`
`
`A.
` The Frezza-Block combination does not qualify as prior art and is
`cumulative. ..........................................................................................................106
`B.
` Block does not teach or suggest “storing information evidencing said step
`of decrypting.” ....................................................................................................107
`C.
`
`It would not be obvious to combine Frezza with Block. ..........................108
`XIV. Kelly (Ground 7) .......................................................................................110
` Kelly fails to disclose “receiving an information transmission including
`A.
`encrypted information” or “decrypting said encrypted information …” as recited
`in claim 26. ..........................................................................................................111
` Kelly fails to disclose “detecting the presence of an instruct-to-enable
`B.
`signal” as recited in claim 26. .............................................................................112
` Kelly fails to disclose “automatically tuning said receiver station to a
`C.
`channel designated by said instruct-to-enable signal” as recited in claim 26. ...114
`XV. Kelly in view of Block (Ground 8) ..............................................................116
`A. The Kelly-Block combination does not qualify as prior art. .....................116
`B. Block does not teach or suggest “storing information evidencing said step
`of decrypting.” ....................................................................................................116
`C.
`It would not be obvious to combine Kelly with Block. ............................117
`XVI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................119
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Alfred C. Weaver, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration on behalf of Patent Owner Personalized
`
`Media Communications, LLC (hereinafter, “Patent Owner” or “PMC”) in support
`
`of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091 (“the ’091 Patent”) filed by Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications & Engagement
`2.
`
`In terms of my background and experiences that qualify me as an
`
`expert in this case, I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 1976 from the
`
`University of Illinois. I also obtained a Master of Science Degree in Computer
`
`Science from the University of Illinois in 1973 and a Bachelor of Science Degree
`
`in Engineering Science from the University of Tennessee in 1971.
`
`3. My fields of experience include computer science, computer systems,
`
`computer network architecture, and Internet and electronic commerce, among
`
`others.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Computer Science and Associate Chair
`
`of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Virginia (“UVa”). I
`
`have been employed at UVa continuously since 1977. I have taught more than 25
`
`different courses at UVa, including electronic commerce, operating systems,
`
`1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`computer networks, and various programming courses. Moreover, I have been the
`
`graduate advisor for 69 Ph.D. and master’s students, all in Computer Science.
`
`5.
`
`I teach the University of Virginia’s CS 4753 course “Electronic
`
`Commerce Technologies.” This course explains the role of encryption in modern
`
`electronic commerce and covers the details of the mathematical algorithms that
`
`implement symmetric key encryption, public key encryption, and other encryption
`
`techniques. I was the Principal Investigator for “Secure E-Commerce: A Modular
`
`Course Supported by Virtual Laboratories,” a $500,000 research project funded by
`
`the National Science Foundation to develop a course teaching secure e-commerce.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to my teaching activities at UVa, I am the Founding
`
`Director of the University of Virginia Applied Research Institute, a group of
`
`faculty who are pursuing research projects of national significance in the areas of
`
`homeland security and national defense and intelligence.
`
`7.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 16 books or book chapters in the
`
`computer science field and have authored or co-authored over 170 refereed journal
`
`and conference papers on various topics related to computer science, computer
`
`systems, computer networks, search agents, databases, the Internet and e-
`
`commerce, among other topics.
`
`8. With my co-authors Sam Dwyer and Kristen Hughes, I wrote a
`
`chapter entitled “Health Insurance Accountability and Portability Act” in the book
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`Security Issues in the Digital Medical Enterprise, published by the Society for
`
`Computer Applications in Radiology in 2004. I wrote the paper “Secure Sockets
`
`Layer” in Computer in April 2006. With my co-author Andrew Jurik I wrote
`
`“Securing Mobile Devices with Biotelemetry,” presented at the International
`
`Workshop on Privacy, Security, and Trust in Mobile and Wireless Systems
`
`(MobiPST’11), in Maui, HI, in July, 2011. I presented the NATO Fellowship
`
`Lecture at Bogazici University, in Istanbul, Turkey, in May 2000 on the topic of
`
`“Internet Privacy and Security.” With my master’s student Andrew Snyder I wrote
`
`“The e-Logistics of Securing Distributed Medical Data,” presented at the IEEE
`
`International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Banff, Alberta, Canada, in
`
`August 2003. I supervised Andrew Snyder’s master’s thesis on the topic of
`
`“Performance Measurement and Workflow Impact of Securing Medical Data
`
`Using HIPAA Compliant Encryption in a .NET Environment,” in August 2003.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 4,217,658 that resulted
`
`from my Ph.D. research at the University of Illinois.
`
`10.
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE, an honor awarded to less than two percent
`
`of the IEEE membership. I am a member of the editorial board of the IEEE
`
`Computer magazine.
