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, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 1
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 3
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................ 11
`
`IV. Background .................................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ’635 Patent ......................... 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`NTSC Television Transmission Technology ............................ 15
`
`Embedded Digital Information in NTSC Television
`Transmissions ............................................................................ 18
`
`Pay TV and Content Protection ................................................ 26
`
`Decryption and Descrambling .................................................. 30
`
`Summary of the ’635 Patent ................................................................ 32
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 35
`
`Priority Date of the ’635 Patent........................................................... 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 13 Is Not Supported By The Written Description
`Of The ’490 Patent .................................................................... 37
`
`Claims 18, 20, 32, and 33 Are Not Supported By The
`Written Description Of The ’490 Patent ................................... 38
`
`Claims 21, 28, 29, and 30 Are Not Supported By The
`Written Description Of The ’490 Patent ................................... 42
`
`Claims 3, 4, And 7 Are Not Entitled To The November 3,
`1981 Priority Date of the ’490 Patent ....................................... 43
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 45
`
`VI. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................................... 46
`
`1.
`
`“Executable instructions” .......................................................... 46
`
`
`
`i
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 2
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“Encrypted digital information transmission . . .
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information
`transmission” ............................................................................. 46
`
`“Communicating said control signal to said remote
`transmitter station” .................................................................... 46
`
`“Decrypting” ............................................................................. 47
`
`“Processor” ................................................................................ 47
`
`VII. Background on Prior Art References ............................................................ 48
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Background on Chandra ...................................................................... 48
`
`Background on Seth-Smith ................................................................. 49
`
`Background on Campbell .................................................................... 49
`
`Background on Nachbar ...................................................................... 50
`
`VIII. Claims 13, 18, 20, 32, and 33 Are Invalid Over Chandra ............................. 50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 18 Is Anticipated By Chandra ........................................ 51
`
`Claim 20 Is Anticipated By Chandra ........................................ 56
`
`Claim 32 Is Anticipated By Chandra ........................................ 58
`
`Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Chandra In View of Nachbar ......... 61
`
`Claim 13 Is Anticipated By Chandra ........................................ 66
`
`IX. Claims 4, 7, 21, 28-30 Are Invalid Over Seth-Smith .................................... 68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 2 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ..................................... 68
`
`Claim 4 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ..................................... 76
`
`Claim 7 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ..................................... 77
`
`Claim 21 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ................................... 78
`
`Claim 28 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ................................... 80
`
`
`
`ii
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 3
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 29 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ................................... 81
`
`Claim 30 Is Anticipated By Seth-Smith ................................... 82
`
`X.
`
`Claim 3 Is Invalid Over Campbell ................................................................. 82
`
`1.
`
`Claim 3 Is Obvious Over Campbell .......................................... 83
`
`XI. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ........................................... 89
`
`XII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 92
`
`
`
`iii
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 4
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Apple, Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,559,635 (“the ’635 patent”). I am being compensated for my
`
`time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate of $350 per
`
`hour. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether Claims 3, 4, 7,
`
`13, 18, 20, 21, 28-30, 32, and 33 of the ’635 patent (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) are invalid as anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ’635 patent issued on October 15, 2013, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`08/449,413 (“the ’413 application”), filed on May 24, 1995. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`cover.) The ’635 patent alleges to be a continuation of a series of
`
`applications dating back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 07/096,096 filed on
`
`September 11, 1987, now U.S. Patent No. 4,965,825 (“the ’096
`
`Application”). The ’096 Application alleges to be a continuation-in-part of a
`
`series of applications dating back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 06/317,510 filed
`
`November 3, 1981, now U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’510 Application”).
`
`1
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 5
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`4.
`
`As I explain more fully in section IV.D below, in this Declaration I have
`
`applied a priority date of September 11, 1987 to the Challenged Claims.
`
`5.
`
`The face of the ’635 patent names John Christopher Harvey and James
`
`William Cuddihy as the purported inventors, and identifies Personalized
`
`Media Communications, LLC as the purported assignee. (Ex. 1003 at 1.) I
`
`understand that Personalized Media Communications, LLC alleges it
`
`currently owns the ’635 patent.
