UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/006,563
`
`03/14/2003
`
`5335277
`
`6011-226
`
`7085
`
`7590
`70813
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`
`01/19/2010
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01119/2010
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/006,563
`
`03/14/2003
`
`5335277
`
`6011-226
`
`7085
`
`7590
`70813
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`
`01/19/2010
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01119/2010
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 1
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`U.S. Patent 5,335,2772
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Decided: January 19, 201 0
`
`Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`1 Personalized Media Communications, LLC is the real party in interest
`(App. Br. 2).
`2 Issued May 3, 1993 to Harvey, et al.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC appeals under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 134(b) and 306 from a final rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-15, 17-20,
`22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44-52, 55, and 56. 3 We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 306.
`
`An oral hearing was held on July 1, 2009. The record includes a
`
`written transcript of the oral hearing.
`
`We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Reexamination proceeding
`
`A first request for reexamination of U.S. Patent 5,335,277 (the '277
`
`patent), entitled "Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods," was filed on
`
`March 14, 2003 by a first third party requester Thomson, Inc. (First
`
`Requester), Reexamination Control No. 90/006,563. The '277 patent issued
`
`August 2, 1994, to John C. Harvey and James W. Cuddihy, based on
`
`Application 08/056,501 (the '501 application), filed May 3, 1993. The real
`
`party in interest is the patent owner, Personalized Media Communications,
`
`LLC. The '277 patent is said to be a continuation of Application 07/849,226,
`
`filed March 10, 1992, now U.S. Patent 5,233,654 (hereinafter referred to as
`
`the '654 patent), which is said to be a continuation of Application
`
`07/588,126, filed September 25, 1990, now U.S. Patent 5,109,414
`
`3 Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 16, 21, 24-26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 53, and
`54 have been confirmed as patentable.
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`(hereinafter referred to as the '414 patent), which is said to be a continuation
`
`of Application 07/096,096, filed September 11, 1987, now U.S. Patent
`
`4,965,825 (hereinafter referred to as the '825 patent), which is said to be a
`
`continuation in part (CIP) of Application 06/829,531, filed February 14,
`
`1986, now U.S. Patent 4,704,725 (the '725 patent), which is said to be a
`
`continuation of Application 06/317,510, filed November 3, 1981, now U.S.
`
`Patent 4,694,490 (hereinafter referred to as the '490 patent).
`
`A second request for reexamination of the '277 patent was filed on
`
`July 7, 2003 by a second third party requester Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
`
`(Second Requester), Reexamination Control No. 90/006,698. A Decision
`
`was made on December 3, 2004 to merge the reexamination proceedings
`
`(Paper #16) per 37 C.P.R. § 1.565(c).
`
`Related proceedings
`
`The Brief indicates that the '277 patent is part of a chain of patents
`
`that includes additional later issued patents and various pending patent
`
`applications (App. Br. 3). The Brief identifies six related patents that are
`
`each involved in reexamination proceedings (id.).
`
`The Brief identifies a number of related U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (USPTO), International Trade Commission, and court proceedings.
`
`(App. Br. 3-5). The Brief indicates (App. Br. 5-6) that the '277 patent is
`
`asserted in Pegasus Development Corp.v. DIRECTV Inc., No. CA 00-1020
`
`(D. Del. filed Dec. 4, 2000), which has been stayed, and is also asserted in
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. et al.,
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`No. 1:02-CV-824 (CAP) (N.D. Ga. filed Mar. 28, 2002), which also has
`
`been stayed.
`
`Appellant's invention
`
`The claimed invention relates to signal processing apparatus and
`
`methods to automate operations at an intermediate transmission station.
`
`('277 patent, abstract).
`
`The Specification teaches that various disclosed embodiments of
`
`signal processing apparatus "can be used to automate the operations of
`
`intermediate transmission stations that receive and retransmit programming."
`
`('277 patent, col. 181, ll. 58-60.) "The stations so automated may transmit
`
`any form of electronically transmitted programming, including television,
`
`radio, print, data, and combined medium programming and may range in
`
`scale of operation from wireless broadcast stations that transmit a single
`
`programming transmission to cable systems that cablecast many channels
`
`simultaneously." ('277 patent, col. 181, ll. 60-66).
