UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OpenTV, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. ______
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD KRAMER
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,148,081 CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-3,
`23, AND 24
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1003
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`
`Table of Contents
`I. 
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2 
`II.  Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 3 
`III. 
`Relevant Law ................................................................................................. 6 
`IV. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................................ 9 
`V.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 10 
`A.  “credential” (claims 1-3, and 23) ................................................................. 11 
`VI. 
`Prior Art ....................................................................................................... 12 
`A.  Overview of the Prior Art ............................................................................ 12 
`1.  European Patent Application 0752786A1 (“Rohatgi ’786”) ................... 12 
`2.  U.S. Patent No. 5,768,539 (“Metz ’539”) ................................................ 15 
`3.  U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 (“Apperson ’484”) ........................................ 17 
`B.  Rohatgi ’786 ................................................................................................. 19 
`1.  Claim 1 of the ’081 Patent is Anticipated by Rohatgi ’786 ..................... 19 
`2.  Claim 2 of the ’081 Patent is Anticipated by Rohatgi ’786 ..................... 27 
`3.  Claim 3 of the ’081 Patent is Anticipated by Rohatgi ’786 ..................... 28 
`4.  Claim 23 of the ’081 Patent is Anticipated by Rohatgi ’786 ................... 30 
`5.  Claim 24 of the ’081 Patent is Anticipated by Rohatgi ’786 ................... 37 
`C.  Apperson ’484 Combined With Metz ’539 ................................................. 38 
`1.  Claim 1 of the ’081 Patent is Rendered Obvious by Apperson ’484 and
`Metz ’539 ......................................................................................................... 38 
`2.  Claim 2 of the ’081 Patent is Rendered Obvious by Apperson ’484 and
`Metz ’539 ......................................................................................................... 51 
`3.  Claim 3 of the ’081 Patent is Rendered Obvious by Apperson ’484 and
`Metz ’539 ......................................................................................................... 54 
`4.  Claim 23 of the ’081 Patent is Rendered Obvious by Apperson ’484 and
`Metz ’539 ......................................................................................................... 57 
`5.  Claim 24 of the ’081 Patent is Rendered Obvious by Apperson ’484 and
`Metz ’539 ......................................................................................................... 69 
`VII.  Conclusion ................................................................................................... 71 
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 1
`
`

`
`I, Richard Kramer, hereby declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This Declaration (Ex. 1003) was prepared in connection with Apple
`
`Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081 (the “’081
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the President of SIS Development Inc., an engineering
`
`and technical services company that develops software, products and technology
`
`for OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) and software companies. SIS
`
`Development, Inc.’s expertise includes the development of video and IP (“Internet
`
`Protocol”) hardware and software network products for the video and video
`
`surveillance industries.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) as an
`
`expert in the field of computer software development and interactive television
`
`technology. I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $425 per
`
`hour. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of
`
`my statements in this Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide this Declaration based on: (1) my
`
`relevant experience in the industry at the time of the ’081 Patent priority date, (2)
`
`my direct account of the state of the industry at the time of the ’081 Patent priority
`
`date, (3) my first-hand knowledge of who a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`would have been be at the time of the ‘081 Patent priority date because I directly
`
`managed such individuals, and (4) my understanding of the ’081 Patent and certain
`
`prior art.
`
`5.
`
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I reviewed:
`
` the ’081 Patent (Ex. 1001);
`
` the prosecution file history of the ’081 Patent (Ex. 1002);
`
` European Patent Application No. EP 0752786 (“Rohatgi ’786”) (Ex. 1005);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,768,539 (“Metz ’539”) (Ex. 1006);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 (“Apperson ’484”) (Ex. 1007);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,625,693 (“Rohatgi ’693”) (Ex. 1008);
`
` The American Heritage Dictionary (3d Ed. 1994) (excerpts) (Ex. 1009);
`
`and,
`
` other references and documents discussed in this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter. I similarly
`
`have no financial interest in the ’081 Patent or the owner of the ’081 Patent, and I
`
`have had no contact with the named inventors of the ’081 Patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit 1004.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`I received a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`8.