`
`11.
`
`I have presented papers at numerous conferences and have served as
`
`Program Chair or Technical Program Chair of a number of conferences around the
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`world. For example, I was the Keynote Speaker at the International Workshop on
`
`Privacy, Security, and Trust for Mobile Devices (MobiPST’11), in Maui, Hawaii,
`
`in July 2011 on the topic of “Providing Privacy and Security for Mobile Devices.”
`
`I was the Keynote Speaker at the IEEE International Conference on Industrial
`
`Technology (ICIT'05), in Hong Kong, in December 2005 on the topic of
`
`“Achieving Data Privacy and Security Using Web Services.” I was the Keynote
`
`Speaker at the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and
`
`Factory Automation (ETFA’05), in Catania, Sicily, Italy, in September 2005 on the
`
`topic of “A Security Architecture for Distributed Data Security.”
`
`12.
`
`I have been an invited guest lecturer at numerous meetings sponsored
`
`by various corporations around the world. For example, I spoke on “Reliable
`
`Multicast and Reliable Group Management” for a meeting held at Sun
`
`Microsystems in Palo Alto, California in July, 1999. I gave a presentation entitled
`
`“Xpress Transport Protocol” at a meeting sponsored by General Electric Research
`
`and Development Laboratory, held in Schenectady, New York, in December, 1996.
`
`I was an invited speaker on the topic of “Medical Data Privacy and Security” at the
`
`Microsoft Healthcare Users’ Group meeting in Redmond, WA in 2006.
`
`13.
`
`I have also had the opportunity to consult with and/or work in the
`
`commercial sector. For example, I received a $200,000 research grant from
`
`Microsoft for my work in connection with development of a solution to the
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`problems associated with the privacy and security of medical data. In the past, I
`
`have consulted for General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, Raytheon, e-
`
`Systems and others. Additionally, I founded five companies of my own which
`
`focused on e-commerce. I was involved in all aspects of the life cycles of these
`
`companies from raising start-up capital funding, to designing and developing
`
`products, to commercializing these products in the marketplace. One of these
`
`companies, Reliacast, developed secure multimedia distribution software and was
`
`ultimately sold to Comcast.
`
`14. A detailed curriculum vitae showing more of my credentials in these
`
`fields and the cases in which I have testified in the past four years is attached as
`
`Ex. 2002.
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`rate of $400/hour for consulting services. My compensation is not determined by
`
`or contingent upon the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. Materials Reviewed and Relied upon
`16.
`In preparing this Declaration I reviewed and considered the following
`
`
`
`materials:
`
`Description
`Ex. / Doc.
`Paper 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review by Petitioner (“Pet.”)
`1001
`Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,191,091
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091
`U.S. Patent No. 4,613,901
`U.S. Patent No. 4,736,422
`U.S. Patent No. 4,712,239
`U.S. Patent No. 4,503,462
`U.S. Patent No. 4,484,217
`U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490
`IPR2014-01533, Paper No. 7
`IPR2014-01533, Paper No. 23
`IPR2014-01532, Paper No. 8
`IPR2014-01532, Paper No. 34
`All other documents cited and used in my Declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I have also relied on my years of education, teaching, research, and
`
`experience concerning software, computer architecture, networks, network
`
`protocols, electronic commerce, privacy and security.
`
`III. Summary of Conclusions
`18.
`I understand that Petitioner challenges claims 13-16, 18, 20-21, 23-24,
`
`26-27, and 30 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’091 Patent on eight grounds:
`
`(1) claims 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23 and 24 are allegedly anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,613,901 (Ex. 1004, hereinafter, “Gilhousen”) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102; (Ground 1)
`
`(2) claims 16 and 21 are allegedly rendered obvious by Gilhousen in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 4,484,217 (Ex. 1008, hereinafter, “Block”) under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103; (Ground 2)
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`(3) claims 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23 and 24 are allegedly anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,736,422 (Ex. 1005, hereinafter, “Mason”) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102; (Ground 3)
`
`(4) claims 16 and 21 are allegedly rendered obvious by Mason in view of
`
`Block under 35 U.S.C. § 103; (Ground 4)
`
`(5) claims 26 and 30 are allegedly anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,712,239
`
`(Ex. 1006, hereinafter, “Frezza”) under 35 U.S.C. § 102; (Ground 5)
`
`(6) claim 27 is allegedly rendered obvious by Frezza in view of Block under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103; (Ground 6)
`
`(7) claims 26 and 30 are allegedly rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,503,462 (Ex. 1007, hereinafter, “Kelly”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103; (Ground
`
`7)
`
`(8) claim 27 is allegedly rendered obvious by Kelly in view of Block under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103; (Ground 8)
`
`19. As described in detail below, it is my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims are novel and non-obvious over the references cited by Petitioner.
