THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCf COURT
`FOR THE ~ORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`P-ERSONALIZED MEDL~
`COMMUNICATIONS, L .L.C.,_
`
`r•a_intiff,
`
`v.
`
`I
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`§.
`§
`§ Civil Action No. 1:02-CV-824:.CAP
`§ ·
`SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, IN.C. ~d
`§
`§
`PQWERTV, INC.,
`§
`Defendants.
`§
`--:-::--=-A,-:--::I:::-N::-::C:-. -an_d ___ .§
`·-s--c=I=E=N~T=I:-:::F:::-IC-=--:A-=T:-::LANT
`POW~RTV, INC.,
`§
`Counter-Plain(iffs,
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.;
`GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE
`INTE RNATIONAL, INC.; TVG-PMC,
`INC.; and STARSIGHT TELECAST,
`INC.,
`
`Received By
`MAR 0 2 2005
`Hunton & Williams UP
`
`Counter-Defendants.
`§
`--------==~~-------------§
`GEMSTAR-TVGUIDE
`§
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TVG-~MC,
`§
`INC.; and STARSIGHT TELECAST,
`§ ·
`INC.;
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNJCATIONS,·LL..C.,
`Cross-Defendants.
`
`Cross-Claimants.
`
`SPECIAL MASTER'S
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`ON
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ISSUED UNDER SEAL
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`erallir do not‘limit the clairns‘because the patentability of apparatus or composinOn claims depends
`on the claimed structure Inot on the use or purpose of that structure." MI. "Thus, preamble lan-
`guage merely extolling benefits or features of the claimedinvention doesnot limit the claim scope
`widnout clear reliance on those benefits Or features asIIpatentablj.r significant.”_Iai
`
`With the foregoing,Irn mind the claims do not recite the preamble injepson form, not do
`. the limitations of the claim _body rely on the disputed limitation for antecedent basis, nor does the
`preamble recite impOrtant additional structure. Furthermore,it is apparent from reading therody of
`the claim that the claim is directed-to an apparatus that receives television transmissions; thus, the
`‘ preambleis not necessary togiveI‘1ife meaning and vitahty’f to the claim. Nor did Harvey atat rely
`on the preambles during prosecution to distinguish prior art or emphasme patentability. In short,
`the preamble simply serves‘'as a convenient label for theinvention as a whole,” and thus should not
`be cOnstr-ued as limiting. 5r: fining: Tuesday, 329 F.3d at 831. Thus, construction of the term
`“television receiver system” need not be reached.
`
`c) Recommended Construction
`
`I
`
`In view-of the foregoing, therefore, the special master recommends that the Court conclude
`
`. .tbatI
`
`I
`
`The preambles of claims 8, 10, 11 and 44 are not limiting.
`
`I
`
`I “processor"
`I11.
`_This term appears in Iclaims 11, 12I and I.13 Claim 11is deemed representative, and15 repro—
`duced below for reference, with the disputed term in boldface;
`
`11. A television-receiver system comprising:
`
`.
`
`-
`
`a first processor for receiving information of a selected television program
`' transmission and detecting a specific signal in said transmission based upon a -
`location or timing“ pattern ofsaid specific signal in said transmission, said first -
`processor being programmed with information of a varying location or tim-
`ing‘ Pam;
`
`. a second processor operatively connected to said first processor for receiv- '
`ing and prOcessing information of said specific signal, and for identifying
`
`427
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`

`- when and where to pass said information based upon said information, and
`passing said information.
`'
`
`a) The P'arties’ Proposed Constructions and Arguments
`
`. PMClGEMSTAR’s PROPOSED Consms
`A digital electronic device that processes infor-
`_ marioii by operating on data according to in-
`struclions.
`_
`.
`‘
`_
`,
`Post—Hearing. [no change]
`
`_
`
`.
`
`'
`
`DEFENDMS’ PROPOSED CONSTR.
`[not addressed}
`.
`
`.