`
`from the University of Toledo in 1984. I have over 30 years of experience
`
`successfully developing and launching commercially-implemented software and
`
`hardware products and systems, including 20 years in the video industry
`
`developing commercially successful products related to interactive subscriber
`
`television systems, IP networking, interactive cable and satellite TV systems and
`
`equipment, interactive cable TV set-top boxes, remote controls, video networking,
`
`software included within or for use with all of the foregoing, and other
`
`technologies relevant to the subject matter of the ’081 Patent. The cable TV video,
`
`video surveillance and IP network video products and systems that I have
`
`developed have been successfully launched under respected brands such as
`
`General Electric and Scientific-Atlanta (now Cisco). My experience also includes
`
`the development of new technologies within pioneering start-up companies like
`
`Ivex Corporation (acquired in 2001 by Axcess, Inc.), where we developed one of
`
`the first IP network Video Streaming Appliances (called the “VSA”) for the video
`
`surveillance industry. I am the named inventor on two patents relating to signal
`
`processing circuits.
`
`9.
`
`In the 1990s, I was the engineering/technology leader for cable TV
`
`set-top boxes for Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (prior to being acquired by Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc.), including interactive set-top boxes deployed in North America. I
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`was responsible for all set-top devices for Scientific-Atlanta’s Advanced Video
`
`Systems group, North America. That group and the people that reported to me
`
`developed and successfully launched Scientific-Atlanta’s first internally designed
`
`set-top box (also called HCTs which means Home Communication Terminals).
`
`The sales volumes of the products we developed exceeded 1 million units per year.
`
`The position required me to be astute to each facet of the cable system technology
`
`and the overall system. I was later promoted and served as the top technology
`
`leader on the Strategic Planning Team for the “Advanced Video Systems”
`
`Division. There I worked on the development of next generation of advanced
`
`interactive video products. In that role, each of the functional technology areas
`
`including firmware, hardware, system software and headend equipment reported to
`
`me in a dotted line matrix/cross-functional organizational structure.
`
`10.
`
`In 2001, I joined and served as Vice President of Product
`
`Development at Miraxis Corporation (a division of EMS Technologies, Inc., now
`
`Honeywell, Inc.) developing interactive IP network and digital video solutions in
`
`the satellite industry. At Miraxis, we were focused on the design of an entirely
`
`new satellite based interactive DBS/DTH (Direct Broadcast Satellite/Direct to
`
`Home) television and multimedia solution. Overall, Miraxis was responsible for
`
`the design of the satellite payload, the associated ground based systems, and the
`
`CPE (Customer Premise Equipment). As the Vice President of Product
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`Development, I was responsible for all aspects of the system solution; I was
`
`immersed in the leading-edge state of the industry. In fact, we were one of only a
`
`handful of companies that received the then newly allowed Ka-Band satellite
`
`license. The Ka-Band frequency spectrum opened significant new opportunities
`
`for providing entertainment content to homes across America.
`
`11. From 2003 to 2007, among other responsibilities, I served as the Vice
`
`President-Engineering and General Manager-Technology over the world-wide
`
`Video Systems Group (“VSG”) at General Electric (“GE”) within a division which
`
`was called “GE-Security”/“Network Solutions”. This role included the direct
`
`leadership of the development of DVRs (Digital Video Recorders), advanced video
`
`systems, intelligent video software, video cameras, and client-server based video
`
`management systems. I also managed Engineering and Technology for residential
`
`and commercial products for our division for North America.
`
`12.
`
`In summary, I have a deep familiarity with interactive television
`
`systems, software, and related technologies, including first-hand experience at the
`
`relevant time of the ’081 Patent invention.
`
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is summarized below.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`I have been informed and understand that claim construction is a
`
`14.
`
`matter that is determined by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and
`
`that the final claim construction for this proceeding will be determined by Board.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim of an unexpired
`
`patent in an Inter Partes Review is to be given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” Accordingly, for the purposes of my
`
`analysis in this proceeding, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`the claim terms as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art in light of the specification around the priority date of the ’081 Patent.