`
`20. Also, for the reasons set forth below, I conclude that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have had reason to
`
`modify the references in the manner stated in the Petition and in Mr.
`
`Wechselberger’s Declaration (Ex. 1001).
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner’s response, which this Declaration
`
`supports, is preliminary in nature and that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) has not yet ruled on whether to institute review of any of the eight
`
`grounds listed above. To the extent that the PTAB institutes review of the ’091
`
`Patent based on any of the grounds delineated above or based on additional
`
`grounds, I reserve the right to respond and to adjust this Declaration accordingly,
`
`for example in support of any response filed by the Patent Owner following the
`
`PTAB’s decision to institute review.
`
`IV. Legal Standards
`22.
`I am not an attorney. I have been advised of the following general
`
`principles of patent law to be considered in formulating my opinions as to whether
`
`the claims of the ’091 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
`A.
`23.
`
`Priority Date
`
`It is my understanding that, to qualify as prior art to a patent
`
`claim, a reference must be publicly available before the earliest priority
`
`date to which the patent claim is entitled. I understand that the standard to
`
`determine priority of a patent claim is whether the claimed invention is supported
`
`by the corresponding patent application: if the invention is supported, then the
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`claim is entitled to the priority date when the supporting application was first filed.
`
`I also understand that the priority date is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`B. Anticipation
`24.
`I understand that to anticipate a patent claim, a single prior art
`
`reference must disclose every element of the claim, either explicitly or inherently
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that an element of a claim is
`
`“inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference when the missing element is the
`
`inevitable outcome of the process and/or thing that is described in the prior art
`
`reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`25.
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject
`
`matter set forth in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`of the claim would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. I also understand that in assessing
`
`whether a claim is obvious, one must consider whether the claimed improvement is
`
`more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions. I understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of skill in the art would employ. I
`
`further understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity,
`
`not an automaton.
`
`27. However, I understand that obviousness cannot be based on the
`
`hindsight combination of components selectively culled from the prior art. I also
`
`understand that a combination is not obvious if it requires extensive additional
`
`problem-solving steps that are not taught in the references and that are not simple
`
`matters for a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, a combination is not
`
`obvious if it requires the development of an additional complex infrastructure.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation
`
`nor the avowed purpose of the inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or
`
`problem known in the field at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent
`
`can provide a reason for combining elements. For example, I understand that it is
`
`important to consider whether there existed, at the time of the invention, a known
`
`problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`claims. I understand that known techniques can have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes, and that a person of ordinary skill can fit the teachings of
`
`multiple pieces of prior art together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I
`
`further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
`
`product, not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on
`
`whether the claim would have been obvious.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`evidence of commercial success of the invention, evidence of a long-felt need that
`
`was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence
`
`that an invention achieved a surprising result. I further understand that such
`
`evidence must have a nexus or causal relationship to the elements of a claim in
`
`order to be relevant.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`31.
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must construe the
`
`claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification from the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 15
`
`

`
`
`
`purposes of this review, unless otherwise stated, I have construed each claim term
`
`in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`E.
`32.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I believe that the ’091 Patent is addressed to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”), i.e., a person with at least the equivalent of a Bachelor of
`
`Science in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related technical degree, with several years (e.g., 2-5 years)
`
`of post-degree experience in a similar field. In determining who would be a
`
`POSITA, I considered at least the following criteria: (a) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (b) prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and
`
`(e) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`33. Mr. Wechselberger suggests that “a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time of the alleged invention is a person with 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.” Ex. 1001
`
`at ¶87.
`
`34. While I do not agree with Mr. Wechselberger that a POSITA
`
`necessarily has to have 2-4 years of experience in the fields of “broadcast or
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`cablecast television transmission” because the claimed inventions are clearly not
`
`limited to those technical fields, the parties’ difference here does not seem to
`
`significantly impact the validity analysis based on the cited references.
`
`V. Background Technology of the ’091 Patent
`35. At a high level, the ’091 Patent describes an integrated system of
`
`programming communication that involves the fields of computer processing,
`
`computer communications, television, radio, and other electronic communications.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 1:25-32.
`
`36. The ’091 Patent describes the creation and delivery of content in a
`
`novel manner that provides protected, personalized, interactive, and/or combined
`
`medium programming. For instance, the ’091 Patent describes a number of
`
`embodiments including a signal processor capable of identifying, evaluating, and
`
`decrypting various control signals to facilitate secure delivery of programming
`
`content to subscriber stations. Ex. 1003 at 15:14-46.
