UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 7,864,956
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 7,864,956
`
`Amazon Ex. 1001
`IPR Petition - USP 7,864,956
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 7,864,956
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES J. NEUHAUSER, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 7,864,956
`
`Amazon Ex. 1001
`IPR Petition - USP 7,864,956
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`(“Amazon”) in the matter of Amazon’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of US
`
`Patent 7,864,956 (the “Harvey ‘956 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $400 for consulting services. I am being reimbursed at cost for any
`
`expenses. My compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`3.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. My current CV is
`
`attached. I was awarded the degree of BSEE from the University of Notre Dame in
`
`1968. Directly after graduating I was employed by Bell Telephone Laboratories
`
`(now Alcatel-Lucent) as a Member of the Technical Staff. In this capacity I
`
`worked on the specification, testing, and development of computer controlled data
`
`and telephone switching systems for deployment in telephone central offices.
`
`While I was at Bell Telephone Laboratories I received my MSEE from
`
`Northwestern University under a company sponsored program.
`
`4.
`
`In 1971 I left Bell Telephone Laboratories to pursue a PhD in a newly
`
`formed CS/EE program at the Johns Hopkins University. My degree was awarded
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`in 1980 based on my research into the use of emulation techniques in the
`
`evaluation of computer architectures.
`
`5.
`
`In 1974 while working on my Ph.D. research I joined the Digital
`
`Systems team at Stanford University as a research associate where I worked on the
`
`development of an emulation system used for architectural research. From about
`
`1972 I also worked part-time with Palyn Associates, Inc. (later Palyn-Gould
`
`Group) (“Palyn”) as a Member of the Technical Staff. At Palyn I worked initially
`
`on the development of a range of commercial products based on emulation
`
`concepts.
`
`6.
`
`In 1980 I joined Palyn full time as a member of their technical staff
`
`and later as Director of Engineering and by 1985 as Vice President of Engineering.
`
`Palyn was a consulting company with a range of international clients in the general
`
`field of computer technology. My responsibilities at Palyn related to two broad
`
`areas. First, I was responsible for directing product development on behalf of our
`
`clients, and second, I consulted directly with clients on issues related to processor
`
`and peripheral design. My work here related to main-frame processors,
`
`minicomputers, micro-computers, and systems that used such components.
`
`7.
`
`In my role directing product development I was responsible for the
`
`specification, design, testing, and debugging of a wide range of devices including
`
`mini-computers, microprocessors, and peripheral controllers, such as printers,
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`communications, and printer interfaces. Work on these systems involved both
`
`hardware and software development.
`
`8.
`
`In 1994 I began working as an independent consultant first doing
`
`business as CTCS and later as Neuhauser Associates, Inc. Since that time my
`
`professional work has focused on technical analysis of systems primarily in the
`
`support of litigation or potential litigation. I have worked extensively in the
`
`analysis of patent claims both with respect to determining infringement and
`
`invalidity. I also have experience in software copyright and technical trade secret
`
`matters. From time to time I lead teams of engineers in testing and technical
`
`evaluations.
`
`9.
`
`At this time I have over 45 years of continuous professional
`
`experience in the field of processors and systems controlled by such processors.
`
`The Harvey ‘956 patent relates to system level interconnection of communication
`
`and computer devices. It also relates to their control by computers in response to
`
`signals. Over my engineering career I have designed many such computer
`
`controlled systems.
`
`10.
`
`Since 1972 I have had extensive experience with microprocessors and
`
`systems controlled by such devices. In addition to the specification, design,
`
`implementation, testing, debugging, and deployment of such hardware systems, I
`
`have also developed the support software for many such systems. Commonly, I, or
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`the engineers I directed, made use of microprocessor-based systems to implement
`
`communications functions or to control larger processors’ systems. This included
`
`responding to certain protocols or developing our own protocols.
`
`11.
`
`In my current capacity as an independent consultant I have reviewed
`
`and verified the operation of a wide variety of technical systems, including
`
`processors, personal computers, industrial robots, chemical analysis systems,
`
`television devices, peripherals, and bus systems.