`
`I understand that this claim construction standard differs from the legal standard
`
`used for construing claim terms in a district court litigation, and therefore I reserve
`
`the right to revise my opinions relating to claim construction should I be called to
`
`testify in a district court litigation involving the ’081 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been anticipated—and therefore not patentable—if all of the
`
`limitations in the claim are found to be disclosed by a single prior art reference.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that anticipation does not require
`
`a prior art reference to expressly disclose each and every claim element using the
`
`same terminology as recited by the claims. Moreover, I understand that a claim is
`
`anticipated if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. For example, I
`
`understand that a claim limitation is inherently disclosed if it is not explicitly
`
`present in the written description of the prior art, but would necessarily be
`
`embodied or met by the apparatus or method as taught by the prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious--
`
`and therefore not patentable—if the claimed subject matter, as a whole, would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of
`
`the patent based on one or more prior art references and/or the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the claims
`
`and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4)
`
`secondary considerations, if any, of non-obviousness (such as unexpected results,
`
`commercial success, long-felt but unmet need, failure of other, copying by others,
`
`and skepticism of experts).
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a conclusion of obviousness
`
`may be based upon a combination of prior art references, particularly if the
`
`combination of elements yields predictable results. I understand that it can be
`
`important, though not required, to identify a reason that would have prompted a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant filed to combine the elements in a way the
`
`claimed new invention does. I also understand that in determining whether a
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`combination of prior art references renders a claim obvious, it is helpful to
`
`consider whether there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the
`
`references and a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand,
`
`however, that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine inquiry is not
`
`required.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`20.
`I have been informed and understand that claim construction is
`
`viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at
`
`the time of the invention. I have been asked to assume, for the purpose of this
`
`Declaration, that the time of the invention is the filing date of the ’081 Patent on
`
`May 29, 1998.
`
`21. The ’081 Patent generally discloses an interactive television system
`
`that uses electronic “credentials” to identify program access rights. ’081 Patent at
`
`Abstract, 2:35-49. Each interactive television application has defined access
`
`rights, such as permission to execute certain program modules, control other
`
`applications, use system resources, or access restricted data. Id. at 2:35-40. The
`
`disclosed system assigns to each application an electronic “credential” that
`
`identifies the application’s access rights. Id. at 2:47-57. In one embodiment, the
`
`“credential” includes “a producer identification number (ID) and an application ID
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`for the application, an expiration date, a list of rights, a producer certificate and a
`
`signature.” Id. at 2:50-53.
`
`22. Based on my education and experience, I am familiar with the level of
`
`knowledge that one of ordinary skill would have possessed around the priority date
`
`of the ’081 Patent (May 1998). In my opinion, one of “ordinary skill in the art” at
`
`that time would have had at least a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent, plus two
`
`or more years of experience in the field of interactive system engineering and/or
`
`software development, or an equivalent amount of relevant work and/or research
`
`experience.1
`
`23.
`
`In reaching this opinion as to the qualifications of the hypothetical
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, I have considered the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. By May 1998, I was a person who
`
`had at least ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`24.
`I have been asked to opine on the following claim term.
`
`1 In this declaration, I will refer to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention as a “POSITA.”
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`
`A.
`“credential” (claims 1-3, and 23)
`25. The term “credential” appears in claims 1-3 and 23 of the ’081 Patent.
`
`26. Applying the “broadest reasonable construction” standard, it is my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would understand the term “credential” to mean
`
`“information that identifies an object and its privileges, rights, and restrictions.”
`
`27. The ’081 Patent provides a number of instances that describe
`
`“credential” that commonly have the aspects of: 1) “identify” / “identifies” and 2)
`
`the related “privileges” / “rights” / “restrictions”/ “limitations” / “authorization.”
