Custom Media

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

Petitioner
v.
CUSTOM MEDIA, LLC
Patent Owner
Patent No. 6,269,275

Filing Date: March 31, 1998
Issue Date: July 31, 2001
Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CUSTOMIZING AND DISTRIBUTING
PRESENTATIONS FOR USER SITES
Inter Partes Review No.
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
Required Mandatory Notices 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) ........................................... 1

A.
Real Party-in-Interest ...................................................................................... 1
B.
Related Matters ................................................................................................ 2
C.
Lead and Back-Up Counsel 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3).................................. 3
D.
Service Information, Power of Attorney, and Payment of Fees ................ 3
Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. 42.104 .................................. 3

A.
Grounds for Standing and Identification of Challenged Claims ............... 3
III.
Summary of the 275 Patent ...................................................................................... 4
IV.
Summary of the Prosecution History of the 275 Patent ....................................... 5
V.
Claim Constructions 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................... 6

A.
Legal Overview ................................................................................................ 6
B.
Indefiniteness ................................................................................................... 7
C.
Preamble Terms of Claims 1 and 13 ............................................................. 7
D.
user profile information (Claims 1 and 13) .............................................. 8
E.
profile data objects (Claims 1 and 13)....................................................... 9
F.
user computer means (Claims 1 and 13) .................................................. 9
G.
accessing the profile data objects individually locally in each one

of a group of user computer means (Claims 1 and 13) .......................... 10
H.
presentation logic objects & creating presentation logic objects

based on corresponding ones of the data objects (Claims 1 and
13) .................................................................................................................... 12
I.
storing each one of the presentation logic objects individually

locally in the group of user computer means (Claims 1 and 13) ........... 14
J.
media components (Claims 1 and 13)..................................................... 15

i
VI.
K.
a single universal presentation media object (Claims 1 and 13) ........... 16
L.
means for Recitations in Claims 13-24 ............................................... 17

1.
means for gathering user profile information (Claim 13) ......... 18
2.
means for creating profile data objects (Claim 13) .................... 18
3.
means for creating presentation logic objects (Claim 13) .......... 19
4.
(i) means for accessing the profile data objects (claim 13),
(ii) means for storing each one of the presentation logic
objects individually locally in the group of user computer
means (claim 13), (iii) means for receiving the universal
presentation media object (claim 13), (iv) means for
selecting certain ones of the media components (claim 13),
(v) means for arranging the selected ones of said media
components (claim 13), (vi) means for using default data
objects (claim 18) and (vii) means for sending messages
from local user computer means (Claim 19) ................................. 19
5.
means for broadcasting a single universal presentation

media object (Claim 13)................................................................... 20
6.
means for adding profile data objects periodically (claim

14), and (ii) means for modifying said profile data objects
periodically (Claim 15) ..................................................................... 20
7.
(i) means for adding media objects periodically (claim 16)

and (ii) means for modifying said media objects
periodically (Claim 17) ..................................................................... 20
8.
Remaining Claim Terms .................................................................... 21
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................ 21
VII. There is a Reasonable Likelihood That at Least One Claim of the 275
Patent is Unpatentable.............................................................................................. 21
A.
Summary of Arguments ................................................................................ 21
B.
Independent claims ....................................................................................... 25

1.
Seidman anticipates claims 1 and 13 ................................................ 25

ii
C.
2.
Seidman renders obvious claims 1 and 13....................................... 29
3.
Rosser anticipates claims 1 and 13 ................................................... 30
4.
Rosser renders obvious claims 1 and 13 .......................................... 33
5.
Park anticipates claims 1 and 13 ....................................................... 34
6.
Park renders obvious claims 1 and 13.............................................. 37
7.
Claims 1 and 13 are obvious over a combination of

Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park .......................................................... 38
8.
Claim charts for Seidman, Rosser and Park for claims 1 and
13.......................................................................................................... 42
Dependent Claims ......................................................................................... 45

1.
Claims 2 and 14 (further including adding profile data objects

periodically) .......................................................................................... 46
2.
Claims 3 and 15 (further including [means for] modifying said

profile data objects periodically)............................................................. 48
3.
Claims 4 and 16 (further including [means for] adding media

objects periodically) .............................................................................. 49
4.
Claims 5 and 17 (further including [means for] modifying said

media objects periodically) ..................................................................... 50
5.
Claims 6 and 18 (further including [means for] using default data

objects in the absence of an individual user profile information) ................ 51
6.
Claims 7 and 19 (further including [means for] sending messages

from local user computer means in response to the activation of the
customized presentation by the user) ....................................................... 52
7.
Claims 8 and 20 (wherein at least some of said objects are encrypted

[employ encryption means]) .................................................................... 53
8.
Claims 9 and 21 (wherein at least some of said objects employ

QUICKTIME [means]), Claims 10 and 22 (wherein at least
some of said objects employ JAVA [means]), Claims 11 and
23 (wherein at least some of said objects are expressed in [employ]
iii
MPEG4 [means]) and Claims 12 and 24 (wherein at least

some of said objects are created with [employ] MACROMEDIA
FLASH technology [means] ............................................................ 54
9.
Claim charts for dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 ........................ 56
VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60
iv
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1001: Declaration of Dan Schonfeld, Ph.D. (Schon. Dec.).
Exhibit 1002: U.S. Patent No. 6,269,275 to Slade, filed on March 31, 1998 (the 275
Patent).
Exhibit 1003: The 275 Patent file history, retrieved on July 2, 2014.
Exhibit 1004: U.S. Patent No. 6,298,482 to Seidman et al., filed on November 12,
1997, issued on October 2, 2001 (Seidman).
Exhibit 1005: U.S. Patent No. 6,446,261 to Rosser, internationally filed on December
17, 1997, issued on September 3, 2002 (Rosser).
Exhibit 1006: International Publication No. WO 97/17771 to Park, internationally
filed on November 5, 1996, internationally published May 15, 1997 (Park).
Exhibit 1007: U.S. Patent No. 7,185,355 to Ellis et al., filed on March 4, 1998, issued
on February 27, 2007 (Ellis).
Exhibit 1008: U.S. Patent No. 5,760,821 to Ellis et al., filed on June 7, 1995, issued on
June 2, 1998 (Ellis II).
Exhibit 1009: U.S. Patent No. 6,738,978 to Hendricks et al., filed October 23, 1996,
issued on May 18, 2004 (Hendricks).
Exhibit 1010: Random House Websters Dictionary (1995).
Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner) petitions for inter partes review (IPR) under
35 U.S.C. 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. 42 of claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,269,275,
and asserts there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail regarding at least one
challenged claim.
I.
Required Mandatory Notices 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)

A.
Real Party-in-Interest
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Unified Patents is

the real party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised control or
could exercise control over Unified Patents participation in this proceeding, the filing
of this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial.
Intellectual property professionals concerned with the increasing risk of nonpracticing entities (NPEs) asserting poor quality patents against strategic technologies
and industries founded Unified. The founders thus created a first-of-its-kind company
with a sole purpose to deter NPE litigation by protecting technology sectors, like
content delivery, the technology at issue in the 275 Patent. Companies in a
technology sector subscribe to Unifieds technology specific deterrence, and in turn,
Unified performs many NPE-deterrent activities, such as analyzing the technology
sector, monitoring patent activity (including patent ownership and sales, NPE demand
letters and litigation, and industry companies), conducting prior art research and
invalidity analysis, providing a range of NPE advisory services to its subscribers,
sometimes acquiring patents, and sometimes challenging patents at the USPTO. Since
1
its founding, Unified is 100% owned by its employees; subscribers have absolutely no
ownership interest.
Unified has sole and absolute discretion over its decision to contest patents
through the USPTOs post-grant proceedings. Should Unified decide to challenge a
patent in a post-grant proceeding, it controls every aspect of such a challenge,
including controlling which patent and claims to challenge, which prior art to apply
and the grounds raised in the challenge, and when to bring any challenge. Subscribers
receive no prior notice of Unifieds patent challenges. After filing a post-grant
proceeding, Unified retains sole and absolute discretion and control over all strategy
decisions (including any decision to continue or terminate Unifieds participation).
Unified is also solely responsible for paying for the preparation, filing, and
prosecution of any post-grant proceeding, including any associated expenses.
In the instant proceeding, Unified exercised its sole discretion and control in
deciding to file this petition against the 275 Patent, including paying for all fees and
expenses. Unified shall exercise sole and absolute control and discretion of the
continued prosecution of this proceeding (including any decision to terminate
Unifieds participation) and shall bear all subsequent costs related to this proceeding.
Unified is therefore the sole real-party-in-interest in this proceeding.
B.
Related Matters
On August 15, 2013, Patent Owner filed complaints against the following
defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, for infringement of
2
the 275 Patent: AT&T Inc., Charter Communications Inc., Comcast Corp., Cox
Communications Inc., DirecTV, Dish Network Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc. and
Verizon Communications Inc. (Civil Action Nos. 1-13-cv-01419 01426).
C.
Lead and Back-Up Counsel 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3)
Lead Counsel - Linda J. Thayer; Reg. No. 45,681; Phone: (617) 646-1680;
linda.thayer@finnegan.com. Back-up Counsel - Rachel L. Emsley; Reg. No. 63,558;
Phone: (617) 646-1624; rachel.emsley@finnegan.com. Both of Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Two Seaport Lane, Boston, MA, 02210-2001
D.
Service Information, Power of Attorney, and Payment of Fees
A complete copy of this petition is being served to the address of the attorney
of record. Petitioner may be served at its lead counsel address. A power of attorney
is filed herewith under 37 C.F.R. 42.10(b). The required fee is being paid through
the Patent Review Processing System. Any additional fees may be charged to
Deposit Account No. 22,852.
II.
Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. 42.104

A.
Grounds for Standing and Identification of Challenged Claims
Petitioner certifies that the 275 Patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner is
not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting IPR challenging the identified
claims on the grounds identified herein. Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-24,
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Section VII provides an explanation
of why the claims are unpatentable. The Schon. Dec. provides further support for
3
Petitioners assertions. Each reference relied upon herein is prior art relative to the
275 Patent, which has an effective filing date of March 31, 1998. Specifically, Seidman,
Rosser, Ellis, Ellis II, and Hendricks qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and
Park qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
III.
Summary of the 275 Patent

The 275 Patent generally relates to customizing and distributing presentations
to user sites. (Ex. 1002, 1:20-26). A server computer broadcasts a presentation media
object including a set of media components to a croup [sic] of remotely located user
computer devices, e.g., set top boxes (STBs). (Id. 4:66-5:2). Based on associated profile
data object(s) and presentation logic object, a receiving user computer device selects
certain ones of the media components and arranges the selected media components
to create a customized presentation for the user. (Id. 5:2-6). The profile data object is
based on user profile information for the user. (Id. 4:8-9). The presentation logic
object is used to facilitate creating customized presentations. (Id. 4:10-12). This in
effect allows the server computer to broadcast a presentation media object and allows
the user computer devices to locally customize the presentations for the users. In
comparison, in on-demand distribution systems, a server computer customizes and
transmits the presentations individually on demand. (Id. 1:63-2:17). Thus, the 275
Patent aims to provide customization and distribution of media presentations, while
also reducing network bandwidth and server computer requirements. (Id. 3:1-5).
Section VIII of Ex. 1001 presents a more detailed overview of the 275 Patent. Section
4
VII of Ex. 1001 presents an overview of customization and distribution systems and
describes the state of the art as of the effective filing date of the 275 Patent.
IV.
Summary of the Prosecution History of the 275 Patent

