By: Cono A. Carrano (ccarrano@akingump.com)
`
`David C. Vondle (dvondle@akingump.com)
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel. (202) 887-4000
`Fax. (202) 887-4288
`Email: ccarrano@akingump.com,
`
`dvondle@akingump.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________________
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc.
`Petitioner
`v.
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`__________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,649
`
`

`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ........................................3
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ..............................3
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on
`Which the Challenge Is Based .................................................................................3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ........................................................4
`(1)
`“digital television signals” (claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 26,
`27, 28, 29, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 67, 78, 82, 83, 84,
`88, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94) ...............................................................4
`(2)
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97) .......................................6
`(3)
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims) ...............................................7
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable ..................................9
`E.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .....................................9
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CLAIMS OF THE ’649
`PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................9
`A.
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’649 Patent .........................................9
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’649 Patent ....................................... 11
`C.
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability ...............................................................12
`D.
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability ...............................12
`Ground 1:
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Mustafa ........................13
`(1)
`Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................13
`(2)
`Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................20
`(3)
`Claim 3 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................21
`(4)
`Claim 7 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................22
`(5)
`Claim 8 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................22
`(6)
`Claim 11 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ..................................................22
`(7)
`Claim 13 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................23
`(8)
`Claim 26 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................23
`(9)
`Claim 27 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................24
`(10) Claim 28 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................24
`(11) Claim 29 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................25
`(12) Claim 39 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................26
`(13) Claim 41 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................34
`
`1
`
`

`
`(14) Claim 42 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................35
`(15) Claim 45 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................35
`(16) Claim 48 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................36
`(17) Claim 49 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................37
`(18) Claim 50 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................37
`(19) Claim 51 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................38
`(20) Claim 62 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................38
`(21) Claim 63 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................41
`(22) Claim 64 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................41
`(23) Claim 67 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................42
`(24) Claim 78 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................45
`(25) Claim 82 Is Invalid Over Mustafa. ................................................50
`(26) Claim 83 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................51
`(27) Claim 84 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................51
`(28) Claim 88 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................51
`(29) Claim 90 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................52
`(30) Claim 91 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................52
`(31) Claim 92 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................53
`(32) Claim 93 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................54
`(33) Claim 94 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................54
`(34) Claim 97 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................55
`In the Alternative to Ground 1, the Challenged Claims are
`Ground 2:
`Obvious Based on Mustafa in View of Iijima ............................................59
`(1)
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Mustafa in
`View of Iijima ................................................................................62
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .........................................62
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .......................................................63
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................................63
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Lead and Back-Up Counsel..............................................63
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ..........................................................64
`E.
`Certification of Compliance with Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..............64
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................................................................64
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...................................................64
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`2
`
`