`
`In particular, "FIG. 6 illustrates Signal Processing Apparatus and
`
`Methods at an intermediate transmission station that is a cable television
`
`system 'head end' and that cablecasts several channels of television
`
`programming." ('277 patent, col. 181, 1. 67 - col. 182, 1. 2). "The station
`
`receives programming from many sources," ('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 4-5)
`
`such as: (1) transmissions from a satellite received by satellite antenna 50,
`
`low noise amplifiers 51 and 52, and TV receivers 53, 54, 55, and 56;
`
`(2) microwave transmissions received by microwave antenna 57 and
`
`television video and audio receivers 58 and 59; (3) conventional TV
`
`broadcast transmissions received by antenna 60 and TV demodulator 61; and
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`( 4) other electronic programming transmissions received by other
`
`programming input means 62. ('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 5-13). After
`
`receiving the transmissions,
`
`[e]ach receiver/modulator/input apparatus, 53 through 62,
`transfers its received transmissions into the station by hard-wire
`to a conventional matrix switch, 75, well known in the art, that
`outputs to one or more recorder/players, 76 and 78, and/or to
`apparatus that outputs said transmissions over various channels
`to the cable system's field distribution system, 93, which
`apparatus includes cable channel modulators, 83, 87, and 91,
`and channel combining and multiplexing system, 92.
`Programming can also be manually delivered to said station on
`prerecorded videotapes and videodiscs. When played on video
`recorders, 76 and 78, or other similar equipment well known in
`the art, such prerecorded programming can be transmitted via
`switch 75 to field distribution system, 93.
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 14-28).
`
`According to the Specification, "[i]n the prior art, the identification of
`
`incoming programming, however received; the operation of video player and
`
`recorder equipment, 76 and 78; and the maintenance of records of
`
`programming transmissions are all largely manual operations." ('277 patent,
`
`col. 182, ll. 29-33). "FIG. 6 shows the introduction of signal processing
`
`apparatus and methods to automate these and other operations." ('277
`
`patent, col. 182, ll. 34-36).
`
`A dedicated distribution amplifier 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70 is
`
`"[i]n line between each of the aforementioned receiver/demodulator/input
`
`apparatus, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, or 62, and matrix switch, 75."
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 37-41). The distribution amplifier splits each
`
`incoming feed into two paths. (!d.). "One path is the conventional path
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`whereby programming flows from each given receiver/demodulator/input
`
`apparatus, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, or 62, to matrix switch, 75."
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, ll. 41-44 ). "The other path inputs the transmission of
`
`said given receiver/demodulator/input apparatus, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
`
`60, 61, or 62 individually to signal processor system, 71." ('277 patent,
`
`col. 182, ll. 45-48) "In other words, distribution amplifier, 63, continuously
`
`inputs the programming transmission of receiver, 53, to matrix switch, 75,
`
`and separately to signal processor system, 71; distribution amplifier, 64,
`
`inputs the programming transmission of receiver, 54, to matrix switch, 75,
`
`and separately to signal processor system, 71; etc." ('277 patent, col. 182,
`
`ll. 48-54).
`
`At signal processor system, 71 ... the outputted transmission of
`each distribution amplifier, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70, is
`inputted into a dedicated decoder ... that processes
`continuously the inputted transmission of said distribution
`amplifier, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70; selects SPAM
`[Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods] messages in said
`transmission that are addresses to ITS [Intermediate
`Transmission Station] apparatus of said intermediate
`transmission station; automatically adds, in a predetermined
`fashion, source mark information that identifies said associated
`distribution amplifier, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, or 70; and
`transfers said selected messages, with said source mark
`information, to code reader, 72. Signal processor system, 71,
`also has signal processor means to control signal processor
`system, 71, to record meter-monitor information of said
`message information, and to transfer recorded information to
`external communications network, 97.
`
`('277 patent, col. 182, 1. 55 - col. 183, 1. 4 ).
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`The code reader 72 "buffers and passes the received SP AM message
`
`information, with source mark information, to cable program controller and
`
`computer, 73." ('277 patent, col. 183, ll. 5-7). The cable program controller
`
`and computer 73 is described as "the central automatic control unit for the
`
`transmission station[]" ('277 patent, col. 183, ll. 8-1 0) and performs various
`
`monitoring and control functions (see, e.g., '277 patent, col. 183, 1. 14 to
`
`col. 187, 1. 41).