`
`12.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this report I have relied upon my
`
`education and my 45 years of professional experience.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`13.
`
`The Harvey ‘956 patent and the prior art references that I will be
`
`discussing below relate to networks. In the case of the Harvey ‘956 to the extent
`
`networks are described they are based on television and radio broadcast
`
`technology, and in some cases on dial up telephone connections. However, by
`
`1987 one of ordinary skill in the art would have been well aware of other types of
`
`networks, including those based on so-called “packet switching” technologies.
`
`14. One of ordinary skill in the art in 1987 would have realized that the
`
`overall character of networks has been known for nearly 100 years. For example,
`
`telegraph, telephone, radio and television networks were very well-known along
`
`with their basic characteristics. These types of networks were based on two basic
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`transmission modes: “point to point” and “broadcast”. For example, in a telegraph
`
`or telephone network information is typically transferred from one location to
`
`another directly over a circuit path. In radio and television the usual mode of
`
`operation is broadcast, where information is impressed on a signal and then
`
`radiated from a transmitter to many receivers. Obviously, the differences between
`
`the underlying signal distribution technologies of telephone, telegraph, radio and
`
`television networking are not nearly so clear-cut. For example, there are party line
`
`and multi-drop telephone and telegraph connections, as well as point-to-point radio
`
`and television networks (i.e., microwave links).
`
`15.
`
`In early telephone and telegraph networks the basic mode of
`
`communications was by wire. In this mode a direct, conductive circuit was
`
`established between two points in the network. Where it was useful to have the
`
`flexibility for a user to connect at different times to different users then the circuit
`
`was switched, as in the telephone network. Since the inception of the telegraph
`
`and telephone networks the notion of “circuit switching” (that is, establishing a
`
`direct, real-time connection between two points) has been well-known. The
`
`technique was also applicable to radio and television networks where a real-time
`
`signal path was established through a chain of multiple stations either manually or
`
`automatically. It has also been well-known since at least the 1950s to incorporate
`
`control information within the signals transmitted over telephone, radio and
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`television circuits to control the circuits. Touch-tone telephones are a simple
`
`example of this notion.
`
`16.
`
`There is another approach to controlling the flow of information over
`
`networks, usually referred to as “packet switching”. This approach was first
`
`proposed in explicit detail in the mid-1960s with respect to building “survivable”
`
`computer networks, that is, networks where a message could be sent from one
`
`location to another even if some nodes or links in the network had been destroyed.
`
`Although the basic concept was not suggested for computer networks until the
`
`mid-1960s the notion had been used in telegraph and radio-telegraphy networks for
`
`many years prior. The basic concept is this: information to be sent is placed in a
`
`“packet” (like a telegram) which then is passed from one location in the network to
`
`the next based on the address of the packet. At each station on the network the
`
`message is copied either mechanically or manually and then sent out on a link that
`
`gets the message “closer” to its final destination. In this case, two telegrams sent at
`
`two different times might take different routes through the network. Also it is easy
`
`to see that a lengthy message might be split into a number of telegrams each taking
`
`a different route to the final destination and possibly arriving out of order.
`
`17.
`
`Early computer “networks” were basically point to point networks
`
`with some sort of circuit switching incorporated into the network. However, in the
`
`mid-1960s it was recognized that the “telegram” approach, if it could be automated
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`might have a number of advantages, one of which is that the message would
`
`always reach the final destination provided there was some path between the
`
`source and the destination, no matter how complex. This recognition led directly
`
`to the development of “packet switched” networks. In these networks data to be
`
`sent from one location to another was placed in a packet. Typically, the packet
`
`also included an address of the destination, the address of the source and other
`
`tracking information, like a serial number and message length. The computer at
`
`the source location sent a packet over a link to one of its directly connected
`
`neighboring computers. This neighbor then stored the packet, examined the
`
`destination address and relayed a copy of the packet to one of its adjacent
`
`neighbors that was, in some sense, “closer” to the final destination. By the 1970s
`
`there were many such packet switched networks being investigated, including the
`
`Arpanet, widely recognized as a forerunner of the current Internet.
