`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Filed: May 24, 1995
`
`Issued: October 15, 2013
`
`Inventor(s): John Christopher Harvey, James
`William Cuddihy
`
`Assignee: Personalized Media Communications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,559,635
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ........... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based ........................................ 1
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................... 2
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`“decrypting”-related terms (all Challenged Claims) ........ 3
`
`“processor” (Claims 18, 21, 33) ....................................... 4
`
`“encrypted digital information transmission …
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information
`transmission” (Claims 18, 20, 32, 33) .............................. 5
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable .............. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .................. 7
`
`II.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS
`OF THE ’635 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 7
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’635 Patent ...................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’635 Patent ...................... 9
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability .............................................. 9
`
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability ............ 10
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 13, 18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32-33 Are Invalid Based on
`Guillou ............................................................................ 11
`
`(1) Claim 2 Is Anticipated By Guillou ................................. 11
`
`(2) Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................... 16
`
`(3) Claim 7 Is Anticipated By Guillou ................................. 16
`
`(4) Claim 1 is Anticipated by Guillou .................................. 17
`
`i
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(5) Claim 21 Is Anticipated By Guillou ............................... 18
`
`(6) Claim 28 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 20
`
`(7) Claim 29 Is Anticipated By Guillou ............................... 21
`
`(8) Claim 30 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 22
`
`(9) Claim 13 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 22
`
`(10) Claim 18 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 26
`
`(11) Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 30
`
`(12) Claim 20 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 33
`
`(13) Claim 32 Is Obvious Over Guillou ................................. 34
`
`(14) Claim 3 Is Anticipated By Guillou ................................. 36
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 18, 20-21, 28-30, and 33 Are Invalid Based on
`Aminetzah ....................................................................... 40
`
`(1) Claim 2 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 40
`
`(2) Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 45
`
`(3) Claim 7 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 45
`
`(4) Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah in View of
`Bitzer ............................................................................... 45
`
`(5) Claim 21 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 47
`
`(6) Claim 28 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 49
`
`(7) Claim 29 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 49
`
`(8) Claim 30 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ........................... 49
`
`(9) Claim 18 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`of Bitzer .......................................................................... 50
`ii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`(10) Claim 33 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`of Bitzer .......................................................................... 52
`
`(11) Claim 20 Is Obvious in Over Aminetzah in View
`of Bitzer .......................................................................... 54
`
`(12) Claim 3 Is Obvious Over Aminetzah ............................. 55
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .................. 59
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .................................... 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................. 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Lead and Back-Up Counsel .......................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ....................................... 60
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 60
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, 32, and 33 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,559,635 (“the ’635 patent”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`In 1981, the named inventors of the ’635 patent filed U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`06/317,510, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’490 patent”) to
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”). Ex. 1004. In 1987, PMC
`
`then filed a continuation-in-part of that application, which discarded the original
`
`22-column specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification that
`
`spanned over 300 columns. Ex. 1003. In the months leading up to June 8, 1995,
`
`PMC filed 328 continuations from that 1987 application, having tens of thousands
`
`of claims and deluging the Patent Office with thousands of prior art references. Ex.
`
`1005; Ex. 1032. The ’635 patent is one of the patents that issued from that flurry of
`
`activity.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`Apple requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’635 patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based
`IPR of the Challenged Claims is requested in view of the prior art listed
`
`below. In the district court (and during prosecution), PMC has asserted the
`
`Challenged Claims are entitled to the Nov. 3, 1981 priority date. Ex. 1019 at 6.
`
`
`
`1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`For purposes of this IPR only, Apple assumes the Nov. 3, 1981 priority date.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483 to Guillou (“Guillou”) (Ex. 1006), filed January 31,
`1980. Guillou is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)1 and § 102(b)2.
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,388,643 to Aminetzah (“Aminetzah”) (Ex. 1008), filed April
`6, 1981. Aminetzah3 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,743,767 to Bitzer et al. (“Bitzer”) (Ex. 1009), issued July 3,
`1973. Bitzer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Apple requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’635 Patent
`Guillou anticipates Claims 1-3, 7, 21, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Guillou renders obvious Claims 4, 13, 18, 20, 28, 30, 32, and 33 under 35
`U.S.C. § 103.
`Aminetzah renders obvious Claims 3, 21, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103.