`
`VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”) requests Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Claims 1, 2, 3,
`
`7, 8, 11, 13, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 62, 63, 64, 67, 78, 82, 83,
`
`84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, and 97 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,752,649 (“the ’649 Patent”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`In 1981, the named inventors of the ’649 Patent filed U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`06/317,510, issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’490 Patent”) to
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”). Ex. 1003. In 1987, PMC
`
`filed a continuation-in-part of that application, which discarded the 22-column
`
`specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification spanning over 300
`
`columns. Ex. 1002. In the months leading up to June 8, 1995, PMC filed 328
`
`continuations from that 1987 application, having tens of thousands of claims and
`
`deluging the Patent Office with thousands of prior art references. Ex. 1004 at 2;
`
`Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006 at 1-31; Ex. 1007 at 10. The ’649 Patent is one of the patents
`
`that issued from that flurry of activity.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`VIZIO requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’649 Patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based
`
`IPR of the Challenged Claims is requested in view of the prior art below.
`
`PMC asserts the Challenged Claims are entitled to the Sept. 11, 1987 priority date.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ex. 1008 at 6. For the purposes of this IPR only, VIZIO assumes the Sept. 11,
`
`1987 priority date.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to Mustafa, et al. (“Mustafa”) (Ex. 1009), filed
`
`April 30, 1987, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).1
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,215,369 to Iijima (“Iijima”) (Ex. 1010), issued July 29,
`
`1980, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`VIZIO requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’649 Patent
`Mustafa renders obvious the Challenged Claims under § 103.
`Mustafa, in view of Iijima, renders obvious the Challenged Claims under §
`103.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`A claim in an IPR is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in
`
`light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`(1)
`
`“digital television signals” (claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 26, 27, 28,
`29, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 67, 78, 82, 83, 84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93,
`and 94)
`
`VIZIO submits, for purposes of this IPR only, the BRI of “digital television
`
`signals” is “television signals entirely or partially encoded in a digital format.”
`
`VIZIO’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s construction of “digital
`
`television signals” in Apple, Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, Inc.,
`
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 are to the pre-AIA versions applicable here.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00753 (the “Apple IPR”), also challenging the ’649 Patent. See Ex. 1013
`
`at 14-16.
`
`The term “digital television signal” did not have a well-known meaning in
`
`the art. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72-73. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`reading the ’649 Patent would have recognized that television signals that included
`
`both digital and analog components constitute “digital television signals.” Ex.
`
`1002 at Figs. 1, 2A, 10:43-11:6, 18:54-61, 18:64-19:14; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72-73. To the
`
`extent there is any ambiguity, the ‘490 Patent (a parent to the ’649 Patent) supports
`
`that only a portion of the digital television signal needs to be digital. Ex. 1003 at
`
`14:1-4 (discussing partial encryption).
`
`VIZIO’s proposed construction is also supported by the prosecution history.
`
`Given the lack of a well-known meaning for this term, during prosecution, the
`
`Examiner asked “[w]hat do applicants mean by ‘digital television’?” and rejected
`
`several claims under § 112 based on the use of “digital television.” Ex. 1004 at 3.
`
`The applicant responded that digital detectors 34 and 37 determine whether there
`
`are encoded digital signals present in portions of the analog video or audio portions
`
`of the television signal, and digital detector 38 “receives a separately defined, and
`
`clearly digital, transmission.” Ex. 1011 at 34-35. The applicant further explained
`
`that “[s]ince the television programming transmission is disclosed to be comprised
`
`of a video portion, an audio portion and embedded encoded digital signals, the
`
`5
`
`

`
`separately defined transmission is at least some of the television programming
`
`transmission that contains the encoded digital signals.” Id. The applicant
`
`concluded that “the audio portion, video portion and signal portion of the television
`
`programming transmission may be entirely or partially encoded in digital format,
`
`separately defined from analog format, thereby comprising ‘digital television.’”
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The construction is also consistent with the claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,559,635, a patent in the same family as the ’649 Patent with the same
`
`specification. For example, claim 18 of the ’635 Patent recites “wherein the at
`
`least one encrypted digital information transmission is unaccompanied by any non-
`
`digital information transmission.” Ex. 1012 at claim 18. Absent the “is
`
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission” language, the
`
`“encrypted digital information transmission” may otherwise include both digital
`
`and non-digital information. Similarly, the Challenged Claims are without
`
`qualifying language and therefore may include both digital and non-digital
`
`information.2
`
`(2)
`
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97)
`
`
`2 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital television signals” means “television
`
`programming that includes digit audio and digital video signals.: Ex. 1014 at 3.
`
`6
`
`

`
`VIZIO submits, for purposes of this IPR only, the BRI of “digital video
`
`signals” is “digital information embedded in the video portion of a television
`
`transmission signal.” VIZIO’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s
`
`construction of this term in the Apple IPR. See Ex. 1013 at 16-19.
`
`As described above in Section C.1, the applicant stated during prosecution
`
`that the ’649 Patent discloses embedding digital signals in portions of analog
`
`video. See Section C.1. The applicant further stated during prosecution that
`
`“digital video” may “constitute only one element of digital television” or “hav[e]
`
`applications entirely separate from digital television.” Ex. 1015 at 22.
`
`Finally, the ’649 Patent specifically refers to encrypted “digital audio” and
`
`“digital video” as the encrypted digital information embedded in either the audio or
`
`video portion, respectively, of a television program transmission. See Ex. 1013 at
`
`18. Therefore, the BRI of digital video signals encompasses “digital information
`
`embedded in the video portion of a television transmission signal.” Id.3
`
`(3)
`
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims)
`
`
`3 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital video signals” means “video signals
`
`encoded as discrete numerical values instead of an analog representation.” Ex.
`
`1014 at 3.
`
`7
`
`

