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

`

`
`
`erallir do not‘limit the clairns‘because the patentability of apparatus or composinOn claims depends
`on the claimed structure, not on the use or'purpose of that structure’l
`Id. “Thus, preamble lan-
`guage merely extolling benefits or features of the claimed invention doe's'not limit the claim scope
`widmut clear reliance on those benefits Or features as paten tany significant.” lei
`'
`
`the claims do not recite the preamble'_in]epson form, not do
`With the foregoing,
`I
`. the limitations of the claim body rely on the disputed limitation for antecedent basis, nor does the
`preamble recite imPOrtant additional structure. Furthennore, it is apparent from reade thelbody of
`the
`that the claim is directed-roan apparatus that receives television transmissions; thus, the
`‘ preamble is not necessary to give ‘l'life, meaning and vita 'ty”_ to the
`_Nor did Harvey and rely
`on the preambles during prosecution to distinguish prior art or emphasize patentability. -In short,
`the preamble simply serves "as a convenient label for the invention as a whole,” and thus should not
`be cOnstru'ed as
`5's: forage ITrc‘bngy, 329 F.3d at 831. Thus, construction of the term
`- “television receiver system” need not be reached.
`
`c) Recommended Construction
`
`I
`
`view-of the foregoing, therefore, the special master recommends that the Court conclude
`
`1 than
`
`I
`
`The preambles of claims 8, 10, 11 and 44 are not
`
`I
`
`IL I 'tcpmcgssoru I
`
`_
`,_
`duced below
`
`term appears in _cla.ims 1.1-, 12'and 13. Claim 11 is deemed representative'and is repro—
`reference, 1with the disputed
`in boldface: _
`
`11. A television-receider system comprising:
`
`.
`
`-
`
`a first processor for reteiving information of a selected television program
`' transmission and detecting a specific signal in said transmission based upon a -
`location or
`pattern ofsaid. specific
`in said transmission, said first -
`processor being programmed with information of a varying location or tim-
`ing Pattern._;
`-
`'
`'
`
`. a second processor operatide connected to said first processor for receitf- '
`ing and prOcessing information of said specific signal, and for identifying
`
`427
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`

`- when and where to pass said information based upon said information, and
`paging said information.
`'
`
`a) The P'arties’ Proposed Constructions and Arguments
`
`I PMClGEMSTAn’s PROPOSED CONSTR.._
`I
`.
`
`DEFENnms’ PROPOSED CONsrn.
`
`electronic device that processes infor-
`A
`maticiil by operating on data :ic'cording to in-
`I sanctions.
`'
`1‘
`
`Post-Hearing. [no change]
`
`.
`
`[not addressed]-
`-
`'
`“first-
`terms
`-M The
`sof’f“second _ processor”/“processor”
`no construction. .
`
`.
`.
`pfOCCS- I
`require
`
`Plainfirst Harvey 'V'I' Chart art-11; Joint gym”): at 65-
`
`Defendants urge that the construction of “procesmr” should apply to that term as it appesrs
`in claim 44.
`'
`n
`
`defined as.“a digital
`According to the-JCCS, the panties agree that “processor” should
`electronic device that processes information by operating on data according tojnstmctions." JCCS I
`I at10.-
`'
`
`b)- DiscussiOn
`
`As discussed above in connection with construction of the term "first processor means”
`I called for in Harvey , a ‘fprocessor’lis' “a digital electronic deviceithat processes informatiOn by
`operating on data according to instructions.” That consmicficin applies here.
`
`(2) Recomended Construction
`
`In View of the foregoing. therefore, the special master recommends rltat'the Court conclude.
`
`_
`
`.
`
`that:
`
`electronic defies that .proccsses itifonnation by Ioperst—
`A “processor” is a
`ing on data according to instructions.
`_
`'
`'
`
`428
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`.
`
`. Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`

