IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Harvey et al.
`In re Patent of:
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0030IP1
`7,752,650
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`July 6, 2010
`Issue Date:
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/460,711
`
`Filing Date:
`June 2, 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
`
`DECLARATION OF STUART LIPOFF UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,650
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1001
`
`
`
`
`Harvey et al.
`In re Patent of:
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0030IP1
`7,752,650
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`July 6, 2010
`Issue Date:
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/460,711
`
`Filing Date:
`June 2, 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
`
`DECLARATION OF STUART LIPOFF UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,650
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1001
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`
`I, Stuart Lipoff, do hereby declare as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,752,650 (“the ’650 Patent”). I have reviewed the ’650 Patent
`
`and relevant excerpts of the prosecution history of the ’650 Patent.
`
`Additionally, I have reviewed the following: U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to
`
`Mustafa, et al. (“Mustafa”), International Pub. No. WO 81/02961 to
`
`Campbell et. al., (“Campbell-1A”), U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to Campbell
`
`et. al. (“Campbell-1B”), U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 06/135,987 to
`
`Campbell et. al. (“Campbell-1C”), and U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to
`
`Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”). I am being compensated for my time in
`
`connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate of $375 per hour.
`
`My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether or not Claims
`
`1, 2, 4, 18, 32, and 33 of the ’650 Patent (“the Challenged Claims”) are
`
`invalid as obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ’650 Patent issued on July 6, 2010, from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/460,
`
`711 (“the ’711 application”), filed on June 2, 1995. (Ex. 1002 at cover).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`The ’650 Patent alleges to be a continuation of a series of applications dating
`
`
`
`back to U.S. Patent Appl. No. 07/096,096 filed on September 11, 1987, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,965,825 (“the ‘096 Application”). The ‘096 Application
`
`alleges to be a continuation-in-part of a series of applications dating back to
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 06/317,519, now U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490 (“the ’519
`
`Application”).
`
`4.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`priority date of the alleged invention recited in the ’650 Patent is September
`
`11, 1987, as well as considering an earliest possible priority date of
`
`November 3, 1981.
`
`5.
`
`The face of the ’650 Patent names John Christopher Harvey and James
`
`William Cuddihy as the named inventors, and identifies Personalized Media
`
`Communications, LLC as the named assignee. (Ex. 1002 at cover).
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’650 Patent, the file
`
`history of the ’650 Patent, numerous prior art references, and technical
`
`references from the time of the alleged invention.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of
`
`one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`8.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of the art, and have considered
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of
`
`
`
`the priority date. My opinions are based, at least in part, on the following
`
`references in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`September 11, 1987, but my analysis and opinions in this Declaration would
`
`still be the same even if the priority date is found to be earlier, back to the
`
`earliest possible priority date of November 3, 1981:
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 4,789,895 to
`Mustafa, et al. (“Mustafa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,215,369 to Iijima
`(“Iijima”)
`
`International Publication No.
`WO81/02961 (“Campbell-
`1A”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,536,791 to
`Campbell, et al. (“Campbell-
`1B”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,302,775 to
`Widergren, et al. (“Widergren”)
`
`Date of Public Availability
`Filed April 30, 1987; Issued and
`Published on December 6, 1988 (Ex.
`1009 at Face)
`Filed December 15, 1978; Issued
`and Published on July 29, 1980 (Ex.
`1010 at Face)
`Published October 15, 1981 (Ex.
`1033 at Face)
`
`Filed November 27, 1981; Issued
`and Published on August 20, 1985
`(Ex. 1011 at Face)
`Filed December 15, 1978; Issued
`and Published November 24, 1981
`(Ex. 1012 at Face)
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`9. My name is Stuart Lipoff. I am currently the president of IP Action Partners
`
`Inc. and have over 40 years of experience in a wide variety of technologies
`
`and industries relating to data communications, including data
`
`communications over wireless and cable systems networks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`10.
`I have been retained by Petitioner in connection with its request for inter
`
`
`
`partes review of the ’650 Patent. A copy of the ’650 Patent has been
`
`designated Ex. 1002. I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’650 Patent.
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the validity of certain
`
`claims of the ’650 Patent. This Declaration includes a detailed discussion of
`
`my background and qualifications, the background of the technologies
`
`involved in and related to the ’650 Patent that would have been understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’650
`
`Patent, various prior art references that disclose—either alone or in
`
`combination with each other—all of the relevant features of the Challenged
`
`Claims. The bases and reasons for my opinions are set forth in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`A.