`Aminetzah, in view of Bitzer, renders obvious Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 18, 20,
`and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`A claim in an IPR is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in
`
`light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 are to the pre-AIA versions applicable here.
`
`2 Guillou was published on Aug. 7, 1980 as WO 80/01636. Ex. 1007.
`
`3 Aminetzah incorporates U.S. Patent No. 4,390,898 (“Bond”) (Ex. 1024).
`
`
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`(1) “decrypting”-related terms (all Challenged Claims)
`Each Challenged Claim recites a step of “decrypting” data (Claims 1, 2, 4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, 32, 33) or operating to “decrypt” data (Claim 3). Some
`
`claims recite decrypting “digital” data (e.g., Claim 1, 2), whereas other claims do
`
`not limit the type of data decrypted (e.g., Claim 3, 13, 21). Apple submits, for
`
`purposes of this IPR only, that limiting “decrypting” to apply to digital data only
`
`and excluding “descrambling” from its scope (as PMC previously argued), is not
`
`the “broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the ’635 patent specification.
`
`In IPR proceedings addressing related PMC patents with overlapping claim
`
`terms, the Board properly rejected PMC’s attempt to limit “decrypting” to digital
`
`data and to exclude descrambling. Ex. 1011 (IPR2014-01533, Paper 7) at 7-11
`
`(“[W]e find the broadest reasonable construction of ‘decryption,’ for purposes of
`
`this decision, to encompass analog descrambling.”); Ex. 1013 (IPR2014-01532,
`
`Paper 8) at 25-26 (“We fail
`
`to find a significant distinction between
`
`encryption/decryption and scrambling/unscrambling.”); see also Ex. 1012 at 2-5
`
`(denying rehearing request); Ex. 1014 at 2-4 (same). As the Board recognized, the
`
`express statement in the specification of those patents (shared by the ’635 patent)
`
`that “decryptors … may be conventional descramblers, well, known in the art, that
`
`descramble analog television transmissions” undermines PMC’s argument by
`
`equating decryption and descrambling. Ex. 1013 at 25-26; Ex. 1003 at 160:52-55.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`PMC based part of its argument in those IPR proceedings on an alleged
`
`prosecution history disclaimer, which it argued had been relied upon by other
`
`panels to limit “decrypting.” Ex. 1012 at 2; Ex. 1014 at 2. The Board also rejected
`
`that argument, finding that “the prior decisions of other panels of the Board appear
`
`to have relied upon characterizations of the invention and the specification,” not
`
`prosecution history disclaimer. Ex. 1012 at 3; Ex. 1014 at 3. The Board also noted
`
`that those other panels did not rely on the disclosure in the specification that
`
`specifically states that “decryptors … may be conventional descramblers,” citing to
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Ex. 1014
`
`at 3; see also Ex. 1012 at 2-4.
`
`The same district court in which PMC has sued Apple also previously
`
`rejected PMC’s argument that decrypting excludes descrambling. Ex. 1017 (PMC
`
`v. Motorola) at 29 (“The court rejects PMC’s attempt to limit the encrypt/decrypt
`
`terms to digital data.”). And a PHOSITA would have understood “decrypt” and
`
`“descramble” as interchangeable terms that would apply to both analog and digital
`
`data. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 62-65.
`
`(2) “processor” (Claims 18, 21, 33)
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of “processor” is
`
`“a device that operates on data.” This construction is consistent with the plain
`
`meaning of the term, in the context of the ’635 patent, and is supported by the
`
`
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`Nothing in the claims limits the functionality of the “processor.” The term
`
`“processor” appears throughout the specification, but the specification does not
`
`provide any definition or limitation on the functionality of the processor. Rather,
`
`the specification describes a variety of processors, including hardwired devices that
`
`process data. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 135:10-15 (decoders 30 and 40 process
`
`information), 75:49-55 (buffer/comparator 8 processes).
`
`In an IPR proceeding addressing a related PMC patent, the Board properly
`
`ruled that a “processor” is “a device that operates on data.” Ex. 1013 (IPR2014-
`
`01532, Paper 8) at 7-8. In fact, PMC proposed a similar construction in district
`
`court for a related PMC patent having the same specification: “any device capable
`
`of performing operations on data.” Ex. 1016 (PMC v. Amazon) at 12. Similarly, the
`
`district court in which PMC has sued Apple previously construed “processor” in a
`
`related PMC patent having the same specification as “any device capable of
`
`performing operations on data.” Ex. 1018 (PMC v. Zynga) at 7-8.