`
`The claims
`
`Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 19, and 56 are exemplary and reproduced below
`
`(with minor formatting added):
`
`2. A method of processing control signals and controlling
`equipment at a remote site based on a broadcast transmission,
`including:
`(a) the step of receiving at a remote site a broadcast carrier
`transmission;
`(b) the step of demodulating said broadcast carrier transmission
`to detect an information transmission therein;
`(c) the step of detecting and identifying at said remote site
`control signals associated with said information transmission;
`(d) the step of passing at least a portion of control signals to a
`computer control means at said remote site;
`(e) the step of comparing a selected position of said control
`signals with a code imputed into said computer control means
`on the basis of information contained in said information
`transmission; and
`(f) the step of activating a printing means when the comparison
`step provides a match between the inputted code and the
`selected portion of the control signals.
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`4. A data receiver system comprising:
`a switch operatively connected to a first input of a broadcast
`transmission and a second input of a cablecast transmission for
`selecting either said first input or said second input and
`transferring the selected transmission to a digital detector;
`a controller operatively connected to said switch for causing
`said switch to select either said first input or said second input;
`and
`a digital detector operatively connected to said switch for
`detecting digital data in said selected transmission and for
`relaying said data to a data processor.
`
`6. A system for identifying a predetermined signal in a television
`program transmission in which a plurality of signal types are
`transmitted said signal being transmitted in a varying location
`or a varying timing pattern, said television program
`transmission being separately defined from standard analog
`video and audio television, said system comprising:
`a digital detector for receiving said transmission and detecting
`said predetermined signal in said transmission based on either a
`specific location or a specific time; and
`a controller operatively connected to said detector for causing
`said detector to detect said predetermined signal based on either
`a specific location or time, said controller being programmed
`with either the varying locations or the varying timing pattern
`of said signal.
`
`10. A television receiver system comprising:
`a receiver for receiving a selected portion of a television
`program transmission that is not a standard television signal;
`a digital detector operatively connected to said receiver for
`receiving said selected portion and detecting a digital signal;
`a storage device operatively connected to said digital detector
`for receiving detected digital information and assembling said
`detected information into message units;
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`a controller operatively connected to said receiver, said detector
`and said storage device, said controller controlling said receiver
`to pass selected information to said detector, said detector to
`pass detected information to said storage device, and said
`storage device to assemble detected information into message
`units.
`
`19. A television subscriber station comprising:
`a plurality of decryptors, each decryptor capable of decrypting a
`selected one of a plurality of portions of a television program
`transmission; and
`a processor operatively connected to some of said decryptors
`for identifying and passing to a selected decryptor an instruct(cid:173)
`to-decrypt signal that instructs the selected decryptor to decrypt
`some of the video portion of said transmission, said instruct-to(cid:173)
`decrypt signal comprising a code necessary for the decryption
`of said program transmission.
`
`56. A computer station comprising:
`a storage device for storing encrypted data;
`a computer operatively connected to said storage device for
