Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`1 of 32
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`1 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`I.INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC (“Petitioner”)
`filed a petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 11, 16, 18, and
`22–24 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,801,304 B1 (Ex. 1004,
`“the ’304 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`preliminary response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response, and the associated evidence, we conclude Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we
`institute an inter partes review.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`Petitioner informs us that the ’304 patent is the subject of a lawsuit:
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:13-
`cv-1608-RGA (D. Del. filed Sept. 23, 2013). Pet. 1. Petitioner also informs
`us that six patents related to the ’304 patent are the subject of concurrently-
`filed petitions for inter partes review. Id.; see IPR2014-01527, IPR2014-
`01528, IPR2013-01530, IPR2014-01531, IPR2014-01533 and IPR2014-
`01534.
`
`
`2
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`2 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`C. The ’304 Patent
`The ’304 patent is titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods”
`and generally relates to a unified system of programming communication.
`Ex. 1004, Abstr. The challenged claims relate to methods of controlling the
`decryption of programming at a subscriber station or receiver station.
`Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1. A method for controlling the decryption of programming at a
`subscriber station, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving programming, said programming having a first
`encrypted digital control signal portion and an encrypted digital
`information portion;
`
`detecting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`said programming;
`
`passing said first encrypted digital control signal portion of said
`programming to a decryptor at said subscriber station;
`
`decrypting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of
`said programming using said decryptor at said subscriber
`station;
`
`passing said encrypted digital information portion of said
`programming to said decryptor;
`
`decrypting said encrypted digital information portion of said
`programming using said decryptor at said subscriber station
`based on the decrypted control signal portion; and
`
`presenting said programming.
`
`The Patent Owner describes claim 1 as directed to a method
`decrypting the encrypted digital information portion of programming using a
`decryptor at a subscriber station based on a decrypted control signal portion
`
`3
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`3 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22014-01532
`
`
`Patennt 7,801,3004 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of thhe programmming. Preelim. Resp.. 10. The ’’304 patennt describess access
`:39–49.
`
`
`
`
`
`contrrol to transsmitted conntent at a rreceiver staation. Ex.
`1004, 143
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 4 of thee ’304 patennt, reproduuced beloww, illustratees a receiveer station:
`
`
`
`switcching of mmatrix switcch 258, andd decryptinng by decryyptors 1077, 224, andd
`
`
`
`
`As shown abovve in Figurre 4, the ’3
`
`
`
`04 patent ddiscloses aa receiver sstation
`
`
`
`
`trol tuners 200 to contprocessor 2havinng signal p
`214, 215,
`
`and 223, tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`231. Id. at 1488:12–16. I
`
`
`
`
`n one exammple descrribed in thee Specificaation, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Waall Street WWeek” proggram is trannsmitted too the receivver station
`
`
`
`
`televvision headd end. Id. aat 149:5–8. Prior to
`
`transmissi
`
`on, the cabble head
`
`
`
`
`
`
`end ““encrypts tthe digital audio infoormation off said transsmission, iin a fashionn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ular cipher ing particuwell known in the art, usi
`algorithm
`C and cip
`
`her key Caa,
`
`the informmation of saaid programm on cablee channel 113.” Id. at
`
`then transmits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`onsisting omessage coa SPAM mrthermore, 149:8–12. Fur
`
`f an “01” hheader,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locall-cable-enaabling-messsage (#7), is transmiitted with iinstructionns that
`
`by a cablee
`
`4
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`4 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`enable the “Wall Street Week” programming. Id. at 150:5–14. Executing
`the instructions causes controller 20 to receive the cable channel
`transmission, select the information of a cipher key Ca from among the
`information portion, and transfer the cipher key to decryptor 107. Once the
`ciper key is received by decryptor 107, decryptor 107 then decrypts “using
`said key information and selected decryption cipher algorithm C, and
`output[s] the decrypted information of the audio portion of the ‘Wall Street
`Week’ program transmission.” Id. at 151:58–63; 152:25–30.
`Subsequently, a second SPAM message that consists of an “01”
`header provides “1st-stage-enable-WSW-program” instructions as the
`information segment information. Id. at 153:19–24. Executing the “1st-
`stage-enable-WSW-program” instructions causes controller 20 to affect a
`first stage of decrypting the video information of the “Wall Street Week”
`program transmission. Id. at 153:47–50. Controller 20 selects the
`decryption cipher key Ba and transfers it to selected decryptor 224. Id. at
`153:47–65; 154:10–11. Controller 20 causes decryptor 224 to commence
`decrypting the received information using decryption cipher key Ba and
`decryption cipher algorithm B. Id. at 154:10–14.