`
`VIZIO submits, for purposes of this IPR only, the BRI of “processor” is “a
`
`device that operates on data.” VIZIO’s proposed construction is identical to the
`
`Board’s construction in the Apple IPR of “processor” as “a device that operates on
`
`data.” The Board found the specification, the prosecution history, and the position
`
`taken by PMC in prior litigation all support VIZIO’s proposed construction of “a
`
`device that operates on data.” Ex. 1013 at 10-12.
`
`This construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term in the
`
`context of the ’649 Patent and is supported by intrinsic evidence. The term
`
`“processor” appears throughout the specification, but the specification does not
`
`provide any definition or limitation on the functionality of the processor. Rather,
`
`the specification describes a variety of processors, including hardwired devices that
`
`process data. See Ex. 1002 at 135:52-56 (decoders 30 and 40 process information),
`
`76:11-13 (buffer/comparators 8 process information).
`
`In addition, in an IPR proceeding addressing a related PMC patent, the
`
`Board ruled that a “processor” is “a device that operates on data.” Ex. 1016 at 7-8.
`
`Further, PMC proposed a similar construction in the Amazon litigation for a
`
`related patent having the same specification: “any device capable of performing
`
`operations on data.” Ex. 1017 at 12. Also, the district court in which PMC has
`
`sued VIZIO previously construed “processor” in another related patent as “any
`
`device capable of performing operations on data.” Ex. 1018 at 14-16.
`
`8
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable
`
`D.
`How the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is detailed in Section II.D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits is attached. Relevance of the evidence, including
`
`identifying the specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, is found
`
`in Section II.D. VIZIO submits a declaration of Stuart Lipoff, an expert with
`
`nearly 50 years of experience in the relevant fields, in support of this petition in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. Ex. 1001.
`
`II.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CLAIMS OF THE
`’649 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’649 Patent
`The ’649 Patent is titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods” and
`
`generally relates to the transmission, reception, processing and presentation of
`
`information carried on various types of electrical signals (i.e., standard radio and
`
`television signals). Ex. 1002 at Face, Abstr.; Ex. 1001 ¶ 32. The Challenged
`
`Claims relate to methods of processing television and/or video signals at receiver
`
`stations. Ex. 1002 at Claims 1, 39, 62, 67, 78, and 97. A receiver accepts a
`
`conventional television broadcast transmission via a conventional antenna. Ex.
`
`1002 at 10:44-46. Digital information, including information that causes the
`
`receiver to perform particular functions, is embedded in the broadcast. Ex. 1002 at
`
`7:51-63, 23:34-37. A TV connected to the receiver presents received video and
`
`9
`
`

`
`audio information. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1, 11:20-23. Aside from the general
`
`description above, the Challenged Claims are not embodied in any specific
`
`example in the ’649 Patent specification.
`
`Claim 39 is an example of the Challenged Claims:
`
`39. A method of processing signals in a television
`
`receiver, said television receiver having a plurality of
`
`processors, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] receiving an information transmission including
`
`digital television signals and a message stream;
`
`[b] detecting said message stream in said information
`
`transmission;
`
`[c] inputting at least a first portion of said message
`
`stream to a control processor;
`
`[d] selecting control information in said at least a first
`
`portion of said message stream and communicating said
`
`selected control information to at least one register
`
`memory;
`
`[e] comparing stored function invoking data to the
`
`contents of said at least one register memory;
`
`10
`
`

