PTAB

IPR2016-00755

Apple Inc v. Personalized Media Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’091 patent discloses a method for decrypting programming at a receiver station. The method involves receiving an information transmission containing encrypted programming, detecting a discrete "instruct-to-enable signal" within the transmission, and processing that signal to determine the location of decryption keys used to decrypt the programming.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Gilhousen - Claims 13-15, 18, 20, 23, and 24 are anticipated by Gilhousen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gilhousen (Patent 4,613,901).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gilhousen, which discloses a subscription television system for scrambling and selectively descrambling signals, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Specifically, Gilhousen’s transmitted control signals, such as the initialization vector ("IV") frame count signal and the subscriber key generation number, function as the claimed "instruct-to-enable" signals. A descrambler processor at the receiver detects these signals and uses them to generate a first decryption key (a unique keystream) and a second decryption key (a subscriber key). These keys are then used to decrypt the scrambled television programming, directly mapping to the limitations of independent claims 13 and 20 and their dependents.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gilhousen and Block - Claims 16 and 21 are obvious over Gilhousen in view of Block.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gilhousen (Patent 4,613,901) and Block (Patent 4,484,217).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gilhousen teaches all limitations of the base claims (13 and 20), from which claims 16 and 21 depend. The sole additional limitation in claims 16 and 21 is "storing information evidencing said step of decrypting." Petitioner contended that Block, which also relates to subscriber television systems, explicitly teaches this missing element by disclosing the storage of a "unique program code" as an encoded "use code" for subsequent retrieval by a TV operator to create a record of purchased programs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Block's record-keeping feature with Gilhousen's system to enhance convenience and security. This combination would improve billing and tracking for "special event" or pay-per-view programming, a feature that Gilhousen discloses its system can support.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references describe using embedded digital data within a broadcast signal to control television system features, making the integration of a use code storage function straightforward and predictable.

Ground 3: Anticipation over Mason - Claims 13-15, 18, 20, 23, and 24 are anticipated by Mason.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mason (Patent 4,736,422).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mason, which discloses a system for encrypting and decrypting television signals, anticipates the claims. Petitioner identified Mason’s transmitted encrypted signals P(Ts+S+P) and D(Tc+P) as the claimed "instruct-to-enable" signals. These signals are detected by the receiver and processed by decryption circuits to locate a first decryption key (session key S) and a second decryption key (period key P). The receiver then uses these keys to decrypt the scrambled television signal, meeting all limitations. Petitioner noted this argument was distinct from one overcome during prosecution by identifying a different signal in Mason as the "instruct-to-enable signal."

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation and obviousness challenges against claims 26, 27, and 30 based on Frezza (Patent 4,712,239) and Kelly (Patent 4,503,462), each also combined with Block. These grounds relied on similar theories where Frezza and Kelly provided the base decryption methods and Block provided the missing limitation of storing evidence of decryption for record-keeping.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "decrypting": Petitioner argued that the term "decrypting" should be construed broadly to encompass both digital decryption and analog "descrambling." This construction was asserted as critical because several prior art references disclose analog descrambling systems. Petitioner supported this position by citing the patent’s specification, which explicitly states that "decryptors ... may be conventional descramblers," and by referencing prior PTAB decisions on related patents that adopted this broader interpretation.
  • "an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information": Petitioner proposed that this phrase should be construed to mean "an information transmission that is partially or entirely digital, at least a portion of which is encrypted." This non-limiting construction was argued to be consistent with the plain language and necessary to cover transmissions that are not exclusively digital or entirely encrypted. This prevents a narrow interpretation that would exclude prior art where, for example, control signals are digital but the main program is analog, or where only portions of the transmission (e.g., video but not audio) are encrypted.
  • "processor": Petitioner argued for a broad construction of "a device that operates on data," consistent with prior PTAB and district court constructions for the same term in related patents. This interpretation covers a wide range of devices, including hardwired logic circuits and not just programmable microprocessors, which is relevant to mapping the functionality of prior art systems like Gilhousen's "working key generator."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 13-16, 18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, and 30 of Patent 8,191,091 as unpatentable.