`'
`'
`“first- proces-
`terms
`- Mm The
`sof’f‘‘second processor”/“processor
`require
`no construction-
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Plainriffs? Harvey 'V'I' Chart at in ; Joint Son-misty at 65-
`
`Defendants urge that the construction of “procesisor” should apply to that term as it appears
`in claiin 44.
`'
`
`‘ According to the-JC‘CS, the parties agree that “processoi” should be defined as.“a digital
`
`electronic device that processes information by operating on data according toinstmctions." JCCS
`I at 10.
`-
`I
`'
`.
`I
`I
`
`b)- Discussion
`
`As discussed abovein connection With construction of the term "first processor means" '
`
`I called forIn Harvey IV; a “processor'_“is'a digital electronic deviceithat processes information by
`operating on data according to instructions.” 'Tba't construction applies here.
`
`(2) Reconneended Construction
`
`In View of the foregoing. therefore, the special master recommends rliat'the Court conclude.
`
`_
`
`.
`
`that:
`
`A “processor"is a digital electronic device that processes itifonnation by operat—
`ing on data according to instructions.
`
`428
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`.
`
`. Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`ing one or more lines or a portion ofa line from the'video that contain embedded digital signals
`the claim uses the word‘selecting” —notaccessing" or 'choosing" -— andIs readily understandable.
`Furthermore the claim calls for"selecting portions of one or more line's," not selecting‘‘one or
`_ more lines or 'a portion of a line."
`-
`_
`o
`.
`'
`.
`'
`I
`'
`
`.
`
`' As for the pla'intifl's’ other contention that "changing the specific portions ofsaid video lines
`thatare selected’’ means that “the line receiver can be controlled or caused to change the lines or
`portions of a line that it examines for digital signals,” again, thatts_ not what the claim says. The
`
`claim uses the words “receiving" and “selecting,” not “examining.“ Again, the claim calls for-“por—
`.
`.
`I'
`.
`.
`-
`.
`'
`.
`,,
`nons of one or more hoes," not “one or more lines or a portion of a line.
`
`Fmafly, as for whether this term excludes a "full field receiver” (whatever that is) or not, that
`is a question for the later infringement stage.
`
`c) Recommended Construction-
`
`IIn view of the foregoing, therefore, the special master recommends that the Court conclude
`
`that
`
`In the phrase "a line receiver for receiving * ‘ * and selecting * *. *,”' a“line re-
`ceiver” is a device for receiving electrical signals. The claim expressly requires
`that the “line receiver" have two functions: (1) “receiving a video signal of an
`analog television transmission” and (2)‘selecting portions of one or more lines
`of said video that contain embedded signals." The claim also requires that the
`“line receiver” be “capable of-changing the specific portions of said video lines
`that are selected.”
`-
`'
`'
`-
`
`' 23. “alter its decryption pattern or technique"
`
`This term appears in claim 17, below (the disputed term isle-boldface):
`
`11A system for controlling a decryptor, said system comprising:
`
`_
`
`a digital detector for receiving at least: portion. of a television program
`transmission, said program transmission comprising a pregram and a plural-_
`ity of signals embedded'in said transmission, said detector detecting said sig-
`
`476
`
`.
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754 .
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`

`a decryptor operatively connected to said detector for receiving and decrypt-
`ing said detected signals; and
`
`a controller operatively connected to said decryptor for causing said de- -
`I
`-
`.
`cryptor to alter its decryption patternor technique.
`
`a) The 'Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Arguments
`_
`._
`_
`.
`.
`'
`'
`I
`_
`-PM§;[_ GEM sun’s PRDPDSBD'CONSTR.
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED Consrm .
`,
`.
`1
`[Tlhe controller can cause the decryptor to alter The term “alter its decryption pattern or tech-
`either the decryption key (pattern) or thedecryp-_ niquei‘requires achange in the decryption alga-
`lion algorithm (technique) used to decrypt the
`rithm itself or in a plan or model of which the
`signal.
`_.
