UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`(“Apple”),
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`(“Ericsson”),
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2022-00618
`Patent No. 9,313,178
`
`DECLARATION OF AVIEL RUBIN, PH.D.
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6
`I.
`II. Qualifications .................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Education ............................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Career .................................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Publications ......................................................................................... 11
`D.
`Curriculum Vitae ................................................................................. 12
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 12
`IV. Materials Considered and Relied Upon .......................................................... 13
`V. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 15
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art .............................................................. 15
`B.
`Legal Standard for Priority Date ......................................................... 16
`C.
`Legal Standard for Obviousness ......................................................... 16
`VI. Overview of the ’178 patent ........................................................................... 19
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview .................................................................... 19
`B.
`File History of the ’178 patent ............................................................ 20
`C.
`Interpretation of the ’178 patent Claims at Issue ................................ 21
`VII. Overview of the Cited References .................................................................. 22
`A.
`Peterka (EX1004) ................................................................................ 22
`B.
`Bocharov (EX1005) ............................................................................ 31
`C.
`Peterka308 (EX1009) .......................................................................... 33
`D.
`Chen (EX1006) .................................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`[1.P] A method for handling secure distribution of
`
`[1.1] initiating a media playback request and receiving a
`
`[1.2] parsing content information from the playback
`request response, the content information including
`content encryption keys, content encryption key
`identifiers, and content encryption key expiration
`
`[1.3] retrieving content and manifest files from a content
`
`Balraj (EX1007) .................................................................................. 36
`E.
`Kelly (EX1010) ................................................................................... 38
`F.
`Eisen (EX1011) ................................................................................... 38
`G.
`VIII. Analysis of Peterka-Bocharov Combination .................................................. 38
`A.
`Combination Overview ....................................................................... 39
`B.
`Claim Element Analysis ...................................................................... 45
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 45
`content comprising: ........................................................ 46
`playback request response; ............................................. 47
`times; ............................................................................... 50
`delivery server; ............................................................... 61
`content; ........................................................................... 63
`encryption key rotation boundary is reached; and .......... 64
`the key rotation boundary is reached. ............................. 65
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 66
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 66
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 69
`
`[1.4] detecting content encryption key rotation
`boundaries between periods of use of different
`content encryption keys in decrypting retrieved
`
`[1.5] issuing requests to a license server ahead of a key
`rotation boundary to retrieve a second content
`encryption key to be used after a content
`
`[1.6] applying the second key for content decryption after
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 69
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 70
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 71
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 72
`Independent Claim 16 ............................................................... 72
`comprising: ..................................................................... 73
`
`[16.P] A computerized device operable as a client for
`handling secure distribution of content,
`
`[16.1] memory operative to store computer program
`instructions; one or more processors; input/output
`interface circuitry; and interconnect circuitry
`coupling the memory, processors and input/output
`interface circuitry together, wherein the processors
`are operative to execute the computer program
`instructions from the memory to cause the
`
`[16.2] initiate a media playback request and receive a
`
`[16.3] parse content information from the playback
`request response, the content information including
`content encryption keys, content encryption key
`identifiers, and content encryption key expiration
`
`computerized device to: .................................................. 74
`playback request response; ............................................. 74
`times; ............................................................................... 75
`delivery server; ............................................................... 75
`encryption keys in decrypting retrieved content; ........... 75
`encryption key rotation boundary is reached; and .......... 75
`the key rotation boundary is reached. ............................. 75
`10. Claim 17 .................................................................................... 76
`
`[16.4] retrieve content and manifest files from a content
`
`[16.5] detect content encryption key rotation boundaries
`between periods of use of different content
`
`[16.6] issue requests to a license server ahead of a key
`rotation boundary to retrieve a second content
`encryption key to be used after a content
`
`[16.7] apply the second key for content decryption after
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`11. Claim 18 .................................................................................... 76
`12. Claim 19 .................................................................................... 76
`13. Claim 20 .................................................................................... 77
`IX. Analysis of Peterka-Bocharov-Peterka308-Chen Combination ..................... 77
`Combination Overview ....................................................................... 77
`A.
`Claim Element Analysis ...................................................................... 82
`B.
`1.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 82
`2.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 83
`3.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 83
`4.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 85
`5.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 86
`6.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 90
`X. Analysis of Peterka-Bocharov-Balraj Combination ....................................... 90
`Claim Element Analysis ...................................................................... 90
`A.
`1.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 90
`XI. Analysis of Peterka-Bocharov-Kelly Combination ........................................ 92
`A.
`Claim Element Analysis ...................................................................... 93
`1.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 93
`XII. Analysis of Peterka-Bocharov-Kelly-Eisen Combination .............................. 95
`A.
`Claim Element Analysis ...................................................................... 95
`1.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 95
`XIII. Additional Remarks ........................................................................................ 97
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. of Baltimore, Maryland declare that:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Aviel Rubin and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) as an expert witness to provide
`
`assistance regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,313,178 (“the ’178 patent”). Specifically, I
`
`have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1-20 of the ’178 patent (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) in view of prior art, anticipation and obviousness
`
`considerations from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention (“POSITA”) as it relates to the ’178 patent.
`
`2.
`
`I consult through the company Harbor Experts LLC (“Harbor Experts”
`
`or “Harbor Labs”). Harbor Experts is compensated at the rate of $860 per hour for
`
`my time. Research and analysis for this report was also performed by Harbor
`
`Experts personnel under my direction and guidance. Rates for other staff working
`
`on this matter range from $375 to $485 per hour. Neither my compensation nor that
`
`of Harbor Experts is contingent upon my findings, the testimony I may give, or the
`
`outcome of this matter or pending litigation between the Petitioner or owner of the
`
`’178 patent.
`
`3. My analysis here is based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials, including
`
`those cited herein.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience, and/or
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the owner of the ’178 patent.
`
`Further, I may also consider additional documents and information in forming any
`
`necessary opinions, including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`5. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing and
`
`I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`A. Education
`
`6.
`
`I possess the knowledge, skills, experience, training, and education to
`
`form expert opinions and give testimony in this matter. I have at least 30 years of
`
`experience in the field of computer science, and specifically in Internet and computer
`
`security. I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the
`
`University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1994, with a specialty in computer security
`
`and cryptographic protocols. My thesis was entitled “Nonmonotonic Cryptographic
`
`Protocols” and concerned authentication in long-running networking operations.
`
`B. Career
`
`7.
`
`I will discuss my current position as a professor first, followed by a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`synopsis of my career and work from the time I received my Ph.D. to the present.
`
`8.
`
`I am currently employed as Professor of Computer Science at Johns
`
`Hopkins University (the “University”), where I perform research, teach graduate and
`
`undergraduate courses
`
`in computer science and related subjects, advise
`
`undergraduate and Masters students, and supervise the research of Ph.D. candidates
`
`and other students. I have taught courses including Networking, Security and
`
`Privacy in Computing, and Advanced Topics in Computer Security. I am also the
`
`Technical Director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute—
`
`the University’s focal point for research and education in information security,
`
`assurance, and privacy. The University, through the Information Security Institute’s
`
`leadership, has been designated as a Center of Academic Excellence in Information
`
`Assurance by the National Security Agency and leading experts in the field.
`
`9.
`
`I interned at IBM in 1989. During my time there, I worked on the IBM
`
`System/360 family of mainframe computer systems.
`
`10. After receiving my Ph.D., I began working at Bellcore in its
`
`Cryptography and Network Security Research Group from 1994 to 1996. During
`
`that period, I focused my work on Internet and Computer Security.
`
`11.
`
`In 1997, I moved to AT&T Labs, Secure Systems Research
`
`Department, where I continued to focus on Internet and computer security. From
`
`1995 through 1999, in addition to my commercial work, I served as Adjunct
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Professor at New York University, where I taught undergraduate classes on
`
`computer, network, and Internet security issues.
`
`12.
`
`I stayed in my position at AT&T until 2003, when I left to accept a full-
`
`time academic position at the University. The University promoted me to full
`
`professor with tenure in April 2004.
`
`13.
`
`I serve, or have served, on several technical and editorial advisory
`
`boards. For example, I served on the Editorial and Advisory Board for the
`
`International Journal of Information and Computer Security. I also served on the
`
`Editorial Board for the Journal of Privacy Technology. In addition, I have been
`
`Associate Editor of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (“IEEE”)
`
`Security and Privacy Magazine and served as Associate Editor of the Association
`
`for Computing Machinery’s (“ACM”) Transactions on Internet Technology. I also
`
`served as Associate Editor of the journal Communications of the ACM, and I was
`
`an Advisory Board Member of Springer’s Information Security and Cryptography
`
`Book Series. I also have served in the past as a member of the Defense Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency’s Information Science and Technology Study Group, a
`
`member of the Government Infosec Science and Technology Study Group of
`
`Malicious Code, a member of the AT&T Intellectual Property Review Team,
`
`Associate Editor of the Electronic Commerce Research Journal, Co-editor of the
`
`Electronic Newsletter of the IEEE Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`member of the board of directors of the USENIX Association (the leading academic
`
`computing systems society), and a member of the editorial board of the Bellcore
`
`Security Update Newsletter.
`
`14.
`
`I have spoken on information security and electronic privacy issues at
`
`more than 50 seminars and symposia. For example, I presented keynote addresses
`
`on the topics “Security of Electronic Voting” at Computer Security 2004 Mexico in
`
`Mexico City, Mexico, in May 2004; “Electronic Voting” to the Secure Trusted
`
`Systems Consortium 5th Annual Symposium in Washington, D.C., in December
`
`2003; “Security Problems on the Web” to the AT&T EUA Customer conference in
`
`March 2000; and “Security on the Internet” to the AT&T Security Workshop in June
`
`1997. I also presented a talk about hacking devices at the TEDx conference in
`
`October 2011 and another TEDx talk on the same topic in September 2015.
`
`15. From 2005 to 2011, I served as founder and President of Independent
`
`Security Evaluators (“ISE”), a computer security consulting firm. In that capacity,
`
`I guided ISE through the qualification process to become an independent testing
`
`laboratory for Consumer Union, which produces the Consumer Reports magazine.
`
`As an independent testing laboratory for Consumer Union, I managed an annual
`
`project where we tested popular anti-virus products. Our results were published in
`
`Consumer Reports each year for three consecutive years.
`
`16.
`
`I am currently the founder and chief scientist of Harbor Labs, a software
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`and networking consulting firm specializing in medical device security and privacy
`
`of healthcare data.
`
`17. As is apparent from the above description, virtually my entire
`
`professional career has been dedicated to issues relating to software, networks,
`
`information security, and computer systems more generally.
`
`C.
`
`18.
`
`Publications
`
`I am a named inventor on ten United States patents. The patent
`
`numbers and titles as well as my co-inventors are listed on the attached curriculum
`
`vitae.
`
`19.
`
`In March 2004, I was asked by the Federal Trade Commission to submit
`
`a report commenting on the viability and usefulness of a national Do Not E-mail
`
`Registry. I submitted my report entitled “A Report to the Federal Trade Commission
`
`on Responses to Their Request for Information on Establishing a National Do Not
`
`E-mail Registry” on May 10, 2004.
`
`20.
`
`I have also testified before Congress regarding security issues with
`
`electronic voting machines, as well as in the United States Senate on the issue of
`
`censorship. Further, on November 19, 2013, I testified in Congress about security
`
`issues related to the government’s Healthcare.gov web site. It was my opinion that
`
`Healthcare.gov did not incorporate adequate security measures and that its poor
`
`architectural design allowed for potential compromises of private enrollment
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`information. I recommended several approaches for securing Healthcare.gov, one
`
`of which included a recurring security review to check for standard vulnerabilities
`
`such as structured query language (“SQL”) injections.
`
`21.
`
`I am the author or co-author of five books regarding information
`
`security issues: Brave New Ballot, Random House, 2006; Firewalls and Internet
`
`Security (second edition), Addison Wesley, 2003; White-Hat Security Arsenal,
`
`Addison Wesley, 2001; Peer-to-Peer, O’Reilly, 2001; and Web Security
`
`Sourcebook, John Wiley & Sons, 1997. I am also the author of numerous journal
`
`and conference publications.
`
`D. Curriculum Vitae
`
`22. Additional details of my education and employment history, recent
`
`professional service, patents, publications, and other testimony are set forth in my
`
`current curriculum vitae (“CV”), attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`23.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a POSITA at the time
`
`of the alleged invention, which counsel for Petitioner has instructed me to assume is
`
`June 23, 2011 (the filing date of the earliest provisional application in the alleged
`
`priority chain of the ’178 patent).
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`level of skill in a field of art include the level of education and experience of persons
`
`working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; the teachings of
`
`the prior art, and the sophistication of the technology at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather is
`
`a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors above. I
`
`understand that a POSITA would also have knowledge from the teachings of the
`
`prior art, including the art cited below.
`
`25. Taking these factors into consideration, on or before June 23, 2011, a
`
`POSITA relating to the technology of the ’178 patent would have had a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and 2-3 years
`
`of practical engineering experience, including experience designing or researching
`
`information security systems that employ cryptographic keys to encrypt and decrypt
`
`digital data. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or
`
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.
