By: Cono A. Carrano, Reg. No. 39,623
`
`
`David Vondle, Reg. No. 54,515
`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
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STUART LIPOFF UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,649
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`1 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................3
`A.
`Educational Background ..........................................................................................4
`B.
`Career History and Relevant Industry Participation ................................................4
`UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ............................................................................8
`BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................10
`A.
`Summary of the ’649 Patent ..................................................................................10
`B.
`Representative Claim 39 ........................................................................................12
`C.
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ’649 Patent ............................................13
`D.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .....................................................................21
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART ..........................................27
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION .........................................................28
`A.
`“digital television signals” .....................................................................................29
`B.
`“processor” .............................................................................................................29
`C.
`“digital video signals” ............................................................................................30
` DETAILED INVALIDITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................31 VII.
`
` BACKGROUND ON PRIOR ART REFERENCES .........................................................31 VIII.
`
`A.
`Background on Campbell ......................................................................................31
`B.
`Background on Widergren .....................................................................................32
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID OVER CAMPBELL ............................33
`Challenged Claims are Obvious Based on Campbell in View of the
`A.
`Knowledge of a POSITA .......................................................................................33
`Claim 1 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of a
`1.
`POSITA ......................................................................................................34
`Claim 2 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of a
`POSITA ......................................................................................................56
`Claim 3 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of a
`POSITA ......................................................................................................57
`Claim 7 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of a
`POSITA ......................................................................................................59
`Claim 8 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of a
`POSITA ......................................................................................................61
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`2 of 149
`
`

`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`11.
`
`10.
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Claim 11 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`6.
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................61
`Claim 13 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................62
`Claim 26 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................64
`Claim 27 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................66
`Claim 28 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................66
`Claim 29 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................67
`Claim 39 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................68
`Claim 41 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................90
`Claim 42 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................91
`Claim 45 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................91
`Claim 48 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................93
`Claim 49 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................94
`Claim 50 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................94
`Claim 51 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................95
`Claim 62 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................95
`Claim 63 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ...................................................................................................99
`Claim 64 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................100
`Claim 67 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................101
`Claim 78 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................109
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`ii
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`3 of 149
`
`

`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`26.
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Claim 82 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`25.
`a POSITA ................................................................................................. 117
`Claim 83 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ................................................................................................. 118
`Claim 84 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA ................................................................................................. 119
`Claim 88 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................120
`Claim 90 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................120
`Claim 91 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................120
`Claim 92 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................121
`Claim 93 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................123
`Claim 94 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................123
`Claim 97 is Obvious Over Campbell in View of the Knowledge of
`a POSITA .................................................................................................125
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID OVER CAMPBELL IN VIEW
`OF WIDERGREN ...........................................................................................................132
`A. Widergren .............................................................................................................132
`B.
`The Combination of Campbell and Widergren ....................................................135
`C.
`Campbell in view of Widergren Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious .........141
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ..................................142
`XI.
`
`
` CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................145 XII.
`
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`4 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`I, Stuart Lipoff, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of VIZIO, Inc.
`
`(“VIZIO”) for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649 (“the ’649 Patent”). I am being compensated
`
`for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate of
`
`$375 per hour. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this
`
`matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether or not 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 of the ’649 Patent (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) are invalid as obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention (a “POSITA”).
`
`3.
`
`The ’649 Patent issued on July 6, 2010, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`08/449,097 (“the ‘097 application”), filed on May 24, 1995. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`cover). The ’649 Patent alleges to be a continuation of a series of
`
`applications dating back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 07/096,096 filed on
`
`September 11, 1987, now U.S. Patent No. 4,965,825 (“the ‘096
`
`Application”). The ‘096 Application alleges to be a continuation-in-part of a
`
`1
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`5 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`series of applications dating back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 06/317,519, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’519 Application”).
`
`4.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`priority date of the alleged invention recited in the ’649 Patent is September
`
`11, 1987.
`
`5.
`
`The face of the ’649 Patent names John Christopher Harvey and James
`
`William Cuddihy as the named inventors, and identifies Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC as the named assignee. (Ex. 1002 at cover).
