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
`__________________________________
`
`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) ........................................1
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ..............................1
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on
`Which the Challenge Is Based .................................................................................1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ........................................................2
`(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) ...............................................................2
`(2)
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97) .......................................4
`(3)
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims) ...............................................5
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable ..................................6
`E.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .....................................6
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CLAIMS OF THE ’649
`PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................7
`A.
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’649 Patent .........................................7
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’649 Patent .........................................9
`C.
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability ...............................................................10
`D.
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability ...............................10
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Campbell in View
`Ground 1:
`of the Knowledge of A POSITA ................................................................10
`(1)
`Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................10
`(2)
`Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................16
`(3)
`Claim 3 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................17
`(4)
`Claim 7 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................17
`(5)
`Claim 8 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................18
`(6)
`Claim 11 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................19
`(7)
`Claim 13 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................19
`(8)
`Claim 26 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................20
`(9)
`Claim 27 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................21
`(10) Claim 28 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................21
`(11) Claim 29 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................22
`(12) Claim 39 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................23
`(13) Claim 41 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................31
`
`i
`
`

`
`(14) Claim 42 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................31
`(15) Claim 45 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................32
`(16) Claim 48 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................32
`(17) Claim 49 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................33
`(18) Claim 50 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................34
`(19) Claim 51 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................34
`(20) Claim 62 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................34
`(21) Claim 63 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................38
`(22) Claim 64 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................38
`(23) Claim 67 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................39
`(24) Claim 78 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................44
`(25) Claim 82 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................49
`(26) Claim 83 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................50
`(27) Claim 84 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................51
`(28) Claim 88 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................51
`(29) Claim 90 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................52
`(30) Claim 91 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................52
`(31) Claim 92 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................53
`(32) Claim 93 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................54
`(33) Claim 94 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................54
`(34) Claim 97 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................55
`In the Alternative to Ground 1, the Challenged Claims are
`Ground 2:
`Obvious Based on Campbell in View of Widergren ..................................59
`(1)
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Campbell in
`View of Widergren .........................................................................61
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .........................................61
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .......................................................61
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................................61
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Lead and Back-Up Counsel..............................................62
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ..........................................................63
`E.
`Certification of Compliance with Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..............63
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................................................................63
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...................................................63
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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, which 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 original 22-
`
`column specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification that spanned
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1008 at 6. For purposes of this IPR only, VIZIO assumes the Sept. 11, 1987
`
`priority date.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to Campbell, et al. (“Campbell”) (Ex. 1009),
`
`issued Aug. 20, 1985, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”) (Ex. 1010),
`
`issued Nov. 24, 1981, 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
`Campbell renders obvious the Challenged Claims under § 103.
`Campbell, in view of Widergren, 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.,
`
`IPR2016-00753 (the “Apple IPR”), also challenging the ’649 Patent. See Ex. 1014
`
`at 12-16.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`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 would 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
`
`separately defined transmission is at least some of the television programming
`
`transmission that contains the encoded digital signals.” Id. The applicant
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`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 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.1
`
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97)
`
`(2)
`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
`
`
`1 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital television signals” means “television
`
`programming that includes digit audio and digital video signals.: Ex. 1013 at 3.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`transmission signal.” VIZIO’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s
`
`construction of this term in the Apple IPR. See Ex. 1014 at 16-19.
`
`As described in Section C.1, the applicant stated during prosecution 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. 1014 at
`
`18. Therefore, the BRI of digital video signals encompasses “digital information
`
`embedded in the video portion of a television transmission signal.” Id.2
`
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims)
`
`(3)
`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
`
`
`2 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital video signals” means “video signals
`
`encoded as discrete numerical values instead of an analog representation.” Ex.
`
`1013 at 3.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`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. 1014.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`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 ¶ 31-32. The Challenged
`
`Claims relate to methods of processing television and/or video signals at receiver
`
`stations. Ex. 1002 at Claims 39, 54, 62 and 67. 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 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:
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`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;
`
`[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
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`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, which was 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 not the same as 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 ¶ 57-66. The applicant
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`claim amendments, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. See generally, Ex.
`
`1001 at ¶57-66.
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`C.
`Ground 1: Campbell is a cable television system having a receiver that
`
`accepts digital data transmissions in video format. Campbell 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
`
`Campbell in view of Widergren renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Widergren describes a digital data transmission system.
`
`Campbell and Widergren were among thousands of references cited during
`
`prosecution but not discussed by the applicant or the Examiner.
`
`D. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability
`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 Campbell in View of the
`Knowledge of A POSITA
`(1) Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Campbell
`a.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[preamble]: “a method of
`processing signals at a receiver station, said receiver station
`having a plurality of processors.”
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Campbell discloses a method of processing signals at a receiver station (i.e.
`
`converter 40 and user television set 36), said receiver station having a plurality of
`
`processors (video descrambler 116 and text/graphics generator 118, collectively the
`
`“video output processor,” data extractor 114, and audio level/mute control 120).
`
`Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 91-99. Campbell discloses converter 40, which receives cable
`
`television signals, and television set 36, which presents the received signals. Ex.
