By: Cono A. Carrano (ccarrano@akingump.com)
`
`David C. Vondle (dvondle@akingump.com)
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 887-4000
`Fax: (202) 887-4288
`Email: ccarrano@akingump.com,
`
` dvondle@akingump.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________________
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc.
`Petitioner
`v.
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`__________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,650
`
`

`
`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, 4, 18, 32, 33) ....................2
`(2)
`“digital video signals” (claims 18, 32, 33) .......................................5
`(3)
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims) ...............................................6
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable ..................................7
`E.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .....................................7
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CLAIMS OF THE ’650
`PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................8
`A.
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’650 Patent .........................................8
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’650 Patent .......................................10
`C.
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability ...............................................................10
`D.
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability ............................... 11
`Ground 1:
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Mustafa ........................12
`(1)
`Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................12
`(2)
`Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................19
`(3)
`Claim 4 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ...................................................20
`(4)
`Claim 18 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................21
`(5)
`Claim 32 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................26
`(6)
`Claim 33 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .................................................27
`Ground 2:
`In the Alternative to Ground 1, the Challenged Claims are
`Obvious Based on Mustafa in View of Iijima ............................................27
`(1)
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Mustafa in
`View of Iijima ................................................................................30
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Campbell in View
`Ground 3:
`of the Knowledge of A POSITA ................................................................31
`(1)
`Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................31
`(2)
`Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................37
`(3)
`Claim 4 Is Invalid Over Campbell .................................................38
`(4)
`Claim 18 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................39
`
`i
`
`

`
`(5)
`Claim 32 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................42
`(6)
`Claim 33 Is Invalid Over Campbell ...............................................43
`In the Alternative to Ground 3, the Challenged Claims are
`Ground 4:
`Obvious Based on Campbell in View of Widergren ..................................43
`(1)
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Campbell in
`View of Widergren .........................................................................45
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .........................................46
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .......................................................46
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................................46
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) Lead and Back-Up Counsel ...............................................47
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ..........................................................47
`E.
`Certification of Compliance with Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..............47
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................................................................47
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...................................................48
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”) requests Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`18, 32, and 33 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650 (“the ’650
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`In 1981, the named inventors of the ’650 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
`
`extended 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. 1002 at 1-30; Ex. 1006 at 9. The ’650 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`
`VIZIO requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’650 Patent.
`
`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 that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the Sept. 11, 1987 priority
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`date. Ex. 1008 at 6. For the purposes of this IPR only, VIZIO assumes the
`
`Sept. 11, 1987 priority date.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to Mustafa, et al. (“Mustafa”) (Ex. 1009), filed
`
`April 30, 1987, and prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).1
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,215,369 to Iijima (“Iijima”) (Ex. 1010), issued July 29,
`
`1980, and prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to Campbell, et al. (“Campbell”) (Ex. 1011),
`
`issued Aug. 20, 1985, and prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”) (Ex. 1012),
`
`issued Nov. 24, 1981, and prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`VIZIO requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’650Patent
`Mustafa renders obvious the Challenged Claims under § 103.
`Mustafa, in view of Iijima, renders obvious the Challenged Claims under
`§ 103.
`Campbell renders obvious the Challenged Claims under § 103.
`Campbell, in view of Widergren, renders obvious the Challenged Claims
`under § 103.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`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, 4, 18, 32, 33)
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA versions applicable here.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`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 validity of the U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,752,649 (“the ’649 Patent”). See Ex. 1017 at 14-16.
`
`The term “digital television signal” did not have a well-known meaning in
`
`the art. Ex. 1001 ¶ 78. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) reading
`
`the ’650 Patent would have recognized that television signals that included both
`
`digital and analog components constitute “digital television signals.” Ex. 1002 at
`
`Figs. 1, 2A, 10:43-11:6, 18:54-61, 18:64-19:14; Ex. 1001 ¶ 78. To the extent there
`
`is any ambiguity, the ’490 Patent (a parent to the ’650 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.
`
`Because of the lack of a well-known meaning for this term, the Examiner asked
`
`“[w]hat do applicants mean by ‘digital television’?” during prosecution and
`
`rejected several claims under § 112 based on the use of “digital television.” Ex.