`
`37. One type of control signals taught in the ’091 Patent provides
`
`enabling information for receiver operations such as content decryption. These
`
`signals are sometimes referred to as “instruct-to-enable signals” and may be
`
`embedded in the programing or may be elsewhere. Ex. 1009, 13:17-20.
`
`38. The signals may instruct a decryptor to decrypt the transmission or not
`
`to decrypt the transmission. Ex. 1009, 13:24-26. In addition, the “instruct-to-
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 17
`
`

`
`
`
`enable signals” may also inform a decryptor how to decrypt. Ex. 1009, 13:27-31.
`
`They may transmit a code or codes necessary for the decryption of the
`
`programming. Ex. 1009, 13:31-32. The “instruct-to-enable signals” may also
`
`inform the receiver apparatus of the fashion for identifying and processing
`
`enabling information (e.g., a decryption key) in the incoming transmission, such as
`
`where to look for the enabling information and when and how to transfer the
`
`information to the decryptor. Ex. 1009, 14:54-61.
`
`39. The Challenged Claims are generally directed to decryption key
`
`management techniques whereby a receiver station detects and processes one or
`
`more instruct-to-enable signals to obtain enabling information (e.g., decryption
`
`key) necessary for decryption of digital programming. See Ex. 1003, claims 13,
`
`20, 26.
`
`VI. Priority Date
`40. Petitioner assumes that Challenged Claims of the ’091 Patent are only
`
`entitled to the September 11, 1987 priority date. Pet. at 2. Mr. Wechselberger
`
`assumes the same 1987 priority date in his invalidity analysis. Ex. 1001 at ¶¶4, 8.
`
`41.
`
`I understand PMC stated in its Patent Rule 3-1 disclosure that the
`
`claims of the ’091 Patent “are at least entitled to the priority date” of September
`
`11, 1987. Ex. 1019 at 6 (emphasis added).
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 18
`
`

`
`
`
`42. For the reasons I explain below, the Challenged Claims of the ’091
`
`Patent are entitled to a priority date of no later than November 3, 1981.
`
`43. The ’091 Patent was filed on May 24, 1995 as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 08/449,097 (“the ’097 application”). The ’091 Patent claims priority through a
`
`chain of applications. Ex. 1003, Cover. Specifically, the ’091 Patent is a
`
`continuation application of, amongst others, Application No. 07/096,096 filed on
`
`September 11, 1987, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,965,825. I will refer to this
`
`Patent and specification as “the ’825 Patent.” The ’825 Patent is a continuation-in-
`
`part application of Application No. 06/317,510, filed on November 3, 1981, and
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490, which I will refer to as “the ’490 Patent.”
`
`44. The following chart provides evidence that every element of the
`
`Challenged Claims is disclosed in and supported by the ’490 Patent (Ex. 1009):
`
`Claim
`
`Disclosure in the ’490 Patent (Ex. 1009)
`
`13. A method of
`decrypting programming
`at a receiver station, said
`method comprising the
`steps of:
`
`4:31-46: “The present invention provides a method
`for obscuring the meaning of the signals to prevent
`unauthorized use of the signals and of their
`associated programing. Their meanings may be
`obscured through encryption so that apparatus
`described below are necessary to decrypt them. In
`addition, the pattern of the composition, timing, and
`location of the signals may vary in such ways that
`only receiving apparatus that are preinformed
`regarding the patterns that obtain at any given time
`will be able to process the signals correctly. Both the
`arrangement of signal units in signal words and the
`locations, timings, and lengths of signal words in
`
`15
`
`PMC Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 19
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Disclosure in the ’490 Patent (Ex. 1009)
`
`[a] receiving an
`encrypted digital
`information transmission
`including encrypted
`information;
`
`individual transmissions or groups of transmissions
`may vary in fashions that can only be interpreted
`accurately by apparatus that are preprogramed with
`the keys to such variations.”
`
`13:1-6: “FIGS. 4A through 4E illustrate methods for
`governing the reception of programing and the use
`of signal processor apparatus in these methods. All
`of these methods involve the use of one or more
`devices, of which various models exist well known in
`the art, for the decryption of programing
`transmissions …”
`
`See also FIGs. 4A-4E (receiver stations with signal
`processors and decryptors); FIG. 6D-6E.
`
`4:55-67: “The present invention contemplates signal
`processing apparatus comprising a device or devices
`that can selectively scan transmission channels as
`directed. The channels may convey television, radio,
`or other transmission frequencies. The input
`transmissions may be received by means of antennas
`or from hard-wire connections. The
`scanners/switches, working in parallel or series or
`combinations, transfer the transmissions to
`receiver/decoder/detectors that identify signals
`encoded in programing transmissions and