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’649 Patent, the file
`
`history of the ’649 Patent, numerous prior art references, and technical
`
`references from the time of the alleged invention.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of
`
`one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`8.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of the art, and have considered
`
`the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of
`
`September 11, 1987. My opinions are based, at least in part, on the
`
`following references in view of the knowledge of a POSITA as of September
`
`11, 1987:
`
`2
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`6 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Reference
`Date of Public Availability
`U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to
`Filed November 27, 1981; Issued
`Campbell, et al. (“Campbell”)
`and Published on August 20, 1985
`(Ex. 1009 at Face)
`Filed December 15, 1978; Issued
`and Published November 24, 1981
`(Ex. 1010 at Face)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to
`Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”)
`
` BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS II.
`
`9. My name is Stuart Lipoff. I am currently the president of IP Action Partners
`
`Inc. and have over 40 years of experience in a wide variety of technologies
`
`and
`
`industries
`
`relating
`
`to data communications,
`
`including data
`
`communications over wireless and cable systems networks.
`
`10.
`
`I have been retained by VIZIO in connection with its request for inter partes
`
`review of the ’649 Patent. A copy of the ’649 Patent has been designated
`
`Ex. 1002. I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’649 Patent.
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the validity of certain
`
`claims of the ’649 Patent. This Declaration includes a detailed discussion of
`
`my background and qualifications, the background of the technologies
`
`involved in and related to the ’649 Patent that would have been understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’649
`
`Patent, various prior art references that disclose—either alone or in
`
`combination with each other—all of the relevant features of the Challenged
`
`3
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`7 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Claim. The bases and reasons for my opinions are set forth in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`A. Educational Background
`I earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1968 from Lehigh
`
`12.
`
`University and a second B.S. degree in Engineering Physics in 1969, also
`
`from Lehigh University. I also earned a M.S. degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Northwestern University in 1974 and a MBA degree from
`
`Suffolk University in 1983.
`
`B. Career History and Relevant Industry Participation
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a consulting
`
`13.
`
`practice serving the telecommunications, information technology, media,
`
`electronics, and e-business industries.
`
`14.
`
`I hold a Federal Communications Commission
`
`(“FCC”) General
`
`Radiotelephone License and a Certificate in Data Processing (“CDP”) from
`
`the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”)-supported Institute for
`
`the Certification of Computing Professionals (“ICCP”), and I am a registered
`
`professional engineer
`
`(by examination)
`
`in
`
`the Commonwealth of
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`15.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE Consumer Electronics, Communications,
`
`Computer, Circuits, and Vehicular Technology Groups. I am also a member
`
`4
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`8 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`of the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society National Administration
`
`Committee, and was the Boston Chapter Chairman of the IEEE Vehicular
`
`Technology Society. I previously served as 1996-1997 President of the
`
`IEEE Consumer Electronics Society, have served as Chairman of the
`
`Society’s Technical Activities and Standards Committee, and am now VP of
`
`Publications for the Society. I have also served as an Ibuka Award
`
`committee member.
`
`16.
`
`I have also presented papers at many IEEE and other meetings. A listing of
`
`my publications is included as part of my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached as Ex. 1024. For example, in Fall 2000, I served as general
`
`program chair for the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference on advanced
`
`wireless communications technology, and I have organized sessions at The
`
`International Conference on Consumer Electronics and was the 1984
`
`program chairman. I also conducted an eight-week IEEE sponsored short
`
`course on Fiber Optics System Design. In 1984, I was awarded IEEE’s
`
`Centennial Medal and in 2000, I was awarded the IEEE’s Millennium
`
`Medal.