`
`1013 at 3. In response, the applicant stated the claimed digital television signals
`
`merely required “the usage of digital data in a television signal.” Ex. 1014 at 30.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`The applicant provided further detail in responding to similar rejections
`
`during prosecution of the ’649 Patent, which is closely related to the ’650 Patent
`
`and which shares a common specification and descends directly from the same
`
`parent (US Patent No. 7,856,650). There, the applicant responded to the
`
`Examiner’s question regarding the meaning of “digital television” 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.
`
`1015 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 concluded that “the audio
`
`portion, video portion and signal portion of the television programming
`
`transmission may be entirely or partially encoded in digital format, separately
`
`defined from analog format, thereby comprising ‘digital television.’” Id.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The construction is also consistent with the claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,559,635 (the “’635 Patent”), a patent in the same family as the ’650 Patent with
`
`the same specification. For example, claim 18 of the ’635 Patent recites “wherein
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`the at least one encrypted digital information transmission is unaccompanied by
`
`any non-digital information transmission.” Ex. 1016 at claim 18. Absent the “is
`
`unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission” language, the
`
`“encrypted digital information transmission” may otherwise include both digital
`
`and non-digital information. Similarly, the Challenged Claims are without
`
`qualifying language and therefore may include both digital and non-digital
`
`information.2
`
`“digital video signals” (claims 18, 32, 33)
`
`(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
`
`transmission signal.” VIZIO’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s
`
`construction of this term in the Apple IPR. See Ex. 1017 at 18-19.
`
`The Board in the Apple IPR found the specification 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. 1017 at 18. Further, as explained in Section C.1 above, the
`
`applicant stated during prosecution that the ’650 Patent discloses embedding
`
`
`2 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital television signals” means “television
`
`programming that includes digital audio and digital video signals.” Ex. 1018 at 3.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`digital signals in portions of analog video. See Section C.1. Therefore, the BRI of
`
`digital video signals encompasses “digital information embedded in the video
`
`portion of a television transmission signal.” Id.3
`
`“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
`
`data” in the Apple IPR. Ex. 1017 at 11-12. 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.” Id.
`
`This construction is consistent with the plain meaning, in the context of the
`
`’650 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.
`
`
`3 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital video signals” means “video signals
`
`encoded as discrete numerical values instead of an analog representation.” Ex.
`
`1018 at 3.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`See Ex. 1002 at 135:29-33 (decoders 30 and 40 process information), 75:60-62
`
`(buffer/comparators 8 process information).
`
`In addition, in an IPR proceeding addressing a related PMC patent, the
`
`Board properly ruled that a “processor” is “a device that operates on data.” Ex.
`
`1019 at 7-8.
`
`Further, PMC proposed a similar construction in the Amazon district court
`
`litigation for a related patent having the same specification: “any device capable of
`
`performing operations on data.” Ex. 1020 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. 1021 at 14-16.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable
`
`How the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is detailed in Section II.D.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`An Appendix of Exhibits is attached. Relevance of the evidence, including
`
`identifying the specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, may be
`
`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.
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THE CLAIMS OF THE
`’650 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’650 Patent
`
`The ’650 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. 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 ’650 Patent specification.
`
`Claim 1 is an example of the Challenged Claims:
`
`1. A method of television signal processing at a receiver
`
`station, said receiver station having a plurality of
`
`processors and a digital switch, said method
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`[a] receiving an information transmission including
`
`digital television signals and a message stream;
`
`[b] detecting said message stream in said information
`
`transmission;
`
`[c] programming a control processor to control said
`
`digital switch on the basis of information included
`
`in said message stream;
`
`[d] inputting a plurality of commands received in said
`
`message stream to a said control processor;
`
`[e] selecting a plurality of said digital television signals
`
`included
`
`in said
`
`information
`
`transmission
`
`in
`
`response to said commands, said selected plurality
`
`of said digital television signals being information
`
`segments of said information transmission;
`
`[f] controlling said digital switch to communicate each
`
`one of said selected plurality of said digital
`
`television signals to a signal processor; and
`
`[g] processing said selected plurality of said digital
`
`television signals to communicate video and audio
`
`signals to a television monitor.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’650 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/460,711, which led to the ’650 Patent, was filed on
`
`June 2, 1995. Ex. 1002 at Cover. It claims priority to a series of continuation and
`
`continuation-in-part applications beginning with U.S. Patent Appl. No. 06/317,510,
`
`which was filed on November 3, 1981, and issued as the ’490 Patent. Id. The ’650
`
`Patent did not issue until July 6, 2010. Id.
`
`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. 1013 at 3; Ex. 1006 at 13-18; Ex. 1001 ¶ 62. The applicant
`
`responded that “digital television” merely required “the usage of digital data in a
`
`television signal.” Ex. 1014 at 30. The applicant subsequently amended the claims
`
`at the Examiner’s recommendation. Ex. 1022 at 2; Ex. 1023 at 6-10. Application
`
`claims 2, 7, 9, 57, 96, and 101 correspond to issued claims 1, 2, 4, 18, 32, and 33,
`
`respectively. Ex. 1024. After the applicant accepted the Examiner’s proposed
`
`claim amendments, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. See generally, Ex.
`
`1001 at ¶¶ 66-71.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 1: Mustafa teaches a system where user terminals receive video,
`
`digital audio, and digital control information. Mustafa in view of the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Ground 2:
`
` In the alternative to Ground 1, if “digital television
`
`signals”/”digital video signals” require the signals to be completely digital, then
`
`Mustafa in view of Iijima renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Iijima describes
`
`a digital transmission system for television signals.
`
`Ground 3: 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 4:
`
` In the alternative to Ground 3, 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.
`
`Mustafa was not cited during prosecution. Iijima, Campbell, and Widergren
`
`were among thousands of references cited during prosecution in an Information
`
`Disclosure Statement, but were not discussed by either the applicant or the
`
`Examiner.
`
`D.
`
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`VIZIO provides a detailed discussion of how the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’650 Patent are rendered obvious.
`
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Mustafa
`(1) Claim 1 Is Invalid Over Mustafa
`a. Mustafa renders obvious claim 1[preamble]: “a
`method of television signal processing at a receiver station, said
`receiver station having a plurality of processors and a digital
`switch.”
`
`Mustafa renders obvious a method of television signal processing at a
`
`receiver station (i.e., terminal 12 and television receiver or monitor 35), said
`
`receiver station having a plurality of processors (i.e., memory bank 62, output
`
`register, video D/A converter 60B, CSG frame jump correction 63, and character
`
`generator 64 (collectively, the “video output processor”) and audio RAM 50, audio
`
`D/A converter 51, audio control 43, attenuator 42, and sound summer 44
`
`(collectively, the “audio output processor”)). Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 109-112. Mustafa
`
`discloses Terminal 12 (which receives standard television formatted signals that
`
`contain video frames, digitally encoded audio frames, and encoded audio
`
`channels), and television receiver or monitor 35, which presents the received
`
`programming. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 3:32-35, 6:23-24, 6:34-45. Mustafa further
`
`discloses that VBI Processor 46 receives a plurality of digital input signals and
`
`performs the function of the recited digital switch by outputting the received digital
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`inputs the video and/or audio output processors, as appropriate. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5,
`
`5:41-46, 6:49-7:35; Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 113-117.
`
`b. Mustafa discloses claim 1[a]: “receiving an
`information transmission including digital television signals and a
`message stream.”
`
`Mustafa discloses
`
`receiving an
`
`information
`
`transmission
`
`(i.e.,
`
`the
`
`audio/video frame data) including digital television signals (i.e., the second group
`
`of the audio/video frame data, which includes video and digital audio data) and a
`
`message stream (i.e., the first group of the audio/video frame data, which includes
`
`field sync, error check, terminal address, mode code, and background sound
`
`control information). Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3-5, 6:3-8, 6:49-7:44, 8:22-37; Ex. 1001 ¶¶
`
`118-126. Mustafa discloses that terminal 12 receives television signals (i.e., an
`
`information transmission) through “Cable In” 13. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 1, 2:64-68,
`
`3:33-34, 6:4245; Ex. 1001 ¶ 118-124.
`
`Fig. 3 represents the video and audio frames used to carry information to
`
`terminal 12. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3, 2:555-57. The video and audio frames of Fig. 3
`
`are divided into two sections: the first group of lines carrying auxiliary
`
`information, and the second group of active lines carrying audio or video data. Ex.
`
`1009 at Fig. 3, 3:40-44, 5:41-44. The first group of frame data (i.e., a message
`
`stream) consists of lines 1-15 and 263-278 and contains auxiliary information such
`
`as a terminal address, used to determine if the frame is addressed to a particular
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`terminal, and a mode code, which identifies the frame as either video or audio. Ex.
`
`1009 at Fig. 3, 3:60-64, 7:4-8, Ex. 1001 ¶ 123. The second group of frame data
`
`(i.e., digital television signals) consists of lines 16-262, 279-525 and contains
`
`digitally encoded audio that may be particular to video frames or video data such
`
`as still frames of text, pictures, or other images. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3, 3:13-20, 3:33-
`
`35, 4:64-65, 6:4245.
`
`c. Mustafa discloses claim 1[b]: “detecting said message
`stream in said information transmission.”
`Mustafa discloses detecting said message stream (i.e., the first group of the
`
`audio/video frame data is detected by clock generator and data extraction circuit
`
`59) in said information transmission (i.e., audio/video frame data). Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 127-31. Mustafa discloses that clock generator and data extraction circuit 59
`
`detects all frame lines by number, including the message stream (i.e., lines 1-15
`
`and 263-278), using the horizontal driver, vertical driver, and color subcarrier burst
`
`flag. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:8-21, 8:10-21; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127-31.
`
`d. Mustafa renders obvious claim 1[c]: “programming a
`control processor to control said digital switch on the basis of
`information included in said message stream.”
`
`Mustafa renders obvious programming a control processor (i.e., VBI
`
`processor 46, error detect 47, mode/tag register 48) to control said digital switch
`
`(i.e., VBI Processor 46) on the basis of information included in said message
`
`stream (i.e., the VBI Processor is configured to output different information in the
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`message stream to the plurality of processors that comprise the audio output and
`
`video output processors). Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:17-44, 8:22-36; Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 132-
`
`35.
`
`e. Mustafa discloses claim 1[d]: “inputting a plurality of
`commands received in said message stream to a said control
`processor.”
`
`Mustafa discloses inputting a plurality of commands (i.e., line 12 of the first
`
`group of the audio/video frame data) received in said message stream (the first
`
`group of the audio/video frame data) to a said control processor. (i.e., VBI
`
`Correlation Circuits, including VBI processor 46 and mode/tag register 48). Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 136-38. Mustafa discloses that line 12 of the first group of the audio/video
`
`frame data (i.e., the message stream) is “read out and the address and mode (video
`
`or audio) bits are connected over to the [VBI correlation circuit, which includes]
`
`VBI processor 46, a mode/tag register 48 and error detector 47” where the
`
`information is processed to identify if the frame is addressed to the terminal and
`
`the type of frame (i.e. audio or video), and its sequence with other frames so the
`
`frame can be processed appropriately. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 3, 3:60-64, 5:41-46, 7:18-
`
`24; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 136-38.
`
`f. Mustafa discloses claim 1[e]: “selecting a plurality of
`said digital television signals included in said information
`transmission in response to said commands, said selected plurality
`of said digital television signals being information segments of
`said information transmission.”
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Mustafa discloses selecting a plurality of said digital television signals (i.e.,
`
`the video and digital audio data contained in the second group of the audio/video
`
`frame data) included in said information transmission in response to said
`
`commands (i.e., video frame data is processed differently than audio frame data
`
`based on the result of the mode code comparison), said selected plurality of said
`
`digital television signals being information segments of said information
`
`transmission. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 139-41. Mustafa discloses the received frame is
`
`processed based on whether an audio or video mode code is received. Ex. 1009 at
`
`7:21-24, 7:29-31. If the received mode code indicates the received frame is an
`
`audio frame, based on matching one of the known four potential mode codes, the
`
`received audio data (from the second section of the received audio frame) is
`
`processed by the “audio output processor,” i.e., the received audio data is played
`
`out from RAM 50 through D/A converter 51 and output to sound summer 44,
`
`which is connected to the audio input of channel 3 modulator 45. Ex. 1009 at Fig.
