IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Harvey et al.
`In re Patent of:
`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
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0029IP2
`IPR Control No. IPR2017-00290
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`II. 
`
`Page
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8 ................................. 1 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
` 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
` 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 2 
` 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2 
` 
`Payment ................................................................................................. 3 
` 
`Requirements for IPR ............................................................................ 3 
` 
`1. 
`Grounds for Standing .................................................................. 3 
`2. 
`Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 3 
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 8 
`  Overview of the ‘649 Patent .................................................................. 8 
`Description of the Alleged Invention .................................................... 8 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 9 
` 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ................... 10 
` 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 10 
`“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) ................................................................................................. 11 
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97) .......................................... 13 
` 
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims) ................................................... 13 
` 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable ............ 14 
` 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge ................ 14 
` 
`IV.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘649 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ......................... 15 
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability ............................................ 15 
` 
`Grounds 1A and 1B: The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over
` 
`Campbell in View of the Knowledge of APOSITA ........................... 15 
`3. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 15 
`4. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 21 
`5. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 22 
`6. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 22 
`7. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 23 
`8. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 23 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 24 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 26 .................................................................................... 25 
`11.  Claim 27 .................................................................................... 26 
`12.  Claim 28 .................................................................................... 26 
`13.  Claim 29 .................................................................................... 27 
`14.  Claim 39 .................................................................................... 28 
`15.  Claim 41 .................................................................................... 36 
`16.  Claim 42 .................................................................................... 37 
`17.  Claim 45 .................................................................................... 37 
`18.  Claim 48 .................................................................................... 38 
`19.  Claim 49 .................................................................................... 39 
`20.  Claim 50 .................................................................................... 39 
`21.  Claim 51 .................................................................................... 40 
`22.  Claim 62 .................................................................................... 40 
`23.  Claim 63 .................................................................................... 43 
`24.  Claim 64 .................................................................................... 44 
`25.  Claim 67 .................................................................................... 44 
`26.  Claim 78 .................................................................................... 49 
`27.  Claim 82 .................................................................................... 54 
`28.  Claim 83 .................................................................................... 56 
`29.  Claim 84 .................................................................................... 56 
`30.  Claim 88 .................................................................................... 57 
`31.  Claim 90 .................................................................................... 57 
`32.  Claim 91 .................................................................................... 58 
`33.  Claim 92 .................................................................................... 58 
`34.  Claim 93 .................................................................................... 59 
`35.  Claim 94 .................................................................................... 60 
`36.  Claim 97 .................................................................................... 61 
`Ground 2: In the Alternative, the Challenged Claims are Obvious
`Based on Campbell in View of Widergren ......................................... 65 
`1. 
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Campbell in
`View of Widergren.................................................................... 66 
`V.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 67 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`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 (“Dec.”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649 to Harvey, et al. (“’649
`patent”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 to Harvey, et al (“’490
`patent”)
`
`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. (“’650
`patent”)
`
`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. 4,536,791 to Campbell, et al.
`(“Campbell-1B”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to Widergren, et al
`(“Widergren”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1011
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/449,097: 10/2/1998
`Amendment
`
`ii
`
`

`
`SAMSUNG-1012
`
`SAMSUNG-1013
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 to Harvey, et al. (“’635
`patent”)
`
`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-1014
`
`Notice of Institution in Apple, Inc. v. Personalized Media
`Communications, Inc., IPR2016-00753
`
`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
`
`Intel
`P8748H/P8749H/8048AH/8035AHL/8049AH/8039AHL
`/8050AH/ 8040AHL HMOS Single-Component -Bit
`Microcontroller Datasheet, Aug. 1989, Section 1, pp. 27-
`39.
`
`iii
`
`

`
`SAMSUNG-1022
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Peuto, B.L., Architecture of a New Processor, IEEE
`Computer, Vol. 12, No. 2, Feb. 1979, pp. 10-21
`
`SAMSUNG-1023
`
`Morse, S.P., et al., Intel Microprocessors – 8008 to 8086,
`IEEE Computer, Vol. 13, No. 10, Oct. 1980, pp. 42-60
`
`SAMSUNG-1024
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`
`SAMSUNG-1025
`
`Earley, A., Closed Captioning with the Line 21 System,
`National Captioning Institute, pp. 180-184
`
`SAMSUNG-1026
`
`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
`
`Intel 8051 Datasheet
`
`SAMSUNG-1029
`
`Intel 8051 Notes
`
`SAMSUNG-1030
`
`
`International Publication No. WO81/02961 (“Campbell-
`1A”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1031
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. 06/135,987 (“Campbell- 1C”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) 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. Thus, 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
`
`issued from that flurry of activity.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`1
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
` Real Party-In-Interest
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest.