`A third SPAM message provides “2nd-WSW-program enabling-
`message” instructions, causing the controller to affect a second stage of
`decrypting the digital video information of “Wall Street Week.” Id. at
`156:44–56. The second stage of decrypting the video information of the
`“Wall Street Week” program transmission is completed using the decryption
`cipher key Aa. Id. at 158:4–10. Finally, controller 20 causes the receiver
`station to commence the transfer of the decrypted television information of
`
`5
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`5 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`the “Wall Street Week” program to microcomputer 205 and monitor 202M.
`Id. at 159:36–40.
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 11, 16, 18, and 22–
`24 of the ’304 patent based on the following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`1, 11, 18, 23, and 24
`§ 103
`22
`
`Guillou1
`Guillou, Block,2 and
`Guillou ’0113
`Guillou and Block
`FIPS PUB 814
`
`
`§ 103
`§ 102
`
`11 and 16
`1, 16, and 18
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-
`Smith America Invents Act,5 the Board will interpret claims of an unexpired
`patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`Specification of the patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is a “heavy
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`1 US Patent No. 4,337,483, filed Jan. 31, 1980 (Ex. 1007) (“Guillou”).
`2 US Patent No. 4,225,884, filed Jun. 30, 1978 (Ex. 1008) (“Block”).
`3 US Patent No. 4,352,011, filed Jan. 23, 1980 (Ex. 1009) (“Guillou ’011”).
`4 DES Modes of Operation, Federal Information Processing Standards
`Publication 81), U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Nat’l Bureau of Standards,
`Dec. 2, 1980, (Ex. 1014) (“FIPS PUB 81”).
`5 Pub. L. No. 112-29,125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`6
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`6 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner argues the Board should construe the term “processor”
`to mean “a digital electronic device that processes information by operating
`on data according to instructions.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2002,
`Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983)). The exhibit relied upon by
`Patent Owner, Ex. 2002, provides Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary
`©1988, which does not provide the quoted definition but instead defines
`processor as “the part of a computer system that operates on data.”
`Ex. 2002, 3. An earlier edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary ©1979,
`provides the same definition for processor as “the part of a computer system
`that operates on data.” Ex. 3001, 3. The Specification of the ’304 patent
`does not expressly define “processor.”
`Petitioner alleges that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`the term “processor” can refer to a decryptor, decryption circuit, decoder,
`discriminator, unscrambler, or similar component. Pet. 13. Petitioner argues
`that the Specification of the ’304 patent discloses decryptors having the
`same functionality as a decryptor found within a processor. Pet. 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1004, 83:43–45 (“Said decryptor, 39K, is a conventional
`decryptor that is identical to decryptor, 10, of signal processor, 200”)).
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposal and argues that the
`’304 patent Specification’s disclosure of a processor 200, decoder 30, and
`decryptor 10 is inconsistent with a construction that would define a
`processor to be a decoder or decryptor. Id. at 18. We are not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s argument that a decoder or decryptor cannot constitute a
`processor. The cited “signal processor 200” disclosed in the ’304 patent is a
`processor implemented in a particular embodiment of disclosed invention
`(see Ex. 1004, 148:12–16). Furthermore, the disclosure of a particular
`
`7
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`7 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`embodiment having a “signal processor 200,” does not prohibit the
`decoder 30 or decryptor 10 disclosed in the Specification of the ’304 patent
`from also functioning as a “processor” that “operates on data.”
`Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the
`broadest reasonable construction of “processor” is “a device that operates on
`data.”
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`According to Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Wechselberger, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’304 patent would have “a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent experience, and two to four
`years of experience in the broadcast or cablecast television transmission
`fields.” Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger, Ex. 1006 ¶ 28.
