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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091
`___________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`PMC AND THE APPLE LITIGATION ......................................................... 3
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTED INVENTIONS ...................................... 5
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 6
`V.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................ 7
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 16
`A.
`“decrypting” / “encrypted” .................................................................. 17
`B.
`“an encrypted digital information transmission including
`encrypted information” ....................................................................... 25
`“locate” / “locating” ............................................................................ 26
`C.
`“designated” ........................................................................................ 27
`D.
`“processor” .......................................................................................... 28
`E.
`“processor instructions” ...................................................................... 29
`F.
`VII. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED ..................................................... 30
`A.
`Response To Grounds 1-6 And 8: References Dated After
`November 3, 1981 Do Not Qualify As Prior Art. ............................... 33
`Response To Ground 1: Gilhousen Does Not Anticipate Claims
`13-15, 18, 20, 23, Or 24. ..................................................................... 34
`1.
`Gilhousen fails to teach “receiving an encrypted digital
`information transmission” as recited in claims 13 and 20. ....... 34
`Gilhousen fails to teach “determining a fashion in which
`said receiver station locates a first decryption key …” or
`“locating said first decryption key …” as recited in claim
`13. .............................................................................................. 36
`Gilhousen fails to teach “decrypting said encrypted
`information …” as recited in claims 13 and 20. ....................... 38
`Gilhousen fails to teach “a first instruct-to-enable signal
`including first processor instructions,” “a second instruct-
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`to-enable signal including second processor instructions,”
`and related “executing” steps in claim 20. ................................ 39
`Response To Ground 3: Mason Does Not Anticipate Claims
`13-15, 18, 20, 23, Or 24. ..................................................................... 42
`1. Mason fails to teach “receiving an encrypted digital
`information transmission” as recited in claims 13 and 20. ....... 43
`2. Mason fails to teach “decrypting said encrypted
`information …” as recited in claims 13 and 20. ....................... 44
`3. Mason fails to teach “a first instruct-to-enable signal
`including first processor instructions,” “a second instruct-
`to-enable signal including second processor instructions,”
`and related “executing” steps in claim 20. ................................ 44
`Response To Ground 5: Frezza Does Not Anticipate Claims 26
`Or 30 Because It Fails To Teach Every Element Of The Claims. ...... 46
`1.
`Frezza fails to teach “receiving an information
`transmission including encrypted information” or
`“decrypting said encrypted information …” as recited in
`claim 26. .................................................................................... 47
`Frezza fails to teach “detecting the presence of an
`instruct-to-enable signal” as recited in claim 26. ...................... 48
`Response To Ground 7: Kelly Does Not Render Claims 26 Or
`30 Obvious Because It Fails To Teach Or Suggest Every
`Element Of The Claims. ...................................................................... 49
`1.
`Kelly fails to teach or suggest “receiving an information
`transmission including encrypted information” or
`“decrypting said encrypted information …” as recited in
`claim 26. .................................................................................... 50
`Kelly fails to teach or suggest “detecting the presence of
`an instruct-to-enable signal” as recited in claim 26. ................. 51
`Kelly fails to teach or suggest “automatically tuning said
`receiver station to a channel designated by said instruct-
`to-enable signal” as recited in claim 26. ................................... 52
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`2.
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Response To Grounds 2, 4, 6, and 8: The Combinations Of
`Each Primary Reference with Block Cannot Render Claims 16,
`21, or 27 Obvious. ............................................................................... 54
`1.
`None of the combinations with Block teach or suggest
`“storing information evidencing said step of decrypting”
`as recited in claims 16, 21, or 27. ............................................. 55
`It would not have been obvious to combine any of the
`primary references with Block. ................................................. 57
`Response To Grounds 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8: Secondary
`Considerations Confirm The Nonobviouness Of The Claimed
`Inventions. ........................................................................................... 62
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62
`
`
`G.