`decryptor is preinformed and which determines
`_
`'
`i
`_ what bits ofa received message are and are not
`"Rm [11}? change]
`decrypted. This term should be construed to
`exclude merely changing the decryption key.
`Post-Hearing; [no change]
`.
`.
`_
`I
`.
`Plaintiffs’ Harvey VI Cha‘rt at 113; Defendants’ Harvey VI Chart at 67;]oint Summary at 49.
`
`'
`
`The plaintiffs say thaLthc parties agree that the terms “decryption pattern or tecl'uiique" and
`
`“manner of decryption” should be interpreted consistently. The plaintiffs contend that both 'of '
`those terms should include both a decryption key (pattern) and algorithm (technique), and that the
`
`defendants exclude a decryption key. The plaintiffs urge that their proposed construction is consis-
`
`tent with special master Harmon‘s construction of the term “controller 'operatively connected to said
`decryptex for causing said decrypter to alter its decrypdon pattern or technique,” and that the 1931- '_
`' and 1937 specifications support their construction In particular, the plaintiffs urge, example 4 of
`the 1987 specification demonstrates that the disclosed system is capable of changing bothits decryp-
`tion pattern-and technique. According to the plaintiffs, the defendantsignore themini-isle evidence -
`and rely on. obscure, non-technical definitions to conclude that the term “pattern” refers Inot'to a
`decryption key, but to a “plan 'or mode ’l in which the receiver determines what to decrypt and what
`
`not to decrypt According to the plaintiffs, the opinion of the defendants’ expert, Mr. Arnold,is
`incorrect because:it ignores the-explicit support set forthin the Harvey specifications de'tn'onstrating
`' that“pattern” corresponds to “key." Plaintiffs' Opening MailmanBriefat80-84.
`I
`According to the.defendants the dispute concerns ivhether changinga key is‘'altering a de-
`cryption.” The defendants urge that a person of ordinary skill would understand that altering the
`
`4??
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 5
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`

`decryption patternteférs to sbmething more than a key change, fie, a plan for control of the decryp—I
`rer in its determination of what hits of a message are to be decrypted and what-bits are not to be de-
`crypted, and that is supported by the specification. Defendants' Markings Brief at 83-84.
`
`1:) Discussion
`
`The parties agree that “decryption" “require[s]s a device or method that uses a digital keyin
`conjunction with an associated mathematical algocithm to decipher (tender intelligible orusable)
`digital data that has been enciphered (rendered unintelligible or unusable). These terms do not en-I
`compass the descrambling of an analog television transmission.” JCCS at ll Based on the forego-
`ing proposed constructions the parties also apparently agree that "decryption technique” means
`_"decryption algorithm” The disputeIS whether a “decryption pattern” means “decrypnon key.”
`
`Neither party has submitted a dictionary or treatise definition of “decryption pattern” pern—
`' or for “decryption key,” nor have definitions been located in any of the available references- Ac—
`cordingly, the term does not appear to be a term of art, as discussed further below- Turning to the
`individual words, a “pattern,” of coarse, is simply “a plan, diagram, or model to be followed in mak-
`ling things,” AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 911 (2“d ed. 1985). Although that is not specific to
`the cryptogxaphy context, that is the word Harvey at a}. nervertheless used. A "key,” though, is
`commonly used in the cryptography context, and is defined in that- context as “the set of instruc-
`tions governing the encipherment and decipherrneot of messages." MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S ONLINE
`_DICTIONABY.” Those definitions suggest, at least initially, a difference between a “key” and a— "pat;
`Itern.” How a “key’"and/or “pattern" fits into the scheme of “encryption,” then, requires further
`review.
`
`'
`
`Turning to other sources at hand, one source explains that “[e]ncryption is the process of
`
`turning a plainth message into an alternate ciphertext message. The ciphertext message contains
`all the information of the plaintext message, butis not in a format readable by a human or corn-
`
`
`
`” h
`
`:kuim-wcomf
`.