`
`1009 at Fig. 1 and 6, 1:16-21, 4:43-55, 9:15-18; 9:23-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 93, 95-97.
`
`b.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[a]: “receiving an
`information transmission including a digital television signal and
`a message stream.”
`
`Campbell discloses receiving an information transmission including digital
`
`television signals (i.e., video, audio, and digital data in the VBI received on line
`
`32) and a message stream (i.e., lines 17 and 18 of the VBI). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ –100-110.
`
`Campbell discloses converter 40 receives “combined cable television and data
`
`signal[s]” (i.e., an information transmission) via line 32. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 1, 1:15-
`
`21, 3:16-19, 3:27-31, 4:43-55; Ex. 1001 ¶ 100. The information transmission
`
`received by converter 40 includes digital television, i.e., television programs and
`
`digital data on at least lines 17 and 18 of the VBI of each video field, for example,
`
`text data, the subscriber address, and channel control information. Ex. 1009 at Fig.
`
`2B, 3:8-18; 3:28-39, 4:43-5:2, 6:29-35, 7:6-15, 14:36-50; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 102-112.
`
`Lines 17-18 of the VBI constitute a message because each is a discrete package of
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`information, and lines 17-18 are a message stream because there is a “continuous
`
`stream of data” that is inserted into the VBIs of video frames. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 11,
`
`4:64-67; Ex. 1001 ¶ 104-109.
`
`c.
`Campbell discloses 1[b]: “detecting said message
`stream in said information transmission.”
`Campbell discloses detecting said message stream (i.e., lines 17 and 18 of
`
`the VBI) in said information transmission. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 111-114. Referencing Fig.
`
`6, Campbell discloses vertical interval data extractor 114, which “provides a serial
`
`data stream extracted from the vertical interval of the scrambled video signal.” Ex.
`
`1009 at 9:7-10; 10:38-11:24. Thus, vertical interval data extractor 114 detects the
`
`message stream (i.e., lines 17-18 of the VBI). Id.; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 111-14.
`
`d.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[c]: “selecting at least one
`message of said detected message stream.”
`Campbell discloses selecting at least one message (i.e., text data, control
`
`word 200 or program tier code 202 or program event code 204) of said detected
`
`message stream (i.e., lines 17 and 18 of the VBI). Campbell discloses each
`
`element of the message stream (i.e., each of control word 200 or program tier code
`
`202 or program event code 204) is separately identified and selected by the control
`
`processor for later use. Ex. 1009 at Figs. 11-12, 12:58-61, 13:1-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶
`
`115-16.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`e.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[d]: “inputting at least a
`first portion of said selected at least one message to a control
`processor.”
`
`Campbell discloses inputting at least a first portion of said message stream
`
`(i.e., lines 17 and 18 of the VBI) to a control processor (i.e., converter control logic
`
`unit 104). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ –117-120. Campbell discloses that “[v]ertical interval data
`
`extractor 114 provides a serial data stream extracted from the vertical interval of
`
`the scrambled video signal to the converter control logic 104 [i.e., the control
`
`processor],” which “processes this information and operates the various modules in
`
`converter 40 under program control.” Ex. 1009 at Figs. 6-7, 9:7-10, 9:54-61; Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 117-120.
`
`f.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[e]: “selecting control
`information in said inputted first portion of said selected at least
`one message.”
`Campbell discloses selecting control information (i.e., program tier code 202
`
`or program event code 204 in channel control word 200) in said inputted first
`
`portion of said selected at least one message (i.e., lines 17 and 18 of the VBI) and
`
`communicating said selected control information to at least one register memory
`
`(i.e., program tier code 202 or program event code 204 are communicated to the
`
`register memory of microprocessor 410). Ex. 1009 at Figs. 11-12, 9:62-64, 12:58-
`
`61, 13:1-21, 15:16-23; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 121-127.
`
`g.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[f]: “selecting and
`outputting under the control of said control processor, other
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`portions of said message stream to said plurality of processors,
`based on said control information.”
`
`Campbell discloses outputting selected other portions of said message
`
`stream (i.e., characters and graphics signals in the VBI and audio level/mute
`
`control) to said plurality of processors (i.e., the audio and video output processors).
`
`Campbell discloses that at least part of the message stream data in the VBI is
`
`output from the control processor 104 to the video and audio output processors.
`
`Ex. 1009 at 9:3-12, 9:23-33: Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 128-145. Specifically, Campbell
`
`discloses that characters and graphics symbols extracted from the message stream
`
`are output from the control processor to the text/graphics generator of the video
`
`output processor, and the audio level/mute control is output from the control
`
`processor to the audio output processor. Id.
`
`h.
`Campbell renders obvious claim 1[g]: “processing
`said selected other portions of said message stream simultaneously
`at said plurality of processors.”