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

`

`.
`
`'
`
`I
`
`a decryptor operatively connected to said detector for receiving and decrypt-
`ing said detected Signals; and
`'
`U
`
`a controller operativer connected to said decryptor for causing said de- -
`I
`-
`.
`cryptor to alter its decryption pattetnor technique.
`
`a) The 'Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Arguments
`
`-l_’M§;[_ GEM sun’s Paoposfio-CONSTR.
`
`'DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED CONSTR....I
`
`_
`
`‘
`
`[Tlhc controller can cause the decryptor to alter The term “alter its decryption pattern or tech-
`either the decryption key (pattern) or the decryp-_ niquel‘requires a-_change in the decryption algo-
`tion algorithm (technique) used to decrypt the n'thm itself or in a plan or model of which the
`signal.
`_.
`decryptor ispreinformed and which determines
`'
`g
`_ what bits of'a received message'are and are not
`"East-Hearing:
`decrypted. This term shouldbe construed to
`'
`exclude merely changing the decryption key.
`
`_
`[up change]
`
`'
`
`.
`
`I
`
`_
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Fog-Hearing; [no change]
`
`Plaintiffs’ Harvey VI Chairt at 113; Defendants’ Harvey VI Chart at 67;]oint
`
`at 49.
`
`The plaintiffs say thaLthe parties agree that the terms “decryption pattern or technique" and
`
`“manner of decryption” should be interpreted consistently. The plaintiffs contend that both 'of '
`those terms should include both a decryption key (pattern) and algorithm (technique), and that the
`defendants exclude a decryption key. The plaintiffs urge that their proposed construction is consis-
`
`special master Harmon‘s conStruction of the term “controller 'operatively connected to said
`tent
`decryptex for causing said decrypter to alter its decryption pattern or technique,” and that the 1931- '_
`' and 1937 specifications support their construction. In particular, the plaintiffs urge, example 4 of
`the 1937 specification demonstrates that the disclosed system is capable of changing both its decryp-
`tion-pattern-and technique. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants ignore the intrinsic evidence -
`and rely on. obscure, non-technical definitions to conclude that the term “pattern” refets Inot'to a
`decryption key, but to a “plan or mode ’l in which the receiver determines what to decrypt and what
`not to decrypt. According. to the plaintiffs, the (opinion of the defendants’ expert, Mr: Arnold, is
`incorrect because itignores the-explicit support set forth in the Harvey specifications demonstrating
`' that “pattern” corresponds to “key.” Plaintiffs' Opening Maphman'Brief at'80-84.
`
`According-to thedefendants, the dispute concerns whether changing a key is "altering a_ de-
`cryption.” The defendants urge that a person of ordinary skill would understand that altering the
`
`4??
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 5
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`

`decryption patternteférs to something more than a key change, in, a plan for control of the decryp—I
`ter in its determination of what bits of a message are to be decrypted and what-bits are not to be de-
`crypted, and that is supported by the specification. Defendants' Markings Brief at 83-84.
`
`1:) Discussion
`
`keyin
`The parties agree that ‘idecryption" “reqnire[s]s a device or method that uses a
`conjunction with an associated mathematical algorithm to decipher (render intelligible orusable)
`digital data that has been enciphered (rendered unintelligible or unusable). These terms do .not en-I
`compass the descrambling of an analog television transmission.” Jccs a 11._ Based on the forego-
`ing proposed constructions,_rthe parties also apparently agree that ‘fdecryption technique” means
`_"decryption algorithm” The dispute is whether a “decryption pattern” means “decryption key.”
`
`Neither party has submitted a dictionary or treatise definition of “decryption pattern” pern—
`' or for “decryption key,” nor have definitions been located in any of the available references- Ac—
`cordingly, the term does not appear to be a term _of art, as discussed firrthet below- Turning to the
`individual words, a “pattern,” of coarse, is simply “a plan,
`or model to be followed in mak-
`things,” AMERIan HERITAGE DICTIONARY 911 (2“d ed. 1985). Although that is not specific to
`the cryptography context, that is the word Harvey at at nervertheless used. A “key,” though, is
`commonly used in the cryptography context, and is defined in that context
`“the set of instruc-
`tions governing the enciphertnent and decipherrnent of messages." MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S ONLINE
`_DICTIONA1_1Y.93 Those definitions
`at least initially, a difference between a “key” and a— "pat;-
`Itern.” How a “key’"and/or “pattern” fits into the scheme of “encryption,” then, requires further
`review.
`
`'
`
`Turning to other sources at hand, one sonrce explains that “[e]ncryption is the procch of
`
`turning a plainth message into an alternate ciphertext'message. The ciphertext message contains
`all the information of the plaintext message, but
`not in a format readable by a human or corn?
`
`
`
`” h
`
`'—binfdictionary?-book:Dictionary&va=k
`:kuim-wcomf
`. Cg:
`
`Cy
`
`it?
`
`ast visited one 3, 2004).
`
`478
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 6
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`