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Ex Parte Burgess,
`No. 2008-2820, 2009 WL 291172 (B.P.A.I. Feb 06, 2009) ............................... 32
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 15-17 (1966) ............................................................................. 31, 62
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 31
`
`In re Lowry,
`32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 32
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................... 41
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 31, 32
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................ 31
`
`St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 16
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 31
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 32
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 3, 30
`
`37 C.F.R. 42 .................................................................................................. 3, 16, 30
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2001.06(c) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2112 ....................................................................................................... 41
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2141 ....................................................................................................... 32
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2143 ....................................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Declaration Of Alfred C. Weaver, Pd.D., In Support Of
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Alfred C. Weaver
`Transcript of Depositions of Anthony Wechselberger,
`Amazon v. PMC, IPR2014-01532 (June 2-3 and August
`25, 2014)
`PMC’s Appeal Brief in Reexam. of U.S. Pat. No.
`4,965,825, Control No. 90/006,536 (January 29, 2007)
`PMC’s Reply Brief in Reexam. of U.S. Pat. No.
`5,335,277, Control No. 90/006,536 & 90/006,698
`(November 10, 2008)
`PMC’s Appeal Brief in Reexam. of U.S. Pat. No.
`5,335,277, Control No. 90/006,536 & 90/006,698
`(August 16, 2006)
`Board Decision in Reexam. of U.S. Pat. No. 5,335,277,
`Control No. 90/006,536 (January 19, 2010)
`Order (Dkt. No. 715) in Pegasus Dev. Corp. et al. v.
`DirecTV, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 00-1020 (D. Del. May 15,
`2013)
`Board Decision in Reexam. of U.S. Pat. No. 4,965,825,
`Control No. 90/006,536 (December 19, 2008)
`Expert Declaration Of Anthony J. Wechselberger In
`Support Of Defendants’ Principal Opening Brief On
`Claim Construction (Dkt. No. 159) in Broadcast
`Innovation, LLC v. Echostar Communications Corp,
`Hughes Electronics Corp, DirecTV, Thomson
`Multimedia, Dotcast, Pegasus Satellite Television Inc.,
`C.A. No. 01-WY-2201 (D. Col. Sept. 16, 2002)
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,248 to Pitts
`Excerpt from Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No.
`170) in PMC v. Apple, C.A. 2:15-cv-01366, (E.D. Tex.
`June 14, 2016)
`Excerpts from 1981 New Collegiate Dictionary,
`definitions of “designate” and “locate”
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`Patent Owner, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”),
`
`submits the following preliminary response to the petition filed by Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) on March 14, 2016 for inter partes review of claims 13-16, 18, 20-
`
`21, 23-24, 26-27, and 30 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`(the “’091 Patent”). (“Pet.” or the “Petition.”)1 As set forth below, Petitioner has
`
`failed to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing
`
`the unpatentability of at least one Challenged Claim.
`
`The claimed inventions are directed to various novel and non-obvious
`
`decryption key management techniques implemented across a content distribution
`
`network. According to the claimed methods, a receiver station receives an
`
`“information transmission” including “encrypted information,” one or more
`
`“instruct-to-enable signals” are detected to allow the receiver station to locate or
`
`obtain decryption-enabling information (e.g., decryption key(s)), and the encrypted
`
`information is decrypted based on the enabling information in order to output
`
`protected programming. For example, independent claim 13 covers, inter alia, the
`
`detection and use of “an instruct-to-enable signal” in order to determine “a fashion
`
`
`1 A Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response (Paper No. 3) was issued on March 25, 2016. PMC’s
`
`Preliminary Response is filed within three months from the date of that notice.
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`in which said receiver station locates a first decryption key.” Independent claim 20
`
`covers, inter alia, the detection and processing of two “instruct-to-enable signals”
`
`including “processor instructions” for obtaining two decryption keys that are both
`
`used for decryption of the encrypted information. Independent claim 26 covers,
`
`inter alia, detecting “an instruct-to-enable signal,” “automatically tuning said
`
`receiver station to a channel designated by said instruct-to-enable signal,” and
`
`“receiving enabling information from a remote source based on said step of
`
`tuning” that is used for decryption of encrypted content.