The 275 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/053,144, filed on March 31,
1998. The patent issued on July 31, 2001, with 24 claims, after three office actions and
an advisory action. The three office actions and the advisory action were substantially
the same and rejected the claims as obvious in view of US5,890,152, US5,892,909, and
US5,905,988. Applicant failed to properly file its proposed amendments in response to
the first two office actions and the advisory action; the examiner refused entry and
maintained the rejection each time. Applicant again filed the amendments after the
third office action. The Examiner then allowed the claims without any statement of
reasons for allowance.
In each substantive response, Applicant proposed similar amendments and
made similar arguments. Applicant ultimately amended claims 1 and 13 as follows:
... accessing the profile data objects individually locally in each one
of a group of user computer means;
creating presentation logic objects based on corresponding ones of
[employing] the data objects to facilitate the creation of individual
customized presentations for each of the user computer means;
[accessing] storing each one of the presentation logic objects
individually locally in the group of user computer means;
broadcasting a single universal presentation media object including a

set of media components to each one of a group of remotely located user
computer means;
receiving the universal presentation media object individually at each
one of the group of user computer means;
arranging the selected ones of said [data object] media components to
create customized presentations for the users.
(Ex. 1003, pp. 93-95). Applicant argued that the art did not disclose creating
presentation logic objects based on corresponding ones of the data objects to facilitate
the creation of individual customized presentations and selecting certain ones of the
media components at each one of the user computer means in response to its
presentation logic object and its data object. (Id. pp. 96-99). Applicant emphasized the
benefits (e.g., reduced network bandwidth) of broadcasting a single universal
presentation media object for local creation of customized presentations, as
compared to on-demand systems that allow individual downloads of customized
presentations. (Id. pp. 495-96).
V.
Claim Constructions 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3)

A.
Legal Overview
A claim subject to IPR is given its broadest reasonable construction in light of

the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). The words
of the claim are given their plain meaning unless inconsistent with the specification. In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Means-plus-function claims are construed
6
to cover the corresponding structure that is described in the specification and

equivalents thereof at the time of the invention. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space
Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Other forums require different
standards of proof and claim interpretation that are not applied by the PTO for IPR.
Accordingly, any interpretation proposed or accepted by Petitioner in this IPR,
implicitly or explicitly, is not intended to be binding on Petitioner in any other forum.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
B.
Indefiniteness
Because patent claims cannot be challenged in an IPR for failure to satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, Petitioner offers herein constructions for claim terms
which it otherwise deems to be indefinite and/or not enabled or supported by
adequate written description. By offering such constructions, Petitioner does not
admit that a proper claim scope can be determined.
C.
Preamble Terms of Claims 1 and 13
The preambles of claims 1 and 13 do not limit the claims because they only
indicate a field of use. The preambles also do not recite limitations of the alleged
inventions; the body of each claim recites a structurally complete invention.1,2 During
prosecution, the examiner did not particularly cite to prior art as disclosing the
1
Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F. 3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
7
preambles. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003, pp. 48-49). Applicant did not dispute that approach or
rely on the preambles to distinguish the claims over the prior art. Alternatively, to the
extent the claim preambles are deemed to require construction, the terms used therein
should be given their ordinary meanings.
D.
user profile information (Claims 1 and 13)
The 275 Patent specification (the 275 spec) describes collecting user profile
information from data bases, survey instruments, multi-rater instruments, expert
input or inferred data based on behavior monitoring. (Ex. 1002, 6:22-24). It also gives
two examples of collecting user profile information. In one example, a therapist
provides the patients name, billing information, electronic address information,
therapeutic objective, relevant history, relevant demographics and exercise regimen.
(Id. 7:26-29). In another example, a consumer indicates product interest, responds to a
questionnaire indicating other cars of interests, purchase horizon, and things that are
important to the customer and can permit the release of relevant demographic
data. (Id. 8:5-12). During prosecution, Applicant did not dispute the examiners
reading of the claimed user profile information as being information about a users
personal characteristic, such as user interests and selections, as described in the
primary cited reference. (Ex. 1003, pp. 64, 78, and 98) (Response to Office Action dated June
22, 1999, (1st ROA) p 6, Response to Office Action dated March 10, 2000, (2nd ROA) p 6,
and 3rd ROA, p 6). The broadest reasonable construction of user profile information
is thus simply information about one or more user(s).
E.
profile data objects (Claims 1 and 13)
Per the 275 spec, profile data objects are compiled based on gathered user
profile information (Ex. 1002, 4:5-10, 4:13-15, 4:41-45) and are used to facilitate
customization of a presentation for a user (Id. 4:65-5:8). During prosecution, Applicant
did not dispute the examiners interpretation of profile data object as being satisfied
by a personal profile database that stores user profile information, as disclosed in the
primary cited reference. (Ex. 1003, pp. 64, 78 and 97). Thus, the broadest reasonable
construction of profile data objects is collections of data based on information
about one or more user(s).
F.
user computer means (Claims 1 and 13)
The system described in the 275 spec includes computer equipment in the
form of personal computers, set top boxes, and other similar types of devices located
at the user sites that are conventional, and are adapted to receive down loaded
messages or presentations. (Ex. 1002, 3:53-64). During prosecution, Applicant did
not dispute the examiners interpretation of the user computer means, as recited in
the patent claims, as being the end user computers disclosed in the primary cited
reference. (Ex. 1003, pp. 62-65, 76--78, and 95-98). Thus, Applicant effectively
admitted that user computer means at least includes computers of end users. Thus,
Petitioner submits that the broadest reasonable construction of user computer
9
means is conventional user computer equipment, such as a personal computer or a

set top box, adapted to receive downloaded messages or presentations.
G.
accessing the profile data objects individually locally in each one

of a group of user computer means (Claims 1 and 13)
The 275 spec describes that [t]he [profile] data objects are accessible locally in
a group of user computer sites (Ex. 1002, 3:20-21) and that [t]he [profile] data
objects can be transmitted from the server computer to the individual selected user
site (Id. 4:46-48). However, the 275 spec does not include any mention of the
phrase individually locally, except in the claims. The individually locally qualifier
was introduced into the claims by amendment.
The 275 spec uses the term individual in the context of creating a profile data
object based on the individual user profile information and conveying it from the
server computer to the individual selected user site (Id. 4:42-48; see, also, Id. 3:1920, and 4:7-10). In the physical therapy example, individual profile information for a
patient is used, such as the patient's name, billing information, electronic address
information, therapeutic objective, relevant history, relevant demographics and
exercise regimen. (Id. 7:26-29). In the automotive marketing example, individual
profile information for a consumer is used, such as product interest, other cars of
interests, purchase horizon, and things that are important to the customer, and
relevant demographic data. (Id. 8:5-12).
10
The 275 spec uses the term locally in the context of accessing a profile data
object of a user from local storage of the users user computer means. (Id. 3:23-24,
4:13-19, 4:40-48, 5:2-7, 6:45-48, and 7:3-9). The user computer means either receives
the profile data object from a profile compiling computer or creates it locally (id. 4:1319, 4:40-48, and 7:3-9). In either case, user computer means stores the profile data
object in local storage. (Id. 3:23-24, 4:46-48, 5:2-4, 6:45-48, and 7:3-9). The user
computer means accesses the profile data object from the local storage as part of
customizing a presentation. (Id. 3:23-24 and 5:2-7).
During prosecution, Applicant explained that profile data objects are locally
stored on user computer means. (Ex. 1003, pp. 62, 76, and). Applicant amended the
claims to add the term individually and, in connection therewith, explained that a
profile data object individual to a user is stored locally at a user computer means of the
user for access. (Id.). Applicant stated:
For example, consider how broadcast automobile advertising can be
individualized by a media broadcast over the Internet in this manner to
individual personal computers. Many users have diverse tastes, budgets, and
needs. In subscribing for the broadcast, each user provides profile
information about the user's automotive tastes, budgets, and needs, from
which a profile data object, and a corresponding presentation logic object
are created and stored on the user's computer. Thus profile data objects and
presentation logic objects reflecting Mary's interest in sports cars, John's
interest in child-safety features, and Fred's need for an RV can be
respectively stored on their our [sic] individual computers.
11
(Id., p. 476). Thus, Petitioner submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
accessing the profile data objects individually locally in each one of a group of user
computer means is accessing a profile data object in local storage of each user
computer means of a plurality of user computer means.
H.
presentation logic objects & creating presentation logic objects

based on corresponding ones of the data objects (Claims 1 and
13)
The 275 spec nowhere defines or clearly indicates the meaning of the term
presentation logic objects. For example, although indicating that each recipient
device may receive and store a presentation logic object (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:43-49), the
275 spec never indicates whether each recipient device receives and stores the same
presentation logic object or a different presentation logic object as compared to those
received by other recipient devices. The 275 spec describes that presentation logic
objects are created to facilitate the creation of individual customized presentations.
(Id. 4:50-51). The 275 spec also states that presentation logic objects are stored and
are used in conjunction with [profile] data objects and [presentation] media objects to
facilitate creating customized presentations. (Id. 4:10-12). Therefore, the 275 spec
merely teaches that a presentation logic object is an object that includes some type of
logic or data that can be used to facilitate creation of customized presentations.
During prosecution, Applicant broadened the original claim limitation to recite
creating presentation logic objects based on corresponding ones of [employing] the
12
data objects. (Ex. 1003, p. 93). Thus, Applicant clearly and unequivocally indicated
that the step of creating presentation logic objects is not limited to creating
presentation logic objects employing (i.e., using 3) profile data objects. This is consistent
with the 275 spec, which describes that in some embodiments presentation logic
objects may be created in the presentation logic editing computer 49 which
establishes the relationship between the various forms of media objects and the
[profile] data objects. (Ex. 1002, 6:58-61). In other words, the 275 spec does not
teach that presentation logic objects are created using profile data objects, but instead
that they may in some cases be created based on some relationship between media
objects and the profile data objects.
In addition, neither the grammar of claims 1 or 13, nor any disclosure in the
275 spec clearly delineates whether a single presentation logic object may be created
based on multiple corresponding profile data objects or must be created based on a
single corresponding profile data object. By referring to presentation logic objects,
corresponding ones and data objects in the plural form, claims 1 and 13 do not on
their faces exclude either a one-to-many or a one-to-one relationship between the
presentation logic objects and the profile data objects. Applicant did not clarify this
point during prosecution. In remarks with its 3rd ROA, Applicant merely explained that
3
Ex. 1010, p. 438 (defining employ as: 2. to make use of for a specific task: employed
computers to solve the problem).

13
presentation logic objects based on the [profile] data objects are created to facilitate
the creation of individual customized presentations at the user sites. (Ex. 1003, p.
95). In its 2nd ROA, however, Applicant noted an example where [e]ach locally stored
presentation logic object is created based on a corresponding profile data object
(Ex. 1003, p. 476).
Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the broadest reasonable construction of
presentation logic objects is simply collections of logic or data that can facilitate
the creation of customized media presentations. Further, to the extent it can properly
be construed, Petitioner submits that the broadest reasonable construction of creating
presentation logic objects based on corresponding ones of the data objects is
creating presentation logic objects each based on one or more corresponding profile
data object(s).
I.
storing each one of the presentation logic objects individually

locally in the group of user computer means (Claims 1 and 13)
As noted, the 275 spec does not include any mention of the term individually
locally, except in the claims. The individually locally term was introduced to the
claims by amendment. The 275 spec describes that [p]resentation logic objects are
created to facilitate the creation of individual customized presentations and can be
made available to the individual user for accessing locally. (Ex. 1002, 4:49-56). The
275 spec also describes that a user computer means stores the presentation logic
object on local storage. (Id. 4:55-56, 6:45-48, and 6:50-53). The user computer means
14
uses the locally-stored presentation logic object as part of customizing a presentation

to a user. (Id. 3:21-23, 3:26-29, 4:10-12, 4:49-50, 5:2-4, 6:50-53, 7:44-46, and 8:20-24).
During prosecution, Applicant explained that presentation logic objects are
locally stored on user computer means allowing local access to facilitate the creation of
customized presentations. (Ex. 1003, pp. 62, 76, and 95). Applicant also amended the
claims during prosecution to include the term individually, explaining that
presentation logic objects individual to users are stored locally at the corresponding
user computer means to facilitate the creation of customized presentations. (See V(G)
above).
Thus, Petitioner submits that the broadest reasonable construction of storing
each one of the presentation logic objects individually locally in the group of user
computer means is storing each of the presentation logic objects for a
corresponding user computer means in local storage of that user computer means.
J.
media components (Claims 1 and 13)
The 275 spec describes that a presentation media object includes a set of
media components. (Ex. 1002, 4:66-67). It also uses the terms presentation
components, presentation segments, segments, and presentation elements
synonymously with media components. (Id. 5:26-6:10). Examples of segments (and,
thus, of media components) include audio, motion picture video, text video, or a
combination thereof and other kind of digital information such as text, graphics or
programming objects such as JavaTM programming objects. (Id. 5: 56-57 and 5:59-61).
15
During prosecution, Applicant did not dispute the examiners assertion that a media
file (e.g., text, sound, or video file) as described in the primary cited reference satisfies
the claimed media components. (Ex. 1003, pp. 64, 78, and 98). Thus, the broadest
reasonable construction of media components is media segments such as segments
of audio, motion picture video, text video, text, graphics, programming objects, or a
combination thereof.
K.
a single universal presentation media object (Claims 1 and 13)
Although the 275 spec describes a presentation media object as including a set
of media components, it does not mention a single universal presentation media
object except in the claims. (Ex. 1002, 4:66-67). The 275 spec describes that a server
computer broadcasts a presentation media object including a set of media
components to a group of user computer means. (Id. 4:65-5:2, 5:26-51, and 6:29-34).
The group of user computer means shares the presentation media object. Each user
computer means from the group receives the presentation media object, selects
certain ones of the media components in response to its presentation logic object and
its data object, and combines the selected media components to create a customized
presentation. (Id. at 4:66-5:8 and 6:43-54). By broadcasting the media object to a group
of user computer means and allowing each user computer means to locally customize a
presentation, unique customized presentations are thus distributed via a single
channel without burdening the bandwidth or server computer requirements. (Id. 5:48-
16
51). In contrast, in an on-demand system, customized presentations are transmitted

over multiple channels. (Id. 1:63-2:17).
When adding single universal to the claims during prosecution, Applicant
explained in remarks that a single common media object including a set of media
components is broadcasted to each one of a large group of remotely located user
computer means at the user sites, thus allowing local creation of individual
presentations while also overcoming bandwidth constraints associated with
transmitting the media object. (Ex. 1003, pp. 63, 65, 76, 78, and 96-98). Thus, the
amendment was intended to emphasize the characteristics and purposes of the recited
presentation media object, as described in the 275 spec, i.e., that it is a common media
object broadcasted to each user computer means of a group of user computer means
and that it includes a set of media components used for locally creating customized
presentations.
Petitioner therefore submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
single universal presentation media object is a common presentation media object
that is broadcasted to each user computer means of a plurality of user computer means
and includes a set of media components that can be used by the plurality of user
computer means to locally create a customized presentation.
L.
means for Recitations in Claims 13-24
The following means for recitations in claims 13-24 fall under 35 U.S.C.
112(f). The functions that correspond to those claim recitations are construed in
17
Sections V(C)-(K) above. The corresponding structures and the specific portions of
the 275 spec that describe them and any supporting algorithms are identified below.
Each corresponding structure is a type of general purpose computer.
1.
means for gathering user profile information (Claim 13)
The corresponding structure is a computing device adapted to gather user

profile information, including any of: a personal computer, a set top box, a profile
compiling computer, a third party computer, and equivalents thereof. (Ex. 1002, 4:4143; 6:20-28; 7:3-9; 7:25-30; 7:52-57; 8:5-19). During prosecution, Applicant did not
dispute the examiners interpretation of a conventional end user computer as the
means for performing the function of gathering user profile information. (See, e.g., Ex.
1003, pp. 61-63).
2.
means for creating profile data objects (Claim 13)
The corresponding structure is a computing device adapted to create profile

data objects, including any of: a personal computer, a set top box, a profile compiling
computer, a third party computer, a server computer and equivalents thereof. (See Ex.
1002, 4:13-19; 4:40-46; 7:3-9; 7:26-30; 7:52-57; 8:5-19.) During prosecution, Applicant
did not dispute the examiners interpretation of a conventional end user computer as
the claimed means for performing the function of creating profile data objects. (See,
e.g., Ex, 1003, pp 61-63).
18
3.
means for creating presentation logic objects (Claim 13)
The corresponding structure is a computing device adapted to create

presentation logic objects, including any of: a personal computer, a profile compiling
computer, a third party computer, a server computer, and equivalents thereof. (See Ex.
1002, 4:49-53; 6:58-61; 7:3-9; 7:32-33; 7:62-64).
4.
(i) means for accessing the profile data objects (claim 13),
(ii) means for storing each one of the presentation logic
objects individually locally in the group of user computer
means (claim 13), (iii) means for receiving the universal
presentation media object (claim 13), (iv) means for
selecting certain ones of the media components (claim 13),
(v) means for arranging the selected ones of said media
components (claim 13), (vi) means for using default data
objects (claim 18) and (vii) means for sending messages
from local user computer means (Claim 19)
The corresponding structure for each of these means for is a user computer
means adapted to [perform the claimed function], including any of a personal
computer, a set top box, or equivalents thereof. (See Ex. 1002, (i) accessing a profile
data object: 3:23-24, 6:42-53, box 63 of FIG. 9; (ii) storing a presentation logic object:
5:2-4, 6:42-53, 7:33-36, 7:44-46; (iii) receiving the universal presentation media object:
6:32-33, 7:44-46; (iv) selecting certain ones of the media components: 5:2-4, 5:43, 6:3334, 6:42-53, 7:44-46, 8:20-22; (v) arranging the selected ones of said media
components: 5:4-6, 5:43, 6:50-53, 6:62:66, 7:44-46, 8:20-24, box 65 of FIG. 9; (vi)
using default data objects: 8:10-19; and (vii) sending messages from a local user
19
computer means: 8:25-26. During prosecution, Applicant did not dispute that the
claimed means for performing most of these functions was a conventional end user
computer. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003, pp. 61-63).
5.
means for broadcasting a single universal presentation

media object (Claim 13)
The corresponding structure is a server computer and equivalents thereof

adapted to broadcast a single universal presentation media object to a group of user
computer means. (See Ex. 1002, 4:66-5:2; 7:37-43.) During prosecution, Applicant did
not dispute the examiners assertion that the claimed means for was a server. (See,
e.g., Ex. 1003, pp. 61-63).
6.
means for adding profile data objects periodically (claim

14), and (ii) means for modifying said profile data objects
periodically (Claim 15)
The corresponding structure for each of these means for is a computing

device adapted to [perform the recited function], including any of: a personal
computer, a set top box, a profile compiling computer, a third party computer, and
equivalents thereof. (See Ex. 1002, 4:41-43; 7:3-12).
7.
(i) means for adding media objects periodically (claim 16)

and (ii)
means for modifying said media objects
periodically (Claim 17)
The corresponding structure for each of these means for is a computing

device adapted to [perform the recited function], including any of: a personal
computer, a set top box, a profile compiling computer, a third party computer, a server
20
computer, a presentation editing media computer, and equivalents thereof. (See Ex.
1002, 4:41-43; 4:58-60; 6:5-7; 7:3-12; 7:15-18; 7:52-57).
8.
Remaining Claim Terms
Terms not construed above should be given the plain and ordinary meaning.
VI.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A person having ordinary skill in the art would have held an undergraduate
degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or educational experience, and three

or more years working experience in the field of digital communication and media
content transmission and presentation. (Ex. 1001, IV).
VII. There is a Reasonable Likelihood That at Least One Claim of the 275
Patent is Unpatentable
All limitations of claims 1-24 of the 275 Patent were well-known in the prior
art. Further, the claims merely recite the combination of prior art elements according
to known methods to yield predictable results and/or can be easily achieved from the
use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same
way. The prior art relied upon herein provide ample teaching, suggestion and/or
motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify and/or combine the
applicable teachings to arrive at the claimed inventions.
A.
Summary of Arguments
Simply put, the claims of the 275 Patent require a user computer means to
select and arrange media components from a broadcasted single universal presentation
21
media object, according to a profile data object and a presentation logic object.
Seidman, Rosser, and Park teach and/or suggest this subject matter. The three
references differ in the implementation of this claimed subject matter, as they teach
and/or suggest broadcasting different types of media objects to different types of user
devices. However, the claims of the 275 Patent cover all three implementations.
Seidman discloses that a head end broadcasts a stream of video that includes a
set of programs (A1 through D3) to a plurality of set top boxes (STB) and that a
receiving STB selects and arranges certain ones of the video programs (e.g., B1, D2, A3)
based on a viewer profile and control information. Rosser discloses that a central
system broadcasts a common set of ads to a plurality of STBs and that a receiving STB
selects and arranges some of the ads based on a viewer profile and a viewer profile key
to facilitate presentation of targeted ads. Park discloses that an advertisement
presentation system broadcasts a common set of ads to a plurality of receivers and that
each receiver selects and arranges some of the ads based on a user profile and a target
profile to facilitate presentation of targeted ads.
The 275 spec does not reference any hardware or circuitry for the disclosed
server computer. Instead, the 275 spec merely describes the server computer as a
computer that performs various functions with respect to the distribution of media
objects. (4:52-53, 4:57-59, 4:66-67, 6:30-32). The 275 spec also describes that other
general purpose computers, such as a third party computer or a personal
22
computer, can perform similar functions. (4:52-53 and 7:62-64). Thus, the server
computer of the 275 Patent is a general purpose computer.
Like the server computer of the 275 Patent, Seidmans head end, Rossers
central system, and Parks advertisement presentation system are or include media
distribution servers. (See, e.g., Ex.1004, 3:29-62; Ex. 1005, 6:11-7:20; Ex. 1006, pp. 6-11;
Ex. 1001, 256). As will be explained, each of these devices and systems performs the
functions, as described in the 275 Patent, of the respective means-plus-function
elements related to the server computer in claims 13-24. The functionality of each of
Seidmans head end, Rossers central system, and Parks advertisement presentation
system is described in at least the same level of detail as the server computer of the
275 Patent. Thus, each of Seidmans head end, Rossers central system, and Parks
advertisement presentation system is structurally equivalent to the applicable means
for elements of claims 13-24 for purposes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Nonetheless, to the
extent any of these prior art devices and systems is deemed to not be structurally
equivalent to any of the means for elements in claims 13-24 for which it was cited,
that device or system is certainly equivalent to such element for purposes of 35 U.S.C.
103. Each of Seidmans head end, Rossers central system, and Parks advertisement
presentation system is or includes a media distribution server, just like the server
computer of the 275 Patent, and performs all of the applicable functions in the same
manner to achieve the same result as the disclosed server computer with respect to
facilitating creation of customized media presentations.
23
Similarly, the 275 spec does not reference any hardware or circuitry description
of the disclosed set top box. Instead, the 275 spec describes the STB as an example
of a computer at a user site. (Ex. 1002, 3:56-61). The 275 spec also sometimes refers
to STBs interchangeably with personal computers. (Id. 4:66-5:4, 5:18-20, 5: 37-40, 6:5053, 7:44-46, 8:5-254). Thus, the STB of the 275 Patent is a general purpose computer.
Each of the Seidmans and Rossers STBs and Parks receiver performs the
functions, as described in the 275 Patent, of the respective means-plus-function
elements related to the user computer means in claims 13-24. The functionality of each
of these prior art devices is described in at least the same level of detail as the STB of
the 275 Patent. For example, like the STB of the 275 Patent, Parks receiver is a
device that receives and presents media objects in a media distribution system. (Ex.
1006, pp. 6-11; Ex. 1001, 257). Thus, each of Seidmans and Rossers STBs and
Parks receiver is structurally equivalent, if not identical, to the applicable means
for elements of claims 13-24 for purposes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
To the extent any of Seidmans or Rossers STBs, or Parks receiver is deemed
to not be structurally equivalent under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to any of the means for
elements in claims 13-24 for which it is cited, that device is certainly equivalent to such
element for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. Each of Seidmans and Rossers STBs and
Parks receiver receives, arranges and presents media objects in a media distribution
system, just like the STB of the 275 Patent. For example, Parks receiver receives,
arranges and presents media objects (e.g., audio, data, stock and news items). Each of
24
these prior art devices also and performs all of the applicable functions in the same
manner to achieve the same result as the disclosed STB with respect to facilitating
creation of customized media presentations.
B.
Independent claims4
1.
Seidman anticipates claims 1 and 13
Although the preambles of claims 1 and 13 are not limiting, Seidman discloses
the recited method and system for customizing and distributing presentations for user sites.
Seidman discloses a system, including a STB and a head end, and a method for
customizing video programs received by each subscriber by a group of subscribers.
(Ex. 1004, 3:51-58 and 4:13-21).
Seidman discloses the claimed method step and means for gathering user profile
information by noting that the STBs and the head end implement a viewer response
monitoring (VRS) feature to gather profile information about users. For example, VRS
allows the head end to gather statistics on user viewing selections by the user The
gathered profile information also includes other user-related information such as
contact information, gender, and age. (Id. 7:16-17, FIG. 5).
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for creating profile data objects based
on individual user profile information by disclosing that a viewer profile is created for
4
Additional quotes from and citations to each of the references and to the Schonfeld
Declaration are shown in the claim chart in Section VII(B)(8) below.

25
the user and stored by a corresponding STB. (Id. 6:26-37). A viewer profile is
equivalent to a profile data object because it is a collection of data such as viewer
name, viewing preferences, etc. Seidman at least implicitly teaches that the head end
also creates viewer profiles based on the corresponding user profile information by
describing that the head end maintains a selection database history of the object
selections. (Id. 4:16-23).
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for accessing the profile data objects
individually locally in each one of a group of user computer means by disclosing that a viewer
profile is stored in the STB RAM and/or also in the STB's non-volatile RAM. A
STB accesses a viewer profile from local storage to customize presentations. (Id., 6:2629, 8:9-11, and 9:57-10:8).
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for creating presentation logic objects
based on corresponding ones of the data objects to facilitate the creation of individual customized
presentations for each one of the user computer means by noting that the head end creates
control information. (Id. 3:29-4:40). Control information is equivalent to presentation
logic objects because it is created by the head end based on one or more
corresponding viewer profiles to facilitate the creation of customized presentations
and is sent to the STBs. (Id. 3:29-4:40 and 7:62-8:50). A STB uses the control
information and data from a viewer profile to customize a presentation for a user. (Id.
4:21-26, 4:35-37). For example, based on user interest (i.e., data from viewer profile),
control information indicates that a particular type of data (e.g., player statistics for a
26
sports program) should be selected for display from other types of embedded data (e.g.,
historical information). In another example, control information associates program
segments with keywords, which can be matched against a users selection history (i.e.,
data from viewer profile) to determine that particular video segments should be
selected for display. (Id. 8:30-39). Seidman also discloses that [i]f a user (or group of
users) demonstrates interest in a particular topic [t]he control information must
be modified (Id. 8:62-9:4). Thus, Seidman discloses that control information is
based on one or more viewer profile.
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for storing each one of the
presentation logic objects individually locally in the group of user computer means by noting that
each STB receives and uses the corresponding control information. (Id. 4:35-37 and
9:58-61). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this teaching to
mean that received control information is stored in a STBs RAM or non-volatile RAM
to allow the STB to use the control information in conjunction with the viewer profile.
(Ex. 1001, 72).
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for broadcasting a single universal
presentation media object including a set of media components to each one of a group of remotely located
user computer means by disclosing that the head end broadcasts a multiplexed stream to
viewers [STBs]. (Ex. 1001, 3:29-31). For example, the stream is a ten-minute video
media stream that includes five-minute video program[s]. In another example, the
stream includes embedded data. (Id. 4:64-5:2). Therefore, the video stream satisfies the
27
recited single universal presentation media object because it is broadcasted by the

head end and is common to each of a group of STBs and includes a set of media
components that are used for creating customized presentations. Further, in an
embodiment, the broadcasted stream includes a set of program segmentswhere the
set is selected by the head end server in accordance with profile information on group
of subscribers. (Id. 3:56-63). This is substantially the same as an embodiment
described in the 275 Patent and covered by claims 1 and 13.
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for receiving the universal
presentation media object individually at each one of the group of user computer means by noting
that each of the STBs receives the same broadcasted stream. (Id. 3:58-60, 6:10-14).
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for selecting certain ones of the media
components at each one of the user computer means in response to its presentation logic object and its
data object by noting that each receiving STB selects a respective ordered subset of
the set of program segments based on its associated control information and viewer
profile. (Id. 3:56-63 and 10:1-8).
Seidman discloses the claimed step and means for arranging the selected ones of said
media components to create customized presentations for the users by disclosing that the STBs
arrange the selected video programs or embedded data for display on associated
screens for the users, thereby customizing video programs received by each
subscriber (Id. 3:47-63).
28
2.
Seidman renders obvious claims 1 and 13
Even if Seidmans disclosure that the head end maintains a selection database
history of the object selections (id. 4:16-23) does not at least inherently teach that the
head end creates viewer profiles (to the extent required by the claims, which Petitioner
disputes), it would have been obvious to modify the Seidman system so the head end
creates viewer profiles instead of or in addition to the STBs doing so. (Ex. 1001, 59).
Creating viewer profiles at the head end and/or a STB is a design choice that depends
on factors such as available computing resources and network bandwidth. (Id.). For
example, when fewer computing resources are available at a STB and a high network
bandwidth is available, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to configure the head end to create the viewer profiles. (Id.).
In addition, even if Seidmans disclosure that each STB receives and uses the
corresponding control information (Ex. 1004, 4:35-37 and 9:58-61) is deemed to not
inherently teach storing each control information in the STB, doing so would have
been obvious, entirely trivial, and nothing more than a design optimization within the
knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill because storing received control
information in the STBs RAM or non-volatile RAM would allow the STB to use the
control information in conjunction with the viewer profile. (Ex. 1001, 73).
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Seidman.
29
3.
Rosser anticipates claims 1 and 13
Although the preambles of claims 1 and 13 are not limiting, Rosser discloses the
recited method and system for customizing and distributing presentations for user sites by
disclosing a system and method [to] allow advertisers to target specific ads or indicia
to specific viewing profiles. (Ex. 1005, Abstract).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for gathering user profile information
by disclosing set-top boxes that monitor the usage and viewing habits of the
television set or other video reception device. (Id.). Rosser also discloses that a
sample of house holds have their viewing habits automatically monitored by a
central system (Id. 8:46-50).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for creating profile data objects based
on individual user profile information by noting that a STB creates a viewer profile viewer
profile derived from data acquired from said monitoring wherein the viewer profile
indicates certain characteristics about the viewer such as age, sex, family size,
hobbies and interests of the viewer. (Id. Abstract and 16:20-23). Similarly, Rosser
discloses that the central system uses the monitored viewing habits of users as data to
be correlated and compared with databases containing demographic and
psychographic information. (Id. 12:55-63).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for accessing the profile data objects
individually locally in each one of a group of user computer means by disclosing that each STB
30
locally stores a viewer profile. A STB accesses a viewer profile from its storage when
customizing a presentation. (Id. 7:46-53 and 15:6-7).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for creating presentation logic objects
presentations for each one of the user computer means by disclosing that the central system
creates viewer profile keys configured for linking specific insertable indicia with
specific viewer profiles. (Id. Abstract and 18:55-56). The viewer profile keys are
presentation logic objects because they are created by the central system and sent to
STBs. A STB uses a viewer profile key as logic to customize a presentation, where by
comparing the viewer profile keys with local viewer usage profile different
insertions may be made on different end users video viewing devices (Id. 7:4658). Rosser also discloses that a viewer profile key is based on one or more viewer
profiles. For example, an ad may be targeted to an audience based on the associated
viewer profiles. (Id. 13:25-41). In another example, a user can solicit a particular ad. (Id.
4:42-48).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for storing each one of the presentation
logic objects individually locally in the group of user computer means by disclosing that the
viewer profile keys are attached in some form to particular advertisements and
insertions and the insertions may be permanently stored locally in memory device
of the STB. (Id. 7:54-58 and 13:42-43).
31
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for broadcasting a single universal
user computer means by disclosing that the central system broadcasts a sequence of
advertisements common to a group of STBs. (Id. 3:16-34). Rosser also discloses that
an advertisement can include selectable texts in different languages. (Id. 10:21-31).
Thus, each of (i) the sequence of ads and (ii) an ad that includes selectable texts
satisfies the claimed single universal presentation media object, because each is a
common media object that is broadcasted to and shared by STBs and includes a set of
media components from which customized presentations can be created. The
broadcasted ads may be based on viewer profiles to allow targeted advertising. (Id.
3:27-34). For example, a car company may chose [sic] to present different models
based on their viewing habits... (Id. 4:31 -34). In another example the viewer [is
provided] the opportunity to select extra specific profile factors viewers who are
looking for a car may add this fact to their viewer profile in order to deliberately solicit
advertisements for cars. (Id. 4:43-48).These concepts are substantially the same as
those described in the 275 Patent and covered by claims 1 and 13.
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for receiving the universal presentation
media object individually at each one of the group of user computer means by disclosing that each
STB receives the broadcasted sequence of advertisements. (Id. 7:21-24 and 13:19-25).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for selecting certain ones of the media
32
data object by noting that a STB compar[es] the locally stored viewer profile with the
ranges of viewer profiles in said stored table to determine the corresponding video
indicia or sequences. (Id. 15:62-16:4). Viewer profiles in said stored table include a
viewer profile key. (Id. 7:46-58).
Rosser discloses the claimed step and means for arranging the selected ones of said
media components to create customized presentations for the users by noting the STBs insert
said video indicia or sequences directly into said video signal for viewing on said
television or video viewing device (Id. 16:5-10).
4.
Rosser renders obvious claims 1 and 13
Even if Rossers disclosure of creating a viewer profile, (id. Abstract and 16:2023), is deemed to not teach that the central system creates viewer profiles (to the extent
required by the claims, which Petitioner disputes), it would have been obvious to
modify the Rossers system so the central system creates viewer profiles instead of or
in addition to the STBs doing so. (Ex. 1001, 125). Whether the central system
and/or a STB creates a viewer profile is a design choice that depends on factors such
as available computing resources and network bandwidth similarly to what is explained
in Section VII(B)(2) above. (Id.). For example, when fewer computing resources are
available at a STB and a high network bandwidth is available, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to configure the head end to create the viewer
profiles. (Id.). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claims 1 and 13 are obvious over
Rosser.
33
5.
Park anticipates claims 1 and 13
Though the preambles of claims 1 and 13 are not limiting, Park discloses the
recited method and system for customizing and distributing presentations for user sites by
describing a method and system for broadcasting advertising and content information
so that only selected information reaches each specific audience. (Ex. 1006, p. 1, 1).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for gathering user profile information by
noting that the advertisement presentation system gathers demographic and
psychographic information from users of receiving devices, such as radio receivers or
personal information terminals. (Id. p. 4, 2 and p. 10, 1). Park notes that receiving
devices may gather similar information from users. (Id. p. 6, 5). The gathered
information describes age, sex, income indicators, topic interests of users and other
types of profile information. (Id. p. 10, 1).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for creating profile data objects based on
individual user profile information by noting that the advertisement presentation system
creates users profiles based on demographic and psychographic information collected
from users. (Id. p. 4, 1). Parks user profiles are equivalents of profile data
objects because the user profiles are collections of data based on profile information,
which are maintained as a multi-dimensional value expressed in terms of specific
numeric values. (Id. p. 10, 1).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for accessing the profile data objects
individually locally in each one of a group of user computer means by stating that user profiles
34
are downloaded to receiving devices and can be stored in memory. (Id. p. 16, 2). A
receiving device accesses a user profile from its memory when comparing the user
profile to a target profile. (Id. p. 11, 1).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for creating presentation logic objects
presentations for each one of the user computer means by noting that the system creates target
profiles based on the same types of demographic and psychographic information used
to create user profiles. Parks target profiles are equivalent to presentation logic
objects because the target profiles comprise data that is used by receiving devices to
facilitate creation of customized presentations. (Id. p. 12, 1). Display of a customized
presentation is a function of a correspondence of data from target profiles with data
from user profiles. (Id. p. 3, 2). This correspondence can be determined because the
target profiles include data that is matched to data included in user profiles. (Id. p. 10,
1-p. 11, 2). The data in target profiles and in user profiles are both derived from the
gathered demographic and psychographic information. (Id. p. 17, 1-p. 18, 1). Thus,
target profiles are created based on user profiles because user profiles contain the same
types of user profile information as target profiles.
Park discloses the claimed step and means for storing each one of the presentation
logic objects individually locally in the group of user computer means by describing that receiving
devices receive and store advertisement segments with target profiles in their
respective memories. (Id. p. 13, 3). As illustrated in FIG. 5, an example receiving
35
device includes memory 512 and storage area 512c for AD segment with target
profile. (Id. p. 15, 1 and FIG. 5). The receiving device must store both the target
profiles and the user profiles because it is configured to access memory 512 to
compare to the two profiles to determine which advertisements to present. (Id.
Abstract and p. 18, 1).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for broadcasting a single universal
user computer means by noting that the system broadcasts a common set of ad segments
to the receiving devices using group addressing and/or system-wide addressing. (Id. p.
13, 3 and p. 17, 1). The set of ad segments includes multiple segments targeted for
different audiences (id. p. 13, 3-p.14, 1 and p. 18, 2), which means they are used
for creating customized presentations. Therefore the set of ad segments satisfies the
claimed single universal presentation media object, including a set of media
components.
Park discloses the claimed step and means for receiving the universal presentation
media object individually at each one of the group of user computer means by disclosing that
each receiver 16 receives and stores a set of advertisement segments, each associated
with a target profile. (Id. p. 13, 3).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for selecting certain ones of the media
data object by stating that a receiving device select[s] an appropriate advertisement
36
segment [from the set of ad segments] by comparison of the user profile [] and
target profiles. (Id. p. 18, 1).
Park discloses the claimed step and means for arranging the selected ones of said
media components to create customized presentations for the users by noting that controller
510 identif[ies] an appropriate advertisement segment . . . [and] presents the
concatenation of the current content segment [] and a selected one of the
advertisement segments. (Id. p. 17, 2-p. 18, 1).
6.
Park renders obvious claims 1 and 13
Even if Park is deemed to not teach that the receiving device creates user
profiles (to the extent required by the claims), it would have been obvious to modify
the Park system so the receiving device creates user profiles instead of or in addition to
the advertisement presentation system doing so. (Ex. 1001, 184). Whether the
advertisement presentation system and/or a receiving device creates a user profile is a
design choice that depends on factors such as available computing resources and
network bandwidth. (Id.). For example, where computing resources are available at a
receiving device, but a high network bandwidth is not available, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the receiving device to create
the viewer profiles. (Id.).
In addition, even if Park is deemed to not teach that the target profiles are
created based on user profiles, it would have been obvious to modify the Park system
to do so. (Id. 188). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is
37
merely a design choice whether to rely on the gathered user profile information or the
user profiles to create the target profiles. (Id.). A person of ordinary skill would have
known to use the user profiles because the information stored in the user profiles is
formatted in a convenient manner that allows for efficient computation and because
the user profiles is to be compared to target profiles, thus resulting in greater storage,
transmission, and processing efficiency. (Id.). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons,
claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Park.
7.
Claims 1 and 13 are obvious over a combination of Seidman,

Rosser, and/or Park5
To the extent that any particular limitation of either of claims 1 or 13 is not

taught or suggested by any of Seidman, Rosser, or Park alone, and therefore such claim
is not anticipated by any one of the references, or to the extent either of claims 1 or 13
is not otherwise obvious in view of any one of the references, the claims are
nonetheless obvious over a combination of the three references.
The combination of Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park establishes that the subject
matter of claims 1 and 13 is nothing more than an obvious variation of the prior art
and employs only well-known principles to yield only predictable results. In particular,
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the various
Reasons to combine and implementations thereof are further described in Ex. 1001,
224-230.
38
teachings of the three references because they are in the same field of endeavor and
propose solutions to common problems.
For example, with respect to the step or means for creating presentation logic
objects based on corresponding ones of the data objects recited in claims 1 and 13,
Seidman discloses creating control information based on viewer selections of one user
(e.g., one viewer profile) or a group of users (e.g., a plurality of viewer profiles). (Ex.
1004, 8:60-9:4). As previously discussed, this control information is used by a STB to
create a customized presentation from a common set of program segments sent to
each of multiple STBs.
Rosser discloses that its central system creates viewer profile keys, which are
used to link insertable indicia with specific viewer profiles. (Ex. 1005, Abstract and
18:55-56). To the extent that Rosser does not disclose the above claimed feature of the
275 Patent, it would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Seidman above to the
teaching of Rosser. (Ex. 1001, 224-226). By combining the teachings of Seidman
with Rosser, Rossers viewer profile keys may be transferred to STBs as control
information embedded in a stream as disclosed by Seidman. Thus, the combined
invention would function in a similar manner as the alleged invention of the 275
Patent. (Id.).
Park discloses creating target profiles based on the same types of demographic
and psychographic information used to create user profiles. (Ex. 1006, p. 10, 1). To
the extent that Park does not disclose the above claimed feature of the 275 Patent, it
39
would nonetheless have been obvious to apply the teaching of Seidman above to this
teaching of Park. (Ex. 1001, 224, 227, and 230). By combining the teachings of
Seidman and Park, Parks target profiles may be created based on viewer selections of
users as disclosed by Seidman. Thus, the combined system would function in a similar
manner as the alleged invention of the 275 Patent. (Id. 227). The motivation to
combine Rosser and/or Park with Seidman includes the desire to improve the
customization of media presentations to individual users (e.g., selection and
presentation of advertisements to individual users) and the computational efficiency to
facilitate such services. (Id.).
In another example, with respect to the recited step and means for storing
each one of the presentation logic objects recited in claims 1 and 13, Rosser discloses
storing viewer profile keys locally to the STBs. (Ex. 1005, 14:26-52 and 15:62-64). To
the extent that Seidman and/or Park do not disclose this claimed feature, it would
have been obvious to apply the teaching of Rosser above to the teachings of Seidman
to store control information in the RAM or non-volatile RAM of one of Seidmans
STBs, and/or to store target profiles in the memory of one of Parks receiver devices.
(Ex. 1001, 224, 228, and 230). The motivation includes the desire for improved
efficiency and flexibility in transmission and association of control information with
media content and the improved efficiency and flexibility in processing comparisons of
user profiles and target profiles when both are stored in the receiver as disclosed by
Park. (Id. 228).
40
In another example, with respect to means for creating profile data objects of
claim 13, Park discloses that the advertisement presentation system creates user
profiles. (Ex. 1006, p. 10, 1). Seidman discloses that, on a STB, a viewer profile 12
is created for the user and stored... (Ex. 1004, 6:26-37). Additionally, Rosser discloses
that a viewer profile derived from data acquired from said monitoring is created
wherein the viewer profile indicates certain characteristics about the viewer. (Rosser,
Abstract). To the extent that Seidman and/or Rosser do not disclose the claimed
feature, it would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Park above to the
teachings of Seidman and/or Rosser. (Ex. 1001, 224, 229, and 230). The motivation
to combine these prior art references would be based on a design choice of
determining which computing resources to use to create profile data objects. (Id. 229).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of creating profile
data objects at a central server, such as Seidmans head end or Rossers central system.
(Id.).
41
8.
Claim charts for Seidman, Rosser and Park for claims 1 and
13
Cl. 1 & 13
A method
[system] for
customizing
and
distributing
presentations
for user sites,
comprising:
Disclosure from Seidman, Rosser and Park