`
`18. By the mid-1970s different types of packet-based networks were also
`
`in use for local communications between computers, terminal, printers and the like.
`
`One very well-known example was Ethernet, which was an protocol for
`
`transferring packets of information among a group of computers sharing a common
`
`coaxial cable. This system was explained in a well-known paper in 1976 (relied on
`
`below). The original purpose of the Ethernet was to connect systems, such as
`
`computers, terminals and peripherals within the same “campus” such as an office
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`building or office park. The coaxial cable was shared by all the users. To send a
`
`packet from one point on the network to another point (or points) on the network
`
`the data to be sent was placed in a packet along with the destination address and
`
`other control information and broadcast to all other devices on the network over
`
`the coaxial cable. Every device examined the address in the packet header and if
`
`there was a match the device kept the packet and made use of the data. If there
`
`was not an address match the device discarded the data. Ethernet was very widely
`
`deployed and by 1983 had been defined as a standard for local communications by
`
`the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”). Thus, for many
`
`years beginning in the early 1980s Ethernet and similar approaches have been
`
`well-known as techniques for providing local data connections between computers.
`
`19. What I have described above is basic knowledge that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had in 1987. This is because technologies such as
`
`Ethernet were widespread, well-known and well-understood. A typical electrical
`
`engineering undergraduate education with a concentration in computer technology
`
`would have included exposure to computer networking techniques and capabilities.
`
`In any case, one of ordinary skill in the art, tasked with connecting computers
`
`together would have been well aware of this type of technology.
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`III. MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`
`20.
`
`For my opinions expressed herein, I have reviewed and relied on the
`
`following information:
`o The Harvey ‘956 patent (Ex. 1003)
`o U.S. Patent No. 5,270,922 (“Higgins”) (Ex. 1007)
`o Robert M. Metcalfe and David R. Boggs, Ethernet: Distributed
`
`Packet Switching for Local Computer Networks, 19 Comm. of the
`
`ACM 395-404 (1976) (“Metcalfe”) (Ex. 1009)
`o U.S. Patent No. 4,439,784 (“Furukawa”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claim 6 of the
`
`Harvey ‘956 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention in view of the prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this declaration involve the application of my engineering knowledge
`
`and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the Harvey ‘956
`
`patent. My knowledge of applicable patent law that of a lay person. Therefore, I
`
`have requested the attorneys who represent Amazon, to provide me with guidance
`
`as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below express my
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`understanding of how I must apply current principles related to patent validity in
`
`my analysis.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must construe the
`
`claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification. For the purposes of this review, I have analyzed each claim term in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. It is my understanding that a
`
`claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the claimed subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. I also understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`25.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`26.
`
`To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`27.
`
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`Lastly, I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider
`
`whether there are additional factors that would indicate that the invention was non-
`
`obvious. Such factors include whether the invention was commercially successful,
`
`whether there was a long-felt need for the invention, whether others tried and
`
`failed to make the invention, and any other facts that would suggest that someone
`
`with ordinary skill in the art would not have found the invention obvious. In the
`
`present case, I am unaware of any evidence that would suggest that Claim 6 of the
`
`Harvey ‘956 patent would have been non-obvious.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the Harvey
`
`‘956 patent I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant priority date. It is my understanding that the Petitioner believes that
`
`the appropriate priority date for claim 6 of the Harvey ‘956 patent is September
`
`1987. It is my understanding that the Respondent may propose that the appropriate
`
`priority date is November 1981. I have not analyzed and have no opinion on what
`
`the appropriate priority date is. It is my understanding that Furukawa and Metcalfe
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`would both be prior art to the 1981 date, while Higgins would be prior art to the
`
`1987 date.
`
`30.
`
`The discussion which follows outlines the characteristics of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in November of 1981.
`
`31.