`
`All but one of the cited references are dated after the priority date of the
`
`Challenged Claims and therefore do not qualify as prior art at all. Petitioner
`
`incorrectly assumes the claims are only entitled to a 1987 priority date, but they are
`
`actually entitled to a 1981 priority date through priority claims and written support
`
`in the 1981 specification. Petitioner has not placed the priority date into question:
`
`it has not even attempted to make out a prima facie case that the ’091 Patent is not
`
`entitled to 1981 priority. Therefore, seven out of the eight invalidity grounds
`
`proposed in the Petition should be denied for relying on non-prior-art references.
`
`Even assuming all the cited references were prior art, none of them, either
`
`alone, or in combination, disclose all the elements of the claimed inventions and,
`
`further, they would not be obvious to combine as Petitioner alleges. None of the
`
`primary references teaches or suggests “receiving an encrypted digital information
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`transmission including encrypted information,” “decrypting said encrypted
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`information,” or “executing said first[/second] processor instructions of said
`
`first[/second] instruct-to-enable signal to provide a first[/second] decryption key.”
`
`The single secondary reference (i.e., Block), even if there were any reason to
`
`combine it with the primary references, does not teach or suggest “storing
`
`information evidencing said step of decrypting”—the limitation for which the
`
`secondary reference is cited.
`
`Furthermore, almost all the cited references were before the PTO and/or
`
`specifically considered or cited by the Examiner during prosecution of the
`
`application that led to the ’091 Patent, making most of Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`grounds cumulative.
`
`The Board should decline to institute inter partes review because Petitioner
`
`has failed to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail as to
`
`at least one of the Challenged Claims as required under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`II.
`
`PMC AND THE APPLE LITIGATION
`
`PMC is the owner of a portfolio of over 90 patents by inventor and PMC
`
`founder John C. Harvey and co-inventor James Cuddihy. These patents cover
`
`numerous techniques related to the use of control and information signals in the
`
`delivery of electronic media content, for example, to receive multimedia
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`programming content, to locate or obtain decryption-enabling information, to
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`decrypt the protected content, and/or to output decrypted programming. The PMC
`
`inventions have a wide range of applications in networked systems involving
`
`diverse platforms such as personal computers, televisions and other electronic
`
`media delivery systems. The inventions enable broadcasters, publishers,
`
`advertisers, consumers, and/or a variety of businesses to enjoy the benefits of new
`
`media content in numerous ways. An array of technology companies, such as
`
`Motorola Mobility, Sony Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, Cisco Systems,
`
`Arris, and Sharp have recognized the value of PMC’s patents and have licensed the
`
`inventions, including the inventions claimed in the ’091 Patent.
`
`On July 30, 2015, PMC filed a patent infringement suit in the United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Petitioner, Apple Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP. PMC currently asserts that Petitioner
`
`infringes four of PMC’s patents, including United States Patent Nos. 7,752,649,
`
`8,191,091, 8,559,635, and 8,752,088. On March 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a
`
`petition for inter partes review for each of these patents.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner makes unsubstantiated and irrelevant charges
`
`regarding the prosecution of the PMC patents in an effort to sow bias and to
`
`distract the Board from the merits. For example, Petitioner charges that PMC
`
`overwhelmed the Patent Office with disclosures of prior art references. (Pet. at 1.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`The prosecution history shows that Petitioner’s allegation is untrue, as PMC
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`merely fulfilled its duty of candor by disclosing relevant references to the PTO,
`
`many of which were cited by litigants. The MPEP requires that a patent holder
`
`disclose prior art cited against a patent by litigants. M.P.E.P. § 2001.06(c)
`
`(“Information from Related Litigation”). Petitioner does not dispute the relevancy
`
`of any of the references PMC disclosed, or that the MPEP requires disclosure.
`
`Perhaps that is because Petitioner wants to downplay the fact that each of its
`
`invalidity grounds is cumulative for being based on a primary reference already
`
`known to, and/or specifically considered by, the PTO.
`
`Character attacks have no place here. The only issue before the Board is the
`
`following: Does the cited art make it reasonably likely that at least one of the
`
`Challenged Claims is unpatentable?