Seidman: a method of customizing video programs received by
each subscriber by a group of subscribers. 3:56-58; a set of
program segments of the program are transmitted from the head
end to the group of subscribers... 3:58-62; 3:29-31, 3:41-55, 3:5662, 4:13-21, 4:32-44; 6:2-7, 6:10-15; Ex. 1001, 55-56.
Rosser: system and method allow advertisers to target specific ads
or indicia to specific viewing profiles. Abstr.; see 1:15-17,
3:16-34, 4:31-41, 13:35-43, 18:41-43; Ex. 1001, 120-21.
Park : radio broadcast systems a method for broadcasting
advertising and content information so that only selected
information reaches each specific audience. p. 1, 1; see p. 3, 2, p. 4,
2, p. 6, 5, p. 7, 2; Ex. 1001, 180-81.
[means for]
Seidman : provide a system which performs statistic gathering on
gathering user
viewer selections 3:16; see 3:38-40, 4:11-13, 6:2-8, 6:44-52,
profile
7:16-17, 12:42-45, FIG. 5; Ex. 1001, 57.
Rosser: The viewer usage recorder is a system which monitors
information;
television usage patterns 3:46-4:1, see Abstr., 7:66-8:5, 8:4650, 11:62-65, 15:42-43, 16:16-19, 18:44-47; Ex. 1001, 122.
Park : System gathers demographic or psychographic information.
p. 10, 1; see p. 6, 2, p. 6, 5 p. 7 1, p. 10, 1p. 11, 1, p. 11, 2, FIG. 1; Ex. 1001, 182.
[means for]
Seidman : a viewer profile 12 is created for the user and stored 6:26creating profile 37; a selection database history of the object selections
4:16-23; see 7:16-19, 7:39-43, 7:59-62, 7:63-8:11, 8:9-11, 11:24data objects
29, 12:29-32, FIGS. 4-7; Ex. 1001, 58-59.
based on
Rosser: The viewer usage recorder stores a continuously updated
individual
version of a usage profile. 3:46-62; see Abstr., 8:9-19,
user profile
9:49-63, 11:62-12:7, 12:55-63, 15:6-9, 15:22-26, 15:44-47, 16:20information;
23, 18:51-54, FIG. 3; Ex. 1001, 123-25.
Park : the term user profile refers to a collection of such information
pertaining to a given user of a receiving device p.
10, 1; see p. 4, 1, p. 6, 2, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1; Ex. 1001,
183-84, 188-89.
Combination : A combination of the above references discloses this
element. Ex. 1001, 224, 228, 230.
42
Cl. 1 & 13
[means for]
Seidman : a viewer profile stored in the STB RAM. 6:26-29;
accessing the
a new viewer profile stored in the STBs non-volatile RAM
8:9-11, see 9:57-10:8, 11:24-29, FIG. 1; Ex. 1001, 60.
profile data
Rosser: means local and private to the user for storing said viewer
objects
profile in said device 15:50-51; see 7:46-53, 10:26-28,
individually
locally in each 12:3-4, 14:28-52, 15:6-7, 15:50-51, FIG. 2; Ex. 1001, 126.
one of a group of Park : Each receiver 16 receives and stores a corresponding user
user computer profile p. 11, 2; see p. 3, 2, p. 4, 1, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1, p.
means;
11, 1, p. 12, 1, p. 16, 2; Ex, 1001, 185.
[means for]
Seidman : The STB receives, from the downstream channel,
creating
control information regarding the program segments available for the
presentation logiccurrently-broadcast program 9:57-61; see 3:29-55, 3:47-50,
objects based on 3:56-63, 4:21-26, 4:35-37, 5:13-22, 6:2-7, 7:62-8:50, 8:17-10:19,
corresponding 10:32-34, 12:21-28, 12:33-36, 12:49-52; Ex. 1001, 61-71. Rosser:
ones of the data means remote from the user for transmitting demographic requirements
of a target viewer into corresponding
objects
to facilitate the ranges of viewer profiles: means remote from the user for creating a table
creation
associating said ranges of viewer profiles with said video indicia or
sequences 15:52-58; see Abstr., 3:46-4:5, 4:14-24,
of individual
4:42-48, 7:46-58, 8:39-50, 10:21-29, 12:63-13:9, 13:19-23, 13:25customized
presentations for 14:9, 15:52-58, 16:12-15, 18:55-56, 18:60-63; Ex. 1001,
each one of the 127-33.
Park : Target profiles characterize an intended audience p. 3, 2;
user computer
see p. 6, 2, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1, p. 9, 2-p. 11, 2, p. 12, 1, p. 13, 1,
means;
p. 1, 1, 2, p. 17, 1-p. 19, 1; Ex. 1001, 186-190.
element. Ex. 1001, 224-27, 230.
[means for]
Seidman : The STB receives control information 9:57-61; see
storing each 4:35-37, 8:9-11, 11:24-29; Ex. 1001, 72-73.
Rosser: means local to the user for storing said table 15:62one of the
64; see Abstr., 7:46-58, 13:41-48, 10:12-20, 13:25-41, 14:26-52,
presentation
logic objects 15:62-64, 18:60-63, FIG. 2, FIG. 4; Ex. 1001, 134.
Park : FIG. 5 (AD segment with target profile stored in memory);
individually
locally in the see Abstract, p. 6, 2, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1, p. 13, 3, p.
group of user 15, 1, p. 17, 2-p. 18, 1; Ex. 1001, 191-92.
computer
element. Ex. 1001, 224,229, 230.
means;
43
Cl. 1 & 13
[means for]
broadcasting a
single universal
presentation
media object
including a set
of media
components
to each one of a
group of
remotely
located user
computer
means;

Seidman : the head end broadcasts a multiplexed stream to
viewers 3:29-33; see 3:56-63, 4:13-26, 4:32-44, 4:60-61, 4:645:2, 5:12-21, 6:2-7, 7:7-10, 8:35-45, 8:60-66, 9:10-36, 10:41-43, FIGS.
8a, 8b, 8c, 9; Ex. 1001, 74-75.
Rosser: The insertable indicia are encoded directly into the broadcast
video Abstr.; see 3:16-34, 4:22-27, 4:31-34, 4:42-48,

6:11-14, 7:1-20, 7:61-64, 10:21-31, 10:53-60, 12:63-13:12, 13:1323, 13:41-14:23, 15:59-61, 16:1-9, 18:57-59, 18:60-65, FIG. 2, FIG.
4; Ex. 1001, 135-36.
Park : Advertising material is then widely broadcast Abstr.; each
receiver 16 receives and stores a set of advertisement segments, each
associated with a target profile. p. 13, 3-p. 14,
1; see p. 6, 2, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1, p. 15, 1, p. 17, 1, 17, 2 - 18,
1, p. 18, 2-p. 19, 1, p. 3, 2; Ex. 1001, 193-98.
presentation
Seidman : The STB receives the incoming downstream signal
4:51-52; see 3:29-33, 3:58-60, 4:35-37, 6:10-14, 10:41-43; see
media object
Ex. 1001, 76.
individually
Rosser: means local to the user for receiving and decoding said
at each one of
the group of user video signal 15:62-63; see 6:11-14, 7:21-24, 7:46-58, 7:61-66;
10:53-60, 13:19-25, 15:35-40, FIG. 2, FIG. 4; Ex. 1001, 137.
computer
Park : each receiver 16 receives and stores a set of advertisement
means;
segments p. 6, 2, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1, p. 13, 3-p. 14, 1; p. 17,
1; Ex. 1001, 199.
44
Cl. 1 & 13
[means for]
selecting
certain ones
of the media
components
at each one of
the user
computer means
in response to its
presentation logic
object and its
data object;

Seidman : the program segment selection may be done for the
user automatically, by the STB. 10:1-8; see 3:56-63, 9:5-13; Ex.
1001, 77-80.
Rosser: means local to the user for comparing the locally stored
viewer profile with the ranges of viewer profiles in said stored
table to determine the corresponding video indicia or sequences
15:62-16:4; see 4:14-30, 5:55-61, 7:46-55, 10:21-31, 12:3-7,
13:25-48, 14:26-52, 14:52-15:5, 15:51-52 , 15:62-16:4, 18:60-63, FIG. 2,
and FIG. 4; Ex. 1001, 138.
Park : selecting an appropriate advertisement segment 512c for
presentation with a given content segment 512d occurs by
comparison of the user profile 512f and target profiles provided
with the stored advertisement segments 512c. p. 18, 1; see: p. 6,
2, p. 6, 5-p. 7, 1, Abstract; Ex. 1001, 200.
[means for]
Seidman : The STB then demultiplexes the desired set of program
arranging the
segments in sequence to display the personalized program... Segments
selected ones
may also be re-ordered, if necessary or desirable....
of said media
10:10-16; 3:47-63, 9:7-13, 9:22-36, 10:1-8; Ex. 1001, 81-83. Rosser:
components to At the viewer's set-top, the device would see which insertion was
create
linked to the local viewer usage profile, and insert
customized
appropriately. 4:27-30; see Abstract, 7:46-58, 10:21-35, 13:25-41,
presentations for 14:52-15:5, 15:35-40, 16:5-10, 18:64-65; Ex. 1001, 139-40.
the users
Park : receiving device (16) receives the advertising information, it
compares the stored user profile with the target profile and
presents the advertising information Abstr.; p. 6, 2, 5-p. 7,
1, p. 17, 2-p. 18, 1, p. 13, 3; Ex. 1001, 201-02.
C.
Dependent Claims6
For each of the dependent claims, the motivation to modify any of Seidman,
Rosser and Park, combine those references with each other, and/or combine any or all
Additional quotes from and citations to each of the references and to the Schon.
Dec. are shown in the claim chart provided in Section VII(C)(9) below.
45
of the references with cited secondary references includes a desire to improve the
media broadcast service (e.g., the delivery of targeted ads, video programs, and
embedded data) and improve the management of computational and bandwidth
requirements. The combinations establish that the subject matter of the dependent
claims is nothing more than obvious variations of the prior art and employs only wellknown principles to yield only predictable results. The references relied upon below
are in the same field of endeavor and propose solutions to common problems. Further
reasons to combine are identified below and in Ex. 1001.
1.
Claims 2 and 14 (further including adding profile data

objects periodically )
Seidman anticipates claims 2 & 14

Seidman discloses that each STB keeps track of viewer selection information
and periodically reports it to the head end. (Ex. 1004, 3:34-40). Thus, the head end
would necessarily add viewer profiles periodically based on the periodic reports. (Id.).
Each report is also a profile data object as it summarize[s] the viewing behavior of the
user with this profile over the report period , (id. 7:56-62), and is a collection of
data based on information about one or more user(s). Thus, Seidman teaches that
viewer profiles are periodically added.
Seidman, Rosser, & Park each alone, each in combination with each other, or each in combination
with Hendricks renders obvious claims 2 & 14
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to periodically add viewer profiles in
each or a combination of the disclosed methods and systems of Seidman, Rosser,
46
and/or Park. (Ex. 1001, 87, 144, 206, and 224-230). Seidmans system tracks
selection information and periodically reports back to the head end and would thus
add viewer profiles. (Ex. 1004, 3:34-40). Rossers system continuously monitors user
habits and would thus add viewer profiles for newly monitored users. (Ex. 1005, 3:4651). Parks system collects profile information over time and would thus add viewer
profiles for new users. (Ex. 1006, p. 10, 1).
Further, Hendricks is in the same field of endeavor as Seidman, Rosser, and
Park. In particular, Hendricks discloses a system that includes a head end and set top
terminals where program selections and viewer demographics are collected to
generate packages of advertisements, as well as account and billing reports, targeted
towards each set top terminal. (Ex. 1009, Abstract). Hendricks discloses that a CPU
of the head end initiates the Polling Cycle sequence periodically to poll set top
terminals and collect information related to the number of programs watched in a
particular program category and time period. (Id. 35:2-50 and FIG. 5). In a targeted
advertisement embodiment, the CPU uses this collected information to generate
viewer preference rankings that are written to the Viewer Profile database, thereby
periodically adding profile data objects. (Id. 40:39-41:12). Thus, it would have been
obvious to add the functionality of Hendricks to any or a combination of Seidmans,
Rossers, and/or Parks methods and systems because periodic monitoring more
efficiently uses computational resources and bandwidth, as compared to instantaneous
47
or continuous monitoring, while still allowing data objects to be added. (Ex. 1001,
231-233).
2.
Claims 3 and 15 (further including [means for] modifying