`Educational Background
`I earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1968 from Lehigh
`
`12.
`
`University and a second B.S. degree in Engineering Physics in 1969, also
`
`from Lehigh University. I also earned a M.S. degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Northwestern University in 1974 and a MBA degree from
`
`Suffolk University in 1983.
`
`B. Career History and Relevant Industry Participation
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a consulting
`
`13.
`
`practice serving the telecommunications, information technology, media,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`electronics, and e-business industries.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I hold a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) General
`
`Radiotelephone License and a Certificate in Data Processing (“CDP”) from
`
`the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”)-supported Institute for
`
`the Certification of Computing Professionals (“ICCP”), and I am a registered
`
`professional engineer (by examination) in the Commonwealth of
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`15.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE Consumer Electronics, Communications,
`
`Computer, Circuits, and Vehicular Technology Groups. I am also a member
`
`of the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society National Administration
`
`Committee, and was the Boston Chapter Chairman of the IEEE Vehicular
`
`Technology Society. I previously served as 1996-1997 President of the
`
`IEEE Consumer Electronics Society, have served as Chairman of the
`
`Society’s Technical Activities and Standards Committee, and am now VP of
`
`Publications for the Society. I have also served as an Ibuka Award
`
`committee member.
`
`16.
`
`I have also presented papers at many IEEE and other meetings. A listing of
`
`my publications is included as part of my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached as Ex. 1031. For example, in Fall 2000, I served as general program
`
`chair for the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference on advanced wireless
`
`communications technology, and I have organized sessions at The
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`International Conference on Consumer Electronics and was the 1984
`
`
`
`program chairman. I also conducted an eight-week IEEE sponsored short
`
`course on Fiber Optics System Design. In 1984, I was awarded IEEE’s
`
`Centennial Medal and in 2000, I was awarded the IEEE’s Millennium
`
`Medal.
`
`17. As Vice President and Standards Group Chairman of the Association of
`
`Computer Users (“ACU”), I served as the ACU representative to the ANSI
`
`X3 Standards Group. For the FCC’s Citizens advisory committee on
`
`Citizen’s Band (“CB”) radio (“PURAC”), I served as Chairman of the task
`
`group on user rule compliance. I have been elected to membership in the
`
`Society of Cable Television Engineers (“SCTE”), the ACM, and The Society
`
`of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (“SMPTE”). I also served as a
`
`member of the USA advisory board to the National Science Museum of
`
`Israel, presented a short course on international product development
`
`strategies as a faculty member of Technion Institute of Management in
`
`Israel, and served as a member of the board of directors of The
`
`Massachusetts Future Problem Solving Program.
`
`18.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents and have several
`
`publications on data communications topics in Electronics Design,
`
`Microwaves, EDN, The Proceedings of the Frequency Control Symposium,
`
`Optical Spectra, and IEEE publications.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`19. For 25 years, I worked for Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“ADL”), where I became
`
`
`
`Vice President and Director of Communications, Information Technology,
`
`and Electronics (“CIE”). Prior to my time at ADL, I served as a Section
`
`Manager for Bell & Howell Communications Company for four years, and
`
`prior to that, as a Project Engineer for Motorola’s Communications Division
`
`for three years.
`
`20. At ADL, I was responsible for the firm’s global CIE practice in laboratory-
`
`based contract engineering, product development, and technology-based
`
`consulting. At both Bell & Howell and Motorola, I had project design
`
`responsibility for wireless communication and paging products.
`
`21. While employed at ADL, over a 25-year period I worked on projects across
`
`multiple industry sectors including consumer, industrial, and military. These
`
`projects drew upon my technical expertise in information technology,
`
`communications systems, radio frequency, video, and audio.
`
`22. For example, I served as the leader of a project that developed a series of
`
`specifications for residential cable modems known as Data over Cable
`
`Service Interface Specification, or “DOCSIS.” The scope of work for this
`
`project included developing a roadmap and strategic framework for evolving
`
`the business from internet services to broadband services combining voice,
`
`data, and secure electronic content delivery. This project was performed by
`
`ADL under contract to the Multimedia Cable Network System (“MCNS”)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`consortium and the specifications resulting from that project have since been
`
`
`
`adopted by the United Nations as a global telecommunications specification.
