UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01520
`Patent No.: 8,559,635
`For: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALFRED WEAVER, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`
`
`E.
`
`A.
`
`Qualifications & Engagement ....................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Materials Reviewed and Relied upon .......................................................... 7
`III. Summary of Conclusions .............................................................................. 8
`IV. Legal Standards ........................................................................................... 10
` Anticipation ......................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 10
`B.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 13
`C. Applicability of Claim Construction to Priority and Validity ............ 14
`D.
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 15
`V.
`Background Technology of the ’635 Patent .............................................. 15
`VI. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 17
`
`“decrypting” terms .............................................................................. 17
`(a)
`Distinguish Decrypting from Descrambling ............................. 20
`(b)
`Application Leading to the ’635 Patent .................................... 24
`(c)
`Reexamination .......................................................................... 26
`(d)
`Distinct from Descrambling ...................................................... 27
`
`The ’490 Patent and ’635 Patent Specifications
`
`The Applicants Disclaimed Descrambling from the
`Ambit of “Decrypting” During Prosecution of the
`
`The Applicants Disclaimed Decrypting from
`Descrambling During Other Proceedings Including
`
`In 1981, A POSITA Understood Decrypting to be
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`(e)
`(f)
`(g)
`(h)
`
`Tribunals Including The BPAI and District Courts Have
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Agrees that Decrypting is Different
`
`The Paragraph that the Board Relies Upon Does Not
`
`The District Court, Having Reviewed The Very Same
`Paragraph That The Board Cites To, Rejected
`Petitioner’s Argument And Found Decrypting To Be
`
`B.
`
`“receiving an encrypted digital information transmission …
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Construed Decrypting to Exclude Descrambling ..................... 28
`from Descrambling ................................................................... 30
`Describe Decrypting as the same as Descrambling .................. 33
`Distinct From Descrambling ..................................................... 35
`
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission” .......... 37
`“executable instructions” ..................................................................... 40
`
`C.
`“processor” .......................................................................................... 41
`VII. Each of the Challenged Claims of the ’635 Patent is Entitled to the
`November 3, 1981 Priority Date ................................................................. 48
` Overview of Exemplary Relevant Embodiments in the
`November 3, 1981 Patent Application (“the ’490 Patent”) ................ 52
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 57
`
`(a)
`“programming” ......................................................................... 61
`(b)
`transmitter station.” .................................................................. 71
`Claims 4 and 7 ..................................................................................... 73
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 79
`“executable instructions” .......................................................... 83
`(a)
`Claims 18, 20, 32 and 33 ..................................................................... 89
`
`“communicating said control signal to said remote
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 3
`
`

`

`“receiving at least one encrypted digital information
`transmission, wherein the at least one encrypted digital
`information transmission is unaccompanied by any non-
`
`
`
`The ’490 Patent Provides Written Description Support
`For The Remaining Limitations Of Claims 18, 20, 32
`
`(a)
`digital information transmission,” ............................................ 90
`“Code” and “Downloadable Code” ........................................105
`(b)
`(c)
`And 33 .....................................................................................108
`VIII. The Challenged Claims are Patentable Over the Prior Art .................. 121
`
`Claim 3 Is Patentable over Campbell ................................................ 121
`(a) Campbell Does Not Qualify As Prior Art ...............................122
`(b)
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“receiving at said remote transmitter station one or more
`second instruct signals which operate at the subscriber
`station to identify and decrypt said unit of programming
`or said one or more first instruct signals, said remote
`transmitter station transferring said one or more second
`
`instruct signals to said transmitter” .........................................124
`
`(c)
`
`“receiving a control signal which operates at the remote
`transmitter station to control the communication of a unit
`of programming and one or more first instruct signals and
`communicating said control signal to said remote
`
`“receiving a code or datum identifying a unit of
`programming to be transmitted by the remote transmitter
`station, said remote transmitter station transferring said
`
`transmitter station” ..................................................................126
`(d)
`unit of programming to a transmitter” ....................................128
`Claims 4 and 7 Are Patentable over Seth-Smith ............................... 137
`Seth-Smith Does Not Qualify As Prior Art ............................137
`(a)
`(b) Claim 4 ....................................................................................138
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`(c) Claim 7 ....................................................................................141
`Claim 33 is Patentable over Chandra in view of Nachbar ................ 141
`(a) Chandra and Nachbar Do Not Qualify As Prior Art ...............143
`(b) Chandra, in view of Nachbar, fails to teach or suggest
`every limitation of Claim 33 ...................................................144
`Claims 13, 18, 20, 32 Are Patentable over Chandra ......................... 152
`(a) Chandra Does Not Qualify As Prior Art .................................152
`(b) Claim 18 ..................................................................................153
`(c) Claim 20 ..................................................................................156
`(d) Claim 32 ..................................................................................156
`(e) Claim 13 ..................................................................................157
`IX. Secondary Considerations Confirm The Non-Obviousness Of The
`Inventions ................................................................................................... 160
`X. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 160
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Alfred C. Weaver, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Patent Owner
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”) in the matter of the Inter
`
`Partes Review No. IPR2016-01520 of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 (“’635 Patent.”)
