IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Harvey et al.
`In re Patent of:
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0029IP1
`7,752,649
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`July 6, 2010
`Issue Date:
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/449,097
`
`Filing Date:
`May 24, 1995
`Title:
`SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,752,649 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-
`42.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8 ................................. 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 2 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`E. 
`Payment ................................................................................................. 3 
`F. 
`Requirements for IPR ............................................................................ 3 
`1. 
`Grounds for Standing .................................................................. 3 
`2. 
`Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 3 
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 5 
`A.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘649 PATENT .................................................. 5 
`3. 
`Description of the Alleged Invention .......................................... 5 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 7 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ..................... 8 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 8 
`A. 
`“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) ................................................................................................... 9 
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97) .......................................... 11 
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims) ................................................... 12 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable ............ 13 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge ................ 14 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`
`IV.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘649 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ......................... 14 
`A.  Overview of References Relied Upon ................................................. 14 
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`GROUND 1: The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over Mustafa ...... 15 
`1. 
`Claim 1 is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................... 15 
`2. 
`Claim 2 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .............................................. 22 
`3. 
`Claim 3 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .............................................. 22 
`4. 
`Claim 7 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .............................................. 23 
`5. 
`Claim 8 Is Invalid Over Mustafa .............................................. 24 
`6. 
`Claim 11 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 24 
`7. 
`Claim 13 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 24 
`8. 
`Claim 26 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 25 
`9. 
`Claim 27 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 26 
`10.  Claim 28 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 26 
`11.  Claim 29 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 27 
`12.  Claim 39 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 28 
`13.  Claim 41 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 36 
`14.  Claim 42 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 36 
`15.  Claim 45 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 37 
`16.  Claim 48 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 37 
`17.  Claim 49 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 38 
`18.  Claim 50 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 39 
`19.  Claim 51 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 39 
`20.  Claim 62 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 39 
`21.  Claim 63 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 42 
`22.  Claim 64 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 43 
`23.  Claim 67 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 43 
`24.  Claim 78 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 46 
`25.  Claim 82 Is Invalid Over Mustafa. ........................................... 51 
`26.  Claim 83 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 52 
`27.  Claim 84 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 52 
`28.  Claim 88 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 53 
`29.  Claim 90 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 53 
`30.  Claim 91 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 54 
`31.  Claim 92 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 54 
`32.  Claim 93 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 55 
`33.  Claim 94 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 55 
`34.  Claim 97 Is Invalid Over Mustafa ............................................ 56 
`Ground 2: In the Alternative to Ground 1, the Challenged Claims are
`Obvious Based on Mustafa in View of Iijima ..................................... 60 
`
`ii
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Mustafa in
`View of Iijima ........................................................................... 63 
`V.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 63 
`
`1. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001
`
`EXHIBITS
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,752,649
`
`SAMSUNG-1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649 to Harvey, et al.
`
`SAMSUNG-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 to Harvey, et al
`
`SAMSUNG-1004
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 8/27/1996 Non-Final
`Rejection
`
`SAMSUNG-1005
`
`Continuity Data of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 07/096,096
`
`SAMSUNG-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650 to Harvey, et al.
`
`SAMSUNG-1007
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 4/2/1998 Non-Final
`Rejection
`
`SAMSUNG-1008
`
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, Personalized Media
`Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01754-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Texas Feb. 8, 2016)
`
`SAMSUNG-1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to Mustafa, et al.
`
`SAMSUNG-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,215,369 to Iijima
`
`SAMSUNG-1011
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 10/2/1998
`Amendment
`
`SAMSUNG-1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 to Harvey, et al.
`
`SAMSUNG-1013
`
`Claim Construction Order in Apple v. PMC IPR2016-
`00753 re 649 patent
`
`iv
`
`

`
`SAMSUNG-1014
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Plaintiff’s Identification of Claim Terms Requiring
`Construction, Personalized Media Communications,
`LLC. v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP
`(E.D.T.X. Jan. 27, 2016)
`
`SAMSUNG-1015
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 1/27/1997 Applicant
`Arguments and Remarks Made in an Amendment
`
`SAMSUNG-1016
`
`SAMSUNG-1017
`
`SAMSUNG-1018
`
`Institution Decision, Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personalized
`Media Communications, LC, IPR2014-01532 (Paper 8)
`(Mar. 31, 2015)
`
`Plaintiff’s Joint Claim Construction Submission Exhibit
`A, Personalized Media Communications, LLC. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-01608-RGA (D.
`Del. Sept. 23, 2014).
`
`Personalized Media Communications LLC v. Zynga,
`Inc., C.A. No. 2:12-cv-68-JRG-RSP, 2013 WL 4630447
`(E.D.T.X. Aug. 28, 2013).
`
`SAMSUNG-1019
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 4/6/1999 Claims
`
`SAMSUNG-1020
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 2/1/2010 Index of
`Claims
`
`SAMSUNG-1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to Campbell, et al.
`
`SAMSUNG-1022
`
`Apple IPR Notice of Institution
`
`SAMSUNG-1023
`
`Ishiguro, T., et al., Composite Interframe Coding of
`NTSC Color Television Signals, Proc. Nat. Telecommun.
`Conf., Dallas, TX, Dec. 1976, pp. 6.4.1-5
`
`SAMSUNG-1024
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`
`SAMSUNG-1025
`
`Earley, A., Closed Captioning with the Line 21 System,
`National Captioning Institute, pp. 180-184
`
`v
`
`

`
`SAMSUNG-1026
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 12/2/2009 Ex Parte
`Quayle Action
`
`SAMSUNG-1027
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 2/1/2010 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`SAMSUNG-1028
`
`Radio Shack 1983-1986 Catalogs
`
`SAMSUNG-1029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to Widergren, et al.
`
`SAMSUNG-1030
`
`Intel 8051 Datasheet
`
`SAMSUNG-1031
`
`Intel 8051 AP Notes
`
`SAMSUNG-1032
`
`PCT Application No. WO1981002961 (“Campbell”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1033
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 06/135,987
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Samsung”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.123 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”). As explained in this petition, Petitioner demonstrates a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable.
`
`Indeed, the Challenged Claims are shown unpatentable based on teachings set forth
`
`in at least the references presented in this petition. Moreover, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests institution of this IPR, and cancelation of the Challenged
`
`Claims as unpatentable.
`
`In 1981, the named inventors of the ‘649 patent filed U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 06/317,510, issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ‘490 patent) to
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”). Ex.1003. In 1987, PMC
`
`filed a continuation-in-part of that application, which discarded the 22 column
`
`specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification spanning over 300
`
`columns. Ex.1002. In the months leading up to June 8, 1995, PMC filed 328
`
`continuations from that 1987 application, having tens of thousands of claims and
`
`deluging the Patent Office with thousands of prior art references. Ex.1004, 2;
`
`Ex.1005; Ex.1006, 1-31; Ex 1007, 10. The ‘649 patent is one of the patents that
`
`1
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`issued from that flurry of activity.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Patent Owner filed a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘649 patent in a
`
`lawsuit against Petitioner in the Eastern District of Texas (Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., Civil Action
`
`No. 2:15-cv-01754). The complaint was filed November 10, 2015.
`
`Petitioner petitions for IPR of related patents in IPR control nos. IPR2017-
`
`00288-00295. Petitions for IPR of related patents have also been submitted by
`
`Vizio (IPR control nos. IPR2017-00141-00143), and Apple Inc. (IPR2016-00753).
`
`C. Counsel
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`Backup Counsel
`Thomas Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`Andrew Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`
`Lead Counsel
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email: IPR39843-0029IP1@fr.com
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`Please address all correspondence/service to the address listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR39843-0029IP1@fr.com,
`
`with a copy to PTABInbound@fr.com, renner@fr.com, rozylowicz@fr.com, and
`
`patrick@fr.com.
`
`E.
`
`Payment
`
`Petitioner authorizes charge of necessary fees to Deposit Acct. 06-1050.