`
`[f] inputting said digital television signals to said
`
`plurality of processors on the basis of one or more
`
`matches;
`
`[g] processing of said digital
`
`television signals
`
`simultaneously at two or more of said plurality of
`
`processors; and displaying
`
`television programming
`
`included in said digital television signals.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’649 Patent
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/449,097, which led to the ’649 Patent, was
`
`filed on May 24, 1995. Ex. 1002 at Cover. It claims priority to a series of
`
`continuation and continuation-in-part applications ending with U.S. Patent Appl.
`
`No. 06/317,510, filed on November 3, 1981 and issued as the ’490 Patent. Ex.
`
`1002 at Cover. The ’649 Patent did not issue until July 6, 2010. Ex. 1002 at
`
`Cover.
`
`Initially, the Examiner rejected pending claim 2 under § 112, paragraph 1,
`
`because the meaning of “digital television” was unclear, and the means used to
`
`transmit digitally formatted television signals were different from the means used
`
`to transmit analog television signals and the applicant only disclosed “transmit[ing]
`
`over the same TV channel that was used to carry conventional analog TV
`
`broadcasts.” Ex. 1004 at 3; Ex. 1007 at 13-18; Ex. 1001 ¶ 58. The applicant
`
`11
`
`

`
`responded that “digital television” includes a television transmission that is entirely
`
`or partially encoded in digital format. Ex. 1011 at 34-35. Subsequently, the
`
`applicant amended the claims to add claims 56-108. Ex. 1019 at 16-30.
`
`Application claims 56, 57, 67 and 72 correspond to issued claims 39, 54, 62 and
`
`67, respectively. Ex. 1020. After the applicant accepted the Examiner’s proposed
`
`claim amendments, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. See, Ex. 1001 at
`
`¶¶ 54-63.
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`C.
`Ground 1: Mustafa teaches a system where user terminals receive video,
`
`digital audio, and digital control information. Mustafa in view of the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Ground 2: In
`
`the alternative
`
`to Ground 1,
`
`if “digital
`
`television
`
`signals”/”digital video signals” require the signals to be completely digital, then
`
`Mustafa in view of Iijima renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Iijima describes
`
`a digital transmission system for television signals.
`
`Mustafa was not cited during prosecution. Iijima was among thousands of
`
`references cited during prosecution in an Information Disclosure Statement, but
`
`was not discussed by either the applicant or the Examiner.
`
`D. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`12
`
`

`
`VIZIO provides a detailed discussion of how the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’649 Patent are rendered obvious.
`
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Mustafa
`(1) Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Mustafa
`a. Mustafa discloses the claim 1[preamble]: “a method
`of processing signals at a receiver station, said receiver station
`having a plurality of processors.”
`
`Mustafa discloses processing signals in a television receiver (i.e., terminal
`
`12 and television receiver or monitor 35), said television receiver having a plurality
`
`of processors (i.e., memory bank 62, output register, video D/A converter 60B,
`
`CSG frame jump correction 63, and character generator 64 (collectively “video
`
`output processor”), audio RAM 50, audio D/A converter 51, audio control 43,
`
`attenuator 42, and sound summer 44 (collectively “audio output processor”), and
`
`decoder interface 68). See, e.g., Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 95-105. Mustafa
`
`discloses Terminal 12 (which receives standard television formatted signals that
`
`contain video frames, digitally encoded audio frames, and encoded audio
`
`channels), and television receiver or monitor 35, which presents the received
`
`programming. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 3:32-35, 6:23-24, 6:34-45. As described in
`
`detail for 39[g], below, Terminal 12 processes the received video and audio frames
`
`using a plurality of processors, including “video output processor” and “audio
`
`output processor.” Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:36-44, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 95-105.
`
`13
`
`

`
`b. Mustafa discloses claim 1[a]: “receiving an
`information transmission including a digital television signal and
`a message stream.”
`
`Mustafa discloses receiving an information transmission including digital
`
`television signals (i.e., the second group of the audio/video frame data, which
`
`includes video and digital audio data) and a message stream (i.e., the first group of
`
`the audio/video frame data, which includes field sync, error check, terminal
`
`address, mode code, and background sound control information). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 106-
`
`14. Mustafa discloses that Terminal 12 receives television signals (i.e., an
`
`information transmission) through “Cable In” 13. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 1, 2:64-68,
`
`3:33-34, 6:42-45; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 106-114.
`
`Fig. 3 represents the video and audio frames that carry information to
`
`terminal 12. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3, 2:55-57. The video and audio frames of Fig. 3 are
`
`divided into two sections: the first group of lines carrying auxiliary information,
`
`and the second group of active lines carrying audio or video data. Ex. 1009 at Fig.
`
`3, 3:40-44, 5:41-44. The first group of frame data (i.e., a message stream) consists
`
`of lines 1-15 and 263-278, containing auxiliary information such as a terminal
`
`address, which determines if the frame is addressed to a particular terminal, and a
`
`mode code, which identifies the frame as either video or audio. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3,
`
`3:60-64, 7:4-8, Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 109-113. The second group of frame data (i.e., digital
`
`television signals) consists of lines 16-262, 279-525 and contains digitally encoded
`
`14
`
`