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’635 patent, the file
`
`history of the ’635 patent, numerous prior art references, and technical
`
`references from the time of the alleged invention.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understanding of
`
`one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`8.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education, training, knowledge, and experience in the relevant field of the
`
`art, and have considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art as of September 11, 1987. My opinions are based, at least in
`
`part, on the following:
`
`2
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 6
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`Reference
`U. S. Patent No. 4,817,140 to
`Chandra et al. (“Chandra”) (Ex.
`1041)
`
`Date of Public Availability
`Chandra was issued on March 28,
`1989, and was filed on November 5,
`1986.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,866,770 to Seth-
`Smith et al. (“Seth-Smith”) (Ex.
`1043)
`
`Seth-Smith was issued on
`September 12, 1989, and was filed
`on August 14, 1986.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to
`Campbell et al. (“Campbell”) (Ex.
`1044)
`
`Campbell was issued on August 20,
`1985, and was filed on November
`27, 1981.
`
`Daniel Nachbar, When Network File
`Systems Aren’t Enough: Automatic
`Software Distribution Revisited,
`USENIX Conference Proceedings,
`June 9-13, 1986 (“Nachbar”) (Ex.
`1042)
`
`Nachbar was published in June
`1986.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`9.
`I am an expert in the fields of digital communications and signal processing,
`
`with a specialization in content security and rights management in consumer
`
`broadband-network applications and television broadcast technology. I have
`
`been an expert in these fields since long before the priority date of the ’635
`
`patent. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Ex. 1002 and provides
`
`a description of my professional experience, my academic history, my
`
`patents, my professional memberships, and my publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have a bachelor's degree and a master’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`from the University of Arizona in 1974 and San Diego State University in
`
`3
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 7
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`1979, respectively. I also completed the Executive Program for Scientists
`
`and Engineers at the University of California at San Diego in 1984. Over
`
`many years I have published and presented a number of articles and papers
`
`related
`
`to content/information creation,
`
`transmission/distribution and
`
`reception/consumption in various media sectors, including cable, satellite,
`
`broadcast/wireless, Internet, and digital cinema. A list of my publications
`
`and presentations is included with my CV, attached as Ex. 1002. I am also a
`
`named inventor on two patents, U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020, “Multi-layer
`
`Encryption System for the Broadcast of Encrypted Information,” and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,113,440, “Universal Decoder.”
`
`11.
`
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions, a position I
`
`have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this capacity I perform
`
`consulting services related to technology and business development, content
`
`management, distribution and merchandizing, systems engineering, and
`
`product design in the areas of broadband and multimedia technologies and
`
`their associated commercial systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have over forty years of experience working with high-technology systems
`
`related to military, commercial, and consumer communication systems and
`
`networks. I have held various design, leadership, and executive positions in,
`
`for example, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and product
`
`4
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 8
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`management at leading companies in those fields, such as TV/COM
`
`International, Inc. (“TV /COM”) and Oak Communications, Inc. (“Oak”).
`
`13. One of my areas of specialization is command and control. “Command and
`
`control” refers to the technical oversight and management of communication
`
`systems and equipment within a distribution system to direct the equipment
`
`as to its set-up and operation in order to perform required functions. For
`
`example, in broadband networks used in the television industry (cable,
`
`satellite, broadcast), command and control typically operates in the
`
`background (i.e., invisible to consumers) to enable the system operator to
`
`manage the delivery of content to specific set-top boxes (“STB”) according
`
`to the subscription services the consumer is authorized to access.
`
`14.
`
`I also specialize in the area of rights management. “Rights management”
`
`controls or oversees the consumption of programming according to defined
`
`rules on behalf of the content-rights owner. As today’s delivery processes
`
`have become more digitally enabled, the term “Digital Rights Management”
`
`(“DRM”) has been adopted to refer to these processes.