`
`F. Requirements for IPR
`
`1. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘649 Patent is available for IPR. The Patent
`
`Owner filed suit on November 10, 2015, in a case captioned as Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01754-JRG-RSP in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This Petition is being filed within one year
`
`of service of a complaint against Petitioner, which occurred on November 18,
`
`2015. Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting this review of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the following grounds.
`
`2. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests a IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth
`
`in the table shown below, and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be
`
`found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under
`
`3
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`the statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of detailed
`
`description that follows, indicating where each element can be found in the cited
`
`prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional explanation and support for
`
`each ground of rejection is set forth in SAMSUNG 1001, Declaration of Stuart
`
`Lipoff, referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Ground
`
`‘649 Patent Claims
`
`Ground
`
`All Challenged Claims
`
`Mustafa renders obvious the
`
`Challenged Claims under § 103.
`
`All Challenged Claims Mustafa, in view of Iijima, renders
`
`obvious the Challenged Claims under
`
`§103.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`The ’649 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 08/449,097 (the ‘097
`
`App.), which was filed on May 24, 1995, and claims priority through a string of
`
`continuation applications to September 11, 1987. In a document served on
`
`February 8, 2016 in the corresponding district court action, Patent Owner
`
`contended that the ’649 Patent should be entitled to the priority of U.S. Patent
`
`Application 07/096,096, which was filed on September 11, 1987. Ex.1008, 10.
`
`Therefore, the earliest priority date to which the ’649 Patent should be entitled is
`
`4
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`September 11, 1987. As shown below, each reference pre-dates this date and
`
`qualifies as prior artEx.:
`
`Reference
`4,789,895 to
`
`Mustafa, et al.
`
`(Ex 1009)
`
`Date
`Filed April 30, 1987
`
`Prior art §
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)1
`
`4,215,369 to
`
`Issued July 29, 1980
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Iijima (Ex 1010)
`
`
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘649 PATENT
`
`3.
`Description of the Alleged Invention
`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, Face, Abstr.; Ex.1001 ¶32. The Challenged Claims
`
`relate to methods of processing television and/or video signals at receiver stations.
`
`Ex.1002, Claims 1, 39, 62, 67, 78, and 97. A receiver accepts a conventional
`
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 are to the pre-AIA versions applicable here.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`television broadcast transmission via a conventional antenna. Ex.1002, 10:44-46.
`
`Digital information, including information that causes the receiver to perform
`
`particular functions, is embedded in the broadcast. Ex.1002, 7:51-63, 23:34-37. A
`
`TV connected to the receiver presents received video and audio information.
`
`Ex.1002, Fig. 1, 11:20-23. Aside from the general description above, the
`
`Challenged Claims are not embodied in any specific example in the ’649 Patent
`
`specification.
`
`Claim 39 is an example of the Challenged Claims:
`39. A method of processing signals in a television receiver,
`said television receiver having a plurality of processors, said method
`comprising the steps of:
`[a] receiving an information transmission including digital
`television signals and a message stream;
`[b] detecting said message stream in said information
`transmission;
`[c] inputting at least a first portion of said message stream to a
`control processor;
`[d] selecting control information in said at least a first portion
`of said message stream and communicating said selected control
`information to at least one register memory;
`[e] comparing stored function invoking data to the contents of
`said at least one register memory;
`[f] inputting said digital television signals to said plurality of
`processors on the basis of one or more matches;
`
`6
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`[g] processing of said digital television signals simultaneously
`at two or more of said plurality of processors; and displaying
`television programming included in said digital television signals.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/449,097, which led to the ’649 Patent, was
`
`filed on May 24, 1995. Ex.1002, Cover. It claims priority to a series of
`
`continuation and continuation-in-part applications ending with U.S. Patent Appl.
`
`No. 06/317,510, filed on November 3, 1981 and issued as the ’490 Patent.
`
`Ex.1002, Cover. The ’649 Patent did not issue until July 6, 2010. Ex.1002, Cover.