`controlling said storage device, locating a selected portion of
`said data, and transferring said selected portion to a decryptor
`or a processor;
`a decryptor operatively connected to said storage device or said
`computer for decrypting encrypted data; and
`a process for locating or identifying selected information
`associated with said selected portion and causing said decryptor
`to decrypt said selected portion on the basis of said selected
`information.
`
`The references
`
`The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
`
`appeal is:
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Jan. 15, 1974
`3,786,420
`Stambler
`Summers '082
`3,848,082 Nov. 12, 1974
`3,866,123 Feb. 11, 1975
`Hetrich
`3,886,302 May 27, 1975
`Kosco
`3,919,462 Nov. 11, 1975
`Hartung '462
`3,936,595 Feb.3, 1976
`Y anagimachi
`4,025,851 May 24, 1977
`Haselwood
`4,042,958 Aug. 16, 1977
`Saylor
`4,045,814 Aug. 30, 1977
`Hartung '814
`4,054,911 Oct. 18, 1977
`Fletcher
`4,135,213
`Jan. 16, 1979
`Wintfeld
`4,142,156 Feb.27, 1979
`Freund
`4,163,254
`Jul. 31, 1979
`Block '254
`4,205,343 May 27, 1980
`Barrett
`4,233,628 Nov. 11, 1980
`Ciciora
`4,295,223 Oct. 13, 1981
`Shutterly
`Yarbrough '101 4,305,101 Dec. 8, 1981
`Summers '250
`4,306,250 Dec. 15, 1981
`Tabata
`4,317,215 Feb.23, 1982
`4,322,745 Mar. 30, 1982
`Saeki
`Guillou '921
`4,323,921 Apr. 6, 1982
`den Toonder
`4,323,922 Apr. 6, 1982
`Monteath
`4,329,684 May 11, 1982
`Eskin
`4,331,973 May 25, 1982
`Cogswell
`4,331,974 May 25, 1982
`Guillou '483
`4,337,483
`Jun.29, 1982
`Hedges
`4,339,798
`Jul. 13, 1982
`Aminetzah
`4,388,643
`Jun. 14, 1983
`4,390,901
`Jun.28, 1983
`Keiser
`Block '942
`4,405,942 Sep.20, 1983
`Lee
`4,484,027 Nov. 20, 1984
`Kruger
`4,488,179 Dec. 11, 1984
`4,503,462 Mar. 5, 1985
`Kelly
`Block '589
`4,528,589
`Jul. 9, 1985
`Bluestein
`4,531,021
`Jul. 23, 1985
`Arn
`4,535,355 Aug. 13, 1985
`Scordo
`4,558,180 Dec. 10, 1985
`Jul. 1, 1986
`Yarbrough '288 4,598,288
`
`10
`
`(filed Apr. 25, 1979)
`(filed Apr. 16, 1979)
`(filed Aug. 18, 1980)
`(filed Sep. 11, 1979)
`(filed Mar. 21, 1980)
`(filed Jan. 23, 1980)
`(filed Dec. 17, 1979)
`(filed Jan. 15, 1980)
`(filed Oct. 21, 1980)
`(filed Oct. 21, 1980)
`(filed Jan. 31, 1980)
`(filed Dec. 17, 1979)
`(filed Apr. 6, 1981)
`(filed Oct. 16, 1980)
`(filed Mar. 3, 1982)
`(filed Nov. 19, 1981)
`(filed Sep. 23, 1981)
`(filed Oct. 16, 1981)
`(filed Feb. 1, 1984)
`(filed Aug. 13, 1984)
`(filed Sep. 7, 1982)
`(filed Oct. 25, 1983)
`(filed Dec. 20, 1983)
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`George
`Gilhousen
`Moerder
`Crowther
`Jeffers
`Robbins
`Seth-Smith
`Horne
`
`Ikeda
`Jahnel
`Zaboklicki
`Betts
`Wright
`Okada
`
`Jul. 8, 1986
`4,599,647
`4,613,901 Sep.23, 1986
`4,634,808
`Jan.6, 1987
`4,636,854
`Jan. 13, 1987
`4,739,510 Apr. 19, 1988
`4,821,097 Apr. 11, 1989
`4,829,569 May 9, 1989
`4,887,296 Dec. 12, 1989
`
`(filed Nov. 3, 1983)
`(filed May 27, 1983)
`(filed Mar. 15, 1984)
`(filed Jun. 20, 1984)
`(filed Apr. 2, 1987)
`(filed Mar. 5, 1987)
`(filed Jul. 8, 1986)
`(filed Oct. 16, 1987)
`
`JP 51-138317 A
`DE 2614188 A1
`DE 2904981 A1
`GB 1556366 A
`GB 2034995 A
`JP 56-8975
`
`Nov. 29, 1976
`Nov. 6, 1977
`Aug. 16, 1979
`Nov. 21, 1979
`Jun. 11, 1980
`Jan.29, 1981
`
`H. Etkin, Vertical Interval Signal Applications, Broadcast
`Engineering, pp. 30-35, April1970 ("Etkin").
`S. Soejima, A Television Facsimile System, Japan Electronic
`Engineering, pp. 24-37, Nov. 1970 ("Soejima").
`N. Doyle et al., Some Application of Digital Techniques in TV
`Receivers, IEEE Transactions on Broadcast and Television
`Receivers, vol. BTR-18(4), pp. 245-249, Nov. 1972 ("Doyle").
`P.R. Hutt, A System of Data Transmission in the Field
`Blanking Period of the Television Signal, SLICE, pp. 37-43,
`June 1973 ("Hutt").
`James, ORACLE-Broadcasting the Written World, Wireless
`World, pp. 314-316, Jul. 1973 ("James").
`S.M. Edwardson, CEEFAX: A Proposed New Broadcasting
`Service, Journal of the SMPTE, pp. 14-19, Jan. 1974
`("Edwardson").
`T. Imai et al., Television Frame Synchronizer, Journal of the
`SMPTE, Vol. 84, pp. 129-134, Mar. 1975 ("Imai").