said profile data objects periodically )
Seidman anticipates claims 3 & 15

Seidman discloses that the system keeps track of viewer selection information
and periodically reports it to the head end. (Ex. 1004, 3:34-40). Also, during [a]
session, the subscriber selection history information is added to the selection history
associated with that profile. (Id. at 2:55-57). Thus, Seidman teaches that profile
objects are periodically modified at least because profile data objects are periodically
reported and updated at least as often as at each session.
Seidman, Rosser & Park each, or each in combination with each other, obviates claims 3 & 15
To the extent Seidman, Rosser, and Park do not teach periodic modification of
profile data objects, it would have been obvious to modify the systems of those
references to include such a feature. (Ex. 1001, 90, 147, 209, and 224-230). The
motivation to modify the systems and methods disclosed by Seidman, Rosser, and/or
Park includes improving the customization of media presentations to a user by
providing updated viewer or user profiles, thus allowing for improved broadcasts (e.g.,
video programs, advertisements, advertisement segments) containing improved media
components. (Id.).
48
3.
Claims 4 and 16 (further including [means for] adding

media objects
periodically )
Seidman & Park each anticipates claims 4 & 16

Seidman discloses that the head end uses the periodically reported information
to monitor the popularity of programs and commercial messages (Ex. 1004, 6:50-55)
and that the head ends broadcast is based on the viewer profiles (e.g., data from the
periodically reported information). (Id. 6:38-55). Thus, Seidman teaches that programs
and commercial messages are added periodically in response to their popularity. Park
teaches that advertisement segments are added daily, at least to the receiving devices,
via downloads. (Ex. 1005, p. 16, 1).
with Ellis II obviates claims 4 & 16
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to add media objects periodically in
each or a combination of the disclosed methods and systems of Seidman, Rosser,
and/or Park. (Ex. 1001, 93, 150, 212, and 224-230). The motivation to modify the
system and method disclosed by Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park includes improving
customization of media presentations to a user by providing updated media
components, thus improving the broadcasting service. (Id.).
Further, Ellis II is in the same field of endeavor as Seidman, Rosser, and
Seidman. In particular, Ellis II discloses a method of broadcasting program schedule
information to a viewers premise (i.e., a viewers STB) for creation of electronic
program guides (EPGs). (Ex. 1008, 1:26-34). The schedule information is sent to the
49
subscribers [viewers STBs] on a daily, weekly, or [according to] some other periodic
basis. (Id. 3:6-9). To the extent any of Seidman, Rosser and Park is deemed to not
disclose adding media objects periodically, it would have been obvious to add the
disclosed functionality of Ellis II to any or a combination of Seidmans, Rossers,
and/or Parks methods and systems because periodic addition of media objects
ensures that viewers have up-to-date information about available programs and the
actual programs themselves. (Ex. 1001, 234-236).
4.
Claims 5 and 17 (further including [means for] modifying

said media objects periodically )
Seidman & Park each anticipates claims 5 & 17

Seidman discloses that the head end broadcasts a stream based on periodically
monitored viewer information and modif[ies] the content of the stream in
response to user interest. (Ex. 1004, 8:60-66). Park discloses that advertisers designate
target profiles for advertisement segments (Ex. 1005, p. 18, 2-p. 19, 1) and, thus,
teaches that advertisement segments are modified periodically to allow for targeted
advertisements.
with Ellis II obviates claims 5 & 17
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to modify media objects periodically
in each or a combination of the disclosed methods and systems of Seidman, Rosser,
and/or Park. (Ex. 1001, 97, 154, 216, and 224-230). The motivation to modify the
systems and methods of Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park includes improving
50
customization of media presentations to a user by providing updated media

components, thus improving the broadcasting service. (Id.).
Further, Ellis II also discloses that the program schedule information stored in
the set-top box is periodically updated. (Ex. 1008, 1:30-36). It would have been
obvious to add the disclosed functionality of Ellis II to any or a combination of the
Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park methods and systems because periodic modification of
media objects provides viewers up-to-date programs. (Ex. 1001, 237-239).
5.
Claims 6 and 18 (further including [means for] using
default data objects in the absence of an individual user

profile information )
Seidman, Rosser, & Park each alone or in combination with Ellis renders obvious claims 6 & 18.
It would have been obvious to use default data objects in each or a combination
of the disclosed methods and systems of Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park. (Ex. 1001,
100, 157, 219, 224-230). Further, Ellis is in the same field of endeavor as Seidman,
Rosser and Park. Ellis discloses a broadcast television system that includes
[i]nteractive program guides . . . implemented on set-top boxes. (Ex. 1007, 1:15-26).
Ellis discloses a user can inform [the] program guide of the users interests and build
a profile, and in the absence of user input, default settings may be used in the users
profile. (Id. Abstract and 10:18-36). It would have been obvious to add the disclosed
functionality of Ellis to any or a combination of Seidmans, Rossers, and/or Parks
methods and systems because including default data objects ensures, even when little
51
or no profile information is available, the system can customize media presentations.

(Ex. 1001, 240-42).
6.
Claims 7 and 19 (further including [means for] sending
messages from local user computer means in response to

the activation of the customized presentation by the user)
Seidman, Rosser, & Park each anticipates claims 7 & 19

Seidman discloses that [i]f the instant feedback enable disable parameter in
the viewer profile 63 is set to enable, a message indicating this program choice is sent
to the head end via the STB output port. (Ex. 1004, 7:7-10). Thus, Seidman teaches
this claimed feature. Rosser discloses that the central system continuously receives
information from STBs indicative of user selections (Ex. 1005, 3:49-51) and, thus,
teaches this claimed feature. Park discloses that the advertisement presentation system
interacts with users at various times to gather profile information (Ex. 1006, p. 10, 1)
and, thus, teaches this claimed feature.
Seidman, Rosser, & Park each or in combination obviates claims 7 & 19
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to send messages from the user
computer means in response to activation of the customized presentation in each or a
combination of the disclosed methods and systems of Seidman, Rosser, and/or Park.
(Ex. 1001, 103, 160, 222, 224-230). For example, Seidman discloses that a message
indicating this program choice is sent to the head end via the STB output port. (Ex.
1004, 7:7-10). Seidmans message combined with the continuous monitoring at
Rossers central system or Parks advertisement presentation system is merely an
52
obvious variation of the prior art and employs only well-known principles to yield
predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the messages of Seidman with one or both of the other disclosed monitoring
systems to continuously monitor viewing habits, update viewer profiles, and
accordingly target advertisements. (Ex. 1001, 243-245).
7.
Claims 8 and 20 (wherein at least some of said objects are

encrypted [employ encryption means ])
Rosser anticipates claims 8 & 20

Rosser discloses that a program type may be encrypted in the video itself
(Ex. 1005, 9:22-25) and, thus, teaches that media objects are encrypted. Seidman and
Rosser each anticipates claims 8 & 20 in view of APA
The 275 spec mentions that encryption can be used to protect against copying
or unauthorized duplication but spends no effort to describe the encryption. (Ex.
1002, 7:65-67). The 275 spec thus assumes that encryption is well known in the prior
art, thereby admitting it is prior art (Admitted Prior Art APA). Claims 8 and 20 are
therefore not separately patentable over independent claims 1 and 13 and should be
cancelled for the same reasons as those claims.
Seidman & Rosser each alone or each in combination with APA, or a combination of Seidman,
Rosser & Park in view of APA obviates claims 8 & 20
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to encrypt at least some of the media
objects transmitted in each or a combination of the disclosed methods and systems of
Seidman, Rosser, Park, and/or APA. The motivation to modify or combine the
53
references includes providing copyright protection of broadcasted video program

segments, embedded data, and/or advertisements. (Ex. 1001, 163, 164, 224-230,
246-249, 252, 254).
8.
Claims 9 and 21 (wherein at least some of said objects

employ
QUICKTIME [means] ), Claims 10 and 22
said objects employ JAVA
(wherein at least some of
[means] ), Claims 11 and 23 (wherein at least some of said
objects are expressed in [employ] MPEG4 [means] ) and
Claims 12 and 24 (wherein at least some of said objects are
created
with [employ] MACROMEDIA FLASH
technology [means]
Seidman & Rosser each anticipates claims 9-12 & 21-24

Seidman discloses that [b]ecause of the high bitrate requirements of digital
video, a compression method is usually applied to video before transmission over a
network. (Ex. 1004, 10:20-22). Seidman also discloses that [e]mbedded data can also
be included in a program and that data is used to refer to various types of
information, such as text files, computer programs (Id. 5:10-11 and 5:16-21).
Similarly, Rosser discloses that video signals can be compressed. (Ex. 1005, 16:37-38
(claim 8)). Rosser also discloses viewer profile keys are attached in some form to
particular advertisements and insertions. (13:42-43). Rosser also discloses that the
viewer ends up with the information requested, which may be a text or image page
in HTML[] or virtual reality modeling language (VRML) or other suitable protocol,
from the World Wide Web (Id. 11:53-61). At or around the time of the 275 Patent,
QuickTime, MPEG4, and compression methods available in connection with
54
Macromedia Flash were well-known techniques used to compress digital video, Java
was a well-known computer programming language, and Macromedia Flash was a
well-known multimedia platform used to create media objects and associated
presentation logic objects. (Ex. 1001, 105-113 and 165-173). Thus, each of Seidman
and Rosser teaches the use of QuickTime, MPEG4, Macromedia Flash, and Java.
Seidman & Rosser each anticipates claims 9-12 & 21-24 in view of APA
The 275 spec admits that each of QuickTime, MPEG4, Macromedia Flash, and
Java is prior art by stating:
[t]here are a number of current and emerging technologies which are
employed to realize the invention described herein. For example, Apple
Computer, Inc.'s QUICKTIME architecture is employed Sun
Microsystems, Inc.'s JAVA technology is employed
Another technology is the developing ISO standard, MPEG4
Another technology is MACROMEDIA FLASH technology.
(Ex. 1002, 8:33-51). Claims 9-12 and 21-24 are thus not separately patentable over
independent claims 1 and 13 and should be cancelled for the same reasons.
Seidman & Rosser each alone or each in combination with APA, or a combination of Seidman,
Rosser, and Park in view of APA obviates claims 9-12 & 21-24
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to compress at least some of the
broadcasted media objects using QuickTime, MPEG4, or Macromedia Flash, to use at
least Java to write programs for presentation logic objects, and to use at least
Macromedia Flash to create media objects and associated presentation logic objects, in
55
each or a combination of the disclosed methods and systems. (Ex. 1001, 105-113,
165-173, 224-230, 249, 251, and 253-254). The motivation to modify or combine the
references includes reducing bandwidth usage and using well-known techniques to
create computer programs. (Id. 105, 107, 109, 112, 165, 167, 169, and 172). For
instance, Seidman and Rosser give an example of using MPEG2 compression. (Ex.
1004, 10:22-32 and Ex. 1005, 7:62-66). Using MPEG4 achieves an improved
compression rate. (Ex. 1001, 109 and 169).
9.
Claim charts for dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24
Claims 2 and 14
A method[system]
according to claim
1, further including
[means for] adding
profile data objects
periodically.
Disclosure in Prior Art Reference

Seidman : Keeps track of viewer selection information and
periodically reports it to the head end. 3:34-40; see 6:38-49,
7:56-62, FIG. 7; Ex. 1001, 86-88.
Rosser: a sample of house holds have their viewing habits
automatically monitored by a central station 8:39-50; 3:4651, 3:66-4:1, 11:62-12:7, 12:55-63; Ex. 1001 143-45. Park :
System 10 interacts at various times with users and gathers
demographic or psychographic information. p. 10, 1; see p. 19,
1, p. 16, 1; Ex. 1001, 205-207.
Hendricks : CPU initiates the Polling Cycle sequence
periodically 35:3-4; rankings of programs for that set top
terminal are written to the Viewer Profile database 41:911; see Abstract, 35:5-50, 40:39-41:12, FIG. 5; Ex. 1001, 23133.
Combination of the above references discloses this element.
Ex. 1001, 87, 144, 224-233.
56
Claims 3 and 15
A method[system]
according to claim
[means
for] modifying said
profile data
objects
periodically.
Claims 4 and 16
A method[system]
according to claim
[means
for] adding media
objects
periodically.