`
`'—binfdictionaryibook='DicIionary&va=k
`cg:
`ey
`
`it?
`
`ast visited me 3, 2004).
`
`478
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 6
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`

`I purer. - The inverse process, of extracting the original information, is called" decryption, and can only‘
`. be accomplished by using auxiliary information, called a key.”M
`
`
`
`9" Imp:”encyclopedia.thefreedietionary.tom/Encryption%2i)key_ (last visited june 8 2004) The website SearchNet—
`working.corn explains.
`
`EncryptionIs the conversion of datainto a form, called a ciphertext, that cannot be easily understood
`by unauthorized people Decryptionis the process of converting encrypteddata back into its original
`form1 so it can be understood
`
`The use of encryption/ decryption15 as old as the art _of communication. In wartime, a cipher often
`incorrectly called a "code," can be employed to keep the enemy from obtaining the contents of
`transmissions. (Technically, a codeis a means of representing a signal without theintent of keeping it
`secret; examples are Morse code and ASCH.) Simple ciphers include the substitution of letters for
`numbers, the rotation of letters in the alphabet, and the “scrambling of voice signals by inverting the
`sideband frequencies. More complex ciphers work according to sophisticated computer algorithms
`that rearrange the data bits'in digital signals.
`
`In order to easily recover the contents'of an encrypted signal, the correctWED—mts required.
`-
`.
`.
`-
`-
`r .1! Alternatively, a com-
`
`puter can be usedIn an attempt to "break” the cipher The more complex the encryption algorithm,
`the more difficultit becomes to eavesdrop. on the communications without access to the key.
`
`'
`
`Encryptionf'decryption is especially important in wireless communications. This is because wireless
`circuits are easier to “tap" than their hard-wired counterparts- Nevertheless, encryption/decryption is
`a good idea when carrying out any kind of sensitive transaction, such as a credit-card purchase online,
`or the disulssion of a company secret between different departments in the organization. The
`stronger the cipher— that is, the harder it is for unauthorized people to break it - the better, in gen-
`eral. However; as the strength of encryptionldecryptionincreases, so does the cost.
`'
`In recent years,- a controversy has arisen over so—called strong encryption. This refers to ciphers that
`are essentially unbreakable without the decryption keys. While most companies and their customers
`viewit'as a means of keeping secrets and minimizing fraud, some governments view strong encryp-
`tion as. a potential vehicle by which terrorists might evade authorities- These governments, includmg
`that of the United States, want to set up a key—escrow arrangement. This means everyone who uses a
`cipher mold be required toprovide the government with a copy of the key. Decryption keys would
`' be stored in a supposedly secure place, used only by authorities-and used only ifbackui up by a court
`order. Opponents of this scheme argue that criminals could hack into the key-escrow database and il-
`legally obtain, steal, or alter the keys. Suppdrters claim that while this is a possibility, implementing the
`key mow scheme would he better than doing nothing to prevent criminals from freely using mcryp-
`tionfdecryption. [Emphasis added]
`I
`'
`
`479
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`
`|PR2016-00754
`_
`Page 7
`_
`,
`
`
`_
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`

`That source provides the following illustration:
`
`_ Piaintext
`
`.'
`
`'
`
`_'
`'
`Key ““4"
`
`_ Block Cipher
`Encryption
`
`Ciphertext
`
`Another source equates an encryption "pattern” with a “kcy:”95
`
`Encryptionin its simplest formis scrambling a message so that it cannot be read
`untilit is unscrambled later by the receiver. The sender uses an algorithmic Rab.
`tea {or keg] to scramble tor encgptl the-emessa_tg The receiver has the decryp-
`tion key. Encryption ensures privacjr and confidentiality in transmissions sent
`over the Internet. [Emphasis added]
`
`'
`
`'
`
`i A different source, though, while stating the same thing, seems to draw a distinction between the
`I two, particularly forasymmetric keys,” but indicates that theylare related1 fie, the “encryption pat—
`tem" is what the “key" is based on:9‘
`‘
`
`Encryption in its simplesr'forrn is scrambling a message so that it cannot be read
`until it is unscrambled later. by the receiver. The sender uSes an algorithmic pat- _
`tern, or key, to scramble; or encrypt, the message. The receiver has the decryp-
`tion. key. Encryption ensures confidentiality in transmissions sent over the Inter-
`net.