`
`26. Before June 23, 2011, my level of skill in the art was at least that of a
`
`POSITA. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA would have
`
`known and understood at that time, and my analysis and conclusions herein are from
`
`the perspective of a POSITA as of that date.
`
`IV. Materials Considered and Relied Upon
`
`27.
`
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in this
`
`declaration, including the ’178 patent, the prosecution history of the ’178 patent, and
`
`prior art references cited herein. These materials comprise patents, related
`
`documents, and printed publications. Each of these materials is a type of document
`
`that experts in my field would have reasonably relied upon when forming their
`
`opinions.
`
`28.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`personal and professional experience in the relevant technologies and systems that
`
`were already in use prior to, and within the timeframe of the earliest priority date of
`
`the claimed subject matter in the ’178 patent, which is June 23, 2011.
`
` EX1001 U.S. Patent 9,313,178 to Ma et al. (“the ’178 patent”)
` EX1002 Prosecution History of the ’178 patent (Serial No. 14/266,368)
` EX1004 U.S. Pub. 2002/0172368 (“Peterka”)
` EX1005 U.S. Pub. 2010/0235528 (“Bocharov”)
` EX1006 European Patent Pub. 1 418 756 A2 (“Chen”)
` EX1007 U.S. Pub. 2009/0254708 (“Balraj”)
` EX1008 U.S. Pub. 2012/0254456 (“Visharam”)
` EX1009 U.S. Pub. 2008/0270308 (“Peterka308”)
` EX1010 U.S. Pub. 2005/0138362 (“Kelly”)
` EX1011 U.S. Pub. 2011/0067012 (“Eisen”)
` EX1012 U.S. Pub. 2011/0099594 (“Chen594”)
` EX1013 Chow et al., A White-Box DES Implementation for DRM
`Applications, Pre-Proceedings for ACM DRM-2002 Workshop (October
`15, 2002)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
` EX1014 RFC793: Transmission Control Protocol (September 1981)
` EX1015 RFC2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1 (June
`1999)
`
`
`V. Legal Standards
`
`29.
`
`I am not a lawyer and do not provide any legal opinions, but I have been
`
`advised that certain legal standards are to be applied by technical experts in forming
`
`opinions regarding meaning and validity of patent claims. I have applied the legal
`
`standards described below, which were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that assessing the validity of a U.S. patent based
`
`on a prior art analysis involves two steps. First, one assesses what meaning one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have given the terms recited in the claims. Second,
`
`after assessing the meaning of the claim terms, one may then assess validity by
`
`comparing a patent claim to the “prior art.” I understand that the teaching of the
`
`prior art is viewed through the eyes of a POSITA at the time the invention was made.
`
`My analysis as to what constitutes a relevant POSITA is set forth above.
`
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior
`
`art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. For purposes of this declaration,
`
`counsel for Petitioner has instructed me to assume that each prior art reference cited
`
`in the combinations described below (i.e., Peterka, Bocharov, Peterka308, Chen,
`
`Balraj, Kelly, and Eisen) qualify as prior art to the ’178 patent.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard for Priority Date
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the “priority date” (or “earliest effective filing date”
`
`or “Critical Date”) of a patent is the date on which it is filed, or the date on which an
`
`earlier application was filed if the patentee properly claims the benefit of the earlier
`
`application’s filing date. For purposes of my analysis in this declaration, I have
`
`assumed that the ’178 patent is entitled to a priority date of June 23, 2011.
`
`C. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`33. My understanding is that a patent claim is invalid as obvious only if the
`
`subject matter of the claimed invention “as a whole” would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time the invention was made. To determine the differences between
`
`a prior art reference (or a proposed combination of prior art references) and the
`
`claims, the question of obviousness is not whether the differences themselves would
`
`have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`
`obvious. Also, obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`statements. Rather, it is necessary to provide some articulated reasoning with
`
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a patent claim that comprises several elements is not
`
`proved obvious by simply showing that each of its elements was independently
`
`known in the prior art. In my evaluation of whether any claim of the ’178 patent
`
`would have been obvious, I considered whether the Petition, or any evidence
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`submitted in this proceeding, presented an articulated reason with a rational basis
`
`that would have motivated a POSITA to combine the elements or concepts from the
`
`prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`It is my understanding that there is no single way to define the line
`
`between true inventiveness on one hand—which is patentable—and the application
`
`of common sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand—which is
`
`not patentable. For instance, factors such as market forces or other design incentives
`
`may be the source of what produced a change, rather than true inventiveness.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the decision-maker may consider whether the change
`
`was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their
`
`known functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness. And, the
`
`decision-maker may also consider whether there is some teaching or suggestion in
`
`the prior art to make the modification or combination of elements recited in the claim
`
`at issue. Also, the decision-maker may consider whether the innovation applies a
`
`known technique that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a
`
`similar way. The decision-maker may also consider whether the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to try, meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a
`
`relatively small number of possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success by those skilled in the art.