`
`17. As Vice President and Standards Group Chairman of the Association of
`
`Computer Users (“ACU”), I served as the ACU representative to the ANSI
`
`X3 Standards Group. For the FCC’s Citizens advisory committee on
`
`5
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`9 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Citizen’s Band (“CB”) radio (“PURAC”), I served as Chairman of the task
`
`group on user rule compliance. I have been elected to membership in the
`
`Society of Cable Television Engineers (“SCTE”), the ACM, and The
`
`Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (“SMPTE”). I also
`
`served as a member of the USA advisory board to the National Science
`
`Museum of Israel, presented a short course on international product
`
`development strategies as a faculty member of Technion Institute of
`
`Management in Israel, and served as a member of the board of directors of
`
`The Massachusetts Future Problem Solving Program.
`
`18.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents and have several
`
`publications on data communications
`
`topics
`
`in Electronics Design,
`
`Microwaves, EDN, The Proceedings of the Frequency Control Symposium,
`
`Optical Spectra, and IEEE publications.
`
`19. For 25 years, I worked for Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“ADL”), where I became
`
`Vice President and Director of Communications, Information Technology,
`
`and Electronics (“CIE”). Prior to my time at ADL, I served as a Section
`
`Manager for Bell & Howell Communications Company for four years, and
`
`prior to that, as a Project Engineer for Motorola’s Communications Division
`
`for three years.
`
`6
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`10 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`20. At ADL, I was responsible for the firm’s global CIE practice in laboratory-
`
`based contract engineering, product development, and technology-based
`
`consulting. At both Bell & Howell and Motorola, I had project design
`
`responsibility for wireless communication and paging products.
`
`21. While employed at ADL, over a 25 year period I worked on projects across
`
`multiple industry sectors including consumer, industrial, and military. These
`
`projects drew upon my technical expertise in information technology,
`
`communications systems, radio frequency, video, and audio.
`
`22. For example, I served as the leader of a project that developed a series of
`
`specifications for residential cable modems known as Data over Cable
`
`Service Interface Specification, or “DOCSIS.” The scope of work for this
`
`project included developing a roadmap and strategic framework for evolving
`
`the business from internet services to broadband services combining voice,
`
`data, and secure electronic content delivery. This project was performed by
`
`ADL under contract to the Multimedia Cable Network System (“MCNS”)
`
`consortium and the specifications resulting from that project have since been
`
`adopted by the United Nations as a global telecommunications specification.
`
`23. Following my time at ADL, I managed a project (through IP Action
`
`Partners) for Next Generation Network Architecture, LLC (“NGNA”) that
`
`produced a five-year planning horizon for services and technology in the
`
`7
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`11 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`cable industry. The services and vision were then mapped to overall
`
`architectures impacting network elements in the back office, head-end,
`
`outside plant, and customer premises, and documented in next generation
`
`network recommendations. The project involved coordination with senior
`
`technical staff of several multiple service operators (“MSOs”) as well as
`
`interactions with over one hundred suppliers and vendors of systems,
`
`software, and products in the cable industry.
`
`24. Additional
`
`information
`
`regarding my background, qualifications,
`
`publications, and presentations is provided in my CV, which is included as
`
`Exhibit 1024.
`
` UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`III.
`25. Because I am an engineer and not an attorney I have been provided with an
`
`understanding of the patent law relevant to conducting the analysis given in
`
`this report. The following represents my understanding of these issues.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’649 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the September 11, 1987, alleged
`
`priority date of the ’649 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior
`
`8
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`12 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`art reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that
`
`the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim may be obvious in view of a single reference, or may be obvious
`
`from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the alleged, patented invention,
`
`skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, unexpected results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but
`
`unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged invention, the
`
`failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a
`
`nexus—a connection—between any such secondary considerations and the
`
`alleged invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent
`
`9
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`13 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`invention by others is a secondary consideration tending to show
`
`obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field, and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of
`
`finding a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When
`
`a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious. I understand that a claim may be
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited
`
`in the claims.
`
`IV.
`
` BACKGROUND
`A.
`Summary of the ’649 Patent
`
`10
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`14 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`31. The ’649 Patent generally relates to the transmission of standard television
`
`signals enhanced with certain types of embedded control signals and/or
`
`digital data.