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT
`2.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Science in 1971
`
`from the University of Tennessee. I also earned a Master of Science Degree in
`
`Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1973.
`
`Thereafter, I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science at the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana-Champaign in 1976.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Computer Science and the Associate
`
`Chair of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Virginia
`
`(“UVa”). I have been employed at UVa continuously since 1977. Over the period
`
`of my employment at UVa, I have taught more than 25 different courses, including
`
`electronic commerce, operating systems, computer networks, and various
`
`programming courses. Moreover, I have been the graduate advisor for 69 Ph.D.
`
`and master’s students, all in Computer Science.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to my teaching duties, I am also the Founding Director of
`
`UVa’s Applied Research Institute, a group of faculty engaged in research areas
`
`related to national security and funded by both government and industry. To date,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`I have published 16 books and book chapters, 30 refereed journal articles, 139
`
`referenced conference publications, and 80 technical reports. I currently serve on
`
`the Advisory Council of the Editorial Board of the IEEE Computer magazine.
`
`5.
`
`As a researcher, I have served as Principal Investigator or co-Principal
`
`Investigator of 130+ research projects funded by the federal government, state
`
`government and private industry. Recent research projects include 3D printing,
`
`automated analysis of published scientific literature, secure mobile computing,
`
`crowdsourcing, data integrity, and trustworthy computing.
`
`6.
`
`I have founded five companies. One of these, Network Xpress, Inc.,
`
`was a spin-off from research work in computer networks funded by the U. S. Navy
`
`at UVa. At its peak, another company, Reliacast, Inc., employed 90 people and
`
`developed software for secure streaming of multimedia. Reliacast was ultimately
`
`sold to Comcast.
`
`7.
`
`I have served as an expert witness in 20+ patent infringement cases
`
`since 1988. Six of those cases have gone to trial. In the past four years I have
`
`testified, or have been prepared to testify, in court in three cases:
`
` USAA v. Nader and Kamran Asghari-Kamrani, United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk). I was prepared to
`testify for the defendants, but the case was decided in favor of the
`defendants before I was called for testimony during trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
` VS Technologies v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00043-HCM-TEM in
`the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
`(Norfolk). In that case, I testified on behalf of Twitter.
`
` ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-00620-REP in the
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
`(Richmond). In that case, I testified on behalf of ePlus.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 16 books or book chapters in the
`
`computer science field and have authored or co-authored over 169 referenced
`
`journal and conference papers on various topics related to computer science,
`
`computer systems, computer networks, search agents, databases, the Internet and e-
`
`commerce, among other topics. I am a member of the editorial board of the IEEE
`
`Computer magazine.
`
`9.
`
`I have presented papers at numerous conferences and have served as
`
`Program Chair or Technical Program Chair of a number of conferences around the
`
`world. For example, I was the Keynote Speaker at the International Workshop on
`
`Privacy, Security, and Trust for Mobile Devices (MobiPST’11), in Maui, Hawaii,
`
`in July 2011 on the topic of “Providing Privacy and Security for Mobile Devices.”
`
`I was the Keynote Speaker at the IEEE International Conference on Industrial
`
`Technology (ICIT’05), in Hong Kong, in December 2005 on the topic of
`
`“Achieving Data Privacy and Security Using Web Services.” I was the Keynote
`
`Speaker at the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Factory Automation (ETFA’05), in Catania, Sicily, Italy, in September 2005 on the
`
`topic of “A Security Architecture for Distributed Data Security.”
`
`10. With my co-authors, Sam Dwyer and Kristen Hughes, I wrote Chapter
`
`2 entitled “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)” in the
`
`book Security Issues in the Digital Medical Enterprise, published by the Society
`
`for Computer Applications in Radiology in 2004. I wrote the paper “Secure
`
`Sockets Layer” in Computer in April 2006. With my co-author, Andrew Jurik, I
`
`wrote “Securing Mobile Devices with Biotelemetry,” presented at the International
`
`Workshop on Privacy, Security, and Trust in Mobile and Wireless Systems
`
`(MobiPST’11), in Maui, Hawaii, in July, 2011. I presented the NATO Fellowship
`
`Lecture at Bogazici University, in Istanbul, Turkey, in May 2000 on the topic of
`
`“Internet Privacy and Security.” With my master’s student, Andrew Snyder, I
`
`wrote “The e-Logistics of Securing Distributed Medical Data,” presented at the
`
`IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Banff, Alberta, Canada,
`
`in August 2003. I supervised Andrew Snyder’s master’s thesis on the topic of
`
`“Performance Measurement and Workflow Impact of Securing Medical Data
`
`Using HIPAA Compliant Encryption in a .NET Environment,” in August 2003.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on U.S. patent 4,217,658 that resulted from my
`
`Ph.D. research at the University of Illinois.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`12.
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE, an honor awarded to less than two percent
`
`of the IEEE membership.
`
`13.
`
`I have been an invited guest lecturer at numerous meetings sponsored
`
`by various corporations around the world. For example, I spoke on “Reliable
`
`Multicast and Reliable Group Management” for a meeting held at Sun
`
`Microsystems in Palo Alto, California in July, 1999. I gave a presentation entitled
`
`“Xpress Transport Protocol” at a meeting sponsored by General Electric Research
`
`and Development Laboratory, held in Schenectady, New York, in December, 1996.
`
`I was an invited speaker on the topic of “Medical Data Privacy and Security” at the
`
`Microsoft Healthcare Users’ Group meeting in Redmond, Washington in 2006.
`
`14.
`
`I was the Lucian Carr III Professor of Engineering and Applied
`
`Science at the University of Virginia from 2002-2004. I was a member of the
`
`Provost’s Promotion and Tenure Committee of the University of Virginia during
`
`2003-2006. I served as the Chairman of the Department of Computer Science
`
`during 1984-85 and am now the Associate Chair of my department. In 1996-1999
`
`and again in 2012-2015, I served as a member of the Promotion and Tenure
`
`Committee for the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of
`
`Virginia and chaired that committee during 1998-1999 and 2014-2015.
`
`15.
`
`I teach the University of Virginia’s CS 4753 course “Electronic
`
`Commerce Technologies.” This course explains the role of encryption in modern
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`electronic commerce and teaches the details of the mathematical algorithms that
`
`implement symmetric key encryption, public key encryption, and other encryption
`
`techniques. I was the Principal Investigator for “Secure E-Commerce: A Modular
`
`Course Supported by Virtual Laboratories,” a $500,000 research project funded by
`
`the National Science Foundation to develop a course teaching secure e-commerce.
`
`16.
`
`I have also had the opportunity to consult with and/or work in the
`
`commercial sector. For example, I received a $200,000 research grant from
`
`Microsoft for my work in connection with development of a solution to the
`
`problems associated with the privacy and security of medical data. In the past, I’ve
`
`consulted for General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, Raytheon, E-
`
`Systems and others. Additionally, I founded five companies of my own which
`
`focused on e-commerce. I was involved in all aspects of the life cycles of these
`
`companies from raising start-up capital funding, to designing and developing
`
`products, to attempting to commercialize these products in the marketplace. One
`
`of these companies, Reliacast, developed secure multimedia distribution software
`
`and was ultimately sold to Comcast.
`
`17. A detailed curriculum vitae showing more of my credentials in these
`
`fields and the cases in which I have testified in the past four years is attached as
`
`Exhibit 2002.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $400/hour for consulting services. My compensation for this matter
`
`is not determined by or contingent upon the outcome of this case.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND RELIED UPON
`19.
`In preparing this Declaration I reviewed and considered the following
`
`
`
`materials:
`
`Ex. / Doc.
`Paper 1
`1001
`
`1003
`1004
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`
`Description
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Petitioners (“Pet.”)
`Declaration Of Anthony J. Wechselberger Under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68 In Support Of Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,559,635 and documents cited therein
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490
`U.S. Patent No. 4,817,140 (“Chandra”)
`Daniel Nachbar, When Network File Systems Aren’t
`Enough: Automatic Software Distribution Revisited,
`USENIX Conference Proceedings, June 9-13, 1986
`(“Nachbar”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,866,770 to Seth-Smith et al. (“Seth-
`Smith”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to Campbell et al. (“Campbell”)
`1044
`Paper 7 Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review
`Paper 9
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Paper 10 Decision regarding Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`-
`All other documents cited and used in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`20.
`
`I have also relied upon my years of education, teaching, research, and
`
`experience concerning software, computer architecture, networks, network
`
`protocols, electronic commerce, privacy and security.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`21.
`I understand that the Petitioner challenged claims 3-4, 7, 13, 18, 20,
`
`21, 28-30, 32, and 33 of the ’635 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`Prior Art
`Campbell et al.
`Chandra
`Chandra in view of Nachbar
`
`Seth-Smith
`
`Statute Claims
`§ 103
`3
`§ 102
`13, 18, 20, and 32
`§ 103
`33
`
`§ 102
`
`4, 7, 21, 28, 29, 30
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the Board issued an Institution Decision on February
`
`16, 2017 (Paper 7) (“Institution Decision”), finding that Petitioner failed to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail to show that claims 21, 28, 29, and 30
`
`are unpatentable based on any of the alleged grounds. I understand that the
`
`following grounds remain at issue:
`
`# Claims
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`13, 18, 20, and 32
`33
`3
`4, 7
`
`Prior Art
`
`Alleged Basis for
`Unpatentability
`Anticipation
`Chandra
`Chandra in view of Nachbar Obviousness
`Campbell et al.
`Obviousness
`Seth-Smith
`Anticipation
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked by PMC to determine whether claims 3, 4, 7, 13,
`
`18, 20, and 32-33 (hereinafter, the “Challenged Claims”) are rendered unpatentable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`based upon these remaining grounds. Petitioner cites to the declaration of Mr.
`
`Wechselberger (Ex. 1001). I have reviewed his declaration. I provide my opinion
`
`regarding many of Mr. Wechselberger’s positions below, in addition to my own
`
`opinions regarding claim construction, priority, and patentability of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`24. As provided below, I find that each of the Challenged Claims is
`
`entitled to the priority date of November 3, 1981. Thus, none of the references is
`
`prior art that can be applied to the Challenged Claims because each of the
`
`aforementioned references has an effective date after November 3, 1981. For that
`
`reason, the claims are not rendered unpatentable based on any of Chandra, Seth-
`
`Smith and Nachbar.
`
`25.
`
`I further find that these Challenged Claims are not anticipated by
`
`Chandra or Seth-Smith; and are not rendered unpatentable for obviousness based
`
`on Chandra in view of Nachbar or based on Campbell even if those references
`
`were to be considered as prior art. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, I
`
`conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`not have had reason to modify and combine the prior references in the manner
`
`stated in the Petition and in the Wechselberger Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`26.
`I am not an attorney. I have been advised of the following general
`
`principles of patent law to be considered in formulating my opinions as to whether
`
`the claims of the ’635 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
` Anticipation
`A.
`27.
`I understand that to anticipate a patent claim, a single prior art
`
`reference must disclose every element of the claim, either explicitly or inherently
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that an element of a claim is
`
`“inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference when that element is necessarily
`
`present in the process and/or thing that is described in the prior art reference.
`
` Obviousness
`B.
`28.
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject
`
`matter set forth in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`of the claim would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination may be obvious if there is an apparent reason to
`
`combine the pre-existing elements in the manner proposed. I also understand that
`
`in assessing whether a claim is obvious, one must consider whether the claimed
`
`improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`their established functions. I understand that where the prior art is combined there
`
`must be some showing that a POSITA would have a motivation to combine the art
`
`in the manner urged as of the priority date.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton, although common sense alone is insufficient to
`
`support an obviousness combination. I also understand that obviousness cannot be
`
`based on the hindsight combination of components selectively culled from the
`
`prior art based on the template or roadmap set forth by the claim. I also understand
`
`that a combination is not obvious if it requires extensive additional problem-
`
`solving steps that are not taught in the references and that are not simple matters
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`for a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, a combination is not obvious if it
`
`requires the development of an additional complex infrastructure.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation
`
`nor the avowed purpose of the inventors controls the inquiry. A need or problem
`
`known in the field at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining elements. For example, I understand that it is
`
`important to consider whether there existed, at the time of the invention, a known
`
`problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`claims. I understand that known techniques can have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art can in some
`
`instances fit the teachings of multiple pieces of prior art together like pieces of a
`
`puzzle, provided there is objective motivation for that undertaking that is not based
`
`on simply following the claim as a template.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art may have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. I further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it
`
`is likely that it is the product, not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense, which bears on whether the claim would have been obvious. That being
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`said, common sense/common knowledge alone is normally insufficient to support a
`
`finding of obviousness.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`evidence of commercial success of an invention, evidence of a long-felt need that
`
`was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence
`
`that an invention achieved a surprising result. I further understand that such
`
`evidence must have a nexus or causal relationship to the elements of a claim in
`
`order to be relevant.