`
`For example, the ’081 Patent discloses:
`
`[A] credential consisting of various pieces of information to
`identify an application and its respective privileges, rights and
`restrictions. …
`The credentials are sets of data [e.g., information] which can be
`used to identify and verify the privileges and limitations of
`particular modules. …
`A credential is a collection of information which typically
`identifies the carousel and can be taken as proof of the module’s
`authorization to perform the restricted operation.
`
`(’081 Patent at 2:47-49, 4:47-49, 8:62-65.)
`
`28. The usage of “credential” in the ’081 Patent appears to be consistent
`
`with its plain meaning. For example, a common English Dictionary prior to the
`
`’081 Patent filing defined “credential” as:
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`Something that entitles one to confidence or authority.
`Credentials. Evidence concerning one’s authority.
`
`(The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, Dell Publishing, 1994 (Ex.
`
`1009, at p. 203.)
`
`VI. PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of the Prior Art
`1.
`European Patent Application 0752786A1 (“Rohatgi ’786”)
`29. European Patent Application No. 0752786A1 (“Rohatgi ’786”) was
`
`filed on June 27, 1996, and was published by the European Patent Office on
`
`January 8, 1997. Rohatgi ’786 is titled “Apparatus and Method for Authenticating
`
`Transmitted Applications in an Interactive Information System,” and names Pankaj
`
`Rohatgi and Vincent Dureau as co-inventors. (Rohatgi ’786 at Cover.)
`
`30. Rohatgi ’786 discloses an interactive television system that executes
`
`interactive television applications. (Rohatgi ’786 at Abstract.) Each interactive
`
`television application includes “Code Modules,” “Data Modules,” and a “Directory
`
`Module.” (Id. at 3:49-53.) Figure 4 illustrates an application:
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`
`(Id. at Abstract.)
`
`
`
`31. Rohatgi ’786 discloses an interactive television system that uses data
`
`in the “Directory Module” of an interactive application to authenticate the
`
`application and control its functionality. (Id. at Abstract.) Before a receiver
`
`executes an interactive television application, a “certificate” within the “Directory
`
`Module” of the application is “decoded and checked for authenticity.” (Id.) The
`
`“Directory Module” of the application also includes “authorization flags which
`
`grant/deny the receiver processors access to privileged actions.” (Id. at 5:39-40.)
`
`32. Figure 12 of Rohatgi ’786, reproduced below, illustrates the contents
`
`of a “Directory Module”:
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 12.)
`
`
`
`33. Rohatgi ’786 discloses that program and data modules are divided into
`
`data packets for transmission, as illustrated in Figure 2 below:
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,539 (“Metz ’539”)
`34. U.S. Patent No. 5,768,539 (“Metz ’539”), titled “Downloading
`
`Applications Software Through a Broadcast Channel,” was filed on December 17,
`
`1996, and issued on June 16, 1998. (Metz ’539 at Cover.)
`
`35. Metz ’539 discloses an interactive television system for “downloading
`
`application software and transmitting audio/video information through one channel
`
`of a digital broadcast network.” (Metz ’539 at Abstract; Fig. 1.) The downloaded
`
`“interactive service application” includes “executable code for controlling
`
`operations of a digital set-top terminal in response to user inputs.” (Id. at 5:65-
`
`6:13.)
`
`36. Figure 1 of Metz ’539 illustrates broadcasting interactive applications
`
`and television programs from “Source System 11” to “Set-Top 100” television
`
`receivers through a “Digital Broadcast Network 15”:
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1.)
`
`
`
`37. Figure 2 of Metz ’539 illustrates combining software applications
`
`from “Software Server 12” with television programs from “NTSC Source[s] 131
`
`…135” into a single signal (“DS3”) for broadcasting:
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`38. Metz ’539 discloses validating applications downloaded from a server
`
`before execution, but does not specify a particular mechanism for performing that
`
`validation. (See id. at 38:40-42 (“As noted, the set-top 100 validates the received
`
`software. If a validation fails, the download routine will reinitiate the download.”))