`
`23. Following my time at ADL, I managed a project (through IP Action
`
`Partners) for Next Generation Network Architecture, LLC (“NGNA”) that
`
`produced a five-year planning horizon for services and technology in the
`
`cable industry. The services and vision were then mapped to overall
`
`architectures impacting network elements in the back office, head-end,
`
`outside plant, and customer premises, and documented in next generation
`
`network recommendations. The project involved coordination with senior
`
`technical staff of several multiple service operators (“MSOs”) as well as
`
`interactions with over one hundred suppliers and vendors of systems,
`
`software, and products in the cable industry.
`
`24. Additional information regarding my background, qualifications,
`
`publications, and presentations is provided in my CV, which is included as
`
`Exhibit 1031.
`
`
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`25. Because I am an engineer and not an attorney, I have been provided with an
`
`understanding of patent law relevant to conducting the analysis given in this
`
`report. The following represents my understanding of these issues.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’650 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the September 11, 1987, alleged
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`priority date of the ’650 Patent.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior
`
`art reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that
`
`the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim may be obvious in view of a single reference, or may be obvious
`
`from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the alleged, patented invention,
`
`skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, unexpected results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but
`
`unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged invention, the
`
`failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a
`
`
`
`nexus—a connection—between any such secondary considerations and the
`
`alleged invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent
`
`invention by others is a secondary consideration tending to show
`
`obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field, and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of
`
`finding a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When
`
`a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious. I understand that a claim may be
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited
`
`in the claims.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`IV. BACKGROUND
`A.
`Summary of the ’650 Patent
`31. The ’650 Patent generally relates to the transmission of standard television
`
`signals enhanced with certain types of embedded control signals and/or
`
`digital data.
`
`32. Specifically, the Challenged Claims generally relate to methods of
`
`processing television and/or video signals at receiver stations. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 18, 32 and 33). Figure 1 of the ’650 Patent depicts a simple
`
`embodiment of a receiver station:
`
`
` (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1). The components of Figure 1 are all conventional and
`
`include a television tuner 215, divider 4, TV signal decoder 203,
`
`microcomputer 205, and TV monitor 202M. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1). Via
`
`conventional antenna, television tuner 215 receives a conventional television
`
`broadcast transmission. (Ex. 1002 at 10:44-46). Digital information is also
`
`embedded in the broadcast. (Ex. 1002 at 7:51-63). For example, in a
`
`television transmission, the information can be embedded in line 20 of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`vertical blanking interval. (Ex. 1002 at 7:67-8:2). The digital information
`
`
`
`may include the “addresses of specific receiver apparatus controlled by the
`
`signals and instructions that identify particular functions the signals cause
`
`addressed apparatus to perform.” (Ex. 1002 at 7:59-63). TV Monitor 202M
`
`receives composite video and audio transmissions and presents a television
`
`video image and audio sound. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1, 11:20-23).
`
`B. Representative Claim 1
`33. Claim 1, which is representative of the Challenged Claims, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`[Preamble] 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:
`
`[A] receiving an information transmission including digital television
`
`signals and a message stream;
`
`[B] detecting said message stream in said information transmission;
`
`programming a control processor to control said digital switch on the
`
`basis of information included in said message stream;
`
`[C] inputting a plurality of commands received in said message stream
`
`to a said control processor;
`
`[D] selecting a plurality of said digital television signals included in
`
`said information transmission in response to said commands, said
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`selected plurality of said digital television signals being information
`
`
`
`segments of said information transmission;
`
`[E] controlling said digital switch to communicate each one of said
`
`selected plurality of said digital television signals to a signal
`
`processor; and
`
`[F] processing said selected plurality of said digital television signals
`
`to communicate video and audio signals to a television monitor.
`
`C.
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ’650 Patent
`34. As I mentioned above, the specification of the ’650 Patent generally relates
`
`to the transmission of standard television signals enhanced with certain types
`
`of embedded control signals. The specification of the ’650 Patent contains
`
`about 300 columns and covers a number of technology areas. In the
`
`following I will only discuss those aspects of technology that I believe are
`
`directly relevant to the Challenged Claims of the ’650. The technology
`
`outlined below represents the knowledge and understanding that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have possessed at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`35. The Challenged Claims relate to the transmission, reception and processing
`
`of television signals and to using control signals embedded in the television
`
`signals to control processing of these television signals.
`
`36.
`
`In 1987, standard broadcast television was ubiquitous and had been for
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`many years, including prior to 1981. The television signal format was, by
`
`
`
`that time, highly standardized through the efforts of various industry
`
`participants. The basic technological characteristics of monochrome
`
`television were established in the late 1940s.