`
`(3) “encrypted digital information transmission … unaccompanied by
`any non-digital information transmission” (Claims 18, 20, 32, 33)
`
`Apple submits, for purposes of this IPR only, that the BRI of an “encrypted
`
`digital information transmission … unaccompanied by any non-digital information
`
`transmission” is “a digital information transmission, unaccompanied by any non-
`
`digital information transmission, at least a portion of which is encrypted.” This
`
`
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the phrase in the context of the
`
`’635 patent.
`
`The entire digital information transmission does not need to be encrypted for
`
`it to be an “encrypted digital information transmission.” The parent ’490 patent, to
`
`which PMC asserts the Challenged Claims are entitled to priority, explains that
`
`“Encrypted transmissions may be only partially encrypted. For example, only the
`
`video portion of the transmission may be encrypted. The audio portion may remain
`
`unencrypted.” Ex. 1004 at 14:1-14:4. Thus, as long as some digital information is
`
`encrypted, it is an encrypted digital information transmission. The plain language
`
`of the claim does not require that the transmission be of only encrypted
`
`information.
`
`Similar to Apple’s proposed construction, PMC has proposed in the district
`
`court that “encrypted digital information transmission” should be construed as
`
`“signals sent or passed from one location to another location to convey digital
`
`information which is in encrypted form” and that “unaccompanied by any non-
`
`digital information transmission” should be construed as “a transmission of
`
`digitally encoded content only, absent any content encoded in an analog format.”
`
`Ex. 1015 at 1, 2.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable
`
`D.
`How the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is detailed in Section II.D.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits is attached. Relevance of the evidence, including
`
`identifying the specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, may be
`
`found in Section II.D. Apple submits a declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger,
`
`an expert with over 40 years of experience in the relevant fields, in support of this
`
`Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 (Ex. 1001).
`
`II. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS
`OF THE ’635 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’635 Patent
`The Challenged Claims of the ’635 patent are all method claims, generally
`
`directed to controlling the operation of receivers and the decryption of data.
`
`Independent Claim 1 is largely representative and recites:
`
`1. A method for controlling the decryption of encrypted programming
`at a subscriber station, said method comprising the steps of:
`[a] receiving encrypted digital programming, said encrypted digital
`programming having an encrypted digital control signal;
`[b] detecting said control signal;
`[c] passing said control signal to a decryptor that decrypts encrypted
`digital data at said subscriber station;
`[d] decrypting said control signal;
`[e] decrypting said encrypted digital programming to form decrypted
`programming based on said control signal; and
`[f] presenting said decrypted programming to a viewer or listener.
`
`
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Independent Claim 2 is similar to Claim 1, and additionally recites passing
`
`the programming to a second decryptor. Claim 2 is virtually identical to Claim 1 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,801,304 (“the ’304 patent”), which is also assigned to PMC. The
`
`Board instituted IPR of Claim 1 of the ’304 in view of Guillou in IPR2014-01532.
`
`Ex. 1013 at 6-27.
`
`Independent Claim 21 is directed to a method of decryptor activation in a
`
`network. Claim 21 requires receiving a transmission comprising encrypted
`
`materials, with a first portion of the encrypted materials being decrypted under first
`
`processor control, and a second portion of the encrypted materials being decrypted
`
`under second processor control based on the first decrypted portion.
`
`Independent Claims 13, 18, 20, 32, and 33 are directed to processing signals
`
`at a receiver station. Claim 13 recites detecting signals in a received information
`
`transmission, changing a decryption technique based on a first signal, and
`
`decrypting a second signal based on the changed technique. The second signal is
`
`then passed to a device controlled based on instructions embedded in the decrypted
`
`signal. Claims 18, 20, 32, and 33 are similar to Claim 13, and each recites the
`
`additional requirement that the received encrypted digital information transmission
`
`is unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission.
`
`Independent Claim 3 is directed to a method of controlling a transmitter
`
`station to communicate programming to a subscriber station.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’635 Patent
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,413, which led to the ’635 patent, was filed on
`
`May 24, 1995. Ex. 1003 at Cover. The ’635 patent claims priority to November 3,
`
`1981, but did not issue until October 15, 2013. Id.