`I purer. - The inverse process, of extracting the original information, is called" decryption, and can only‘
`. be accomplished by using auxiliary information, called a keyiwd
`
`
`
`9" imp:Ilencydopedia.the_freedictionary.eomlEncr-yption%2llkey (last visited jun: 8,
`working.corn explains:
`
`The website SearchNet—
`
`Encryption is the conversion of data into a form, called a ciphertext, that cannot be easily understood
`by unauthonzed people- Decryption is the process of converting encrypted'data hack into its original
`form1 so it can be understood.
`_
`'
`.
`
`The use of encryption/ decryption is as old as the art_of communication. In wartime, a cipher, often
`incorrectly called a "codef' can be employed to keep the enemy from obtaining the contents of
`transmissions. (Technically, a code is a means of representing a signal without the intent of keeping it
`secret; examples are Morse code and ASCH.) Simple ciphers include the substitution of letters for
`numbers, the rotation of letters in the alphabet, and. the "xmmbfing" of voice signals by inverting the
`sideband frequencies. More complex ciphers work acoording'to sophisticated computer algorithm
`that rearrange the data bits in digital signals.
`I
`‘
`'
`
`in order to asin recover the contentsof an encrypted signal, the correct-mm is required.
`er
`I
`.
`y
`_
`-.
`_.
`_I_
`.
`_
`_
`_
`'
`'
`'
`'
`"
`- "
`w n 1- -_l__||'.! Alternatively, a com-
`
`puter can be used in an attempt to “break” the cipher. The more complex the encryption algorithm,
`the more diffimlt it becomes to eavesdrop. on the communications without access to the key.
`
`Encryptionf'decryption is especially important in wireless communications. This is because wireless
`circuits are easier to “tap” than their hard-wired counterparts- Nevertheless, encryption/decryption is
`a good idea when carrying out any kind of sensitive transaction, such as a credit-card purchase online,
`or the disulssion of a company secret between different departments in the organization. The
`stronger the cipher - that is, the harder it is for unauthorized people to break it - the better, in gen-
`eral. However; as the strength of encryption!decryption increases, so does the cost.
`
`In recmt years,- a controversy has arisen over so—called strong encryption. This refers to ciphers that
`are
`unbreakable without the decryption keys. While most companies and
`customers
`viewit'as a means of keeping secrets and
`fraud, sorne governments view strong encryp-
`tion asa potential vehicle by which terrorists might evade authorities- These governments, including
`that of the United States, want to set up a key—escrow arrangement. This means everyone who uses a
`cipher would be required toprovide the government with a copy of the key. Decryption keys would
`' be stored in a supposedly secure place, used only by authorities-and used only ifbackui up by a com
`order. Opponents of this scheme argue that
`could hack into the key-escrow database
`il-
`legally obtain, steal, or alter the keys. Support-tors claim- d'tat while this is a possibility, implementing the
`key escrow scheme would he better than doing nothing to prevent
`from freely using encryp-
`tionfdecryption. [Emphasis added]
`
`479
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 7
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`

`That source provides the following illustration:
`
`_ Piaintext
`
`.'
`
`'
`
`_'
`'
`Key “4"
`
`_ Block Cipher
`Encryption
`
`_
`
`_
`
`Ciphertext
`
`Another source equates an encryption “pattern” with a “key:”95
`
`Encryption in its simplest form is scrambling a message so that it cannot be read
`until itis unscrambled later by the receivee The sender uses 'an algorithmic Rab.
`trim {or keg] to scramble tor encrypt} the message. The receiirer has the decryp-
`tion key. Encryption ensnres privacjr-and confidentiality in transmissions sent
`over. the Internet {Emphasis added]
`_
`'
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`i A different source, though, nihiie stating the same thing, seems to draw a distinction between the
`I two,
`for “asymmetric keys,” but indicates that they are rehitecl1 fie, the I“encryption pat—
`tern" is what the "key" is
`out“
`I
`I
`I
`1
`I
`
`Encryption in its simplest'forrn is scrambling a message so that it cannot be read
`imtii it is unscrambled later. by the receiver. The sender uSes an algorithmic pat- _
`tern, or key, to scramble; or encrypt, the message. The receiver has the decryp-
`donkey. Encryption ensures confidentiality
`transmissions sent Over the Inter-
`net.
`-
`-
`
`.
`
`used for encryption (as Well-as for digital
`There are two kinds of keys that can
`Signanne and authentication): Symmetric [and] Asymmetfic
`_
`
`smetric l:ng follow an age-old model of the sender—and receiger sharing some
`kind of pattern. This same pattern is ting used by the sender t9 engflgt the mes— ‘
`53g; and by the receiver to degyp’.t the message'You may have used this model“
`
`95 IBM Lotus support documents, http:/{WW-30fijhm.com/sofmarefwebmfdgfi/edifionshm(last visited June
`'8, 2004). In aha RSA Security, http://www.rsnsecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=21 5? '(last
`jam: 9, 2004)-
`'
`
`'
`
`9‘ The WebmaSter’s Guide, http:/z’dvbs.dh.de/Docs/ieswgsec.hun#l{eader_300 (last visited jnne B,
`
`'
`
`480
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`,
`.
`_
`.
`Page 8
`
`
`_
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`