`
` Claim Construction
`C.
`34.
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`entitled to a priority date or is anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the
`
`Patent Office must first construe the claim by giving the claim its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and file history from the
`
`standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that one must take
`
`into consideration the entire disclosure set forth in the specification. I also
`
`understand that one must consider the limitation at issue in the context of the
`
`surrounding claim language. For the purposes of this review, unless otherwise
`
`stated, I have construed each claim term in accordance with its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the required broadest reasonable interpretation. I understand that
`
`claim limitations are presumptively given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`subject to consideration of the specification and file history of the patent. I
`
`understand that in some cases the ordinary and customary meaning may not be
`
`determinative because the specification may provide a special definition, such as in
`
`the case where the inventor chooses to be his/her own lexicographer by specifically
`
`and unambiguously defining the term. Likewise, the inventor may disclaim or
`
`disavow some meaning from the scope of the term as ordinarily understood by
`
`making clear and unambiguous statements in the specification or to the Patent
`
`Office as reflected in the file history.
`
` Applicability of Claim Construction to Priority and Validity
`D.
`35. Below I render opinions on whether the Challenged Claims are
`
`entitled to 1981 priority, as well as whether they are novel and nonobvious based
`
`on the references cited by Petitioner. I understand that the same Claim
`
`Construction must be considered and applied in priority analysis and in the validity
`
`analysis. Put another way, claim construction is a prerequisite step that applies to
`
`both exercises and it would be improper to apply different claim construction
`
`standards for priority and validity. I understand that the inquiry in each analysis
`
`entails two steps: (1) the claim, including any disputed limitations, is first
`
`construed, and (2) the construed claim limitations are applied to the earlier
`
`specification (priority) or to the prior art (validity).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`E.
`36.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I believe that the ’635 Patent is addressed to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) with at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in digital
`
`electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related technical degree, with 2-5 years of post-degree work experience in systems
`
`engineering (or equivalent). In determining who would be a POSITA, I considered
`
`at least the following criteria: (a) the type of problems encountered in the art; (b)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and (e) the education level of active
`
`workers in the field.
`
`V. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’635 PATENT
`37. The ’635 Patent discloses methods and apparatus for distributing
`
`personalized media content in a vast networked environment. See, e.g., Ex. 1003
`
`at 6:28-9:25. The patented inventions addressed problems in the prior art by
`
`recognizing the significant improvements that could be accomplished if receivers
`
`could communicate with other devices in a network; if transmitters could control
`
`receivers such as, for example, by sending control instructions in an information
`
`stream; and if receivers could use those control instructions to identify content
`
`addressed to individual users and to carry out controlled operations specific to a
`
`receiver device. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 6:29-46; 7:58-62; 23:34-57. By employing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2023
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`distributed computing and control, the disclosed system is able to provide
`
`customized user content, other new and useful types of content, and new modes of
`
`delivering that content. But such a system is enormously more complex than the
`
`one-to-many distribution structures in the prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 2:57-
`
`6:25.
`
`38. The ’635 Patent describes a novel signal-processing system having
`
`multiple layers of transmitter station devices that are able to control addressable
`
`receiver devices in large networks. For example, the ’635 Patent specification
`
`discloses, among other things, an end-to-end networked system that can distribute
`
`digital information over an analog or digital information transmission system from
`
`transmitter stations to receiver stations (which receiver station is also
`
`interchangeably referred to herein as a “subscriber station”), optionally passing
`
`through intermediate stations, and the methods for accomplishing that distribution.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1003, Abstract. The transmitted digital information can be addressed
`
`to one or more receiver stations and can include commands, data, signals,
`
`computer programs, or encrypted programming. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 15:13-45.
`
`39. Recognizing the importance of protecting the programming being
`
`transmitted, the ’635 Patent discloses a sophisticated embodiment of access
`
`control, allowing for the delivery of personalized content to receiver stations in a
`
`secure manner through un