`
`In 2001, the Examiner filed a notice of abandonment describing the
`
`applicants’ improper conduct and abuse of the Patent Office. Ex. 1033. Among
`
`other allegations, the Examiner expressly rejected that the applicants’ 1981 patent
`
`relates to downloading software. Ex. 1033 at 37. Rather, the Examiner explained
`
`the applicants’ 1981 disclosure “described a television distribution system that
`
`distributed digitally encoded instructions within the VBI of its distributed TV
`
`programming,” and any attempt by PMC to read the claims as limited to “computer
`
`software/programming” should be rejected. Ex. 1033 at 37-38. The notice of
`
`abandonment was ultimately withdrawn and prosecution was suspended.
`
`In 2011, prosecution resumed and the applicants filed an entirely new set of
`
`claims. Ex. 1034. After various rejections and amendments, the claims were
`
`allowed in 2013. Ex. 1035. The Notice of Allowance did not include any reasons
`
`for allowance. Ex. 1035 at 7.
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`C.
`Grounds 1-2 (Guillou-based Grounds): Guillou was analyzed by the
`
`Board
`
`in
`
`IPR2014-01532
`
`and
`
`IPR2014-01533. Guillou describes
`
`a
`
`
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`teletext/viewdata video transmission system that controls a subscriber’s access to
`
`programming using a “double-key” (i.e., two-layer) encryption/decryption scheme.
`
`On the transmitter side, teletext data dj is encrypted using operating key K, which
`
`is in turn encrypted to form an access control message Mi sent to a subscriber with
`
`encrypted teletext data Dj. On the subscriber side, the access control message Mi is
`
`decrypted to restore operating key K, which is then used to decrypt the teletext data
`
`for viewing. Guillou anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Grounds 3-4 (Aminetzah-based Grounds): Aminetzah describes a pay TV
`
`system that scrambles programming using digital variable DK, which is itself
`
`encrypted and transmitted to a subscriber. The subscriber decrypts encrypted
`
`variable DK and uses it to descramble the programming for viewing. Bitzer
`
`describes transmitting/receiving digital data embedded in standard television
`
`signals. Aminetzah, either alone or in combination with Bitzer, renders obvious
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, and 33
`
`The Grounds are distinct, as Guillou describes an all-digital teletext/
`
`viewdata transmission system (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 90-92), whereas Aminetzah describes a
`
`pay TV system that transmits scrambled video programming (Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 93-96).
`
`D. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability
`Apple provides a detailed discussion of how the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’635 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious.
`
`
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 13, 18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32-33 Are Invalid Based on Guillou
`(1) Claim 2 Is Anticipated By Guillou
`Claim 2 is virtually identical to Claim 1 of the ’304 patent at issue in
`
`IPR2014-01532. See Ex. 1001 ¶ 114 (comparing Claim 2 of the ’635 patent to
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent). In IPR2014-01532, PMC did not dispute that Guillou
`
`discloses the Claim 2 preamble or Claim 2 elements [a], [b], [c], [d], [e], and [h]
`
`identified below. Ex. 1010 (IPR2014-01532, Paper 24) at 51-55. The only element
`
`of Claim 1 of the ’304 patent that PMC disputed was whether Guillou discloses a
`
`single decryptor. Id. Claim 2 of the ’635 patent (at issue here), in contrast, recites
`
`use of a first and second decryptor, just as PMC contended is disclosed by Guillou.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 52; Ex. 1001 ¶ 114.
`
`a.
`Claim 2, preamble: “a method for controlling the
`decryption of programming at a subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches a method for controlling the decryption of programming
`
`(i.e., teletext programming) at a subscriber station (i.e., receiving station 4). Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 115, 100-102. Guillou discloses a video transmission system that uses a
`
`“double-key” encryption scheme to control access to teletext programming at a
`
`receiver. Ex. 1006 at Abstract, 1:7-12, 8:15-9:12, 9:48-10:66, 15:42-16:17.
`
`Teletext is digital data transmitted over standard television lines that includes text
`
`and/or simple graphics to present a variety of programming, such as news, weather,
`
`educational programs, etc. Ex. 1006 at 1:11-13; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 41, 43.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`b.