`
`15. Technologies for command and control and DRM are implemented in a
`
`number of different ways. They can be applied system-wide—for example,
`
`they can be applied to a satellite uplink of a programmer (such as an HBO or
`
`NBC uplink), a cable network headend (where programming is consolidated
`
`5
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 9
`
`

`
`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 prepared for distribution), and set-top boxes located in homes (where
`
`programming is consumed). Command and control and DRM can also be
`
`applied to localized interactions between devices—for example, between a
`
`receiving device (e.g., STB) and a display device (e.g., television).
`
`16.
`
`In most cases the implementation of command and control and DRM
`
`solutions involve the use of what are referred to as “in-band” and/or “out-of-
`
`band” control channels. My personal experience with in-band and out-of-
`
`band control channels for television and radio delivery systems and
`
`networks dates back to 1980, and my familiarity with the types of equipment
`
`and applications implementing such control channels dates back to the early
`
`1970s.
`
`17. As described above, DRM refers to technologies used to control access to, or
`
`prevent unauthorized use or copying of, digital content, such as audio or
`
`video. I have had extensive experience with the design and application of
`
`DRM solutions to many types of content delivery systems, including
`
`broadband delivery networks such as direct-to-home satellite, as well as
`
`cable and terrestrial broadcast networks. Beginning in 1980, I was
`
`personally involved in developing the applications of digital encryption to
`
`television security systems for mass production. At Oak, I led the efforts to
`
`extend the results of our extensive research developments in this area from
`
`6
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 10
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`the research
`
`labs
`
`to Oak’s addressable
`
`television-security products.
`
`Ultimately, this research led to foundational intellectual property, patents,
`
`and technology licensing. I have also been involved with the development
`
`of newer DRM applications for use with internet protocol television delivery
`
`and other internet applications, as well as security solutions for digital
`
`cinema.
`
`18.
`
`I have significant experience with interactive and client-server technologies,
`
`such as those used in two-way broadband networks, computer systems and
`
`Internet networks. Network management and command and control
`
`includes the technical oversight and management of communication systems
`
`and equipment within a distribution system to direct both the transmission
`
`equipment (e.g., network infrastructures, servers, hubs, nodes, head ends,
`
`and uplinks etc.) and receiving equipment (e.g., personal computer,
`
`television, set-top box, handset/mobile device, or other consumer appliance)
`
`as to communications, applications, and setup and operation in order to
`
`perform required features and functions.
`
`19. As a Director and then Vice President at Oak from 1982-1990, and as Chief
`
`Technology Officer at TV/COM from 1990-1995, I was involved in the
`
`development of terrestrial broadcast, satellite uplink, and cable headend
`
`industrial equipment for television transmissions, as well as consumer
`
`7
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 11
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`appliance equipment such as STBs and other home-based or home-
`
`networked devices. All of these solutions involved computer control
`
`systems for network and associated network-device command and control,
`
`and for management of content distribution and consumer appliance
`
`functions. These systems were all addressable. “Addressable” means the
`
`system operator is able to control the delivery of content and network
`
`services, network sourcing, receiving devices (e.g., servers and transmission
`
`equipment, and PC or STB receivers), and the consumer experience.
`
`Examples include delivery of firmware or data files, control of available
`
`subscription services or content, and providing a la carte functions such as
`
`pay-per-view and video-on-demand.
`
`20.
`
`I was an active participant and contributor to the International Organization
`
`for Standardization MPEG-2 digital television standards initiatives and the
`
`European Digital Video Broadcast forum (which was based upon MPEG-2).
`
`I was a voting member of the U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee
`
`forum (which was also based upon MPEG-2). As Chief Technology Officer
`
`of TV/COM between 1990-1995, I participated in the development of a
`
`business strategy based on supporting open international standards for digital
`
`television (“DTV”).