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`B. Marti, The Concept of a Universal 'Teletext' (broadcast and
`interactive videotext) Decoder, Microprocessor Based,
`Symposium Record of the 11th International Television
`Symposium, Sess. VII A, Paper 3A, pp. 1-6, Jun. 1979 ("Marti-
`1 ").
`J. Hedger, Telesoftware: Home Computing Via Broadcast
`Teletext, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. CE-
`25(3), pp. 280-286, Jul. 1979 ("Hedger").
`G. Robinson et al., 'Touch-Tone' Teletext: A Combined
`Teletext-Viewdata System, IEEE Transactions on Consumer
`Electronics, Vol. CE-25(3), pp. 298-303, Jul. 1979
`("Robinson").
`Videotex Services, National Cable Television Association
`Executive Seminar Series, p. 78, 1980 ("Videotex").
`A. Davis, Satellite Security, Visions of the 80's, pp. 99-100,
`1980 ("Davis").
`B. Marti, Broadcast Text Information in France, Viewdata '80,
`pp. 359-366, Mar. 1980 ("Marti-2").
`
`The rejections
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 27, 28,
`30, 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44-52, 55, and 564 as being unpatentable over the
`prior art and commonly-assigned patents5
`
`.
`
`4 These claims have not been amended during the instant reexamination
`proceeding.
`5 Additional rejections made in the Final Office Action were withdrawn per
`the Examiner's Answer: claim 10 rejected as being anticipated by Marti-2
`(Ans. 148); claim 30 rejected as being anticipated by Anderson (Ans. 150);
`claim 10 rejected as being unpatentable over Marti-2 and Graf (Ans. 164).
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Anticipation
`
`1) Claims 10, 12, 13, and 47-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Zaboklicki. (Ans. 20-31).
`
`2) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Soejima. (Ans. 32).
`
`3) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Saylor. (Ans. 33-36).
`
`4) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Summers '082. (Ans. 40-42).
`
`5) Claims 6, 7, 10, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
`
`(e) as being anticipated by Shutterly. (Ans. 37-39,43-45, 50-51, 144-145).
`
`6) Claims 7, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by Seth-Smith. (Ans. 46-47, 82, 88).
`
`7) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Marti-1. (Ans. 48-49).
`
`8) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Block '589. (Ans. 52).
`
`9) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hedger. (Ans. 53-54).
`
`10) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Fletcher. (Ans. 55-56).
`
`11) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Keiser. (Ans. 57 -58).
`
`12) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Kelly. (Ans. 59-60).
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`13) Claims 15, 32-35, 38, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kruger. (Ans. 61-62, 106-113, 119-120,
`
`123-124, 129-130).
`
`14) Claims 15 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e)
`
`as being anticipated by den Toonder. (Ans. 63-64, 142-143).
`
`15) Claims 15, 45, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`or (e) as being anticipated by Eskin. (Ans. 65-66, 127-128, 134-135, 138-
`
`139).
`
`16) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Barrett. (Ans. 67 -69).
`
`17) Claims 17, 18, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
`
`(e) as being anticipated by Guillou '483. (Ans. 70, 85, 146-147).
`
`18) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Guillou '921. (Ans. 71).
`
`19) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Lee. (Ans. 72).
`
`20) Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Bluestein. (Ans. 73, 86).
`
`21) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Arn. (Ans. 74).
`
`22) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Yarbrough '288. (Ans. 75).
`
`23) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by George. (Ans. 76).
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`24) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Gilhousen. (Ans. 77).
`
`25) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Moerder. (Ans. 78).
`
`26) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Crowther. (Ans. 79).
`
`27) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Jeffers. (Ans. 80).
`
`28) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Robbins. (Ans. 81).
`
`29) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Horne. (Ans. 83).
`
`30) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Hedges. (Ans. 84 ).
`
`31) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Scordo. (Ans. 87).
`
`32) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hartung '814. (Ans. 89-90).
`
`33) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hartung '462. (Ans. 97-98).
`
`34) Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Aminetzah. (Ans. 95-96).
`
`35) Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Freund. (Ans. 101-102).
`
`15
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`36) Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Yarbrough '1 01. (Ans. 103-1 05).
`
`37) Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Cogswell. (Ans. 114-115).
`
`38) Claims 17, 18, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`or (e) as being anticipated by Block '942. (Ans. 151-157).
`
`39) Claims 38, 50,51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated byMonteath. (Ans. 116-118,131-133, and 136-137).