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTED INVENTIONS
`The claims of the ’091 Patent are directed to decryption key management
`
`techniques. (Ex. 2001 at ¶39.) Each challenged claim recites “a method of
`
`decrypting programming at a receiver station” including the steps of: (a) “receiving
`
`an [encrypted digital] information transmission including encrypted information,”
`
`(b) detecting at least one “instruct-to-enable signal,” (c) locating or obtaining
`
`“decryption key(s)” or “enabling information” based on the “instruct-to-enable
`
`signal,” (d) “decrypting said encrypted information” using the key(s) or enabling
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`information, and (e) “outputting said programming based on said step of
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`decrypting.”
`
`How the decryption key(s) or enabling information are located or obtained
`
`vary among the three sets of claims, with each citing a different inventive key-
`
`handling technique. Independent claim 13 recites “determining a fashion in which
`
`said receiver station locates a first decryption key by processing said instruct-to-
`
`enable signal” and “locating said first decryption key based on said step of
`
`determining.” Independent claim 20 recites “detecting in said encrypted digital
`
`information transmission the presence of a first instruct-to-enable signal including
`
`first processor instructions,” “executing said first processor instructions of said
`
`first instruct-to-enable signal to provide a first decryption key,” “detecting in said
`
`encrypted digital information transmission the presence of a second instruct-to-
`
`enable signal including second processor instructions,” and “executing said second
`
`processor instructions to provide a second decryption key.” Independent claim 26
`
`recites “automatically tuning said receiver station to a channel designated by said
`
`instruct-to-enable signal” and “receiving enabling information from a remote
`
`source based on said step of tuning.” (See Ex. 1003, claims 13, 20, 26.)
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The claims of the ’091 Patent are directed to a person who, at the time of the
`
`claimed inventions (i.e., by November 3, 1981), has at least the equivalent of a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Bachelor of Science in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`engineering, computer science, or a related technical degree, with several years
`
`(e.g., 2-5 years) of post-degree experience in a similar field. Similarly, Petitioner
`
`posits that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ’091 Patent
`
`would be “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.) While PMC disagrees
`
`that a POSITA necessarily has to have 2-4 years of experience in the particular
`
`fields of “broadcast or cablecast television transmission,” Petitioner’s attempt to
`
`limit the applicable technical fields of the inventions does not appear to affect the
`
`validity analysis here. (Ex. 2001 at ¶34.)
`
`V.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner assumes, incorrectly, that the Challenged Claims are only entitled
`
`to a September 11, 1987 priority date “for purposes of this IPR only.” (Pet. at 2.)
`
`Petitioner bases this assumption on PMC’s preliminary disclosure of asserted
`
`claims and infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where PMC
`
`contends that “the asserted claims of [the ’091 Patent] are at least entitled to the
`
`priority date of United States Patent Application Serial No. 07/096,096, filed
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`September 11, 1987, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,965,825 ...”2 (Pet. at 2, citing Ex. 1019
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`at 6 (emphasis added).)
`
`By explicitly stating that the claims of the ’091 Patent are at least entitled to
`
`the 1987 priority date, PMC did not indicate in any way that those claims could not
`
`have a priority date earlier than 1987. Indeed, in the same sentence, PMC makes
`
`clear that the 1987 application asserted priority back to 1981 because it “was a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 06/829,531, filed February
`
`14, 1986, now U.S. Patent No. 4,704,725, which was a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 06/317,510, filed November 3, 1981, now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,694,490.”3 (Ex. 1019 at 6 (emphasis added).)
`
`Therefore, as seasoned patent practitioners and/or patent litigators,
`
`Petitioner’s counsel were put on notice that the Challenged Claims of the ’091
`
`Patent, which claim priority ultimately to a 1981 application, could be entitled to
`
`the 1981 priority date. In fact, the Petition refers to PMC’s 1981 specification in
`
`claim construction, showing that Petitioner knew the ’091 Patent might be entitled
`
`to the 1981 priority date. (See Pet. at 6 (“This non-limiting construction of the
`
`2 That preliminary statement in the litigation is not binding in the district court,
`much less here before the PTAB in a different proceeding.
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 4,694,490 is referred to as “the ’490 Patent” and its specification
`“the 1981 specification.” U.S. Pat. No. 4,965,825 is referred to as “the ’825
`Patent” and its specification “the 1987 specification.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`phrase is consistent with the disclosure of the ’490 patent, of which the ’091 patent
`
`is a continuation-in-part.”)