`
` Related Matters
`PMC 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).
`
` Counsel
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Thomas Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`3200 RBC Plaza
`Andrew Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email: IPR39843-0029IP2@fr.com
`
`
`Service Information
`
`Please address all correspondence/service to the address listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR39843-0029IP2@fr.com,
`
`with a copy to PTABInbound@fr.com, renner@fr.com, rozylowicz@fr.com,
`
`patrick@fr.com.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`Payment
`
`Petitioner authorizes charge of necessary fees to Deposit Acct. 06-1050.
`
`
`
`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 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 based on the 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
`
`Ex.1001, Declaration of Stuart Lipoff, referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Ground
`
`‘649 Patent Claims
`
`Ground
`
`1A
`
`All Challenged Claims
`
`Campbell-1A renders obvious the
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ground
`
`‘649 Patent Claims
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Ground
`
`Challenged Claims under § 103
`
`1B
`
`All Challenged Claims
`
`Campbell-1B renders obvious the
`
`Challenged Claims under § 103.
`
`2
`
`All Challenged Claims
`
`Campbell, in view of Widergren,
`
`renders obvious the Challenged
`
`Claims under § 103
`
`
`
`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
`
`September 11, 1987. As shown below, each reference pre-dates this date and
`
`qualifies as prior artEx.:
`
`Reference
`International
`
`Date
`Published October 15,
`
`Prior art §
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Prior art §
`
`Date
`
`1981
`
`Reference
`Publication No.
`
`WO81/02961
`
`(“Campbell-1A”)
`
`(Ex.1030)
`
`4,536,791 to
`
`Issued Aug. 20, 1985 with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Campbell, et al.
`
`priority of March 15, 1980
`
`(“Campbell-1B”)
`
`(Ex.1009)
`
`4,302,775 to
`
`Issued Nov. 24, 1981
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Widergren, et al.
`
`(“Widergren”)
`
`(Ex.1010),
`
`
`
`International Publication No. WO 81/02961 (“Campbell-1A”) published on
`
`October 15, 1981 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 4,536,791 (“Campbell-1B”) on
`
`August 20, 1985. Thus, each of Campbell-1A and Campbell-1B separately
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Moreover, while Campbell-1B was issued in 1985, it is entitled to priority of
`
`Mar. 31, 1980. Campbell-1B was filed June 4, 1984, with claims that are fully
`
`5
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`supported based on subject matter that appeared within Campbell-1C, filed Mar.
`
`31, 1980. Campbell-1B is a continuation of U.S. Application 06/348,937 (“’937
`
`Application”), which was filed on November 27, 1981 as a CIP of Application No.
`
`06/135,987 (“Campbell-1C”), filed on Mar. 31, 1980. Co-pendency existed at
`
`each mentioned filing. The validity of Campbell-1B’s priority claim to the
`
`Campbell-1C Application is illustrated through citations that appear below relative
`
`to claim 1 of Campbell-1B. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800
`
`F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Campbell ‘791 Claim 1
`
`Campbell ‘987 Priority
`
`Application Support
`
`1. In a television communications system having a
`
`Claim 1; see also 1:24-2:2, 3:10-
`
`central station for transmitting a plurality
`
`14, 5:1-27, FIGS.1, 2, 6.
`
`of television signals at different frequency
`
`channels to a plurality of user stations remote from
`
`said central stations, each having a tuner for
`
`selecting one of said television signals, a method
`
`of utilizing said central station to limit access of
`
`said user stations to only certain ones of
`
`said television signals, comprising:
`
`transmitting each of said category codes from the Claim 1; see also 6:18-26, 7:20-25,
`
`6
`
`

`
`central station to its respective user station to
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`8:1-2, 8:30-37, 16:20-28, 17:21-33,
`
`precondition each user station by authorization
`
`FIG.11.
`
`from the central station to selectively access said
`
`predetermined categories of television signals;
`
`generating a plurality of program codes at said
`
`Claim 1; see also FIG.11, 1:24-2:2,
`
`central station to limit user access to said
`
`3:10-14, 6:18-26, 17:1-20.
`
`predetermined categories of television signals, one
`
`of said program codes being generated for
`
`each television signal, each of said program codes
`
`including predetermined control data for enabling
`
`access to one of said television signals;
`
`transmitting one of said program codes with each
`
`Claim 1; see also FIG.11, 6:18-26,
`
`of said television signals to each of said user
`
`17:1-20.
`
`stations being tuned to receive one of
`
`said television signals;
`
`comparing the control data of said program code
`
`Claim 1; see also 3:22-25, 21:1-
`
`to the enabling data of the category code provided
`
`22:18, FIG.12.
`
`by the central station to each user station; and
`
`enabling only each user station which has a
`
`Claim 1; see also 15:13-22, 21:1-
`
`category code with enabling data corresponding to
`
`22:18, FIG.12.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`
`the control data of said program code, whereby
`
`said enabled user station can receive and process
`
`any said tuned television signal within a
`
`predetermined category of said television signals
`
`corresponding to said category code.
`
`
`
`String citations throughout this Petition indicate the overlapping disclosures
`
`of Campbell-1A/1B/1C (collectively “Campbell”). Campbell-1A and Campbell-1B
`
`are asserted in separate, contingent grounds of this Petition–Grounds-1A&1B–to
`
`account for any chance that Patent Owner may attempt to avoid full vetting of the
`
`Challenged Claims by swearing behind the prior art date of Campbell-1A.
`
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` Overview of the ‘649 Patent
`Description of the Alleged Invention
`The ’649 Patent generally relates to the transmission, reception, processing
`
`and presentation of information carried on various types of electrical signals
`
`(standard radio and television signals). ’649 patent, Abstract; Dec. ¶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, 10:44-46. Digital information,
`
`8
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`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.
`
`The Challenged Claims are not embodied in any specific example in the ’649
`
`Patent specification (see Claim 39, as an example of the Challenged Claims).
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The ‘097 App., 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. 06/317,510, which was 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 not the same as the means used
`
`to transmit analog television signals and the applicant only disclosed “transmit[ing]
`
`over the same TV channel that was used to carry conventional analog TV
`
`broadcasts.” Ex.1004, 3; Ex.1007, 13-18; Ex.1001 ¶57-66. The applicant
`
`responded that “digital television” includes a television transmission that is entirely
`
`or partially encoded in digital format. Ex.1011, 34-35. Subsequently, the applicant
`
`amended the claims to add claims 56-108. Ex.1019, 16-30. Application claims 56,
`
`9
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`57, 67 and 72 correspond to issued claims 39, 54, 62 and 67, respectively. Ex.1020.
`
`After the applicant accepted the Examiner’s proposed amendments, the Examiner
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance. See Ex.1001, ¶57-66.
`
`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
`
`(“APOSITA”) would have had at least 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, ¶¶67-71. 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
`
`10
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`the term has been given a special definition in the specification),” and “must be
`
`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)).1
`
`
`
`“digital television signals” (claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 26, 27, 28,
`29, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 67, 78, 82, 83, 84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93,
`and 94)
`For purposes of this IPR, “digital television signals” are “television signals
`
`entirely or partially encoded in a digital format.” This construction is identical to
`
`the Board’s previous construction of “digital television signals” in IPR2016-00753,
`
`also challenging the ’649 Patent. See Ex.1014, 12-16.
`
`The term “digital television signal” did not have a well-known meaning in
`
`the art. Ex.1001 ¶72-73. APOSITA reading the ’649 Patent would have recognized
`
`that television signals that included both digital and analog components would
`
`constitute “digital television signals.” Ex.1002, Figs.1, 2A, 10:43-11:6, 18:54-61,
`
`
`1 Petitioner expressly reserves the right to advance different constructions in the
`
`matter now pending in the district court, which uses a different standard for claim
`
`construction. Further, due to the different claim construction standards, nothing in
`
`this petition is an admission that a claim term is met by any feature for
`
`infringement purposes, or that the claim term meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`18:64-19:14; Ex.1001 ¶72-73. A parent to the ’649 Patent supports this
`
`construction, only a portion of the digital television signal needs to be digital.
`
`Ex.1003, 14:1-4 (discussing partial encryption).
`
`This construction is also supported by the prosecution history. During
`
`prosecution, the Examiner rejected several claims reciting “digital television”
`
`under § 112, asking what was “mean[t] by ‘digital television.’” Ex.1004, 3.
`
`Applicant responded that digital detectors 34 and 37 determine the presence of
`
`digital signals in analog portions of the television signal, and digital detector 38
`
`“receives a separately defined, and clearly digital, transmission.” Ex.1011, 34-35.
`
`Applicant further argued:
`
`
`“[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. . . . [T]he 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.
`
`The construction is consistent with the claims of other patents in the same
`
`family as the ’649 Patent with the same specification. For example, claim 18 of the
`
`’635 Patent recites “wherein the at least one encrypted digital information
`
`transmission is unaccompanied by any non-digital information transmission.”
`
`Ex.1012, claim 18. Absent the “is unaccompanied . . .” language, the “encrypted
`
`12
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`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.
`
`“digital video signals” (claims 62 and 97)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, “digital video signals” are “digital information
`
`embedded in the video portion of a television transmission signal.” This
`
`construction is identical to the Board’s construction in IPR2016-00753. See
`
`Ex.1014, 16-19.
`
`As described in Section C.1, the applicant stated during prosecution the ’649
`
`Patent discloses embedding digital signals in portions of analog video. See Section
`
`C.1. The applicant further stated that “digital video” “constitute[s] only one
`
`element of digital television” or “ha[s] applications entirely separate from digital
`
`television.” Ex.1015, 22.
`
`Finally, the ’649 Patent refers to encrypted “digital audio” and “digital
`
`video” as the encrypted digital information embedded in either the audio or video
`
`portion, respectively, of a television program transmission. See Ex.1014, 18.
`
`Therefore, the BRI of digital video signals encompasses “digital information
`
`embedded in the video portion of a television transmission signal.” Id.
`
`“processor” (all Challenged Claims)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, a “processor” is “a device that operates on data.”
`
`13
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is identical to the Board’s construction in the
`
`IPR2016-00753 and to other Board decisions involving related patents. Ex.1016, 7-
`
`8. The Board found the specification, the prosecution history, and the position
`
`taken by PMC in prior litigation all support Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`
`Ex.1014.
`
`This construction comports with the plain meaning of the term and is
`
`supported by intrinsic evidence. The term “processor” appears throughout the
`
`specification, but the specification does not provide definition or limitation a
`
`processor’s functionality. 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).
`
`Further, PMC proposed a similar construction in litigation involving a
`
`related patent having the same specification: “any device capable of performing
`
`operations on data.” Ex.1017, 12.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims are Unpatentable
`
`Unpatentability will be detailed in Section II.D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`The relevance of the evidence attached as exhibits is detailed in Section II.D.
`
`Petitioner submits a declaration of Stuart Lipoff, an expert with nearly 50 years of
`
`14
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`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
`Summary of Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Grounds 1A and 1B: Campbell in view of the knowledge of APOSITA
`
`renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Ground 2: In the alternative to Ground 1, if “digital television
`
`signals”/“digital video signals” require the signals to be completely digital, then
`
`Campbell in view of Widergren renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
` Grounds 1A and 1B: The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Over
`Campbell in View of the Knowledge of APOSITA
`3.
`Claim 1
`[preamble]: “a method of processing signals at a
`
`receiver station, said receiver station having a
`plurality of processors.”
`Campbell discloses a method of processing signals at a receiver station
`
`(converter 40 and TV 36), said receiver station having a plurality of processors
`
`(video descrambler 116 and text/graphics generator 118, collectively the “video
`
`output processor,” data extractor 114, and audio level/mute control 120). Ex.1001
`
`¶¶91-99. Campbell discloses converter 40, which receives cable television signals,
`
`and TV 36, which presents the received signals. Ex.1009, Fig.1 and 6, 1:16-21,
`
`4:43-55, 9:15-18; 9:23-42; Ex.1030, Figs.1 and 6, 1:7-11, 6:26-35, 13:27-30,
`
`15
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0029IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649
`13:34-14:13; Ex.1031, Figs.1 and 6, 1:2-6, 5:18-27, 11:28-30, 11:34-12:12;
`
`Ex.1001 ¶¶93, 95-97.
`
`
`
`1[a]: “receiving an information transmission
`including a digital television signal and a message
`stream.”
`Campbell discloses receiving an information transmission including digital
`
`television signals (video, audio, and digital data in the VBI received on line 32)
`
`and a message stream (VBI lines 17-18). Ex.1001 ¶¶–100-110. Campbell discloses
`
`converter 40 receives “combined cable television and data signal[s]” (an
`
`information transmission) via line 32. Ex.1009, Fig.1, 1:15-21, 3:16-19, 3:27-31,
`
`4:43-55; Ex.1030, Fig.1, 1:7-11, 4:17-19, 4:25-28, 6:26-35; Ex.1031, Fig.1, 1:2-6,
`
`3:35-37, 5:18-27; Ex.1001 ¶100. The information transmission received by
`
`converter 40 includes digital television, i.e., television programs and digital data on
`
`at least lines 17 and 18 of the VBI of each video field, for example,