`
`40) Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Ciciora. (Ans. 121-122).
`
`41) Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Edwardson. (Ans. 125-126).
`
`42) Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Kosco. (Ans. 131 ).
`
`43) Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Y anagimachi. (Ans. 140-141 ).
`
`44) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Jahnel. (Ans. 149).
`
`45) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Winfield. (Ans. 157-158).
`
`46) Claims 19 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e)
`
`as being anticipated by Block '254. (Ans. 91-94).
`
`16
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Obviousness
`
`47) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Betts and Okada. (Ans. 161-162).
`
`48) Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Ciciora and either Videotex or Robinson. (Ans. 163-164).
`
`49) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Marti-2. (Ans. 166-167).
`
`50) Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Stambler. (Ans. 168-169).
`
`51) Claims 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being obvious over Saeki and Davis. (Ans. 170-172).
`
`52) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Summers '250 and Ikeda. (Ans. 173).
`
`53) Claim 51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Tabata and Doyle. (Ans. 17 4-17 5).
`
`54) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Haselwood, Imai, and either Etkin or Hetrich. (Ans. 178-182).
`
`55) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Haselwood, Imai, and Hutt. (Ans. 183-187).
`
`56) Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Monteath and Wright. (Ans. 188-189).
`
`57) Claims 7, 11, 12, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Summers '082. (Ans. 190-191).
`
`58) Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over James and Guillou '921. (Ans. 192-193).
`
`17
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`59) Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Edwardson and Guillou '921. (Ans. 194-195).
`
`Obviousness-type Double Patenting
`
`60) Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine
`
`of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,965,825 (Ans. 197-198).
`
`61) Claim 20 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,965,825 (Ans. 199).
`
`62) Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under the judicially created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 4 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,965,825 (Ans. 200, 202).
`
`63) Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under the judicially created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 5 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,965,825 (Ans. 201, 203).
`
`18
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Zaboklicki
`
`(References made to PTO supplied translation)
`
`1. Zaboklicki describes a system where a TV receiver receives a TV
`
`signal containing embedded teletext data, where the teletext data are
`
`supplied to a teletext decoder. Portions of the detected teletext data
`
`corresponding to computer software are provided to a processor. The
`
`software is stored in memory and executed by a CPU. (P. 15, 1. 3- p.
`
`16, 1. 25; Fig. 3, elements 34, 35, 39, 40, 49, 52, 54, and 56).
`
`2. Various fragments or segments of an interactive video and/or audio
`
`mass-medium TV program are assembled to form a coordinated TV
`
`presentation that is tailored to inputs by the user. (P. 17, 1. 19- p. 18,
`
`1. 4). The programs can be "dialogue television programs" where the
`
`viewer can receive "supplementary information, explanations or other
`
`data" (P. 9, 11. 13-18).
`
`3. Zaboklicki explicitly recites the term "telesoftware" in different
`
`portions of the English translation. (P. 19, ref. 3; p. 21, ref. 40; pp.
`
`21-22, ref. 41).
`
`19
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent 5,335,277
`
`Soejima
`
`4. Soejima describes a system that multiplexes character data on
`
`television signals, where the characters provide sufficient resolution
`
`for printing Chinese characters (Abs.).
`
`5. The system includes an antenna and a tuner for receiving the
`
`television signal and circuitry (A-E, Fig. 7) for detecting and
`
`identifying control signals. The control signals are passed on to
`
`processing circuitry (F-H, Fig. 7) to provide a starting signal (P. 30,
`
`col. 1, 11. 5-12).
`
`6. A comparison is made between the start signal and the viewer's input,
`
`made through a pushbutton, and "the printer works only when it
`
`coincides with the program selecting signal of the transmitter" (P. 30,
`
`col. 1, 11. 5-12).
`
`Saylor
`
`7. Saylor describes a real time frame grabbing system that receives a
`
`broadcast carrier transmission, which is demodulated to detect
`
`information therein. The detected information is passed to a computer
`
`control, where a selected position within the information is compared
`
`with a specific code to see if a match occurs (Col. 6, 1. 65 - col. 7, 1.
`
`27; Figs. 19, 20).
`
`8. Printing of received pages can occur through initiation of the operator
`
`or in a special print mode where a row or page is printed whenever the
`
`same is changed without operator involvement (Col. 68, 11. 18-34).
`
`20
`
`PMC Exhibit 2003
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-6825
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,563 & 90/006,698
`Patent
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