`
`The Harvey ‘956 patent describes the interconnection and operation of
`
`very well-known components. These components include television receivers,
`
`radio receivers, amplifiers, micro-computers (“personal computers”), audio
`
`recorders, and video recorders, among other things. In addition, the Harvey ‘956
`
`patent discusses at a general level various types of “signal decoders”, such as
`
`television line decoders, used to decode radio and television signals, and switches
`
`to direct these types of signals between various components. The Harvey ‘956
`
`patent also describes various signal and message formats.
`
`32.
`
`The technology scope of the Harvey ‘956 patent may be discerned
`
`easily by a simple review of the figures. These figures show components that were
`
`very well known in 1981 (and in 1987). What they do not show is any unusual
`
`circuitry or interconnection of components. For the most part, the Harvey ‘956
`
`patent relates to the interconnection of many well-known components and their
`
`control using widely known and understood techniques.
`
`33. Based on my review of the specification of the Harvey ‘956 patent, it
`
`is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be an engineer with a
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering or a closely related field.1 This
`
`person would have between three and five years of experience beyond graduation
`
`in the implementation of communications systems and controlling these systems
`
`(or similar types of systems) through the use of computer technology. Someone
`
`would be equally qualified if they had a Master’s of Science degree and somewhat
`
`less practical experience.
`
`34.
`
`I am able to make this assessment because by 1981 I worked with,
`
`supervised, and hired engineers with these types of qualifications. These engineers
`
`had the requisite knowledge to make and use systems as described in claim 6 of the
`
`Harvey ‘956 patent. Because I have worked with and supervised engineers with
`
`this background I know very well what their capabilities were in November 1981
`
`and how they would interpret claim 6 of the Harvey ‘956 patent and the disclosures
`
`of the applicable prior art.
`
`35. Above I have outlined the characteristics of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in November of 1981. This same background would be applicable to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in September of 1987. Obviously, by this later
`
`1 By
`the 1980s most Electrical Engineering students
`
`took courses
`
`in
`
`communications and computer programming. Even in college these students
`
`would likely have had practical experience building systems based on techniques
`
`similar to those described in the Harvey ‘956 patent.
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`date the breadth of skill that such a person would have would be somewhat broader
`
`than the similarly educated and experienced engineer from November of 1981.
`
`However, the education and degree of practical experience required (three to five
`
`years) would be the same. This person would be able to understand and apply the
`
`prior art that I will cite. This includes the ability to understand how the prior art
`
`might be extended and combined in the ways I will describe below. I have a good
`
`feel for the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art that I described
`
`because in 1987 I worked with, hired, and supervised engineers with this sort of
`
`background.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE HARVEY ‘956 PATENT
`
`36. Containing almost 300 columns of text and 22 sheets of drawings, the
`
`Harvey ‘956 patent would be difficult to summarize completely here. Instead I
`
`will provide some background on the basic notions that appear to be related to
`
`claim 6.
`
`37.
`
`The Harvey ‘956 patent provides a number of examples of how the
`
`basic system of Harvey may be used. The example that appears to be most
`
`relevant to claim 6 is Example #11, which relates to the distribution of farm
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`planning information in Europe.2 Before discussing this example in detail I will
`
`begin with some background information.
`
`38. Harvey Fig. 6, consisting of Figs. 6A and 6B represents an
`
`“intermediate transmission station”, a key component of Example #11. Generally
`
`speaking, an intermediate transmission station is a station that can receive signals
`
`from some other station and then retransmit them, possibly with modification,
`
`deletion or additions. In the examples of the Harvey ‘956 patent the intermediate
`
`transmission stations are similar to cable system head ends in that they receive
`
`radio and television signals and then retransmit them over cable, television or
`
`satellite. Rather than look at Harvey Fig. 6 in detail at this point, it is easier to
`
`understand some of the basic notions of the Harvey ‘956 and Example #11 by
`
`referring to Harvey Fig. 1 presented below.
`
`
`2 Example #11 (“Farm Plans of Europe”) is discussed at Cols. 274-287. However,
`
`the discussion refers back to Examples #9 and #10 at various points.
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`39.