`
`37. After the introduction of television in the early 1940s, there were subsequent
`
`enhancements to support new technological advances, such as color, closed
`
`captioning, Teletext, and stereophonic sound. Enhancements to television
`
`were introduced very carefully because the base of installed television
`
`receivers was so large that revolutionary changes would cause massive
`
`obsolescence issues. It is for this reason that the introduction of color
`
`television required that the new color television signal be compatible with
`
`previously purchased monochrome sets.
`
`38. The National Television System Committee (NTSC) standard was the
`
`approved standard for over-the-air (OTA) transmissions of television signals
`
`in the United States. This standard was adopted in 1941 by the FCC. The
`
`NTSC standard was based on sequential transmission and uniform linear
`
`scanning techniques, and was developed for use with CRT (cathode ray tube)
`
`presentation technology.
`
`39. An NTSC television signal conveys light intensity and positional reference
`
`information. When the CRT receives a NTSC television signal, the electron
`
`beam that creates the image on the CRT display screen is accordingly
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`modified based on the light intensity and positional information conveyed in
`
`
`
`the NTSC signal. The electron beam that creates the image on the CRT
`
`screen does so by going from left to right and top to bottom. This typically
`
`occurs in real time, that is, the received picture intensity information is used
`
`to directly drive the CRT as it is received.
`
`40.
`
`In order to simplify the design of the television receiver, the NTSC
`
`television signal contains a number of synchronizing signals that coordinate
`
`the movement of the electron beam across the face of the CRT screen.
`
`These signals do not contain displayable information and occur when the
`
`electron beam is not in the visible area of the television screen. Because
`
`these non-displayable parts of the signal cannot be seen by the viewer,
`
`various systems have been developed to transmit information in either
`
`analog or digital form during these time periods. The so called “vertical
`
`blanking interval” or VBI encompasses the scan lines at the top of the screen
`
`and has been used for auxiliary signal transmission since at least the early
`
`1970s. There is a corresponding area at the start of each scan line called
`
`sometimes referred to as the “horizontal blanking interval” or HBI.
`
`Information can be impressed on this part of the signal also, although the use
`
`of the HBI for this purpose is less common.
`
`41. Under the NTSC standard, the VBI consists of 21 scan lines, the first 9 of
`
`which are using for synchronizing two interlaced (or interleaved) vertical
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`images that were transmitted. The remaining 12 lines were left unused.
`
`
`
`42. Oftentimes systems transmitted digital data in the VBI or HBI. Digital data
`
`consists of discrete, discontinuous binary digits. A digital signal is a signal
`
`that represents a sequence of discrete values.
`
`43.
`
`In the United States, closed captioning is one form of digital data
`
`transmission using the VBI with which many consumers are familiar.
`
`Closed captioning enables the hearing impaired to enjoy television by
`
`providing a textual representation of the spoken words. (Ex. 1030 at 1). By
`
`1983, over 300,000 viewers used closed captioning devices, and the number
`
`was growing every year. (Ex. 1030 at 1). In fact, by the mid-1990s, closed
`
`captioning became a standard feature of all television sets. As was known
`
`by the time of the alleged invention, line 21 of the VBI was utilized for
`
`transmitting the digital data associated with the closed captioning system.
`
`(Ex. 1030 at 1).
`
`44. Teletext is another technique for transmitting data using VBI. Teletext was
`
`widely deployed in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom, where the
`
`first development work was carried out. Generally, Teletext relied on the
`
`United Kingdom’s digital transmission scheme, but other countries had
`
`similar, but technically different schemes.
`
`45. Teletext supports the transmission of digital data in the VBI. The digital
`
`data in the VBI is captured and then used to generate characters, symbols
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`and patterns for display using techniques that are related directly to the field
`
`
`
`of computer display.
`
`46.
`
`In Teletext systems the received data can be displayed directly or overlaid on
`
`the program material from the analog video transmission. In one mode of
`
`operation the user of a television receiver selects the Teletext information
`
`they wish to see by using their remote control to identify particular “pages”
`
`of interest, where each page corresponds to one screen of graphic
`
`information (usually in the range of 24 lines of 40 characters each). In the
`
`initial Teletext systems users selected from a common “library” of
`
`information available to all users, however, many systems were proposed
`
`and developed to allow users to select personal data, for example, bank
`
`account balances.
`
`47. Teletext technology has been in use since at least the mid-1970s. Its basic
`
`approach, namely the transmission of digital data over standard television
`
`signals, was well-known. There are many variations of the original Teletext
`
`system concept tailored to various, countries, languages, user communities
`
`and commercial usages.