`
`32. Specifically, the Challenged Claims generally relate to methods of
`
`processing television and/or video signals at receiver stations. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 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). Figure 1 of the
`
`’649 Patent depicts a simple embodiment of a receiver station:
`
`
`
`FIG. 1
`
`(Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1). The components of Figure 1 are all conventional and
`
`include a television tuner 215, divider 4, TV signal decoder 203,
`
`microcomputer 205, and TV monitor 202M. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1). Via
`
`conventional antenna, television tuner 215 receives a conventional television
`
`broadcast transmission. (Ex. 1002 at 10:44-46). Digital information is also
`
`embedded in the broadcast. (Ex. 1002 at 7:51-63). For example, in a
`
`11
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`15 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`television transmission, the information can be embedded in line 20 of the
`
`vertical blanking interval. (Ex. 1002 at 7:67-8:2). The digital information
`
`may include the “addresses of specific receiver apparatus controlled by the
`
`signals and instructions that identify particular functions the signals cause
`
`addressed apparatus to perform.” (Ex. 1002 at 7:59-63). TV Monitor
`
`202M receives composite video and audio transmissions and presents a
`
`television video image and audio sound. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1, 11:20-23).
`
`B. Representative Claim 39
`33. Claim 39, which is representative of the Challenged Claims, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`[preamble] 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;
`
`12
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`16 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`[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;
`
`[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 [h] displaying television
`
`programming included in said digital television signals.
`
`C. Background of the Field Relevant to the ’649 Patent
`34. As I mentioned above, the specification of the ’649 Patent generally relates
`
`to the transmission of standard television signals enhanced with certain types
`
`of embedded control signals. The specification of the ’649 Patent contains
`
`about 300 columns and covers a number of technology areas. In the
`
`following I will only discuss those aspects of technology that I believe are
`
`directly relevant to the Challenged Claims of the ’649. The technology
`
`outlined below represents the knowledge and understanding that a POSITA
`
`would have possessed in September 1987.
`
`13
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`17 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`35. The Challenged Claims relate to the transmission, reception and processing
`
`of television signals and to using control signals embedded in the television
`
`signals to control processing of these television signals.
`
`36.
`
`In 1987 standard broadcast television was ubiquitous and had been for many
`
`years. The television signal format was by that time highly standardized
`
`through the efforts of various industry participants. The basic technological
`
`characteristics of monochrome television were established in the late 1940s.
`
`37. After the introduction of television in the early 1940s, there were subsequent
`
`enhancements to support new technological advances, such as color, closed
`
`captioning, Teletext, and stereophonic sound. Enhancements to television
`
`were introduced very carefully because the base of installed television
`
`receivers was so large that revolutionary changes would cause massive
`
`obsolescence issues. It is for this reason that the introduction of color
`
`television required that the new color television signal be compatible with
`
`previously purchased monochrome sets.
`
`38. The National Television System Committee (NTSC) standard was the
`
`approved standard for over-the-air (OTA) transmissions of television signals
`
`in the United States. This standard was adopted in 1941 by the FCC. The
`
`NTSC standard was based on sequential transmission and uniform linear
`
`14
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1001
`18 of 149
`
`

`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`scanning techniques, and was developed for use with CRT (cathode ray
`
`tube) presentation technology.
`
`39. An NTSC television signal conveys light intensity and positional reference
`
`information. When the CRT receives a NTSC television signal, the electron
`
`beam that creates the image on the CRT display screen is accordingly
`
`modified based on the light intensity and positional information conveyed in
`
`the NTSC signal. The electron beam that creates the image on the CRT
`
`screen does so by going from left to right and top to bottom. This typically
`
`occurs in real time, that is, the received picture intensity information is used
`
`to directly drive the CRT as it is received.
`
`40.
`
`In order to simplify the design of the television receiver, the NTSC
`
`television signal contains a number of synchronizing signals that coordinate
`
`the movement of the electron beam across the face of the CRT screen.
`
`These signals do not contain displayable information and occur when the
`
`electron beam is not in the visible area of the television screen. Because
`
`these non-displayable parts of the signal cannot be seen by the viewer,
`
`various syste