`Patent Owner does not offer, at this time, any contrary explanation
`regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant
`to the ’304 patent. Based on our review of the ’304 patent, the types of
`problems and solutions described in the ’304 patent and cited prior art, and
`the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we adopt, for purposes of this
`decision, Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the claimed invention. Based on the stated qualifications of
`Mr. Wechselberger (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–17), Petitioner’s declarant meets the
`requirements of this definition. We note that the applied prior art also
`reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`8 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Asserrted Obvioousness Groound Baseed on Guilllou
`
`
`
`IPR22014-01532
`
`
`Patennt 7,801,3004 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. OOverview off Guillou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Guillou is titled “TText Videoo-Transmisssion Systeem Provideed With
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meaans For Conntrolling AAccess To TThe Informmation” andd describess a system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`havinng an inforrmation emmitting cennter, includding an enccryption m
`
`eans usingg
`
`
`s a decrypttion meanss
`
`
`
`
`
`an opperating keey, and recceiving stattions, whicch provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`usingg the operaating key. Ex. 1007, Abstr. Figgure 7 of GGuillou illuustrates onne
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiment off system, aand is reprooduced bellow:
`
`
`
`9
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`9 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`As shown above in Figure 7, Guillou discloses emitting center 2, including
`automatic encryption means 24, and receiving station 4, including automatic
`decryption means 38. Id. at 10:3–42. Guillou discloses that automatic
`decryption means 38 includes discriminator 42, adapted to distinguish
`among coded octets, and logic circuit 46 to output the decoded octets dj to
`display means 20. Id. at 10:42–56. Additionally, Guillou discloses restoring
`circuit 110 for restoring the operating key K from message Mi. Id. at 16:1–
`7. The message forming circuit 102 forms messages Mi using the
`subscriber’s keys Ci and the operating key K according to an algorithm,
`Mi = FCi(K). Id. at 15:51–57. Additionally, restoring circuit 110 in receiving
`station 4 receives the messages Mi and relies upon an algorithm,
`K = GCi(Mi), o restore the signal corresponding to the operating key K used
`in the emitting station. Id. at 16:1–10. Guillou also discloses that “[a]s soon
`as a distribution centre generates a new operating key K, it calculates, for
`each current subscribers’ key in use Ci for this service, a message Mi by
`means of an algorithm Mi = FCi(K), with the keys Ci acting as parameters.”
`Id. at 8:44–48.
`2. Analysis of Asserted Ground of Obviousness over Guillou
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 11, 18, 23, and 24 would have been
`obvious over Guillou. Pet. 13–37.
`a. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Guillou teaches the method recited in claim 1 by
`teaching a digital encrypted key delivery process in which the encrypted
`digital data and the encrypted digital key are transmitted from an emitter
`center and received by a subscriber station. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:8–14;
`6:62–68; 8:5–43; 9:60–64; Figs. 1, 2, 7, 9). Petitioner argues that the
`
`10
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`10 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`claimed “first encrypted digital control signal portion” is taught by the
`disclosure of Guillou’s message Mi, which contains the operating key K.
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007, 10; 8:55–58; 8:59–9:12; 15:42–16:17; 16:63–17:15;
`18:19–59; 20:53–21:14; Figs. 2, 7, 8, 10). Furthermore, Petitioner argues
`that the claimed “encrypted digital information portion” is taught by the
`disclosure of Guillou’s coded octets Dj, which are transmitted from the
`emitter center and received by the subscriber station. Pet. 18 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 2:23–27; 2:64–3:3; 5:53–57; 6:50–60; 7:33–42; 10:28–36; 11:3–
`10; Figs. 2, 7, 8).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge is insufficient because
`Guillou fails to disclose the “decryptor,” recited in claim 1. Prelim.
`Resp. 32. More particularly, Patent Owner argues that claim 1 requires a
`single decryptor to perform both decrypting of the “first encrypted digital
`control signal portion” and the “encrypted digital information portion.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner points to multiple decryptors in Guillou,
`including K-restoring circuit 110 and discriminator 42 as teaching the
`required decrypting steps. Id. (citing Pet. 19–20).
`Petitioner anticipates this argument in the Petition and states that to
`the extent Guillou is alleged to lack the “said decryptor” limitation recited in
`1(e) and 1(f), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`the art to combine both K-restoring circuit 110 and automatic decryption
`means 38 (discriminator 42 and logic circuit 46) to constitute a single
`multipurpose decryptor. Pet. 24. As a rationale for this modification,
`Petitioner states it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to consider or refer to both K-restoring circuit 110 and
`discriminator 42 logically as a single decryptor and that this would merely
`
`11
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`11 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`be a matter of design tradeoffs, such as signal processing requirements and
`cost. Id. Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Wechselberger, states that if the
`expected sales for the device were sufficiently high, it would have been cost
`effective to design an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”) to
`implement K-restoring circuit 110 and discriminator 42 in one
`semiconductor chip. Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. Patent Owner disagrees and states such
`a combination is not a trivial design tradeoff and that Petitioner fails provide
`evidence that implementing a single decryptor would have been obvious.