`-
`-
`
`.
`
`There are two kinds ofkeyssth‘at can be used for encryption (as Well as for digital
`signature and authentication): Symmetric [and] Asyrnmetric
`Smettic kegs follow an age,-old model of the sender and receiger sharing some
`kind of pattern. This same pattern is ting used bx the sender t9 engyjpt the mes— ‘
`sage and by; the receiver to dem’.t the message'You niay have used this model“
`
`95 IBM Lotus support documents, http:/{WW-306me.cmn/sofmarefwebmfdgse/editionshm(last visited June
`'8, 2004). In aha RSA Security, http://wwwuasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=21 5? '(last visited lune 9, 2004)-
`'
`
`'
`
`9‘ The Webmaster’s Guide, http:/z’dvbs.dlr.de/Does/icswgsec.hu-n#l{eader_300 (last visited june B, 2004).
`
`'
`
`480
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`.
`-
`.
`.
`Page 8
`
`
`_
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`

`'
`
`I
`
`I
`
`when you decoded the secret message on the,back of a cereal box using your se-
`cret decoder ring. The risk'involved with symmetric keys is that you have to find
`a safe transportation method to use when'sharing your secret key with the people
`with which you want to communicate.
`'
`'
`'
`
`'
`
`With asymmetnc ktiys, you create 'a key air. The key pair is made up of a public
`key and a private key, which are different from each other. The private key holds
`more of the secret encryption pattern than the public key. Asa slender, youcan-
`then broadcast your public key to whomever you want to communicate securely.
`You hold on to the private key and protect it With a password- Unlike symmetric
`keys, the private key and the public key are not the same. As a result, only you
`can decrypt a message that has been encrypted with your public key, because
`only you have the private key. [Emphasis added} I
`.
`
`- That is, for “symmetric keys," the encryption “pattern" is the same as the “key." For “asymmetric
`keys,” Ithe encryption “pattern," and hence the “key,” is different for each party, and each “key"
`holds a different-,- or overlapping parts of the “patron-"97 Thus far, it appears that in some contexts,
`the word “pattern" refers to the encryption “key,” but in other contexts apparently not-I In any case.
`the term "decryption pattern’l' is clearly not a term of art. indeed,- the experts of both parties agree
`in that regard. Sn, r.g., Markdan Tr- at 258: 7-19 (direct eirarnioation of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Stub-
`blebine: “Q. In forming your opinions as to the meaning of the term decryption pattern; did you
`rely on any dictionary definitions? A. No. Q- Why not? A. I knew it was not a term of the art and, .
`again, going hack to the-scheduling order, I looked first towards the specification, intrinsic evidence
`Okay- Did you find that the specification expressly defined the term decryp[ion pattern? A. No. Q.
`Did you find that the specification informed the definition of the term encryption pattern? A. Yes.
`Yes”); Defendants' Opening Markham Brief, Bath. 30: Decl- of Mr. Arnoldat 1] 16 ("The term ‘pat-
`tern _of decryption' is not a term of art in cryptography. As a result, definition of this term isde-
`
`'97 Harvey rt ml do not appear to have used a “hashing," or one-way, method of encryption, in which there is no separate
`'“lrey” per 1:.