`
`Initially, the Examiner rejected pending claim 2 under § 112, paragraph 1,
`
`because the meaning of “digital television” was unclear, and the means used to
`
`transmit digitally formatted television signals were different from the means used
`
`to transmit analog television signals and the applicant only disclosed “transmit[ing]
`
`over the same TV channel that was used to carry conventional analog TV
`
`broadcasts.” Ex.1004, 3; Ex.1007, 13-18; Ex.1001 ¶58. The applicant responded
`
`that “digital television” includes a television transmission that is entirely or
`
`partially encoded in digital format. Ex.1011, 34-35. Subsequently, the applicant
`
`amended the claims to add claims 56-108. Ex.1019, 16-30. Application claims 56,
`
`57, 67 and 72 correspond to issued claims 39, 54, 62 and 67, respectively. Ex.1020.
`
`After the applicant accepted the Examiner’s proposed claim amendments, the
`
`7
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. See, Ex.1001, ¶¶54-63.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ‘649 Patent
`
`(hereinafter a “POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor of Science or Art Degree (or
`
`higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer,
`
`or software technologies, or related field, and two years of experience in
`
`communications devices and systems. Ex.1001, ¶¶64-68. Additional education or
`
`industrial experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of
`
`the requirements stated above. Id.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The claims of the ’649 Patent should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. Pursuant to PTO regulations, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent . . .
`
`shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (The regulation calling for the
`
`use of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) “represents a reasonable
`
`exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent
`
`Office.”). This means that the claim terms of the ’649 Patent should be given a
`
`meaning “consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless
`
`the term has been given a special definition in the specification),” and “must be
`
`8
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`consistent with the use of the claim term in the interpretation that those skilled in
`
`the art would reach.” MPEP § 2111 (citing In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999)).2
`
`A.
`
`“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)
`
`Petitioner submits, for purposes of this IPR only, the BRI of “digital
`
`television signals” is “television signals entirely or partially encoded in a digital
`
`format.” Petitioner’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s construction
`
`of “digital television signals” in Apple, Inc. v. Personalized Media
`
`
`2 Petitioner expressly reserves the right to advance different constructions in the
`
`matter now pending in the district court, as the applicable claim construction
`
`standard for that proceeding (“ordinary and customary meaning”) is different than
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard applied in IPR. Further, due to the
`
`different claim construction standards in the proceedings, Petitioner identifying
`
`any feature in the cited references as teaching a claim term of the ‘649 Patent is not
`
`an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature for
`
`infringement purposes, or that the claim term is enabled or meets the requirements
`
`for written description.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Communications, Inc., IPR2016-00753 (the “Apple IPR”), also challenging the
`
`’649 Patent. See Ex.1013, 14-16.
`
`The term “digital television signal” did not have a well-known meaning in
`
`the art. Ex.1001 ¶¶72-73. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) reading
`
`the ’649 Patent would have recognized that television signals that included both
`
`digital and analog components constitute “digital television signals.” Ex.1002,
`
`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, 14:1-4
`
`(discussing partial encryption).
`
`Petitioner’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, 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, 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
`
`10
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`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, 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 nondigital
`
`information transmission.” Ex.1012, 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.3
`
`B.
`
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97)
`
`Petitioner submits, for purposes of this IPR only, the BRI of “digital video
`
`
`3 In litigation, PMC argued that “digital television signals” means “television
`
`programming that includes digital audio and digital video signals.” Ex.1014 at 3.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`signals” is “digital information embedded in the video portion of a television
`
`transmission signal.” Petitioner’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s
`
`construction of this term in the Apple IPR. See Ex.1013, 16-19.
`
`As described above in Section C.1, the applicant stated during prosecution
`
`that the ’649 Patent discloses embedding digital signals in portions of analog
`
`video. See Section C.1. The applicant further stated during prosecution that “digital
`
`video” may “constitute only one element of digital television” or “hav[e]
`
`applications entirely separate from digital television.” Ex.1015, 22.
`
`Finally, the ’649 Patent specifically refers to encrypted “digital audio” and
`
`“digital video” as the encrypted digital information embedded in either the audio or
`
`video portion, respectively, of a television program transmission. See Ex.1013, 18.