`
`This figure depicts a system of Harvey in a relatively simple form and
`
`would correspond to a somewhat simplified so-called “ultimate receiver station” of
`
`Harvey Fig. 7. [Harvey 10:14-15; 201:56-60]. In Harvey Fig. 1 signals are
`
`received over the air via television tuner (215) which produces audio and video
`
`signals. [Harvey 10:44-48]. Audio signals are applied directly to a television
`
`monitor (202W). [Harvey 10:48-49]. The video signal is passed to divider (4)
`
`which splits the signal into two identical signals. One copy is sent to
`
`microcomputer (205), which may be a personal computer with certain
`
`enhancement peripherals, especially a peripheral to produce graphics overlaid on
`
`video. The other copy of the signal is send to TV signal decoder (203). The
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`purpose of this device is to extract certain control information embedded in the
`
`non-viewable part of the video signal. [Harvey 10:49-63]. For example, Teletext,
`
`Videotex and closed captioning are among the many ways that this can be done.
`
`Many such references are cited on the face of the Harvey ‘956 patent. TV signal
`
`decoder (203) extracts the embedded information (called “signals only” in Harvey
`
`Fig. 1) and passes them to the microcomputer (205). [Harvey 10:49-63; 11:4-22].
`
`40. Microcomputer (205) is a standard IBM Personal Computer with the
`
`typical range of peripherals, such as floppy disk and asynchronous interfaces.
`
`[Harvey 10:63-11:4]. The information extracted from the video stream is passed to
`
`an asynchronous
`
`interface on
`
`the microcomputer (205) for processing.
`
`Microcomputer (205) also includes a graphics overlay card. The Harvey ‘956
`
`suggests that this card could be an off-the-shelf Techmar Graphic Master Card.
`
`This card is capable of generating graphics under computer control and combining
`
`those graphics with the first copy of the broadcast video. [Harvey 11:4-22].
`
`Microcomputer (205) analyzes the embedded information from the TV signal
`
`decoder (203) and uses these signals to generate graphics and to control when the
`
`graphics are presented. For example, in the example related to Harvey Fig. 1
`
`(“Wall Street Week”) a chart of stock market performance over the previous week
`
`broadcast from the television studio is overlaid at the viewer’s television with the
`
`performance of the viewer’s own portfolio. [Harvey 14:18-24]. In this way the
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`system of Harvey Fig. 1 can produce a display of graphics information overlaid on
`
`the broadcast TV transmission. The Harvey ‘956 sometimes refers to this as a
`
`combined medium presentation because
`
`it combines computer generated
`
`information with broadcast television information. [Harvey 14:50-57]. Additional
`
`details of the “Wall Street Week” example are given at Harvey 220:24-239:7. For
`
`example, it is suggested that the viewer’s station might be commanded by the
`
`broadcast station to dial into a database of stock price information to update its
`
`portfolio file. [Harvey 231:59-232:2].
`
`41. Harvey Example #11 is more complex. Here I will only describe
`
`aspects that seem to relate to claim 6. The basic scenario of Example #11 (so
`
`called “Farm Plans of Europe”) is to distribute coordinated farm planning
`
`information to individual farmers in Europe. [Harvey 275:17-22] This is done
`
`through a hierarchy of television stations. At the top of the hierarchy is a
`
`“European master network origination and control station”. [Harvey 276:1-7].
`
`This station may communicate by satellite transmissions to national intermediate
`
`transmission stations. These are television stations organized as in Harvey Fig. 6.
`
`In particular they may receive signals and act on instructions in those signals to
`
`retransmit possibly modified signals by television broadcast or satellite. [Harvey
`
`275:22-27]. The next level consists of locally situated “intermediate transmission
`
`stations” that perform the same function. [Harvey 275:45-52]. At the very bottom
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`of the hierarchy are “ultimate receiver stations”, which are television based system
`
`similar to Harvey Figs. 1 and 7 that are owned by individual farmers. [Harvey
`
`274:62-66].