`59-: hftp:[Iho{wired.lycbacon/webmonkey/OOXZO/htdcfilahunl (last visited June 9, 2004}(“When you
`create a hash, you're only creating a digital summary of the string or file in question. You're not encrypting the string or
`file, and therefore the string or file can't be decrypted. On most systems, passwords are stored as hashes, so should
`someone break into your system and grab your password file, said rogue user doesn’t necessarily have your passwords;
`just hashes of the passwords. This begs the questions ‘Well then, how docs the system match my password when I enter
`'banana' and it has stored ‘Z'I‘kvRRZNsOUik' in the password file-3’ It’s simple (for once; a simple uphna'fionDrWheo
`you enter the password, the system will hash the input, and attempt to match this hashed input to the hash it has stored '
`in _
`the _ password
`file-
`31f
`the
`_
`two
`hashes
`match,-
`you‘re.
`allowed
`in").
`'5}:
`also
`https//ww.rsasecu|:ily-com/fialabs/node.asp?id=21 '36 (last visited june 9, 2004).
`
`'
`
`_
`
`481'
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 9
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`

`I pendant on the context where‘it is used")- Thus, it seemsthat Harvey rt at coined that term. Ac-
`
`' Icordingly, the focus turns to the specification. .
`
`'l
`
`I'
`
`In their "Sunnnary of the Invention,” Harvey r! ml used the wordHpattern in connection
`iwith encryption/decryption, but not the word “key” For example,.Harvcy rtal’. explain:
`It is a further purpose of this invention to provide a variety of means and meth— -
`ads for restricting the use of transmitted communications to only duly;author-
`ized Subscribers. Such means and methods include techniques for encrypting
`r
`amrnin
`and or instructions and dec
`tin them at subscriber stations.
`They also include techniques whereby the pattern of the composition, liming,
`and location of embedded signals may vary in such fashions that only receiving.
`apparatus that are preinformed regarding the patterns that obtain at any given
`time will be able to process the signals correctly- [Emphasis added]
`Harvey VI, col. 9, lines 37-47. Then, in that same section, in describing the signal processor, Harvey
`
`-
`
`r! a}. explain.
`
`I
`
`In the present invention, particular signal processing apparatus (hereinafter called
`the'‘signal processor") detect signals and,in accordance with instructions in the
`signals and preprogramtning in the signal processor; d_eqyp§rand/or record
`_ and/or control station apparatus by means 'of the signals and]or discard the sig-
`nals The apparatus include one or more devices that can selectively scan trans-
`- mission freqUencies as directed * * *. The frequencies may convey television, ra--
`die, or other programming transmissions. The input transmissions may be re—
`ceived by means of antennas or
`from hard——wire connections. The scan—
`ners/switches working in parallel or series or combinations, transfer the trans-
`missions to receiver/decoder/detectors that identify signals encoded in pro-
`gramming transmissions and convert theencoded signals to digital information;,_
`deegyptors that may convert the received infomtion, in part or in whole, t9
`other dig;'tal informatign according to preset methods or patterns; and one or
`more processor/monitors and/or buffer/comparators that organize and transfer
`the information stream. The processors and buffers can have inputs from each
`of the receiver/detector lines and evaluate information connnuously. * * * [Em—
`phasis added.]
`
`Id at 1:01. 10, lines 34-58. ’
`
`'In the remainder of'the specification, though, and including the “Background of the Inven-. '
`
`tion,” Harvey e! mi did exactly the opposite:
`
`they used the Word "key” — as in"‘decryption key” '— in
`
`
`
`432
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 10
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`

`connection with encryption/decryption not the word‘'pattern"For example, Harvey at mi pointed
`outthat the prior art did not allow decryption:
`
`As regards decoders and decggptors, many different systems exist, at present, that
`enable programming suppliers to restrict the use of transmitted programming to
`only duly authorized-subscribers. The prior art includes so-called "addressable"
`systems that have capacity for controlling specific individual subscriber station
`apparatus by means of control instructions transmittedto broadcasts. Such sys~,_
`terns enable broadcasters to turn off subscriber station decoder/decryptor appa-
`ratus of subscribers who do not pay their bills and turn them back on when the
`bills are paid.