`
`8
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 12
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`21. As the technologies and standards in support of DTV moved towards
`
`implementation in the mid-1990s, the dawn of the Internet age arrived. This
`
`had a dramatic impact on the way broadband systems engineers like me
`
`began to plan for the future. From a high level perspective, the composition
`
`of DTV is simply “data,” and the concept of convergence—the melding of
`
`traditional broadband communications systems and equipment, computers
`
`and computer networks, and the telecommunications worlds—allowed those
`
`technologies to coalesce. Support for on-line and Internet services
`
`demanded a high performance two-way data transmission capability, and so
`
`broadband network providers began
`
`to upgrade
`
`their distribution
`
`infrastructures accordingly.
`
`22.
`
`In conjunction with this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief Technology
`
`Officer, I directed the expansion of our network products into broadband
`
`data communications generally, from its initial focus on digital television.
`
`Networks became more advanced in order to support real-time interaction
`
`between consumers and information sources within the network. Interactive
`
`and on-line applications led to rapid adoption of client-server information-
`
`access approaches (typical of the computer industry) in the products and
`
`technologies I worked with for content delivery and network command and
`
`control functions. Starting in the mid 1990s, the ubiquitous STB began to
`
`9
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 13
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`evolve from a minimalist appliance towards its current status as a
`
`communications hub of the consumer’s media room. In this same time
`
`period, the PC had also become a ubiquitous consumer appliance, and with
`
`the Internet age came much innovation in electronic-information distribution
`
`and electronic merchandising (i.e., art related to complementing physical
`
`information media and brick-and-mortar institutions with all-electronic
`
`digital alternatives). TV/COM and I were part of this evolution until
`
`TV/COM was purchased in 1999.
`
`23.
`
`In my consulting work I have continued to work with technologies and
`
`network infrastructures for content distribution and management. My
`
`current work involves both traditional and newly developing architectures
`
`and distribution channels. As an example of the latter, I am the chief
`
`security systems architect on behalf of the six major Hollywood studios for
`
`their “Digital Cinema Initiatives” (“DCI”) consortium. DCI develops and
`
`evolves the specifications for transitioning first-run theatrical movie releases
`
`from film to digital for distribution and exhibition display. On behalf of the
`
`studios, I am responsible for all elements of command and control and DRM
`
`for digital cinema system design and implementation. I also represent DCI
`
`at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, which is
`
`developing the set of internationally recognized standards for global
`
`10
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 14
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`adoption of digital cinema. The migration to all-digital distribution impacts
`
`other content distribution channels such as early window release for
`
`hospitality, airplane, and cable/satellite video-on-demand, as well as newer
`
`so called “over-the-top” distribution channels based on Internet distribution.
`
`I have also been a strategy and technology consultant to content
`
`management and distribution entities in these areas.
`
`24. My consulting practice today includes a balance of technology and systems-
`
`engineering services and assistance to the legal community as a technology
`
`consultant and expert witness. I have provided expert testimony in the areas
`
`of digital-rights management and multimedia
`
`technologies, and
`
`the
`
`associated networks as used for content management and delivery on many
`
`occasions.
`
`25. Other details concerning my background, including patents, professional
`
`service, and more, are set forth in my curriculum vitae.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`26.
`I understand that prior art to the ’635 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’635
`
`patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`11
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 15
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior
`
`art reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that
`
`the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim may be obvious in view of a single reference, or may be obvious
`
`from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the alleged invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`unexpected results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but unsolved need
`
`in the art that was satisfied by the alleged invention, the failure of others to
`
`make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged invention by those having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the alleged invention by others in the
`
`field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a connection—between any
`
`such secondary considerations and the alleged invention. I also understand
`
`12
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 16
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field, and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of
`
`finding a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When
`
`a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious. I understand that a claim may be
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited
`
`in the claims.
`
`13
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 17
`
`

`
`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
`IV. BACKGROUND
`A. Background of the Field Relevant to the ’635 Patent
`31. The Challenged Claims are generally directed to controlling the operation of
`
`
`
`receivers in a content distribution network, including the decryption of
`
`programming content received at a receiver. Some of the Challenged
`
`Claims are specifically directed towards the decryption of video or television
`
`programming content.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, the following description of the technological background
`
`and the materials cited throughout this declaration provide the context in
`
`which to analyze the validity of the Challenged Claims. This background
`
`section thus forms part of the basis for all of the opinions I express in this
`
`declaration.