`
`5, 7:36-44; Ex. 1001 ¶ 148. The components that make up the “audio output
`
`processor” are collectively a processor because they operate on the audio data. Ex.
`
`1001 ¶¶ 111-12.
`
`If the received mode code indicates the received frame is a video frame,
`
`based on matching one of the known four potential mode codes, the received video
`
`frame data (from the second section of the received video frame) is processed by
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`the “video output processor,” i.e., the received video frame is output from memory
`
`bank 62 through output register and D/A converter 60B to CSG frame jump
`
`correction 63 and then to character generator 64, which is connected to the video
`
`input of channel 3 modulator 45. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:29-31, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001
`
`¶ 155. The components that make up the “video output processor” are collectively
`
`a processor because they operate on the video data. Ex. 1001 ¶149.
`
`Thus, the video and digital audio data for a particular frame is input to the
`
`“video output processor” or the “audio output processor” based on the received
`
`mode code matching the video or audio code. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 139-41.
`
`g. Mustafa renders obvious claim 1[f]: “controlling said
`digital switch to communicate each one of said selected plurality
`of said digital television signals to a signal processor.”
`
`Mustafa renders obvious controlling said digital switch (i.e., VBI Processor
`
`46) to communicate each one of said selected plurality of said digital television
`
`signals (i.e., the video and digital audio data contained in the second group of the
`
`audio/video frame data) to a signal processor (i.e., memory bank 62, output
`
`register, video D/A converter 60B, CSG frame jump correction 63, and character
`
`generator 64 (collectively “video output processor”) and audio RAM 50, audio
`
`D/A converter 51, and sound summer 44 (collectively “audio output processor”)).
`
`As discussed above regarding claim 1[e], Mustafa discloses the received frame is
`
`processed based on whether an audio or video mode code is received. Ex. 1009 at
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`7:21-24, 7:29-31. See claim 1[e], supra. Mustafa renders obvious that VBI
`
`Processor 46 receives the message stream and performs the function of the recited
`
`digital switch by directing the video and digital audio data contained in the second
`
`group of the audio/video frame data to be communicated to the video and audio
`
`output processors, as appropriate. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 5:41-46, 6:49-7:35; Ex. 1001
`
`at ¶¶ 142-49.
`
`h. Mustafa discloses claim 1[g]: “processing said selected
`plurality of said digital television signals to communicate video
`and audio signals to a television monitor.”
`
`Mustafa discloses processing said selected plurality of said digital television
`
`signals to communicate video and audio signals to a television monitor. Mustafa
`
`suggests processing of said digital television signals (i.e., the video and digital
`
`audio data contained in the second group of the audio/video frame data)
`
`simultaneously at two or more of said plurality of processors (i.e., memory bank
`
`62, output register, video D/A converter 60B, CSG frame jump correction 63, and
`
`character generator 64 (collectively “video output processor”) and audio RAM 50,
`
`audio D/A converter 51, and sound summer 44 (collectively “audio output
`
`processor”)) process the data simultaneously in order to have the audio accompany
`
`the associated video. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 150-53. Mustafa discloses that audio frames
`
`may be associated with particular video frames (such as a voiced narrative or
`
`instructions). Ex. 1009 at 3:24-31, 4:64-65. As shown in Fig. 5 and described for
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`claim 39[f], when an audio frame is received it is processed by the “audio output
`
`processor” and when a video frame is received it is processed by the “video output
`
`processor.” Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 7:29-31, 7:36-44, 8:22-42; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 148-49; see
`
`claim 39[f].
`
`Mustafa discloses displaying the television programming included in said
`
`digital television signals on a television monitor. Ex. 1001 ¶108. As shown in Fig.
`
`5, Mustafa discloses that terminal 12 processes video frames and transmits the
`
`video frames to television or monitor 35 for display. Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5, 3:16-18,
`
`6:34-38; Ex. 1001 ¶ 108.
`
`(2) Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Mustafa
`a. Mustafa discloses claim 2[a]: “said television signals
`include part of a television program and generating a balance of
`said television program.”
`
`Mustafa discloses that said television signals include part of a television
`
`program (i.e., the video signals of the television program received by the user
`
`device) and generating a balance of said television