`Prelim. Resp. 33. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see In Re Translogic Techn., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The combination of familiar elements according to
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We are persuaded, for purposes
`of this decision, that the combination of the decryptor logic in Guillou into a
`single device was a known method that would have yielded the predictable
`result of similar functionality in a single device.
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge fails
`because Guillou’s message Mi, which contains the operating key K, is not a
`“first encrypted digital control signal portion,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim.
`Resp. 36. Patent Owner argues that the Guillou discloses only that a
`“message is created using a function F with Ci and K as input,” and that
`Guillou fails to “say that K is encrypted.” Id. We are not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s arguments. Although Guillou does not expressly refer to the
`
`12
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`12 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`function F as encryption, Guillou generally refers to an “[e]ncryption and
`decryption means” for charging for services delivered by a text video-
`transmission system. Ex. 1007, 8:5–14. Furthermore, Guillou states “[a]ll
`the messages Mi in force together constitute the information for access
`control associated with the service being broadcast.” Id. at 8:55–57.
`Additionally, the receiving station implements an algorithm, K = GCi(Mi), to
`restore the operating key K used in the emitting station. Id. at 16:1–10.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded sufficiently for purposes of this decision that
`the message Mi, which contains the operating key K, disclosed in Guillou
`constitutes a “first encrypted digital control signal portion.”
`b. Claim 23
`Claim 23 requires “a controller operatively connected to said digital
`detector or said decryptor for controlling said decryptor,” which Petitioner
`argues is taught by the disclosure of Guillou’s decoding circuit 145 and K-
`restoring circuit 110 operatively connected to and controlling the automatic
`decryption means. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:48–58; 10:41–50; 19:4–30;
`19:65–20:52; Figs. 2, 7, 9, 10). Additionally, claim 23 requires “receiving a
`plurality of signals including digital programming,” which Petitioner argues
`is taught by the disclosure of Guillou’s receiver station receiving a plurality
`of signals, including encrypted digital data and an encrypted digital control
`signal message Mi. Pet. 18, 27 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:55–9:12; 17:19–18:51;
`19:42–20:17; 20:40–52; Figs. 7, 9, 10). Claim 23 further requires “detecting
`said encrypted digital data in said at least some of said plurality of signals in
`accordance with a varying pattern of timing or location.” Petitioner argues
`this limitation is taught by the disclosure in Guillou of a new operating key
`K being generated at random every five minutes and the storage of the
`
`13
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`13 of 32
`
`
`
`–s. Pet. 28–y locationsge memoryndexed pagdifferent insages Mi inn spatially
`
`2
`
`IPR22014-0153
`
`
`Patennt 7,801,3004 B1
`
`mess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1007, 8:11
`
`29 (cciting Ex.
`
`
`–14; 8:39––43; 8:55––9:2, 17:39
`
`–43; 18:255–51).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt Owner aargues thatt Petitionerr’s challennge fails forr multiple
`reasons.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`First, Paatent Owneer argues thhat Guillouu fails to teeach the coontroller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recitted in claimm 23. Preliim. Resp. 440. More pparticularlly, Patent OOwner
`
`
`
`
`
`arguues that Pettitioner citees to K-resstoring circcuit 110 as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`decryyptor and tthe controlller. Prelimm. Resp. 4
`
` not persuaaded by
`1. We are
`e as both
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt Owner’s argumennt that K-reestoring cirrcuit 110 caannot serv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an ellement of tthe controlller and thee decryptorr. Figure 110 of Guilllou,
`
`
`
`
`reprooduced bellow, illustrrates an emmbodiment
`
`
`of the archhitecture oof the
`
`
`
`
`
`varioous compoonents of thhe receivinng station 44.
`
`
`both a porrtion of thee
`
`
`
`14
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`14 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`As illustrated above in Figure 10, Guillou discloses that decoding circuit 145
`and K-restoring circuit 110 are in communication with each other, generator
`26’, and discriminator 42. See Pet. 19–20, 30 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:59–
`9:12;16:63–17:15; 20:6–17; 20:40–52; 20:6–21:14, Figs. 7, 9, 10).