`Claim 2, element [a]: “receiving programming, said
`programming having a first encrypted digital control signal portion and
`an encrypted digital information portion”
`
`Guillou teaches receiving programming having a first encrypted digital
`
`control signal portion (i.e., encrypted message Mi) and an encrypted digital
`
`information portion (i.e., encrypted teletext data Dj). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 116, 103-106.
`
`Teletext programming is digital. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 41, 43. Guillou discloses that
`
`teletext data dj is encrypted using operating key K at emitting center 2 to form
`
`encrypted teletext data Dj. Ex. 1006 at 5:30-57, 14:20-31; Ex. 1001 ¶ 104.
`
`Operating key K is, in turn, encrypted using each subscriber key Ci to form a set of
`
`encrypted messages Mi (one for each subscriber key Ci). Ex. 1006 at 8:39-48,
`
`15:42-64, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 106. Each encrypted message Mi is an encrypted
`
`digital control signal, and “[a]ll the messages Mi in force together constitute the
`
`information for access control associated with the service being broadcast.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 8:55-57. Messages Mi are grouped in an access control page for
`
`distribution to the receiver. Ex. 1006 at 8:59-9:12, 15:42-64; Ex. 1001 ¶ 106.
`
`The encrypted teletext data Dj and the set of encrypted messages Mi (in an
`
`access control page) are sent together from emitting center 2 to each receiving
`
`station 4. Ex. 1006 at 8:15-9:12, 15:42-16:17, 19:55-20:5, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 106.
`
`c.
`Claim 2, element [b]: “detecting said first encrypted digital
`control signal portion of said programming”
`
`Guillou teaches detecting the first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`
`
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`the programming (i.e., encrypted message Mi). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 117, 107-108.
`
`Guillou discloses detecting and extracting the received digital data,
`
`including the appropriate encrypted message Mi and and encrypted teletext data Dj,
`
`from the received transmission using video-data separator 142, selection circuit
`
`143, and decoding circuit 145. Ex. 1006 at 15:64-16:10, 19:4-15, 19:55-20:17,
`
`20:40-52, Fig. 9; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 107-108.
`
`d.
`Claim 2, element [c]: “passing said first encrypted digital
`control signal portion of said programming to a first decryptor at said
`subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches passing the first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`
`the programming (i.e., encrypted message Mi) to a first decryptor (i.e., K restoring
`
`circuit 110) at the subscriber station. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 118, 109.
`
`Guillou discloses passing the appropriate encrypted message Mi from
`
`decoding circuit 145 to K restoring circuit 110. Ex. 1006 at 15:64-16:10, 19:55-
`
`20:17, 20:40-52, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 109. K restoring circuit 110 is a decryptor, as
`
`it decrypts message Mi to recover operating key K. See Claim 2[d].
`
`e.
`Claim 2, element [d]: “decrypting said first encrypted
`digital control signal portion of said programming using said first
`decryptor at said subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches decrypting the first encrypted digital control signal portion
`
`of the programming (i.e., encrypted message Mi) using the first decryptor (i.e., K
`
`restoring circuit 110) at the subscriber station. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 119, 110.
`
`
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`Guillou discloses that K restoring circuit 110 decrypts the appropriate
`
`message Mi using the subscriber’s key Ci to restore operating key K. Ex. 1006 at
`
`15:64-16:10, 20:53-21:14, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 110.
`
`f.
`Claim 2, element [e]: “passing said encrypted digital
`information portion of said programming and the decrypted control
`signal portion to a second decryptor at said subscriber station”
`
`Guillou teaches passing the encrypted digital information portion of the
`
`programming (i.e., encrypted teletext data Dj) and the decrypted control signal
`
`portion (i.e., operating key K) to a second decryptor (i.e., digital logic comprising
`
`decoding octet generator 26’, discriminator 42, and XOR gate 46) at the subscriber
`
`station. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 120-121.
`
`Figure 7 depicts Guillou’s access control system. Ex. 1006 at 15:42-45, Fig.