`
`An element-by-element analysis shows that each of the Challenged Claims
`
`has written description support in the 1981 specification (the ’490 Patent, Ex.
`
`1009) that enables a POSITA to make and use the claimed inventions without
`
`undue experimentation. (Ex. 2001 at ¶44 (including a detailed claim chart setting
`
`forth written support of each claim element in the ’490 Patent (Ex. 1009)).)
`
`For example, with respect to the claimed inventions in general, the ’490
`
`Patent describes “a method for obscuring the meaning of the signals [through
`
`encryption] to prevent unauthorized use of the signals and of their associated
`
`programing” (Ex. 1009, 4:31-46), and “FIGS. 4A through 4E illustrate methods for
`
`governing the reception of programing and the use of signal processor apparatus in
`
`these methods” (id., 13:1-6).
`
`More particularly, regarding the steps of “receiving an [encrypted digital]
`
`information transmission including encrypted information” and “detecting” at least
`
`one “instruct-to-enable signal” as recited in each of independent claims 13, 20 and
`
`26, the ’490 Patent describes receiving “input transmissions” and transferring them
`
`to “receiver/decoder/detectors that identify signals encoded in programing
`
`transmissions and convert the encoded signals to digital information” (id., 4:55-
`
`67), such as identifying a signal “in the incoming programming” of “The French
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Chef” TV program so as to “receive the recipe in [encrypted] digital form” either
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`in the TV “programming transmission” or on another channel, and to decrypt it on
`
`the basis of an encrypted “signal word” that is decrypted and then used as the
`
`“code” (key) to decrypt the recipe (id., 20:12-50; 20:60-68). The ’490 Patent
`
`further describes a “controller, 20” that “can instruct signal decoders, 30 and 40,
`
`when, where, and how to look for signal words, which allows signal words to be
`
`received in any pattern or patterns” in an information transmission (id., 8:32-39),
`
`and “[t]he simplest forms of signal processor apparatus are each of the five paths
`
`described in FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C” which are “capable of identifying signals in
`
`the portions of programing transmissions that each receives” (id., 9:27-40). One
`
`exemplary method of “detecting” certain signals is for “microcomputer, 205, [to]
`
`instruct[] signal processor, 200, to hold examples of the sought for unique signals
`
`in its buffer/comparator, 8, and compare them with all incoming signals.” (Id.,
`
`18:44-68.)
`
`Regarding “instruct-to-enable signals,” the ’490 Patent discloses that “[t]he
`
`signals that enable the decrypter/interrupter, 101, to decrypt and/or transfer
`
`programing uninterrupted may be embedded in the programing or may be
`
`elsewhere.” (Id., 13:17-20.) “The signal or signals may also inform
`
`decrypter/interrupter, 101, how to decrypt or interrupt the programing if
`
`decrypter/interrupter, 101, is capable of multiple means. The signal or signals may
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`transmit a code or codes necessary for the decryption of the transmission.” (Id.,
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`13:24-32.)
`
`The ’490 Patent further describes the different ways of locating or obtaining
`
`at least one “decryption key” or “enabling information” based on the “instruct-to-
`
`enable signal” as recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`Regarding the steps of “determining a fashion in which said receiver station
`
`locates a first decryption key by processing said instruct-to-enable signal” and
`
`“locating said first decryption key based on said step of determining,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 13, the ’490 Patent describes that “[b]oth the arrangement of
`
`signal units in signal words and the locations, timings, and lengths of signal words
`
`in 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” (id., 4:31-46) and that “[t]he signals that enable the
`
`decrypter/interrupter, 101, to decrypt … programing … may be embedded in the
`
`programing or may be elsewhere” such as “in a channel other than the channel
`
`being transferred” (id., 13:13-32; 14:46-54). A “signal processor, 112” may be
`
`“informed of the predetermined fashion for identifying and processing the []
`
`needed signal or signals in the incoming transmission … for example, where to
`
`look for the signals and when and how” and “can transfer the [located] signal to
`
`decryptor/interruptor, 115.” (Id., 14:54-61.) A “controller, 20” in a signal
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`processor (FIG. 1) “can tell decrypter, 10, when and how to change decryption
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`patterns, fashions, and techniques.” (Id., 8:39-40.) “FIG. 4E also illustrates how it
`
`may be necessary to decrypt a programing transmission on one channel in order to
`
`identify and process correctly the programing transmitted on another”; for
`
`example, “the signal or signals needed to operate decryptor/interruptor, 115,
`
`correctly may be on a separate channel of programing that is, itself, encrypted in
`
`transmission” and has to be located (i.e., identified and decrypted) first. (Id., 15:8-
`
`19.) Yet another example of “locating said first decryption key” is to “telephone a
`
`remote site to get an additional signal or signals necessary for the proper
`
`decryption and/or transfer of incoming programing transmissions.” (Id., 15:20-25.)