`
`This prior art, tm, is limited. It has no capacityfor decrypting combined media-
`programming. It has no ca aci
`for identi
`'
`then selectivel dec
`tin con-
`trol instructions embedded in unencgqgted program'g transmissions. It has no
`capacity for identifying programming transmissions or control instructions selec-
`tively and transferring them to a decryptor' for decryption- It has no capacity for
`transferring the output of a decryptor selectively to one. of a plurality of output
`apparatus. It has no capacity; for automatically identifying decryption keys and
`inputting them to a decggptgr to serve asthe key for any step of decryption. it
`has no capacity for identifying and recording the identityr of what1s input to oi:
`output from a decryptor. It has no capacity for decryptinga transmission then
`embedding a signal in the transmission—let alone for simultaneously embedding
`user specific signals at a plurality of subscriber stations-'It has no capacity for dis-
`tinguishing the absence of an expected signal or controlling any operation when
`such absence occurs. [Emphasis added]
`'
`.
`
`In! at cat 2’, lines 1343.
`
`483
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 11
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`

`In describing their invention in the “Signal Processing-Programming Reception and Use
`Regulating SyStem" embodiment depicted in Fig 4:
`
`mun-cannun can: stone rmsmsanv
`
` _———'——-I
`
`1—...—
`
`l—
`
`i-
`
`- Harvey.std. explain that the “subscriber station” "configuration FIG 4 differs from the configura-
`'
`tion of FIGS- 1 and 3m that. television tuner, 215, outputs its audio and video outputs to said maniac
`
`switch, 258, rather than to monitor, 202M, and divider, 4, respectively. Instead,in FIG. 4, it is said.
`switch, 258- that outputs the information thatis input to said monitor, 202M, and divider, 4. _FIG. 4
`shows five additional devices--t]1ree decggptors, 107, 224 and 231, a signal stripper, 229,, and a signal
`
`generator, 230—asSociatcd with matrix switch, 258. Mpmrs 10‘? 224 and 231 are conventional .-
`'de
`'
`015 well known in the
`with ca_ aci-
`' for receivin en
`ti di 'tal information de
`ing said information by means of a selected-cipher alggrithm and a selected cipher kg, and output-
`ting the deem;ted-infhnnation. Signal stripper, 229, is a conventional signal stripper, * s *- * * * *
`_- Matrix switch, 258, has capacity [or outputting selected inputted transmissions to each said five de-
`vices, and .each of said devices processes itsinputted information-m its specific fashion and outputs -
`its processed infonnationto said switch, 258." [Emphasis added] Id. at Col. 161,155 1241. That
`is, the decryptors decrypt informationby using (I) a “selected cipher algorithm" and (2) a "selected
`cipher key-” IHarveyr! all further explain that “signal processor, 200, controls all the aforementioned .
`
`484
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page . 1 2
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`

`apparatus Signal processor, 200, controls the tuning of tuners 214, 215 and 223; controls the
`
`' switching of matrix switch 253;ssupplies cipher algorithm and cipher key information to and con-
`trols the decgqgting of deggptors, 107, 224 and 230; controls signal stripper 229, in selecting trans-
`mission locations and/or information to stripandto signal stripping; and controls signal generator,
`230, in selecting transmission locations at which to insert signals in. generating specific signals to
`insert, andin inserting.” [Emphasis added]
`Id. at col.- 161, lines 42-52 In view of the parties'
`agreement that the claimed “decryption technique” corresponds to the disclosed‘‘cipher algorithm,”
`it seems plausible that the claimed. "decryption pattern” would correspond to the disclosed “cipher
`key.” .1" any' case, Harvey a! all then describe the process of encryption and decryptionin connec-
`- tion with Fig. 4, using the “Wall Street Week” eiiarnple. With regard to encryption at the "program
`origimiing smdio,”lHarvey e! at explain that:
`
`i
`
`In example #7, the program originating studio that originates the ‘Wall Street
`\Weelf1 transmission transmits a television signal that consists of so—called “digital
`video" and “digital audio," well known in the art. Prior to being' transmitted, the
`digital video infoggation is doubly encgp'tei by means of particular cipher a_lgg-
`rithrns '15, and B and cipher kegs Aa and Ba in such a way that said information
`rguires degxption at subscriber stations in the fashion described below. The '
`digital audio is transmitted in the clear. [Emphasis added]
`
`id. at col 1-62, lines 1&25. The encrypted information is transmitted to Ivatious “intermediate
`transmission stations.” “Each of said intermediate transmission stations receives the transmission
`originated by said studio and retransmits the information of said transmission to a plurality of ulti-
`Im-ate receiver stations.” Prior to retransmission, though, according to Harvey a! £11 the intermediate
`
`transmission station “encrypts the digital audio information of said transmission, in a fashion well
`know in the art, using m‘cular cipher algorithm C and cipher keg Qa, then transmits the inforrna-_
`tion of said program on cable channel 13, commencing at a particular 8:30 PM time on a particular
`
`485
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 13
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Friday night." Id. at line's 30-43.93 Thus, prior.to final transmission to the subscriber station the
`information has been thrice-encrypted with cipher algorithms A, B and C using cipher keys Aa, Ba
`
`and Ca.