`
`audio that may be particular to video frames or video data such as still frames of
`
`text, pictures, or other images. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3, 3:13-20, 3:33-35, 4:64-65, 6:42-
`
`45.
`
`c. Mustafa discloses claim 1[b]: “detecting said message
`stream in said information transmission.”
`Mustafa discloses detecting said message stream (i.e., the first group of the
`
`audio/video frame data is detected by clock generator and data extraction circuit
`
`59) in said information transmission. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 115-19. Mustafa discloses that
`
`clock generator and data extraction circuit 59 detects all frame lines by number,
`
`including the message stream (i.e., lines 1-15 and 263-278), using the horizontal
`
`driver, vertical driver, and color subcarrier burst flag. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:8-21,
`
`8:10-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 115-19.
`
`d. Mustafa discloses claim 1[c]: “selecting at least one
`message of said detected message stream.”
`Mustafa discloses selecting at least one message (i.e., the mode code,
`
`terminal address, or background sound control) of said detected message stream.
`
`Ex. 1009 at 7:4-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 120-22. Mustafa discloses that line 12 of the first
`
`group of the audio/video frame data includes mode code (i.e., control information),
`
`that identifies the frame as video or audio, and its sequence with other frames for
`
`the terminal to process accordingly. Ex. 1009 at 3:62-64, 7:4-17. The mode bits
`
`15
`
`

`
`from line 12 are communicated to mode/tag register 48 (i.e., a register memory) for
`
`storage. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:18-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 120-22.
`
`e. Mustafa discloses claim 1[d]: “inputting at least a first
`portion of said selected at least one message to a control
`processor.”
`Mustafa discloses inputting at least a first portion (i.e., line 12 of the first
`
`group of the audio/video frame data) of said selected at least one message (the first
`
`group of the audio/video frame data) to a control processor (i.e., VBI Correlation
`
`Circuits, including VBI processor 46 and mode/tag register 48). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 123.-
`
`26. Mustafa discloses that line 12 of the first group of the audio/video frame data
`
`(i.e., the message stream) is “read out and the address and mode (video or audio)
`
`bits are connected over to the [VBI correlation circuit, which includes] VBI
`
`processor 46, a mode/tag register 48 and error detector 47” where the information
`
`is processed to identify if the frame is addressed to the terminal and the type of
`
`frame (i.e. audio or video), and its sequence with other frames so the frame can be
`
`processed appropriately. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3, 3:60-64, 5:41-46, 7:18-24; Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 123-26.
`
`f. Mustafa discloses claim 1[e]: “selecting control
`information in said inputted first portion of said selected at least
`one message.”
`
`Mustafa discloses selecting control information (i.e., the mode code,
`
`terminal address, or the background sound control) in said at least a first portion of
`
`16
`
`

`
`said message stream (i.e., line 12 of the first group of the audio/video frame data)
`
`and communicating said selected control information (i.e., the mode code) to at
`
`least one register memory (i.e., mode/tag register 48). Ex. 1001 ¶¶127-29.
`
`Mustafa discloses that line 12 of the first group of the audio/video frame data
`
`includes a mode code (i.e., control information), that identifies the frame as either
`
`video or audio, and its sequence with other frames so the terminal can process it
`
`accordingly. Ex. 1009 at 3:62-64, 7:4-17. The mode bits from line 12 are
`
`communicated to mode/tag register 48 (i.e., a register memory) for storage. Ex.
`
`1009 at Fig. 5, 7:18-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127-29.
`
`g. Mustafa discloses claim 1[f]: “selecting and
`outputting under the control of said control processor, other
`portions of said message stream to said plurality of processors,
`based on said control information.”
`
`Mustafa discloses selecting and outputting under the control of said control
`
`processor (i.e., VBI Processor 46, Error Detect 47, and Mode/Tag Register 48),
`
`other portions of said message stream (i.e., the background sound control or the
`
`command code) to said plurality of processors (i.e., the video and audio output
`
`processors and the decoder interface 68), based on said control information (i.e.,
`
`the mode code). Mustafa discloses that, under the direction of the control
`
`processor, other portions of the message stream are output to the audio and video
`
`output processors. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 6:56-7:44, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 130-40.
`
`For example, Mustafa discloses the background sound control portion of the
`
`17
`
`