`
`7. The second decryptor (comprising decoding octet generator 26’, discriminator
`
`42, and XOR gate 46) is depicted within a dashed box of receiving station 4 in
`
`Figure 7 (outlined in red below). Ex. 1001 ¶ 120. As shown in Figure 10 depicting
`
`the interaction between Guillou’s decrypting components (second decryptor
`
`highlighted in yellow below), the encrypted teletext data Dj is passed to
`
`discriminator 42 and then XOR gate 46. Ex. 1006 at 10:41-56, 20:29-39, Fig. 10;
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶ 121. Operating key K (restored from message Mi), used to decrypt data
`
`Dj, is passed to generator 26’ to generate decoding octets Cj, which are combined
`
`with encrypted data Dj. Ex. 1006 at 10:57-66, 20:29-39, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 121.
`
`
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`
`
`g.
`Claim 2, element [f]: “decrypting said encrypted digital
`information portion of said programming using said second decryptor
`at said subscriber station based on the decrypted control signal portion”
`
`Guillou teaches decrypting the encrypted digital information portion of the
`
`programming (i.e., encrypted teletext data Dj) using the second decryptor (i.e.,
`
`digital logic comprising decoding octet generator 26’, discriminator 42, and XOR
`
`gate 46) at the subscriber station based on the decrypted control signal portion (i.e.,
`
`operating key K). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 122, 111-112.
`
`As described in Claim 2[e], the encrypted teletext data Dj is passed to
`
`discriminator 42 and XOR gate 46. Ex. 1006 at 10:41-56, 20:29-39, Fig. 10.
`
`Operating key K (restored from message Mi) is passed to generator 26’ to generate
`
`decoding octets Cj. Ex. 1006 at 10:57-66, 20:29-39, Fig. 10. The encrypted teletext
`
`data Dj is decrypted by combining it with decoding octets Cj to form decrypted
`
`
`
`15
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`teletext data dj. Ex. 1006 at 10:41-66, 20:29-39, Fig. 10; Ex. 1001 ¶ 112.
`
`In IPR2014-01532, PMC admitted that Guillou teaches a first decryptor that
`
`decrypts Mi (i.e., encrypted digital control signal portion) and a second decryptor
`
`that decrypts Dj (i.e., encrypted digital information portion). Ex. 1010 at 52.
`
`Claim 2, element [g]: “presenting said programming”
`
`h.
`Guillou teaches presenting the teletext programming to a subscriber via
`
`display means 20. Ex. 1006 at 1:7-12, 18:61-19:3, Fig. 7; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 123, 113.
`
`(2) Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Guillou
`a.
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 2, wherein said
`programming further includes encrypted video”
`
`Guillou suggests the programming further includes encrypted video. Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 140-142. Guillou describes a “video-transmission” system, and the
`
`encrypted teletext programming (also referred to as “digital video”) includes text
`
`and simple graphics, which may be non-static, and when presented in successive
`
`frames is video. Ex. 1006 at 1:7-62; Ex. 1001 ¶ 141. While arguably not expressly
`
`described in Guillou, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use teletext
`
`video for a variety of programming (e.g., stock ticker). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 141-142.
`
`(3) Claim 7 Is Anticipated By Guillou
`a.
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 2, wherein said subscriber
`station detects, in a transmission channel including said programming,
`a second control signal portion used to decrypt the first control signal
`portion”
`
`Guillou teaches the subscriber station detects, in a transmission channel
`
`
`
`16
`
`PMC Exhibit 2033
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635
`
`including the programming, a second control signal portion (i.e., access control
`
`page line number or subscription index) used to decrypt the first control signal
`
`portion (i.e., encrypted message Mi). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 144-146. Within the access
`
`control page that groups messages Mi, each access block is preceded by a line
`
`number or subscription index, which is detected in the transmission channel with
`
`the programming. Ex. 1006 at 8:55-65, 17:48-68, 20:40-52; Ex. 1001 ¶ 146. The
`
`line number or index is used to extract the appropriate message Mi for decryption
`
`by K restoring circuit 110. Ex. 1006 at 17:48-68, 20:40-52; Ex. 1001 ¶ 146.
`
`(4) Claim 1 is Anticipated by Guillou
`a.
`Claim 1, preamble: “a method for controlling the
`decryption of encrypted programming at a subscriber station”
`
`As explained in Claim 2, Guillou teaches the preamble. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 100-102.
`
`b.
`Claim 1, element [a]: “receiving encrypted digital
`programming, said encrypted digital programming having an encrypted
`digital control signal”
`
`As explained in Claim 2[a