`
`37.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel for Petitioner that if any of these
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`considerations are relied upon to reach a conclusion of obviousness, the law requires
`
`that the analysis of such a consideration must be made explicit. I understand that the
`
`decision-maker must be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of
`
`hindsight and that many true inventions might seem obvious after the fact. I
`
`understand that the decision-maker should consider obviousness from the position
`
`of a POSITA at the time the claimed invention was made, and that the decision-
`
`maker should not consider what is known today or what is learned from the teaching
`
`of the patent.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in order to determine whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious, one must make certain factual findings regarding the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art. Specifically, I understand that the following factors must be evaluated
`
`to determine whether a claim is obvious: the scope and content of the prior art; the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between the claim of the patent and the prior art;
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made; and,
`
`if available, the objective indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary
`
`considerations.”
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the secondary considerations include: commercial
`
`success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; a long felt need for
`
`the solution provided by the claimed invention; unsuccessful attempts by others to
`
`find the solution provided by the claimed invention; copying of the claimed
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`invention by others; unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention;
`
`acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by praise from others in the
`
`field or from the licensing of the claimed invention; teaching away from the
`
`conventional wisdom in the art at the time of the invention; independent invention
`
`of the claimed invention by others before or at about the same time as the named
`
`inventor thought of it; and other evidence tending to show obviousness.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that, to establish a secondary consideration, the evidence
`
`must demonstrate a nexus between that secondary consideration and the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`VI. Overview of the ’178 patent
`
`A.
`
`Subject Matter Overview
`
`41. The ’178 patent describes technology related to “over-the-top (OTT)
`
`media delivery and more specifically to encryption key rotation for live streaming
`
`media.” APPLE-1001, 1:15-17. For example, a server streams to a client device
`
`segments of media content that are each encrypted with a different content
`
`encryption key. Id., 1:38-42, 1:63-65. The client device communicates with a
`
`licensing server during the stream to pre-fetch content encryption keys ahead of key
`
`rotation boundaries, and the client then applies a retrieved key to decrypt a
`
`corresponding segment of the media stream. Id., 11:3-25, 11:38-62. “The
`
`transitioning between use of different keys is also referred to … as key ‘rotation’.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Id., 1:63-65.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 1; generally id., 9:47-11:62.
`
`B.
`
`File History of the ’178 patent
`
`42. The application that led to the ’178 patent was filed on April 30, 2014.
`
`APPLE-1002, 104-108. The Examiner identified all original claims 1-20 as
`
`allowable in a first action dated May 26, 2015. Id., 61-65. The Examiner cited one
`
`reference in this action, i.e., U.S. Pub. 2005/0060316 to Kamath et al., but did not
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`substantively comment on the reference. Id., 65. The applicant responded to the
`
`first action with brief remarks, but amended none of the claims. Id., 56-58. The
`
`Examiner subsequently allowed the application in a notice dated October 28, 2015.
`
`Id., 19-25. The Examiner’s reasons for allowance stated “the prior art of record
`
`(Kamath 20050060316) does not teach detecting content key rotation boundaries
`
`and issuing requests to a license server ahead of the key rotation boundaries.” Id.,
`
`24.
`
`C.
`
`Interpretation of the ’178 patent Claims at Issue
`
`43. For purposes of my analysis in this IPR proceeding, I understand that
`
`the terms that appear in the claims of the ’178 patent should be interpreted according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning. I understand that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of a claim term reflects the ordinary meaning that the term would have had
`
`to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention in the context of the technology
`
`described in the patent. I also understand that the structure of the claims, the
`
`specification and file history also may be used to better construe a claim insofar as
`
`the plain meaning of the claims cannot be understood. Moreover, I understand that
`
`even treatises and dictionaries may be used to determine the meaning attributed by
`
`a POSITA to a claim term at the time of the alleged invention. I have applied the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning to the terms of the Challenged Claims in light of the
`
`specification and file history of the ’178 patent.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`44.
`
`I understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as they
`
`would have been interpre