`Accordingly, K-restoring circuit 110 receives input from decoding circuit
`145 and also provides the operating key K to generator 26’. See id. Thus,
`we are persuaded for purposes of this decision that K-restoring circuit 110
`can serve as both a portion of the controller and decryptor.
`Second, similar to the arguments raised for claim 1, Patent Owner
`argues that Guillou fails to teach the single decryptor limitation recited in
`claim 23. Prelim. Resp. 43 (“Petitioner[] never identif[ies] a single
`decryptor that performs each of the claimed operations, and instead rel[ies]
`on multiple circuits.”). With respect to the “decryptor” limitation in claim
`23, Petitioner relies upon its allegations of obviousness of the “decryptor”
`limitation in claim 1. Pet. 30. Accordingly, similar to our findings for claim
`1, we are persuaded, for purposes of this decision, that the claimed
`“decryptor” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`view of the decryptor logic in Guillou.
`Third, Patent Owner argues that Guillou fails to teach the claimed
`“detecting said encrypted digital data in said at least some of said plurality of
`signals in accordance with a varying pattern of timing or location.” Prelim.
`Resp. 44. Petitioner relies upon Guillou’s teaching that a “new operating
`key K is generated (and therefore also messages Mi) every five minutes” as
`teaching the claimed “varying pattern of timing,” recited in claim 23.
`Petitioner further argues that Guillou discloses that the system user is in
`control of the service life of key K and it would have been obvious to one of
`
`15
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`15 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`ordinary skill in the art to vary the service life of key K and, thereby vary the
`pattern of timing of the transmission of messages Mi. Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex.
`1006 ¶¶ 58, 69–72; Ex. 1007, 18:52–55). Patent Owner argues that this
`modification would not satisfy the claim limitation because, even if the rate
`at which the operating key K can be modified is changed from 5 minutes to
`1 minute, the system will transmit at a fixed time interval. Prelim. Resp. 45.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because it
`mischaracterizes the Petitioner’s challenge. Petitioner alleges that the
`“system operator may vary the service life of the key K randomly or on an
`as-needed basis.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69). Furthermore, Guillou
`discloses that the messages Mi are calculated as soon as the new operating
`key K is generated. Ex. 1007, 8:44–48. Thus, if a new operating key K is
`generated a varying times, then the message Mi would be calculated at
`varying times. See id. Accordingly, we are persuaded, for purposes of this
`decision, that the claimed “varying pattern of timing” would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the varying operating
`key K disclosed in Guillou.
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that Guillou fails to teach the claim 23
`requirement of “decrypting at least a portion of said digital programming
`using a selected decryption pattern or technique.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19.
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Guillou’s operating key K is not
`“selected” to decrypt because there is no evidence that the subscriber station
`in Guillou chooses an operating key K from alternative possibilities. Prelim.
`Resp. 47. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`“selected” in claim 23 is “to choose between alternatives.” Id. at 19. We do
`not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “selected” in claim
`
`16
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`16 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`23. Claim 23 recites that decryption must occur “using a selected decryption
`pattern or technique based on said step of detecting.” Claim 23 (emphasis
`added). The use of the past tense of the term “select” indicates that the
`pattern or technique has already been chosen and, in fact, the claim requires
`that the “decryption pattern or technique” be “based on said step of
`detecting.” Accordingly, we do not construe the limitation “selected
`decryption pattern or technique” to require choosing from a set of alternative
`possibilities but rather that it be the “selected decryption pattern or
`technique” based on the previous step of detecting. Petitioner alleges that
`the step of detecting in claim 23 is taught by the disclosure in Guillou of
`passing the message Mi to a decryptor including K-restoring circuit 110 to
`decrypt the operating key K. Pet. 28. Accordingly, we are persuaded, for
`purposes of this decision, that the claimed “selected decryption pattern or
`technique” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`view of the cited disclosure in Guillou regarding operating key K.
`c. Claim 24
`Claim 24 requires “detecting data of said plurality of signal types and
`transferring said detected data to a processor,” which Petitioner argues is
`taught by the disclosure in Guillou of message Mi and encrypted digital data
`octets Dj being detected by video-data-separator 142, selection circuit 143,
`decoding circuit 145, K-restoring circuit 110, and automatic decryption
`means 38. Pet. 18, 34 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:55–9:12; 17:19–18:51; 19:42–
`20:17; 20:40–52; Figs. 7, 9, 10). Furthermore, claim 24 requires
`“identifying or locating said specific digital instruct-to-decrypt signal by
`processing said detected data in accordance with said stored information.”