`
`.
`
`i
`
`'
`
`The informationts then transmitted to the subscriber station in the program transmission
`_-a_nd detected. For simplicity, onl},r decryption of the“algorithm C encrypted" information willhe
`discussed here. Basically, algorithm C encrypts audio information, algorithm Bencrypts videotn-
`formation, ctr. Briefly, then,‘controller, 20, causes matrix switch, 258, to transfer the information of
`said audio portion inputted from said tuner, 215, to the output that outputs to-a selected decryptor;
`10?, thereby causing said dec'ryptpr, 107, to receive the information of'said audio portion (said 'in-
`formation being, as explained above, encrypted digital audio). Automatically, controller 20 selects
`information of ci her lre Ca from amon ' the inf rmation of said ortion- transfers said ci her ke
`
`
`
`
`
`' ence dector 107 to ctor 107- and causes decinformation to'dec tin its received au-
`
`
`
`
`
`98As discussed previously, the'intermediate transmission. station” is depictedin Figs 6A and 613 (reproduced together
`above). In connection with Fig. 6A, once again:
`.
`_
`.
`
`‘
`
`
`
`-
`
`Hartley are! explain that "[elxecuting said last named instructions causes said computer, 73, to cause apparatus of said
`station to recent: the transmission of the program originating studio of the 'Wall Street Week' program; to input said .
`transmission, via the mini: switch, W75 of said station, to particular appatania, well knownIn the art, that encrypt the
`audio portion of said transmission and
`deo an en
`ted an 0
`us
`ssi n
`
`d—ci
`l o '
`a d _ h
`a and to transfer the output of said apparatus, viamattixswitch, 75, to
`field distribution system, 93, via the particular modulator, 82, 86, or 90, of cable channel 13.” [Emphasis added.] Id at
`col. 242, lines 45-S9.
`'
`
`486
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 14
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`I
`
`'
`
`I din information, using said key information and selected 'decgyp-tiOn cipher algorithm C, and output;
`.
`ting decrypted information of the audio portidn of the 'Will Street Week’ program transmission to
`l
`
`matrix switch, 258 Automatitally, controller, 20 causes matriit switch, 258, to transfer the informa-
`tion inputtedfrom decryptot, *107, to the output that that outputs to signal processor, 200 * * *.'”
`[Emphasis added] Id. at col. 1.65, line 68to col. 18 line 20 Thus, encryption and decryption takes
`.'place using (1) a-cipher algorithni and (2) a cipher keys Harvey at at do not otherwise mention _a'
`”
`“decryption pattern. But again, based on the foregoing portions of the specification,it is more
`plausible ”to vieui _a “decryption pattern? 'as commensurate with a "decryption key,” rather than in
`the sense urged—by the defendants. That-is, in describingthe particulars of the prior art