`'
`
`I
`
`I
`
`when you decoded the Secret message on the,back of a cereal box using your se-
`cret decoder ring. The risk'involved with symmetric keys is that you have to find
`a safe transportation method to use when'sharing your secret key with the people
`with which you want to communicate.
`'
`'
`'
`
`,
`
`air is made u of a ublic
`it. The I:
`on create 'a I:
`With as mmetnc ltd s
`key and a private key, which are different from each other. The private key holds
`more of the secret enc
`tion attern than the ublic kc. Asa slender, you.can-
`then broadcast your public key to whomever you want to communicate securely.
`YOU hold on to the private key and protect it With a password- Unlike symmetric
`keys, the private key and the public key are not the same. As a result, only you
`can decrypt a message that has been encrypted with your public key, because
`only you have the private key. [Emphasis added} I
`.
`
`- That is, for “symmetric keys," the encryption “pattern” is the same as the “key.” For “asymmetiic
`keys,” Ithe encryption “pattern,” and hence the “key,” is different for each party, and each “key”
`holds a different, or overlapping parts of the “pattern.”w Thus far, it appears that in some contexts,
`the word “pattern” refers to the encryption “key,” but
`other contexts apparently not.‘ In any case.
`the term "decryption pattern’l' is clearly not a term of art. indeed, the experts of both parties agree
`in that regard. See, eg, Mahala}: Tr- at 258: 7-19 (direct
`of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Stub-
`blebine: “Q. In forming your opinions as to the meaning of the term decryption pattern, did you
`rely on any dictionary definitions? A No.
`Why not?
`I knew it was not a term of the art and, .
`again, going back to the-scheduling order, I looked first towards the specification, intrinsic evidence.
`I Okay- Did you find that the specification expressly defined the term decrypan pattern? A. No. Q.
`Did you find that the specification informed the definition of the term encryption pattern? A. Yes.
`Yes”); Defendants' Opening Mormon Brief,
`30: Bed. _of Mr. Arnoldat 1] 16 ("The term ‘pat-
`tern _of decryption' is not a term of art in cryptography. As a result, definition of this term de-
`
`‘97 Harvey rt ml do not appear to have used a “hashing,” or one-way, method of encryption, in which there is no separate
`'“ltey” per Jr. 5:} hftp:[Iho{wired.lycOscom/webmonkey/OOXZO/ilidex4ahunl (last visited June 9, 2004}(“When you
`create a hash, you're only creating a digital summary of the string or file in question. You're not
`the string or
`file, and therefore the string or file can't be decrypted. On most systems, passwords are stored as hashes, so should
`someone break into your system and grab your password file, said rogue user doesn’t necessarily have your passurords,
`just hashes of the passwords. begs the questions ‘Well then, how docs the system match my password when I enter
`'banana' and it has stored ‘Z'I‘kvRRZNsOUik' in the password file?" It’s simple (for once, a simple uphna'fionDrWhm'
`you enter the password, the system will hash the input, and attempt to match this hashed input to the hash it has stored '
`in
`the
`password
`file-
`31f
`the
`two
`hashes
`match,-
`you‘re.
`_
`_
`_
`allode
`in").
`' 5::
`do
`http:/I'm.rsasecurilycom/tsalabs/node.asp?id=21 '36 (last visited june 9, 2004).
`
`'
`
`_
`
`481'
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 9
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`