`
`Therefore, the BRI of digital video signals encompasses “digital information
`
`embedded in the video portion of a television transmission signal.” Id.4
`
`C.
`
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims)
`
`Petitioner submits, for purposes of this IPR only, the BRI of “processor” is
`
`“a device that operates on data.” Petitioner’s proposed construction is identical to
`
`
`4 In litigation, PMC agreed that “digital video signals” means “video signals
`
`encoded as discrete numerical values instead of an analog representation.” Ex.
`
`1014 at 3.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`the Board’s construction in the Apple IPR of “processor” as “a device that operates
`
`on data.” The Board found the specification, the prosecution history, and the
`
`position taken by PMC in prior litigation all support Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “a device that operates on data.” Ex.1013, 10-12.
`
`This construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term in the
`
`context of the ’649 Patent and is supported by intrinsic evidence. The term
`
`“processor” appears throughout the specification, but the specification does not
`
`provide any definition or limitation on the functionality of the processor. Rather,
`
`the specification describes a variety of processors, including hardwired devices that
`
`process data. See Ex.1002, 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, 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, 12. Also, the district court in which PMC has sued
`
`Petitioner previously construed “processor” in another related patent as “any
`
`device capable of performing operations on data.” Ex.1018, 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.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`
`An Appendix of Exhibits is attached. Relevance of the evidence, including
`
`identifying the specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, is found
`
`in Section II.D. Petitioner submits a declaration of Dr. 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.
`
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘649 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`As detailed below, this petition shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Requester will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims of the ‘649 Patent.
`
`Petitioner provides a detailed discussion of how the Challenged Claims of the ’649
`
`Patent are rendered obvious.
`
`A. Overview of References Relied Upon
`
`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.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Mustafa was not cited during prosecution. Iijima was among thousands of
`
`references cited during prosecution in an Information Disclosure Statement, but
`
`was not discussed by either the applicant or the Examiner.
`
`B. GROUND 1: The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over
`
`Mustafa
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 is Invalid Over Mustafa
`a. Claim 1[preamble]: “a method of processing signals at a
`receiver station, said receiver station having a plurality
`of processors.”
`Mustafa discloses processing signals in a television receiver (i.e., terminal
`
`12 and television receiver or monitor 35), said television receiver having a plurality
`
`of processors (i.e., memory bank 62, output register, video D/A converter 60B,
`
`CSG frame jump correction 63, and character generator 64 (collectively “video
`
`output processor”), audio RAM 50, audio D/A converter 51, audio control 43,
`
`attenuator 42, and sound summer 44 (collectively “audio output processor”), and
`
`decoder interface 68). See, e.g., Ex.1009, Fig. 5; Ex.1001 ¶¶95-105. Mustafa
`
`discloses Terminal 12 (which receives standard television formatted signals that
`
`contain video frames, digitally encoded audio frames, and encoded audio
`
`channels), and television receiver or monitor 35, which presents the received
`
`programming. Ex.1009, Fig. 5, 3:32-35, 6:23-24, 6:34-45. As described in detail
`
`for 39[g], below, Terminal 12 processes the received video and audio frames using
`
`15
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`a plurality of processors, including “video output processor” and “audio output
`
`processor.” Ex.1009, Fig. 5, 7:36-44, 8:22-42; Ex.1001 ¶¶95-105.
`
`b. Claim 1[a]: “receiving an information transmission
`including a digital television signal and a message
`stream.”
`Mustafa discloses receiving an information transmission including digital
`
`television signals (i.e., the second group of the audio/video frame data, which
`
`includes video and digital audio data) and a message stream (i.e., the first group of
`
`the audio/video frame data, which includes field sync, error check, terminal
`
`address, mode code, and background sound control information). Ex.1001 ¶¶106-
`
`14. Mustafa discloses that Terminal 12 receives television signals (i.e., an
`
`information transmission) through “Cable In” 13. Ex.1009, Fig. 1, 2:64-68, 3:33-
`
`34, 6:42-45; Ex.1001 ¶¶106-114.
`
`Fig. 3 represents the video and audio frames that carry information to
`
`terminal 12. Ex.100