`
`message stream (see Ex. 1009 at 7:4-8) is communicated from the control
`
`processor to the audio control element 43 of the audio output processor. Ex. 1009
`
`at Fig. 5, 6:59-7:3. Further, Mustafa discloses the value of the mode code element
`
`of the message stream is communicated from the control processor to the video
`
`output processor. Ex. 1009 at 7:4-22, 8:22-42.
`
`h. Mustafa renders obvious claim 1[g]: “processing said
`selected other portions of said message stream simultaneously at
`said plurality of processors.”
`
`Mustafa renders obvious processing said selected other portions of said
`
`message stream (i.e., the background sound control or the command code)
`
`simultaneously at said plurality of processors (i.e., the video and audio output
`
`processors process the data simultaneously in order to have the audio accompany
`
`the associated video). Ex. 1009 at 6:42-7:3; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 141-46. As shown in Fig.
`
`5, “audio output processor” processes received audio frames, and “video output
`
`processor” processes received video frames. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:29-31, 7:36-44,
`
`8:22-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 143-46. Mustafa discloses that audio frames may be
`
`associated with particular video frames (e.g., voiced narratives or instructions).
`
`Ex. 1009 at 3:24-31, 4:64-65. A POSITA would have found it to be an obvious and
`
`commonsense implementation to have the “video output processor” and “audio
`
`output processor” simultaneously process the respective portions of the message
`
`stream provided each processor, especially considering that some audio frames are
`
`18
`
`

`
`intended to accompany video frames. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 3:24-31, 4:64-65; Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 143-46. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement
`
`simultaneous processing in the “video output processor” and “audio output
`
`processor” rather than process, buffer, and synchronize the processed video/audio
`
`in channel modulator 45. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 143-46. Simultaneous processing simplifies
`
`the components required, or else channel modulator 45, an inexpensive, off-the-
`
`shelf component, would have to be customized to add buffers and synchronization
`
`that increases cost and complexity. Ex. 1001 ¶ 143-46.
`
`i. Mustafa discloses claim 1[h]: “controlling the timing
`of communicating television programming in accordance with
`said message stream.”
`
`Mustafa discloses controlling the timing of communicating television
`
`programming in accordance with said message stream. Ex. 1009 at 7:29-43, 8:22-
`
`42; Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 147-49. Mustafa discloses that the timing with which the digital
`
`television signal’s frames are communicated to the audio and video output
`
`processors is based on the message stream information in the VBI data. Id.
`
`j. Mustafa renders obvious claim 1[i]: “storing
`information evidencing the availability, use or usage of said
`television programming or said message stream.”
`
`Mustafa renders obvious storing information evidencing the availability, use
`
`or usage of said television programming or said message stream (i.e., the video and
`
`audio frame data that is stored in the video input register 61 and memory bank 62
`
`19
`
`

`
`and audio RAM 50). Mustafa discloses that the audio data segment corresponding
`
`to a received portion of the digital television signal is stored in the audio RAM
`
`until playback is triggered by the control processor in accordance with the message
`
`stream. Ex. 1009 at 7:29-43. Likewise, Mustafa discloses that the video data
`
`segment corresponding to a received portion of the digital television signal is
`
`stored in the input register 61 and/or video data bank 62 until a “strobe” is received
`
`in accordance with the message stream. Ex. 1009 at 8:22-42. A POSITA would
`
`have understood that storing this data in the audio RAM and video register and
`
`data bank evidences the availability of the television programming. Ex. 1001 at
`
`¶¶ 150-53.
`
`(2) Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Mustafa
`Mustafa renders obvious programming said control processor (i.e