`
`48. Teletext and similar systems made use of certain VBI lines in the standard
`
`television system. This limited the data transmission capability if standard
`
`television video and audio were to be included in the same transmission as
`
`was typically the case. It was well-known that the techniques used to
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`transmit data in the first few VBI lines could be extended to the remaining
`
`
`
`video transmission lines. This approach, sometimes called “full field
`
`Teletext” allows about 50 times more data to be transmitted (5 data lines
`
`compared to about 250 data lines).
`
`49. By the early 1980s many advances had been made in Teletext technology.
`
`One of the most advanced was the CBS Teletext system, which included
`
`many sophisticated features such as separate addressable channels for
`
`carrying packetized data. In other words, the CBS system had the ability to
`
`direct a data transmission to a specific device at the user’s receiver, not just
`
`to the television screen. In the same time frame the North American
`
`Presentation Level Protocol Specification (NAPLPS) was also developed
`
`that supported the definition of very sophisticated (for the time) text and
`
`graphic displays.
`
`50. With respect to the transmission of information it was well-known that
`
`information can be transmitted by digital means either over wires or through
`
`the air. The fact that an arbitrary analog signal can be digitized, transmitted
`
`by digital means and then reconstructed at the receiver was well-known and
`
`was taught in almost every electrical engineering class. In fact, this basic
`
`concept was part of my undergraduate course work in 1967.
`
`51. The digital transmission of audio signals by wire (i.e., telephone) has been in
`
`use since at least the early 1960s. It was also known that such digital audio
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`signals could be sent over the air using various digital techniques, for
`
`
`
`example by including digital audio in the VBI or HBI of a television signal.
`
`52. The only reason digital transmission of video or television signals was not
`
`widely practiced at the time was due to bandwidth constraints of the
`
`transmission means. The bandwidth required to transmit audio signals
`
`digitally is modest relative to what is required to digitize and transmit
`
`television signals. This is because the bandwidth of an uncompressed
`
`analog television signals is about 1,000 times that of the corresponding
`
`audio signal.
`
`53.
`
`In 1987, the bandwidth allocated to standard over the air television signals
`
`made transmitting digitized video and television signals difficult. Similar
`
`issues apply to signals sent by cable. In 1987, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that digital television was theoretically possible, but
`
`would also have understood that the implementation of such a technology
`
`was not practical given the bandwidth constraints at the time.
`
`54. By the mid-1990s the rapid advance of semiconductor technology allowed
`
`fully digital television (i.e., digitized audio and digitized video) to be
`
`transmitted within the practically available broadcast bandwidth. However,
`
`this required advanced modulation techniques and the ability to significantly
`
`compress the digital signal in a rapid and efficient manner. Both of these
`
`techniques were only commercially possible because of advances in
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`semiconductor technology.
`
`
`
`55. Although programmable computer technology has been known since the
`
`mid-1940s it has undergone a rapid technological evolution. By 1987, most
`
`undergraduates in electrical engineering would have taken courses that
`
`addressed programming, microprocessors, interfacing, digital data
`
`transmission and so forth.
`
`56. By 1987, most undergraduates taking electrical engineering courses would
`
`have been exposed to digital and computer design techniques. Those
`
`electing to specialize in digital and computer technology would have likely
`
`taken several courses in the field. Companies developing products in the
`
`field of digital communications would have expected a newly hired graduate
`
`to be familiar with and have some practical experience in digital design,
`
`computer based implementation and programming techniques.
`
`D.
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`In 1981, inventors John Harvey and James Cuddihy filed Application No.
`
`57.
`
`317,510, which had a 22-column specification and issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,694,490. (Ex. 1003). The ’490 Patent issued in 1987 and expired over a
`
`decade ago. Six years after the filing of the original 1981 application, PMC
`
`filed a continuation-in-part that discarded the original 22-column
`
`specification filed in 1981 and substituted a new specification that spanned
`
`290 columns. (Ex. 1002 at 1:7-19).
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650
`58. Before June 8, 1995, PMC filed 328 virtually identical continuation
`
`
`
`applications with an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 claims in the months
`
`leading up to that date. (Ex. 1004 at 2, 13-17).
`
`59. U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/460,711, which led to the ’650 Patent, was filed on
`
`June 2, 1995. (Ex. 1002 at Face). It claims priority to a series of
`
`continuation and continuation-in-part applications ending with U.S. Patent
`
`Appl. No. 06/317,510, which was filed on November 3, 1981, and issued
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