Seidman : subscriber selection history information is added to
the selection history associated with that profile. 2:55-57; see
2:53-57, 3:34-40, 6:38-49, 7:53-57, 7:63-66, FIG. 5;
Ex. 1001, 89-91.
Rosser: monitors television usage patterns and stores a
continuously updated version of a usage profile. 3:46-51; 3:
66-4:1, 4:14-24, 8:39-50, 12:55-13:9; Ex. 1001, 146-48.
Park : System 10 thereby collects over time a body of
information for each user user profile refers to a
collection of such information 10, 1; see p. 9, 2 p. 10
1, p. 16, 1; Ex. 1001, 208-210.
Ex. 1001, 90, 147, 209, 224-230
Seidman : Keeps track of viewer selection information and
periodically reports it to the head end. 3:34-40. a set of
program segments of the program are transmitted where the
set is selected by the head end server in accordance with
profile information. 3:56-63; see 6:38-55, 8:35-45, 8:6066; Ex. 1001, 92-94.
Rosser: viewing audience could be segmented by profile
factors allowing the broadcaster to sell different segments
12:63-13:9; see 3:66-4:1, 4:14-24, 7:14-20, 12:55-63; Ex. 1001,
149-151.
Park : Advertisements segments are downloaded once
per day 16, 1; Ex. 1001, 211-213.
Ellis II : complete new schedule is sent to subscribers on a
periodic basis 3:6-9; see 1:26-34; Ex. 1001, 234-236.
Ex. 1001, 93, 150, 212, 224-230, 234-236.
57
Claims 5 and 17
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], further
including [means
for] modifying
said media objects
periodically.
Claims 6 and 18
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], further
including [means
for] using default
data objects in the
absence of an
individual user
profile
information.
Claims 7 and 19
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], further
including [means
for] sending
messages from
local user
computer means in
response to the
activation of the

Seidman : modify the content in response to user
interest. 8:60-62; see 3:34-40, 3:56-63, 6:38-55, 8:35-66; Ex.
1001, 95-98.
Rosser: The viewing audience could be segmented by profile
factors allowing the broadcaster to sell different segments
12:63-13:9; see 3:65-4:24, 7:14-20, 12:55-63; Ex. 1001,
152-155.
Park : Selective advertisement allows targeting advertisement
18, 2; see p. 2, 4, p. 9, 2, p. 10, 1, p.
18, 2- p. 19, 1; Ex. 1001, 214-217.
Ellis II : the program schedule information stored [STB] is
periodically updated. 1:26-36; Ex. 1001, 237-239.
Ex. 1001, 98, 154, 216, 224-230, 237-239.
Seidman : One set of program segments may be designated
as the default set9:65-67; see 3:56-63, 6:38-55, 7:63-66,
8:57-10:2, FIG. 5; Ex. 1001, 99-101.
Rosser: A default advertisement may be shown 13:3741; see 4:31-34, 4:42-48, 10:19-26, 12:63-13:12, 13:13-23,
13:41-14:23; Ex. 1001, 156-158.
Park : may provide a default advertisement p. 18, 1; see
Ex. 1001, 218-220.
Ellis : The neutral preference level don't care may be set as a
default 10:18-36; see Abstract, 1:15-26, FIG. 12; Ex. 1001,
Dec., 240-242.
Ex. 1001, 100, 157, 219, 224-30, 240-42.
Seidman : a message indicating this program choice is sent to
the head end via the STB output port. 6:66-7:19; Ex. 1001,
102-104.
Rosser: a sample of households have their viewing habits
automatically monitored by a central station 8:39-50; see
3:46-62, 3:66-4:1, 4:14-18, 11:62-12:7, 12:55-60; Ex. 1001,
159-161.
Park : System 10 interacts at various times with users and
gathers demographic or psychographic information. p. 10,
1; see p. 16, 2, p. 16, 2; Ex. 1001, 221-223.
58
customized
presentation by the
user.
Claims 8 and 20
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], wherein at
least some of said
objects are
encrypted [employ
encryption
means].
Claims 9 and 21
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], wherein at
least some of said
objects employ
QUICKTIME
[means].
Claims 10 and 22
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], wherein at
least some of said
objects employ
JAVA [means]
Claims 11 and 23
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], wherein at
least some of said
objects are
expressed in

Ex. 1001, 103, 160, 222, 224-30, 243-45.

APA discloses this element. 275 Patent, 7:65-67 Ex. 1001,
249-252 and 254.
Seidman : the head end broadcasts a multiplexed stream to
viewers 3:29-31; see 10:22-32.
Rosser: program type may be encrypted in the video itself...
9:17-30; see 7:62-66, 16:37-38; Ex. 1001, 162-164.
Ex. 1001, 163, 164, 224-230, 246-249, 252, 254.
APA discloses this element. 275 Patent, 8:33-51 Ex. 1001,
249-251 and 253-254.
Seidman : a compression method is usually applied to
video 10:20-22; Ex. 1001, 105-106.
Rosser: the video signal can be a compressed video
signal 16:37-38; Ex. 1001, 165-166.
Ex. 1001, 105-6, 165-66, 224-30, 249, 251, 253-54.
APA discloses this element. 275 Patent, 8:33-51; Ex. 1001,
249-51; 253-54.
Seidman : Embedded data can also be included in a program.
data is text files, computer programs 5:10-21;
Ex. 1001, 107-108.
Rosser: information requested in HTML or
VRML or other suitable protocol, from the World Wide
Web Rosser, 11:43-61; Ex. 1001, 167-168.
Ex. 1001, 107-108, 167-68, 224-230, 249, 251, 253-54.
249-251 and 253-254.
Seidman : a compression method is usually applied to
video 10:22-32; Ex. 1001, 109-110.
Rosser: video signal can be a compressed video signal
16:37-38 (cl. 8); 7:62-66, 16:37-38; Ex. 1001, 169-170.
59
[employ] MPEG4
[means].
Claims 12 and 24
A method[system]
according to claim
1 [13], wherein at
least some of said
objects are created
with [employ]
MACROMEDIA
FLASH
technology [means].
Ex. 1001, 109-110, 169-70, 224-30, 249, 251, 253-54.

249-251 and 253-254.
Seidman : Embedded data can also be included in a program.
data is text files, computer programs 5:10-21; see
3:47-50, 10:22-32; Ex. 1001, 111-113.
Rosser: the video signal can be a compressed video signal
16:37-38 (claim 8); see 16:37-38, 7:55-58, 7:62-66,
11:43-61, 13:42-43, 16:37-38 (cl. 8); Ex. 1001, 171-73.
Ex. 1001, 111-13, 171-73, 224-30, 249, 251, 253-54.
VIII. CONCLUSION
This Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. A trial should be
instituted and the 275 Patent claims should be canceled as unpatentable.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 30, 2014
BY:
/Linda J. Thayer/
Linda J. Thayer, Reg. No. 45,681
Rachel L. Emsley, Reg. No. 63,558
Two Seaport Blvd., 6th Floor
Boston, MA 022110
Telephone: 617.646.1600
Facsimile: 202.408.4400
linda.thayer@finnegan.com
rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned certifies
that on December 30, 2014, a copy of:
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311-319
AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 ET SEQ.
was served upon the Patent Owner via USPS EXPRESS MAIL at the following
address:
Daniel Mitry
212 East 47th Street, #24J
New York, NY 10017
Dated: December 30, 2014
BY:
/Linda J. Thayer/
Linda J. Thayer, Reg. No. 45,681
Rachel L. Emsley, Reg. No. 63,558
Two Seaport Blvd., 6th Floor
Boston, MA 022110
Telephone: 617.646.1600
Facsimile: 202.408.4400
linda.thayer@finnegan.com
rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

Custom Media

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Custom Media

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

Patent No. 6,269,275

Inter Partes Review No.

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

Required Mandatory Notices 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) ........................................... 1

Real Party-in-Interest ...................................................................................... 1

Related Matters ................................................................................................ 2

Lead and Back-Up Counsel 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3).................................. 3

Service Information, Power of Attorney, and Payment of Fees ................ 3

Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. 42.104 .................................. 3

Grounds for Standing and Identification of Challenged Claims ............... 3

Summary of the 275 Patent ...................................................................................... 4

Summary of the Prosecution History of the 275 Patent ....................................... 5

Claim Constructions 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................... 6

Legal Overview ................................................................................................ 6

Preamble Terms of Claims 1 and 13 ............................................................. 7

user profile information (Claims 1 and 13) .............................................. 8

profile data objects (Claims 1 and 13)....................................................... 9

user computer means (Claims 1 and 13) .................................................. 9

accessing the profile data objects individually locally in each one

presentation logic objects & creating presentation logic objects

storing each one of the presentation logic objects individually

media components (Claims 1 and 13)..................................................... 15

a single universal presentation media object (Claims 1 and 13) ........... 16

means for Recitations in Claims 13-24 ............................................... 17

means for gathering user profile information (Claim 13) ......... 18

means for creating profile data objects (Claim 13) .................... 18

means for creating presentation logic objects (Claim 13) .......... 19

means for broadcasting a single universal presentation

means for adding profile data objects periodically (claim

(i) means for adding media objects periodically (claim 16)

Remaining Claim Terms .................................................................... 21

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................ 21

Summary of Arguments ................................................................................ 21

Independent claims ....................................................................................... 25

Seidman anticipates claims 1 and 13 ................................................ 25

Seidman renders obvious claims 1 and 13....................................... 29

Rosser anticipates claims 1 and 13 ................................................... 30

Rosser renders obvious claims 1 and 13 .......................................... 33

Park anticipates claims 1 and 13 ....................................................... 34

Park renders obvious claims 1 and 13.............................................. 37

Claims 1 and 13 are obvious over a combination of

Dependent Claims ......................................................................................... 45

Claims 2 and 14 (further including adding profile data objects

Claims 3 and 15 (further including [means for] modifying said

Claims 4 and 16 (further including [means for] adding media

Claims 5 and 17 (further including [means for] modifying said

Claims 6 and 18 (further including [means for] using default data

Claims 7 and 19 (further including [means for] sending messages

Claims 8 and 20 (wherein at least some of said objects are encrypted

Claims 9 and 21 (wherein at least some of said objects employ

MPEG4 [means]) and Claims 12 and 24 (wherein at least

Claim charts for dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 ........................ 56

VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60

Required Mandatory Notices 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Unified Patents is

Lead and Back-Up Counsel 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3)

Service Information, Power of Attorney, and Payment of Fees

Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. 42.104

Grounds for Standing and Identification of Challenged Claims

Summary of the 275 Patent

Summary of the Prosecution History of the 275 Patent