`
`39. Metz ’539 discloses differentiating the execution permissions of
`
`applications. (Id. at 21:66-22:50.) To expand, Metz ’539 distinguishes between
`
`“operating system and resident application,” on one hand, and downloaded “non-
`
`resident” applications, on the other hand. (Id.; id. at Abstract.) Metz ’539
`
`discloses restricting the permissions of “non-resident” applications, such as
`
`limiting their access to communication interfaces and prohibiting certain
`
`operations. (Id. at 22:18-21 (“To provide security to the network, only the resident
`
`application communicates with elements of the network ….”); 22:39-43 (“When
`
`running, the non-resident application processes all actual user input key presses
`
`from the remote control except for certain reserved keys….”))
`
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 (“Apperson ’484”)
`40. U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 (“Apperson ’484”), titled “System and
`
`Method for Safety Distributing Executable Objects,” was filed on April 25, 1996,
`
`and issued on November 2, 1999. (Apperson ’484 at Cover.)
`
`41. Apperson ’484 discloses a system and method for controlling the
`
`execution “privileges” of an application. (Apperson ’484 at Abstract.) Figure 1 of
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`Apperson ’484 below illustrates the transmission of an “executable object 20” to
`
`the memory of a client computer as an “application program 26” for execution.
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1.)
`
`42. Figure 2 of Apperson ’484 below illustrates the contents of the
`
`“executable object 20”/“application program 26”:
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`43. Before an application is distributed, “a distributing authority
`
`associates a privilege request code with the executable code,” and the “privilege
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`request code indicates a requested set of privileges that the executable code will
`
`potentially exercise during execution.” (Apperson ’484 at Abstract.) In addition,
`
`“[t]he distributing authority digitally signs the executable code and associated
`
`privilege request code” and “a client [device] verifies the digital signature” of the
`
`application and “monitors it and prevents it from exercising privileges that are not
`
`in the requested set of privileges.” (Id.)
`
`44. Apperson ’484 discloses that each application has a set of “privilege
`
`authorization code” specifying the authorities of the application distributor. (Id. at
`
`9:5-10; 9:18-29.) During execution, the client device checks the “requested
`
`privileges” against the “privilege authorization code” to ensure that the
`
`permissions requested by the application do not exceed the authorities of the
`
`application distributor. (Id.)
`
`B. Rohatgi ’786
`1.
`Claim 1 of the ’081 Patent is Anticipated by Rohatgi ’786
`45. Based on the analysis explained below, it is my opinion that Rohatgi
`
`’786 discloses each and every claim element of claim 1.2
`
`
`2 The citations below are exemplary. I reserve the right to cite to other relevant
`
`portions of the references analyzed in my declaration if called to testify regarding
`
`the invalidity of any claim.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`Preamble: “A method for controlling functions of
`interactive television applications in an interactive
`television system, the method comprising:”
`46. Rohatgi ’786 discloses a method for controlling functions of
`
`a.
`
`interactive television applications in an interactive television system. For example,
`
`Rohatgi ’786 is titled “Apparatus and method for authenticating transmitted
`
`applications in an interactive information system” (Rohatgi ’786 Title), and the
`
`Abstract describes the invention as “[a]n executable interactive program []
`
`combined with audio video data for transmission” (id. at Abstract). Rohatgi ’786
`
`describes that “[t]his invention relates to a method and apparatus for insuring that
`
`data accepted by an interactive television system is authorized data” (id. at 2:3-4,
`
`emphasis added), and discloses controlling functions of an “audio-video-interactive
`
`(AVI) program” (e.g., an application) (see id. at Title, 2:56-57) within an
`
`“interactive television system (ITVS)” (see id. at 2:11) which includes an
`
`“integrated receiver decoder (IRD)” (see id. at 2:12, Fig. 9). Rohatgi ’786
`
`describes how “[i]nteractive television systems typically involve the
`
`transmission of programming and/or control data (hereafter PC-data), as well
`
`as audio and video information, to respective receiving apparatus.” (Id. at 2:5-7,
`
`emphasis added.)