`
`Campbell renders obvious processing of said selected other portions of said
`
`message stream (i.e., characters and graphics signals in the VBI and audio
`
`level/mute control) simultaneously. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 146-151. As discussed below
`
`regarding claim 39[g], there are no components between the output of the “video
`
`output processor” (i.e., output of text/graphics generator 118) and channel
`
`modulator 134 or between the output of audio level/mute control 120 and channel
`
`modulator 134, and a POSITA would have found it obvious and a commonsense
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`and straightforward implementation using the components of Fig. 6 to have the
`
`“video output processor” and audio level/mute control 120 simultaneously process
`
`the video and audio information especially given the audio is intended to
`
`accompany the video (i.e., audio and video in received television programs). See
`
`39[g], infra; Ex. 1009 at Fig. 6, 12, 4:43-55, 8:46-52, 9:15-42, 15:61-65; Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 146-151, 251-56.
`
`i.
`Campbell renders obvious claim 1[h]: “controlling the
`timing of communicating television programming in accordance
`with said message stream.”
`
`Campbell renders obvious processing of said selected other portions of said
`
`message stream (i.e., characters and graphics signals and audio level/mute control)
`
`simultaneously. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 152-54. As there are no components between the
`
`output of the “video output processor” (i.e., output of text/graphics generator 118)
`
`and channel modulator 134 or between the output of audio level/mute control 120
`
`and channel modulator 134, a POSITA would have found it obvious and a
`
`commonsense and straightforward implementation using the components of Fig. 6
`
`to have the “video output processor” and audio level/mute control 120
`
`simultaneously process the video and audio information especially given the audio
`
`is intended to accompany the video (i.e., audio and video in received television
`
`programs). Ex. 1009 at Fig. 6, 12, 4:43-55, 8:46-52, 9:15-42, 15:61-65; Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 152-54.
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`j.
`Campbell discloses claim 1[i]: “storing information
`evidencing the availability, use or usage of said television
`programming or said message stream.”
`
`Campbell discloses storing information evidencing the availability, use or
`
`usage of said television programming (e.g., subscriber enable word 210, channel
`
`enable code 216, tier enable code 218) or said message stream. Campbell discloses
`
`the user terminal stores subscriber enable word 210, channel enable code 216, and
`
`tier enable code 218, which codes are used locally by the control processor and
`
`indicate whether the associated television programming can be accessed by the
`
`subscriber terminal (i.e., evidencing its availability). Ex. 1009 at 12:27-14:8; Ex.
`
`1001 at ¶¶ 155-56.
`
`(2) Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Campbell
`Campbell renders obvious programming said control processor (i.e.,
`
`converter control logic 104) to execute a controlled function (i.e., the processing
`
`response initiated by each mode code) in response to said at least one message (i.e.,
`
`lines 17 and 18 of the VBI). A POSITA would understand that programming the
`
`control processor requires configuring the control processor to execute a particular
`
`function in response to the message stream. Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 157-159. As discussed,
`
`Campbell discloses the control processor executes a particular function based on
`
`the data included in the message stream. See 1[g]-[i], supra; Ex. 1009 at Fig. 12,
`
`12:10-15; 15:61-65; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 146-156-.
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`(3) Claim 3 Is Invalid Over Campbell
`Campbell renders obvious programming said control processor (i.e.,
`
`converter control logic 104) to compare information stored in at least a first
`
`register memory (i.e., program tier code 202 or program event code 204 are
`
`communicated to the register memory of microprocessor 410) with control
`
`function invoking information (i.e., tier enable code 218 of subscriber enable word
`
`210 or program enable code 228 of event enable word 220). As discussed
`
`regarding claims 1[e]-[f], Campbell discloses that the control processor compares
`
`stored control information against stored function invoking data. See 1[e]-[f],
`
`supra; Ex. 1009 at Figs. 11 - 12, Claim 8, 13:25-33; 14:67-15:2; 15:16-39; Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 160-65, 121-145.
`
`(4) Claim 7 Is Invalid Over Campbell
`Campbell renders obvious controlling a switch (i.e., microprocessor 410) to
`
`output at least one of said selected other portions of said message stream (i.e., the
`
`microprocessor unit 410 of the converter control logic directs the message stream
`
`to the appropriate one of the plurality of processors) to a specific one of said
`
`plurality of processors (video descrambler 116 and text/graphics generator 118,
`
`collectively the “video output processor” and audio level/mute control 120). As
`
`discussed in claim 1[f], the instruction communicated from the control processor to
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`the video processor, based on the input message, is the recited selected other
`
`portions of said message stream.
`
`Campbell discloses that the converter control logic 104 receives the message
`
`stream (i.e., the VBI data) via timer/decoder block 414 and the microprocessor 410
`
`of the converter control logic block directs the output of the message stream over
`
`bus 412. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 7, 9:3-13, 9:62-10:36. Campbell discloses that both the
`
`microprocessor 410 and decoder 414 may be implemented using “conventional
`
`integrated circuit chips” such as the Intel 8048 and 8041. Ex. 1009 at 10:27-32. A
`
`POSITA would have understood the microprocessor 410 to perform the function of
`
`the recited switch. Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 166-171.
`
`(5) Claim 8 Is Invalid Over Campbell
`Campbell discloses controlling said switc