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

`

`connection 'with encryption/decryption, not the word "pattern."- For example, Harvey at mi pointed
`combat the prior art did not allow decryption:
`
`As regards decoders and decggptors, many different systems exist, at present, that
`enable programming suppliers to restrict the use of transmitted programming to
`only duly authorized-subscribers. The prior art includes so-called "addressable"
`systems that have capacity- for controlling specific individual-subscriber station
`apparatus by means of control instructions transmitted in broadcasts. Such sys':
`tems enable brOadcasters to turn off subscriber station decoder/decryptor appa-
`ratus of subscribers who do not pay their bills and turn them back on when the
`bills are paid.
`_
`'
`
`This print art, m, is limited. It has no capac'ityfor decrypting combined media-
`programming. It has no es aci
`for identi
`'
`then selectivel dec
`tin con-
`trol instructions embedded in unencgygpted program'g transmissions. It has no
`capacity for identifying programming transmissions or control instructions Selec-
`tively and transferring them to a decrypror' for decryption- It has no capacity for
`transferring the output of a decryptor selectively to one of a plurality of output
`apparatus. It has no capadty for automatically identifying decryption keys and
`mputt'ing them to a decgyptgr to serve as the key for any step of decgmlign. it
`has no capacity for identifying and recording the identity of what is input to oi:
`output from a decryptor. It has no capacity for decryptinga transmission then
`embedding a signal in the transmission-Jet alone for simultaneously embedding
`user specific signals at a plurality of subscriber stations. It has no capacity for dis-
`tbe absence of an expected signal or controlling any operation when
`Such absence occms. [Etnphasis added]
`'
`.
`-
`.
`
`In! at car 1, lines 1343.
`
`483
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 11
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`

`In describing their invention in the “Signal Processing-Programming Reception and Use
`Regulating System" embodiment depicted in
`4:
`
`mun-cmnun CABLE 5mm momma!
`
` _|
`
`-_...._.JHg} i.
`
`r.
`
`TELEPH
`1'5ng
`
`'
`
`- Harvey emf. explain that the “subscriber station” “configuration FIG. 4 differs from the configura-
`tics sf FIGS- 1 and 3 in tlist.television tuner, 21s, outputs its audio and video outputs to said matrix
`switch, 258, rather than to monitor, 202M, and divider, 4, respectively.
`Instead, in FIG. 4, it is said.
`switch, 2535 that outputs the infornution that is input to said monitor, 202M, and divider, '4. FIG. 4
`shows fire additional ‘devices--t]1ree decgmtors, 107, 224 and 231, a signal stripper, 29,, find a
`generator, 230—51550th with matrix switch, 258. DflgptOrS 10‘? 224 and 231 are conventional .-
`'de
`'
`on; well known in the
`with car sci
`' for receivin en
`ed di an information de
`:—
`ing said information by means of a selected cipher slggijtbm and a selected cipher key, and output-
`ting. the decal;-ted-information; Signal stripper, 229, is a 'conirentional
`stripper, * * *- * * * *
`_- Matrix switch, 258, has-capacity l'or outputting selected inputted transmissions to each said five de-
`vices, and .each of said
`proceSSes 'inpntted informstion-in its specific fashiOn and outputs -
`its meme-d informationto said switch, 258." [Emphasis added.] u at 1:01. ‘lfil, lines 1241. That
`is, the Idecryptors decrypt informationby ushg
`a “selected cipher algorithm” and
`a “selected
`cipherr key-” IHanreye'! all further explain that “signal processor, 200, controls all the aforementioned I
`
`484
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page . 1 2
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`