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 20
`
`

`
`b.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`Element [1.1]: “loading in said interactive television
`system an interactive television application having a
`credential associated therewith, said credential
`including information identifying one or more
`functions”
`47. Rohatgi ’786 discloses loading in said interactive television system an
`
`interactive television application having a credential associated therewith. In
`
`Rohatgi ’786, the interactive television system (ITVS) receiver (IRD) loads “PC-
`
`data” in the form of interactive television applications. (See id. at 2:5-7, 2:23-27,
`
`Fig. 4.) For example, Rohatgi ’786 states that “[i]nteractive television systems
`
`typically involve the transmission of programming and/or control data (hereafter
`
`PC-data), as well as audio and video information, to respective receiving
`
`apparatus.” (Id. at 2:5-7.) Rohatgi ’786 further states: “The IRD temporarily
`
`stores the selected PC-data. Authorized PC-data will include a certificate. A
`
`PC-data processor is configured to separate the certificate and to check it for
`
`authenticity. … If the hash values are identical and the certificate is authentic, the
`
`system is conditioned to execute the transmitted program.” (Id. at 2:23-27,
`
`emphasis added.)
`
`48.
`
`In another example, Rohatgi ’786 discloses a “program” /
`
`“application” that is an “audio-video-interactive (AVI) program” (see id. at Title,
`
`2:56-57, Fig. 4) containing a “directory module” and “code module” (id. at Fig. 4),
`
`where the “directory module” further includes a “signed certificate,” “hash,” “first
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 21
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`security information,” and “further security information” (id. at 2:41, Fig. 6). In
`
`my opinion, the “directory module” is or includes a credential associated with an
`
`interactive television application.
`
`49. Rohatgi ’786 discloses that the said credential includes information
`
`identifying one or more functions. Rohatgi ’786 explains: “Modules are similar to
`
`computer files, and are of different types. A first type of module is a Directory
`
`Module which contains information to interrelate respective transmission units and
`
`modules as an application. A second module type is a Code Module which
`
`comprises executable code necessary to program a computing device at a receiver
`
`to perform or execute the application.” (Id. at 3:49-52.) In “Directory Module
`
`format,” each “application” is given a specific “application ID” and associated
`
`“application authorization mask” and the “producer” is given a “producer ID” and
`
`associated “producer authorization flags.” (See id. at 2:51, Fig. 12.) Rohatgi ’786
`
`discloses a credential including “authorization flags” for each application. The
`
`authorization flags within the credential include information identifying one or
`
`more functions that are allowed: “grant/deny the receiver processors access to
`
`privileged actions,” examples of which include “the ability for an application to
`
`use cryptographic features” and “the ability for an application to request the user
`
`for permission to access files which have user restrictions.” (Id. at 5:39-6:1.)
`
`Rohatgi ’786 explains: “These flags are part of both the provider [(producer)]
`
`Apple Ex. 1003 – Page 22
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,148,081, Claims 1-3, 23 and 24
`Declaration of Richard Kramer
`
`certificate and the application authorization field directory. An application must
`
`have the authorization flags set at both locations before it is permitted to perform
`
`the privileged action. Respective receivers contain a BOX authorization mask, in
`
`nonvolatile storage, which is programmed to permit access to particular privileges,
`
`or to prevent certain privileged actions.” (See id. at 5:39-6:1, 8:35.)
`
`50.
`
`It is my opinion, that the “directory module” of an interactive
`
`television application is a credential that identifies the application (e.g., through
`
`“application ID”) and includes information identifying one or more functions (e.g.,
`
`“authorization flags”).
`
`c.
`Element [1.2]: “verifying said credential”
`51. Rohatgi ’786 discloses verifying credentials. For example, the
`
`abstract of Rohatgi ’786 describes the invention as follows: “An executable
`
`interactive program is combined with audio/video data for transmission. ... At a
`
`receiver the certificate is decoded and checked for authenticity of provider. If
`
`the certificate is authentic the program may be executed but only if receiver
`
`generated hash values of respective program modules are identical to
`
`corresponding hash values contained in the Directory Module.” (Id. at
`
`Abstract, emphasis added.)
`
`52. Rohatgi ’786 refers to chec