`Petitioner alleges that this claim limitation is taught by the disclosure in
`
`17
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`17 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`Guillou of data octets Dj that do not include control codes and different
`octets having a “0” in both columns 0 and 1, which are digital instruct-to-
`decrypt signals that are identified by the discriminator 42. Pet. 17, 34 (citing
`Ex. 1007, 8:55–58; 8:59–9:12; 15:42–16:17; 16:63–17:15; 18:19–59; 20:53–
`21:14; Figs. 2, 7, 8, 10). Specifically, Petitioner relies upon the following
`disclosure in Guillou: “‘[A]utomatic decryption means 38 comprising: (i) a
`discriminator 42 with an input receiving the encrypted octets; this
`discriminator is adapted to distinguish, among these coded octets, those
`wherein the 7th and 6th binary elements are zero.’” Pet. 33 (quoting Ex.
`1007, 10:41–50).
`Patent Owner argues that Guillou fails to teach the “processor,”
`recited in claim 24 because the discriminator 42 and XOR gate 46, included
`in automatic decryption means 38, are not “processing information by
`operating on data according to instructions.” Prelim. Resp. 49. We are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner arguments. First, as discussed above, we do not
`adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “processor” but construe a
`“processor” to mean “a device that operates on data.” Second, for purposes
`of this decision, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that
`discriminator 42 is distinguishing among coded octets by analyzing the
`binary elements in those coded octets and routing the data accordingly; thus,
`discriminator 42 is operating on data. See Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 10:41–
`50). Additionally, Petitioner argues that to the extent Guillou is alleged to
`lack a “processor,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to replace discriminator 42 with a “processor” to perform the
`function of identifying and distinguishing between the encrypted and clear
`digital data octets. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73–74). Accordingly, we are
`
`18
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`18 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`persuaded, for purposes of this decision, that the “processor,” recited in
`claim 24 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view
`of the cited disclosure in Guillou.
`In opposing the challenge to claim 24, Patent Owner also argues that
`Guillou fails to teach or suggest the following claim recitation: “storing a
`procedure for locating or identifying a specific digital instruct-to-decrypt
`signal in a plurality of signal types.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Patent Owner argues
`that Petitioner fails to identify the stored procedure in Guillou because
`Guillou is a hard-wired system without any stored software to control
`operations. Id. Petitioner argues, however, that Guillou inherently discloses
`“storing a procedure” because the system has a procedure for locating or
`identifying a specific digital instruct-to-decrypt signal. Pet. 35–36 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 58). Specifically, decoding circuit 145 and automatic decryption
`means 38, including discriminator 42 and logic circuit 46, work together to
`identify which data octets Dj need to be decrypted. Id. Patent Owner
`counters that this logic disclosed in Guillou fails to provide “for the storage
`of software to control operations required by claim 24.” Prelim. Resp. 51.
`We disagree because, among other things, Patent Owner’s characterization
`of the requirements of claim 24 are not commensurate with the scope of the
`claim. Claim 24 does not require the storage of software but rather “storing
`a procedure,” which encompasses the procedures used by Guillou’s
`automatic decryption means 38 to identify data octets Dj that need to be
`decrypted. Accordingly, we are persuaded, for purposes of this decision,
`that “storing a procedure” recited in claim 24 would have been obvious to
`one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the cited disclosure in Guillou.
`
`19
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1019
`19 of 32
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01532
`Patent 7,801,304 B1
`
`
`d. Claims 11 and 18
`Claim 11 requires that the programming and signal necessary for
`decryption recited in the claim must be received from different sources. For
`this claim, Petitioner relies upon the disclosure in Guillou that the
`subscriber’s keys Ci are received from subscription-card-charging station
`112 and subscription center 100 and the programming is received from a
`different source, the emitting center 2. Pet 25 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:5–38;
`15:46–16:38; 16:55–62; 20:40–57; Figs. 7, 10). Patent Owner does not
`rebut specifically this challenge.
`Claim 18 requires that the digital programming recited in claim 1
`include computer data. For this claim, Petitioner argues that the encrypted
`digital signals received via digital line 18 could include computer data and,
`in fact, Guillou discloses that the disclosed broadcasting system could be
`applied to other systems, such as Ceefax, Oracle, ViewData,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