`
`33.
`
`In explaining the background television technology, I draw upon my
`
`personal experiences during the relevant period while working at Oak and
`
`TV/COM. I was directly involved in the developments described below—as
`
`a research engineer at Oak’s research and development labs, as a systems
`
`engineer and technical manager within Oak’s operating divisions, and later
`
`as Chief Technology Officer at TV/COM. I was also active in the pay
`
`television industry generally, devoting much time to studying surrounding
`
`technology developments and my competition, and interfacing with
`
`14
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 18
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`programming suppliers and network operators to better understand their
`
`needs and what was needed in terms of future products.
`
`1.
`NTSC Television Transmission Technology
`34. Standards were developed to govern the transmission of television signals to
`
`ensure interoperability between communication signals and equipment from
`
`different sources and suppliers. Dating back to 1941, the National
`
`Television Systems Committee (“NTSC”) standard was the FCC approved
`
`method for over-the-air (“OTA”) transmission of television signals in the
`
`United States.
`
`35. NTSC television is termed “analog television” because the picture and sound
`
`information is transmitted on continuously varying and smooth waveforms
`
`that can take on any value between the minimum and maximum values and
`
`that correspond to (i.e., are analogous to) brightness and location of a
`
`particular image element. The NTSC broadcast format transmits the picture
`
`information by using a form of amplitude modulation. At the receiving end,
`
`an AM demodulator demodulates the carrier wave to recover the baseband
`
`television image signal.
`
`36. The NTSC standard was developed for use with cathode ray tube (CRT)
`
`televisions, which was the original television display produced in high
`
`volumes for consumer use. CRT televisions use an electron beam to
`
`15
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 19
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`stimulate a phosphor coating on the inside face of the vacuum picture tube.
`
`When the CRT television receives a NTSC standard television signal, which
`
`conveys light intensity and positional reference information, the electron
`
`beam is stimulated accordingly and recomposes an image one line at a time,
`
`going from left to right and top to bottom.
`
`
`
`37. The electron beam begins recomposing the image at the left-hand side.
`
`Much like a carriage return of a typewriter, after completing a line, the
`
`electron beam must sweep back to the left to start a new line. This period of
`
`time where the electron beam is turned off and realigned from right back to
`
`left is called the horizontal blanking interval (HBI). Similarly, the electron
`
`beam is turned off when it is realigned from the bottom right of the screen to
`
`16
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 20
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`the top left to continue recomposing the image. This period is called the
`
`vertical blanking interval (VBI).
`
`38. The video portion of an NTSC standard television transmission contains
`
`
`
`both active video (scan lines with image information) and horizontal and
`
`vertical blanking intervals (which do not contain image information). Under
`
`the NTSC standard, the VBI consists of 21 scan lines, the first 9 of which
`
`were reserved for synchronizing the image vertically, to ensure that the first
`
`line of the active video appeared at the top of a display, rather than the
`
`middle or the bottom. The NTSC standard left open the remaining 12 scan
`
`lines for other uses such as test signals and data transmission.
`
`17
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 21
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`The figure above shows the VBI for one field of a video signal. At
`
`baseband, the signals transmitted in the VBI, for example synchronization
`
`and data signals, were digitally encoded.
`
`Information
`
`in NTSC Television
`
`2.
`
`Embedded Digital
`Transmissions
`39. The NTSC standard
`
`imposed structural constraints on
`
`television
`
`transmissions that resulted in limited abilities for television service providers
`
`to transmit additional data beyond the video and audio content. Any
`
`improvements or alterations to NTSC television transmissions had to
`
`function with existing technology, so that both old and new receivers and
`
`television displays alike were able to receive and view television
`
`programming. While new features could be implemented for receivers
`
`containing improved technology, those new features had to work within
`
`television transmissions that remained viewable on older receivers without
`
`the improved technology.
`
`18
`
`APPLE EX. 1001
`Page 22
`
`

`
`Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes