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 STEPHEN MELVIN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,055,169
`
`Apple Ex. 1104
`
`
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OpenTV, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. ______
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN MELVIN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,055,169
`
`Apple Ex. 1104
`
`
`
`I, Stephen Melvin, hereby declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have prepared this Declaration in connection with Apple Inc.’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169 (“the ’169 patent”) (Ex. 1101),
`
`which is to be filed concurrently with this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the ’169 Patent, its
`
`prosecution file history, as well as the documents discussed in this Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) as an expert in
`
`the fields of computer science, computer communications, and related
`
`technologies. I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $445 per
`
`hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I have no financial interest in Apple. I similarly have no financial interest in
`
`the ’169 Patent or the owner of the ’169 Patent, and I have had no contact with the
`
`named inventors of the ’169 Patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California at
`
`Berkeley in 1991 and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from
`
`the University of California at Berkeley in 1982. I have more than 30 years of
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 1
`
`
`
`experience in computer science and computer engineering. I am an inventor on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`over 45 patents, and I am a registered patent agent before the USPTO.
`
`6. My Ph.D. research areas included high-performance computer architecture
`
`and microarchitecture and microcode-based system performance analysis tools.
`
`From September 2001 through April 2002, I was a Visiting Scholar at the
`
`University of Texas, Austin, where I directed graduate students in research in the
`
`area of high-performance computer architecture.
`
`7.
`
`In May 2001, I co-founded and was the Chief Architect of Flowstorm, Inc., a
`
`start-up company based in Silicon Valley, where I defined and guided the overall
`
`chip architecture for a multithreaded packet processor. From March 2000 through
`
`May 2001, I worked as the Senior CPU Architect at Clearwater Networks, where I
`
`was involved in defining the architecture and microarchitecture of Clearwater’s
`
`CNP810S multithreaded network processor.
`
`8.
`
`From August 1983 to the present, I have been the President of Zytek
`
`Communications Corporation (“Zytek”). Zytek is an engineering, consulting, and
`
`small-scale manufacturing company that currently provides intellectual property
`
`consulting services as well as services related to the design, implementation, and
`
`testing of embedded systems. Zytek’s general areas of activity have included
`
`industrial control and measurement, Internet-related services, hard disk analysis
`
`and file recovery, and computer engineering research services. Through my work
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 2
`
`
`
`at Zytek, I have designed numerous microprocessor-based embedded systems,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`including analog and digital circuit design, firmware development for embedded
`
`microcontrollers, and software development for host interfacing, product
`
`development, and debugging.
`
`9.
`
`I am a member of the following professional organizations: The Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); The Association for Computing
`
`Machinery (ACM); The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA);
`
`The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); and The National Association
`
`of Patent Practitioners (NAPP).
`
`10.
`
`I served as General Chair of the 45th Annual International Symposium on
`
`Microarchitecture (Micro-45), held in Vancouver in December of 2012. I also
`
`served as co-chair of the 29th Annual International Symposium on
`
`Microarchitecture (Micro-29), held in Paris in December of 1996.
`
`11. For further details regarding my employment and academic history, please
`
`refer to my curriculum vitae, attached as Ex. 1105.
`
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`12.
`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. 1104 – Page 3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claim construction is a matter of
`
`law and that the final claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in the context of an Inter Partes
`
`review, a claim of an unexpired patent must be construed according to its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious and
`
`therefore invalid 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 others, copying by others, and
`
`skepticism of experts).
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be combined with other
`
`references to disclose each element of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I
`
`understand that a reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and that this knowledge may be used to combine
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`multiple references. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`presumed to know the relevant prior art. I understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would employ.
`
`17.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference could have been combined with
`
`other prior art or other information known to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, I understand that the following principles may be considered:
`
`a. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`b. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`c. The use of a known technique to improve similar items or methods in
`
`the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`d. The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement, to yield predictable results;
`
`e. Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed;
`
`f. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle; and
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`g. The proper analysis of obviousness requires a determination of
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “reasonable
`
`expectation of success” – not “absolute predictability” of success – in
`
`achieving the claimed invention by combining prior art references.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed that whether a prior art reference invalidates a patent claim as
`
`obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`While there is no requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to
`
`combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention, a suggestion to
`
`combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention may come from the
`
`prior art as a whole, or individually, as filtered through the knowledge of one
`
`skilled in the art. In addition, the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would employ are also relevant to the determination of obviousness.
`
`19. When a work is available in one field, design alternatives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation and would see the
`
`benefit of doing so, that variation is likely to be obvious. In many fields, there may
`
`be little discussion of obvious combinations, and in these fields market demand –
`
`not scientific literature – may drive design trends. When there is a design need or
`
`market pressure and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue those known options.
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 6
`
`
`
`It is my understanding that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`20.
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But, I understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. This test poses the question as to whether there is an
`
`express or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art
`
`elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and it seeks to counter
`
`impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21. Based on my review of the ’169 Patent and my background and experience
`
`in the field of computer science, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the priority date would be someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or the equivalent, plus approximately two years of
`
`experience in the field of computer engineering or software development, or an
`
`equivalent amount of relevant work and/or research experience.
`
`22.
`
`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 informed that the owner of the ’169 Patent claims an
`
`invention date of June 2001. I have been asked to assume that this is the proper
`
`priority date for the ’169 Patent. However, the opinions I expressed in this report
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 7
`
`
`
`would be the same if I applied a priority date of April 2002 (the provisional filing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`date of the ’169 Patent) or April 2003 (the actual filing date of the ’169 Patent).
`
`23. The ’169 Patent generally relates to computer content control and interactive
`
`television systems.
`
`24. Based on my education and experience, I am familiar with the level of
`
`knowledge that one of ordinary skill would have possessed during the relevant
`
`period of time.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26. By the priority date of the ’169 Patent, I was a person who had more than
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART IN JUNE 2001
`27. During and before June 2001, the operation of web pages and the Internet
`
`was well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`28. During and before June 2001, Web pages were, at a high level, (1)
`
`downloaded from a server over the Internet, (2) rendered by a user’s computer, and
`
`(3) displayed to a user.
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`29. Downloading a web page refers to the process of the web browser retrieving
`
`content from the Internet. Such content can be pointed to using a Uniform
`
`Resource Locator (“URL”), which identifies a server where the content is located
`
`such that the user’s computer can download the content. The content received is
`
`generally composed of directions that instruct the computer in how to render the
`
`web page as well as multiple “resources,” which can include, for example, text,
`
`images, video and graphics.
`
`30. Rendering a web page refers to the process of utilizing resources
`
`downloaded from the Internet, such as text and images, and processing HTML
`
`code to place and format the resources and display the resulting web page to the
`
`user. For example, the HTML code for a web page that refers to an image might
`
`direct that the image be aligned in a certain way or have a certain size border. The
`
`rendering software in the web browser would place the picture at the correct
`
`location and show it to the user. A feature known as “progressive rendering” was
`
`at the time of the ‘169 Patent and remains to this day the default operation for most
`
`web browsers in handling images. Progressive rendering refers to the process of
`
`rendering and displaying to the user a partially constructed web page as soon as
`
`possible, before all of the resources for the full web page have been downloaded,
`
`as opposed to rendering and displaying the web page after all resources necessary
`
`to display the web page are downloaded.
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`31. Displaying the rendered web page refers to the process of making the
`
`rendered web page available to a display that the user can view.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’169 PATENT
`32. The ’169 Patent is entitled “Supporting Common Interactive Television
`
`Functionality Through Presentation Engine Syntax.” Ex. 1101 at Cover. It was
`
`filed on April 21, 2003, claims priority to a provisional application filed on April
`
`19, 2002, and issued on May 20, 2006. Id.
`
`33. The ’169 Patent includes 23 claims. I have been asked to analyze Claims 1,
`
`2, 12, 22, and 23.
`
`34. The limitations in Claim 1 define a method for handling a set of resources.
`
`Id. An example of a resource is a media file that contains audio, video, and/or
`
`graphics. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 21:8–20 (identifying a file called
`
`“background.mpg,” i.e. a “background” file, as a resource). The ’169 Patent
`
`explains that resources utilize Internet protocols: “HTML pages [(i.e., web pages)]
`
`may use ‘http:’ URLs to load resources from the carousel.” Id. at 24:63–64. A
`
`“carousel” is a term the ’169 Patent uses to refer to a collection of data objects
`
`being transmitted to the computer over a network from a broadcaster in a cyclical
`
`or repeating format. Id. at 1:43–2:15.
`
`35. The resources are organized into a presentation. For example, a presentation
`
`could be a web page, which is represented by HTML code in an “HTML
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`document.” See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 11:49–61 (describing a presentation consisting
`
`of content from cnn.com).
`
`36. Claim 1 requires use of directives that are indicative of the presentation.
`
`The ’169 Patent explains that “declarations or other statements used in the creation
`
`and/or manipulation of resources and content in this document may be generally
`
`referred to as ‘directives.’” Id. at 47:7–10. The specification provides examples of
`
`directives in an HTML Document:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 at 22:30–49. In the example above, the code consists of directives that
`
`are indicative of where an image is located (“broadcast://current”) and how it
`
`should be positioned and sized on the user’s display. Id.
`
`Claim 1 specifies that if a particular resource is designated prerequisite by one of
`
`the received directives, then presentation of the audio, video, or graphics will not
`
`begin (or, in the language of the claims, will be prohibited) until the prerequisite
`
`resource is acquired. Ex. 1101 at Claim 1. And if there are no resources
`
`designated as prerequisite, then the presentation will begin immediately (or, in the
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`language of the claims, will be initiated). Id. One example identified by the ’169
`
`Patent of a prerequisite directive is:
`
`<META name=“prerequisite”
`
`content=“http://www.cnn.com/background.mpg”>
`
`Ex. 1101 at 21:8–20. This example directive is written in HTML (see id. at 20:66–
`
`21:3) and the directive is identified by the name/value pair: name=“prerequisite.”
`
`The resource is the background.mpg file available for download at the location
`
`pointed to by the URL. META is an HTML tag that is generally used to provide
`
`metadata to the web browser. In this example, the META HTML tag provides the
`
`web browser with an instruction regarding the rendering of the web page. The
`
`specification indicates that by including the “prerequisite” parameter in the HTML
`
`code, the web browser would not initiate the presentation until the
`
`background.mpg file is acquired. Ex. 1101 at 21:8–20.
`
`In addition to the mechanism described above, in which resources are labeled as
`
`“prerequisites” using the META tag in the HTML code, the ’169 Patent also
`
`discloses three different options for rendering web pages. The first option is the
`
`“progressive rendering policy,” wherein the web page is rendered as soon as
`
`possible. Ex. 1101 at 21:9–20. Only those resources labeled as prerequisites, if
`
`any, cause the display of the web page to be delayed. Ex. 1101 at 21:9–20. The
`
`second option is the “layoutComplete rendering policy,” wherein display of the
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`web page is delayed until information that determines the complete on-screen
`
`layout are acquired, in addition to those resources that are labeled as prerequisites,
`
`if any. Ex. 1101 at 21:37–44. The third option is the “loadComplete rendering
`
`policy,” wherein the web page is not displayed until all resources are acquired,
`
`which means that all resources are prerequisites. Ex. 1101 at 21:45–52.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
`A.
`I have been asked to opine on the following claim limitation: “directive”
`
`“Directive”
`
`37.
`
`(Claims 1, 2, 22, and 23).
`
`38.
`
`The ’169 Patent describes “directives,” stating: “[T]he declarations or other
`
`statements used in the creation and/or manipulation of resources and content in this
`
`document may be generally referred to as ‘directives.’” Ex. 1101 at 47:7-10.
`
`39.
`
`The ’169 Patent also explains: “In one embodiment, a device in an
`
`interactive television system is configured to receive one or more directives
`
`provided by a content author which describe or otherwise indicate an audio and/or
`
`video presentation.” Ex. 1101 at 2:39-42.
`
`40.
`
`Further, The American Heritage College Dictionary defines “directive” as:
`
`“An order or instruction, esp. one from a central authority.” Ex. 1107 at 393. The
`
`New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “directive” as: “Something that
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 13
`
`
`
`directs; spec. a general instruction for procedure or action given to a subordinate.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`Ex. 1108 at 680.
`
`41. Accordingly, it is my opinion that, in the context of the ’169 Patent, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “directive” to mean “declaration
`
`or instruction.”
`
`“subset of said set of resources”
`
`B.
`I have been asked to opine on the following claim limitation: “subset of said
`
`42.
`
`set of resources” (Claims 1 and 22–23). A POSITA would have understood that
`
`term to mean “a set that is some or all of said set of resources.”
`
`43. The word “Subset” is defined as: “2. Math. a set consisting of elements of a
`
`given set that can be same as the given set or smaller.” Ex. 1115 at 3–4. The
`
`specification suggests that any number of resources may be labeled as
`
`prerequisites, and also contemplates an embodiment in which all of the resources
`
`are labeled “prerequisite resources,” in which case the subset of prerequisite
`
`resources would be the same as the set of all resources:
`
`The loadComplete rendering policy indicates that the graphics may
`
`not be displayed until all resources that will be used for rendering the
`
`display have been downloaded. The only difference between the
`
`loadComplete rendering policy and labeling all resources as
`
`prerequisites, is that in the first case the OnLoad event will have been
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 14
`
`
`
`delivered to the appropriate handler, if any, prior to rendering, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`hence may affect the rendered view.
`
`Id. at 21:45–52 (emphasis added). The discussion above contemplates “labeling all
`
`resources as prerequisites,” and indicates that doing so would be equivalent to the
`
`loadComplete rendering policy (except for the timing of when the OnLoad event is
`
`triggered). Thus, the specification teaches to a POSITA that the META tag
`
`mechanism could be used to label all resources as prerequisites, and in so doing
`
`would be an alternative to the loadComplete rendering policy, with a difference in
`
`when events are triggered. A POSITA would understand that both alternatives are
`
`viable options for a content author who wants all resources to be prerequisites.
`
`44.
`
`Indeed, the specification never states that all of the resources “required for a
`
`presentation” cannot also all be prerequisite resources and never restricts a content
`
`provider to only designating some of the resources as prerequisite. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1101 at Abstract, 2:33–47, 21:9–20, 21:21–52, 21:53–22:11, 47:23–37, 47:45–
`
`48:3, 48:54–56, 48:58–67. In fact, where the Patent contemplates a subset that
`
`does not include all members of the parent set, that situation is referred to as a
`
`“strict subset” of the “maximum set,” which a POSITA would have understood to
`
`be the proper way in the art to refer to a system wherein the subset cannot
`
`constitute the full set. Id. at 45:29–55.
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`45.
`
`Finally, nothing in the specification teaches away from a scenario wherein
`
`all resources are designated as prerequisite. See generally, Ex. 1101. Indeed it
`
`would not make sense to restrict a content author such that they would have to
`
`reserve at least one resource that is not labeled as a prerequisite, and no such
`
`restriction is discussed in the specification. A POSITA would not have seen any
`
`logic behind limiting a subset to not being able to include all resources because
`
`such code is intended to be flexible and adaptable to a variety of situations.
`
`“interactive television system”
`
`C.
`I have been asked to opine on the following claim limitation: “interactive
`
`46.
`
`television system” (Claim 22).
`
`47.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “interactive television system” is
`
`“system for providing interactive content as well as audio, video, and/or graphic
`
`presentations.” The ’169 Patent describes “interactive television systems” as “a
`
`means to deliver interactive content as well as ordinary television audio and video
`
`to a large number of subscribers.” Ex. 1101 at 1:15–17. The specification
`
`describes the operation of “interactive television systems”:
`
`Programs broadcast by these systems may incorporate television audio
`and video, still images, text, interactive graphics and applications, and
`many other components. They may also provide a number of
`services, such as commerce via the television, electronic program
`guides (EPGs), video-on-demand, and other interactive applications to
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`viewers. The interactive content of the interactive television signal
`may therefore include application code, data associated with the audio
`and video, control signals, raw data and many other types of
`information.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 1:17–27. The specification further explains: “For example, an
`
`interactive television game show may combine television audio and video with
`
`interactive content such as application code which allows users to answer
`
`questions. Another example would be a news program which combines audio and
`
`video with application code that inserts current stock prices in a banner at the
`
`bottom of the screen.” Id. at 2:4–10. Thus, in the context of the ’169 Patent,
`
`“interactive television systems” can provide television content as well as other
`
`interactive applications and data. See id. at 1:15–27, 2:4–10.
`
`48.
`
`Indeed, Claims 13 and 22 disclose an “interactive television system” in
`
`which “audio, video and/or graphic presentation[s]” are presented. See id. at
`
`Claims 13, 22.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS
`49.
`I have carefully reviewed U.S. Patent No. 6,141,018 (“Beri”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,120,871 (“Harrington”), and it is my opinion that Beri renders
`
`obvious claims 1, 2, and 23. It is also my opinion that Beri in combination with
`
`Harrington render obvious Claims 12 and 22.
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`A.
`Summary of Beri
`50. Beri explains the structure and operation of the Internet and how some
`
`“resources,” such as images, are transferred over the Internet to a user’s computer:
`
`The Internet comprises a vast number of computers interconnected so
`
`that information can be exchanged among the computers. Various
`
`protocol and other interface standards have been developed for the
`
`Internet so that each computer will understand information of the
`
`other computers.
`
`. . .
`
`The Internet facilitates information exchange between servers and
`
`clients that are located throughout the World. Each computer on the
`
`Internet has a unique address (e.g., “acme.com”). When a client
`
`wishes to access a resource (e.g., document), the client specifies a
`
`Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”) that uniquely identifies the
`
`computer on which the server executes and the resource. An example
`
`of a URL is “http://acme.com/page1.” In this example, the server is
`
`identified by “acme.com” and the resource is identified by “page1.”
`
`Ex. 1106 at 1:16–36 (emphasis added).
`
`51.
`
`
`
`Beri explains that that the prior art software developed by Microsoft
`
`allowed for scrolling text to move across a webpage:
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 18
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation has defined various extension[s] to HTML.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`One such extension is known as a <marquee> tag. The <marquee> tag
`
`indicates that certain text is to be scrolled within a marquee window
`
`on a Web page. The attributes of the <marquee> tag specify the size
`
`of the marquee window and the direction and speed of scrolling. The
`
`<marquee> tag thus provides a visual effect that is similar to the
`
`electronic marquees found on some buildings that display the headline
`
`news.
`
`Ex. 1106 at 2:1–9. Beri explains that the prior art was deficient because, although
`
`it could display scrolling text across the webpage, it could not display one or more
`
`images scrolling across a web page. Id. at 2:34–37. To remedy that deficiency,
`
`Beri describes a method and system for displaying resources transferred over the
`
`Internet, such as an “image in an animated marquee.” Id. at 2:40–53. For
`
`example, Figure 1 shows frames of an arbitrary image over time as it “bounce[s]
`
`off each border of the marquee window in which it is displayed”:
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1106 at Figure 1, 2:42–44, 2:56–57.
`
`52.
`
`To enable this functionality of scrolling images, an animation, on a
`
`webpage, Beri discloses use of an ActiveX object to control the animation:
`
`In one embodiment, the animated marquee is controlled by an
`
`ActiveX object (i.e., marquee object) that is specified by an <object>
`
`tag an HTML document. The <object> tag identifies the image and
`
`specifies various parameters to control the animation. The marquee
`
`object exposes various methods for setting the parameters and issues
`
`events to notify a Web browser of various conditions.
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1106 at 2:46–53; see also 5:13–62 (listing tags and explaining
`
`implementation). ActiveX is a software framework developed by Microsoft which
`
`is primarily aimed at providing additional capabilities for Internet web browsers.
`
`53. Beri discloses parameters, or attributes, of the ActiveX object which control
`
`the drawing of the images in the animation. See, e.g., Ex. 1106 at 5:13–61
`
`(disclosing various parameters), 3:48–50 (“the parameters can be set to indicate
`
`whether the URL is to be drawn immediately or progressively”); 4:57 (disclosing a
`
`DrawImmediately flag whose purpose is to “indicat[e] to progressively render the
`
`image”).
`
`54. Beri discloses that the animation could consist of one image moving or of
`
`multiple images moving. Ex. 1106 at 3:52–54 (“The animated marquee can also
`
`display a sequence of images rather than just one image. Each image is identified
`
`by a URL.”). When displaying an animation with multiple images, the images can
`
`be set to automatically “follow another image in a continuous manner” or “the user
`
`can click on the marquee window to select the next image.” Id. at 3:54–58; 4:18–
`
`21, 4:33–35.
`
`B.
`Summary of Harrington
`55. Harrington discloses a system that “combines broadcast television
`
`programming and/or video programming . . . , or particular content from the
`
`Internet, or video programming at a video server . . . with the massive Internet
`
`Apple Ex. 1104 – Page 21
`
`
`
`. . . .” Ex. 1107 at 1:65–2:3. To achieve this end, Harrington discloses “a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Stephen Melvin, Ph.D.
`
`
`computer based system for receiving a video program along with embedded
`
`uniform resource locators (URLs)—which direct the user’s computer 16 to address
`
`locations, or Web sites, on the Internet 20 to retrieve related Web pages.” Ex.
`
`1107 at 4:62–66. While the user is watching a video, the software downloads the
`
`content at the URL and constructs it in a staging area in the system memory. Ex.
`
`1107 at 14:61–15:13. Then, at a predetermined time, the constructed webpage is
`
`integrated with the video and displayed to the user. Id. at 16:12–23. Thus, for
`
`example, the user’s system could retrieve targeted advertising content from the
`
`Internet and integrate that content with the video, at a time when that advertising is
`
`relevant to the video. Id. at 2:33–41. This functionality allows “video
`
`programming” or “specific content from the Internet” to be combined with the
`
`“massive Internet” by “synching specific Internet pages to the video signal.”
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