`
`In the case of cascaded encryption or double encryption, the “locating” may
`
`involve decrypting the “instruct-to-enable signal” to “serve as the code for the first
`
`stage of decryption.” (Id., 21:35-43.)
`
`Regarding the steps of “detecting in said encrypted digital information
`
`transmission the presence of a first instruct-to-enable signal including first
`
`processor instructions,” “executing said first processor instructions of said first
`
`instruct-to-enable signal to provide a first decryption key,” “detecting in said
`
`encrypted digital information transmission the presence of a second instruct-to-
`
`enable signal including second processor instructions,” and “executing said
`
`second processor instructions to provide a second decryption key,” as recited in
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`independent claim 20, the ’490 Patent describes cascaded encryption and double
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`encryption in at least two examples, one involving Julia Childs's “The French
`
`Chef” TV program (id., 20:16-68; FIG. 6D) and the other concerning “the
`
`electronic distribution of copyrighted materials” (id., 21:1-22:4; FIG. 6E).
`
`In the Julia Childs example, an encrypted recipe could be obtained by a
`
`viewer’s receiver station on demand. “The signal transmission … passes a signal
`
`word to signal processor, 200, which, in a predetermined fashion, signal processor,
`
`200, decrypts and transfers to decrypter, 224, to serve as the code upon which
`
`decrypter, 224, will decrypt the incoming encrypted recipe.” (Id., 20:11-59.) In
`
`other words, the encrypted recipe has to be decrypted based on two “instruct-to-
`
`enable signals” where one is needed to decrypt the “signal word” and the other is
`
`the “code” from the decrypted signal word. (See also id., FIGs. 4D-4E; 14:28-32
`
`(“a multi-stage decryption/interruption process”); 14:37-39 (“FIG. 4E illustrates
`
`how signals transmitted on one channel can govern the decryption and/or transfer
`
`of another channel.”).)
`
`In the book store example, “[l]aser system, 232, transmits one copy of the
`
`encrypted title to decryptor, 224, and one to signal processor, 200, for processing
`
`and evaluation.” (Id., 21:31-34.) “In the encrypted title, signal processor, 200,
`
`identifies one or more signal words [‘a first instruct-to-enable signal including first
`
`processor instructions’] …” and “decrypts the signal word or words and transfers
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`them to decryptor, 224, to serve as the code for the first stage of decryption.” (Id.,
`
`IPR2016-00755
`Patent No. 8,191,091
`
`
`21:35-43.) “Decryptor, 224, then decrypts a part of the encrypted transmission and
`
`passes the partly decrypted transmission to signal stripper, 229, and signal
`
`generator, 230. In the decrypted portion of the partially decrypted transmission,
`
`signal processor, 200, identifies a second signal word or set of words [‘a second
`
`instruct-to-enable signal including second processor instructions’] which it
`
`decrypts in a predetermined fashion and passes to decryptor, 231, to serve as the
`
`code basis for the second stage of decryption.” (Id., 21:44-51.) Thus, based on the
`
`two sets of signal words (i.e., “instruct-to-enable signals”), the doubly-encrypted
`
`book title could be decrypted and then outputted.
`
`Regarding the steps of “automatically tuning said receiver station to a
`
`channel designated by said instruct-to-enable signal” and “receiving enabling
`
`information from a remote source based on said step of tuning,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 26, the ’490 Patent teaches that “[a]n example of such a control
`
`signal [passed to the apparatus by means of the programing transmissions input] is