`apparatus Signal processor, 200, controls the tuning of tuners, 214, 215' and 223; controls the
`' switching of matrix switch, 253; supplies cipher algorithm and cipher key information to and con-
`trols the decggpting of deggptors, 107,
`and 230; controls signal stripper, 229, in selecting-trans-
`
`,mrssnop locations and/or information to strip-land in signal stripping; and controls signal generator,
`230,
`selecting transmission locations at which to insert signalsfin. generating specific signals to
`insert, and in inserting.” [Emphasis added]
`Id. at col.- 161, lines 42-52.
`In view of the parties'
`agreement that the claimed “decryption technique" corresponds to the disclosed “cipher algorithm?
`it seems plausible that the clainied."decry'ption pattern” stould correspond to the disclosed “cipher
`key.” in any' case, Harvey a! ab then describe the process of encryption and decryption in connec-
`- tion with Fig. 4, using the “Wall Street Week” esample. With regard to encryption at the "program
`originating smdio,”lHarvey e! at explain that:
`
`-
`
`‘
`
`In example #7, the program originating studio that originates the ‘Wall Street
`\Weelf1 transmission transmits a television
`that consists of so—called “digital
`video" and “digital audio," well knewn in the art. Prior to b '
`transmitted the
`digital videg inforination is doubly encrypter by means of particular cipher a_lgg-
`rithrns fl, and B and cipher kegs Aa and Ba in such a way that said information
`Ignites degption at subscriber stations in the fashion described below. The '
`digital audio is transmittedin the clear. [Emphasis added]
`
`id. at coL 1-62, lines 1&25. The encrypted inforrmtion is transmitted to Ivarious “intermediate
`transmission stations.” “Each of said intermediate transmission stations receives the transmission
`odginated by said studio and retransmits the information of said transmission to a plurality of ulti-
`Im-ate receiver stations.” PriOr to retransmission, though, according to Harvey a! ml,_ the intermediate
`
`transmission station “encrypts the digital audio information of said transmission, in a fashion well
`
`know in the art, using m‘cular cipher alggrithm C and cipher keg Qa, then transmits the informa-_
`lion of said program on cable channel 13, commencing at a particular 8:30 PM time on a particular
`
`485
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 13
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Friday night." Id. at-line's 30-4193- Thus, prior to final transmission to the subseriber station, the
`information has Been thrice-encrypted with cipher algoritluns A, B and C using cipher keys Aa,‘ Ba
`and Ca.
`.
`'
`I
`'
`'
`'
`-
`
`I The information is then transmitted to the subscriber station'in the program transmission
`
`and detectéd. For simplicity, only? decryption of thev“algocithm C encrypted" information willhe
`discussed here. Basically, algorithm C encrypts audio inforrnalion, algorithm B encrypts video in-
`formation, ctr. Briefly, then, “controller, 20, causes
`switch, 258, to transfer the information of
`audio portion inputted from said tuner, 215, to the output that outputs to 5a selected decryPtor,‘
`10?, thereby causing said dec'ryptor, 107, to receive the information of'said audio portion (said in-
`
`formation bein'g, as explained above, encrypted digital audio). Automatically, controller 20 selects
`
`I
`
`information of ci her lre Ca from amon ' the inf rmation of said orlion- transfers said ci her ke
`
`mforrna tion to' dec
`
`
`
`
`
`
` tor 107- and causes dec tor 107 to c ' ence dec tin its received au-
`
`_93 As discussed previously, the "intermediate transmission. station” is depicted in Figs Git-and 613 (reproduced together
`above). In connection with Fig. 6A, once again:
`-
`'
`'
`'
`
`
`
`Harte}f are! 8—Kme that "[elxecuting said last named instructions causes said computer, 73, to cause apparatus of said
`station to receive the transmission of the program originating studio of the 'Wall Street Week' program; to input said .
`transmission, via the matrix switch, '75, of said station, to 'pamcuhr apparams, well known in the art,'that encrypt the
`-ssi n'
`audio portion of said transmission and
`
`
`
`
`' ' "'deo an .en '
`
`
`___
`.
`_
`___l Iulll I
`__
`.
`‘
`-
`_
`‘
`-_
`-
`_n,.__u
`I,'t_ I
`gnawflhphedgerflhflflie’ptoflg and to transfer the output of said apparatus, via matrix switch, 75, to
`field distribution system, 93, via the particular-modulator, 82, 86, or 90, of cable channel 13.” [Emphasis added.] Id at
`col. 242,” lines 45-59.
`-
`_
`'
`'
`_
`-
`.
`-
`
`
`
`-
`
`486
`
`
`
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-00754
`
`Page 14
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`

`I
`
`'
`
`
`
`' dio inforr'naljonI using said key information and selected 'decggp-tion cipher algorithm C, and output;
`.
`ling decrypted infornralion of'the audio portidn of the west sttee't Week’ program transmission to
`matrix switch, 258. fintomatitallji, controller, 20', causes matrix switch; 258, to Lransfer'the informs;
`non inputted from decq'ptot,“107, to the output that that Outputs to signal processor, 200 * * *3;
`I[Emphasis added] Id. at col. 1.65,.line 6810 col. 18, line 20. Thus, encryption and decryption takes
`{place using (1) g cipher algorithni‘and (2) a cipher key; Harvey at at donor otherwise mention a '_
`”
`“decryption pattern. But again, based on the foregoing portions of the specificaiion, it is more
`plausible to viewi a “decryption pattern? as _conunensurate with a "decryption key,” rather.
`in
`the sense urged-by the defendants. That is, in describingthe particulars of the prior art and-their . I,
`, invention, Harvey 'rt-af.