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In Example #11 the master network station controls the operation of
`
`the subordinate stations either directly or indirectly through other subordinate
`
`stations. [Harvey 276:1-7]. In the Example the master station provides a particular
`
`program called “Farm Plans of Europe” that is transmitted at a particular time to
`
`assist farmers all over Europe in planning crops for the next season. [Harvey
`
`277:14-18]. One aspect of this system is that each of the transmission stations
`
`(master, national, local) has program and data files stored at their particular
`
`locations. For example, each national intermediate transmission station may have
`
`national tax and monetary policy files. [Harvey 275:33-42]. Similarly, local
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`intermediate transmission stations may have information about local tax and
`
`employment policy. [Harvey 275:53-61].
`
`43.
`
`Each farmer participating in the plan has an ultimate receiver station,
`
`such as that shown in Harvey Fig. 7. This station stores information pertinent to
`
`their particular farm, such as soil conditions, acreage and condition of farm
`
`equipment. [Harvey 274:62-275:7]. The farmer’s ultimate receiver station also
`
`contains a program that the farmer uses to determine an optimal crop planting plan.
`
`This program relies on the farmer’s local information plus information sent to the
`
`farmer’s ultimate receiver station from the transmission stations higher in the
`
`hierarchy. [Harvey 275:7-16].
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`44. At a particular point in time the master transmission station send
`
`broadcast television and instructions to the intermediate transmission stations.
`
`This causes these stations to calculate parameters for farm planning in their
`
`national and local areas based on information each intermediate transmission
`
`station is holding about its national and local requirements. [Harvey 279:62-
`
`280:31; 280:46-281:4]. At a later point this information is passed to the farmer’s
`
`ultimate receiver stations from their local intermediate transmission station. This
`
`initiates the execution of the farm planning software at the farmer’s station. Using
`
`this software the farmer develops a planting approach this appears to be optimal
`
`considering national, local and individual circumstances and priorities. [Harvey
`
`282:14-34; 283:11-42].
`
`45. Once each framer has completed his or her crop plan the farmer’s
`
`ultimate receiver station contacts a remote data collection station by telephone and
`
`transfers the crop plan. [Harvey 285:64-286:12]. At the collection station the crop
`
`plans of all the participating farmers is evaluated and compared to national and
`
`local priorities. [Harvey 286:12-36]. This cycle may be repeated to optimize the
`
`overall crop plans. [Harvey 286:37-46].
`
`A. Overview of Claim 6
`
`46.
`
`I understand that PMC has identified Example #11 as the source of
`
`written description support for claim 6. The overall structure of claim 6 appears to
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`
`
`hint at that example, but many of the claim’s limitations are vague and nebulous.
`
`In the discussion that follows I will point out specific aspects claim 6 that are
`
`noticeably untethered from the key features of Example #11. For convenience of
`
`reference, I have appended letter indices to each clause.
`
`47. Claim 6 begins as follows:
`
`6 (pre) “A method of signal processing in a network to communicate at least
`
`some of a recommendation or solution to a plurality of subscribers, said
`
`method comprising the steps of:”
`
`6(a) “transmitting a signal to at least one of a plurality of stations;”
`
`48.
`
`The signal recited in step 6(a) could be transmitted from any origin to
`
`any destination by any conceivable means. The signal is transmitted to “at least
`
`one of a plurality of stations,” but the claim offers no description of these stations.
`
`They could potentially include one or more of the transmitter station, receiver
`
`stations, and remote stations recited later in claim, but they could also be entirely
`
`separate.
`
`49. Claim 6 continues:
`
`6(b) “controlling a transmitter station on the basis of information
`
`communicated with said signal, said step of controlling said transmitter
`
`station comprising the steps of:”
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`
`
`6(b)(i) “selecting some generally applicable information in respect of
`
`a problem or interest;”
`
`6(b)(ii) “generating at least a portion of a module including said
`
`selected generally applicable information; and;”
`
`6(b)(iii) “transmitting said module with at least a portion of said
`
`signal;”
`
`50.
`
`The information selected in step 6(b)(i) may relate to any problem or
`
`interest whatsoever; the claim is not adapted to provide recommendations in any
`
`specific field. The selected information need only be “generally
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
