Prior art

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 8,566,868, I will examine the citations listed within the patent itself. Prior art, as defined by the USPTO, includes information publicly known before the effective filing date of a patent application, such as other U.S. and foreign patents, publications, and online resources.

Based on the provided patent text, here are some of the prior art references cited and an analysis of their potential anticipation:

1. U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522 to Lambert

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not explicitly state the filing or publication date, only the patent number.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a cable television system controlled by a minicomputer. The computer responds to signals transmitted from viewers (e.g., by telephone) to generate a schedule for prerecorded "local origination" programs. It then transmits a video image of this schedule to viewers and actuates video tape, disc, or film players to transmit the requested programming.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The '522 patent is cited for its system of viewer-controlled program scheduling in a cable TV environment. It potentially anticipates aspects of claims related to automated program selection and transmission based on user input. However, the '868 patent distinguishes itself by stating that Lambert's system "has no capacity to schedule automatically or transmit any programming other than that loaded immediately at the play heads of the controlled video players," and lacks capacity for various other functions like loading players, verifying programs, receiving and processing transmissions, or operating under broadcaster instructions to control ultimate receiver station apparatus other than television receivers. This suggests that while Lambert deals with scheduling and delivery, it lacks the embedded control signal methodology and broader apparatus control (e.g., computers, printers) central to the '868 patent's claims.

2. U.S. Patent No. 4,337,480 to Bourassin et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,337,480
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not explicitly state the filing or publication date, only the patent number.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a dynamic interconnection system that connects at least one television receiver to multiple television peripheral units. It allows a viewer to automatically connect and disconnect peripherals without manual switching and also enables "image-within-image" superimposition of a secondary image from a peripheral onto the primary TV display.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Bourassin et al. is cited for its ability to manage connections between a TV and peripherals and to overlay images. This could potentially anticipate aspects of Claim 1, 13, 25, and 37 that involve causing a function to be performed at a receiver station, particularly those related to displaying combined media (like the graphic overlay shown in FIG. 1C of the '868 patent). However, the '868 patent differentiates itself by stating that Bourassin's system "has no capacity for interconnecting or operating a system at any time other than the time when the order to do so is entered manually at the system or remote keyboard." It also lacks capacity for acting on broadcaster-transmitted instructions to control peripherals or change channels automatically, or for coordinating programming content between systems, or for controlling non-television related peripherals. This highlights the '868 patent's focus on automated control via embedded signals and broader device interaction.

3. U.S. Patent No. 4,264,925 to Freeman et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,264,925
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not explicitly state the filing or publication date, only the patent number.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a multi-channel programming transmission system where subscribers can manually select among related programming alternatives transmitted simultaneously on separate channels.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Freeman et al. relates to subscriber selection across multiple channels. It could potentially anticipate the "receiving a first broadcast transmission that is broadcast for reception by the plurality of receiver stations" aspect of claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. However, the '868 patent explicitly states that Freeman's prior art "is limited" and "has no capacity for interconnecting or operating a system at any time other than the time when the order to do so is entered manually." This distinguishes the '868 patent's emphasis on automated, embedded-signal-driven control as opposed to manual selection.

4. U.S. Patent No. 4,025,851 to Haselwood et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,025,851
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not explicitly state the filing or publication date, only the patent number.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for monitoring programming by means of embedded digital signals.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Haselwood et al. is directly relevant to the concept of embedding signals in programming for monitoring. This patent directly relates to the "plurality of embedded control signals" found in claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. However, the '868 patent critiques this prior art for its limitations in monitoring only single broadcast stations, channels, or units, and for lacking capacity to monitor more than one channel at a time or the combining of media. It also notes that such prior art assumed specific signal formats and locations and lacked the capacity to vary formats or interpret signals not explicitly monitored. This suggests that while Haselwood introduces embedded signals, the '868 patent claims a more sophisticated and flexible system for their use and interpretation, particularly in a multi-media and multi-device context.

5. U.S. Patent No. 3,845,391 to Crosby

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 3,845,391
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not explicitly state the filing or publication date, only the patent number.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that monitors programming by means of audio codes that are "substantially inaudible."
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to Haselwood et al., Crosby's patent concerns embedding signals (audio codes) for monitoring. This directly relates to the concept of "embedded control signals" in claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. The '868 patent's critique of monitoring systems, including Crosby's, for their limitations in monitoring multiple channels or combining media, and for rigid signal format assumptions, would be relevant here for distinguishing the broader scope of the '868 patent.

6. U.S. Patent No. 4,547,804 to Greenberg

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,547,804
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not explicitly state the filing or publication date, only the patent number.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that automatically monitors multiple channels by switching sequentially among them, and includes capacity to monitor audio and visual quality.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Greenberg's patent focuses on multi-channel monitoring and quality assessment. While it touches on monitoring, which is a component of the '868 patent (e.g., in "meter and/or monitor information" in the signal processor description), the '868 patent differentiates itself by noting Greenberg's limitations in monitoring only single broadcast stations, channels or units, and lacking capacity to monitor more than one channel at a time or the combining of media. The '868 patent also highlights that Greenberg's system assumed specific formats and lacked the ability to vary them or interpret unmonitored signals. This suggests that while Greenberg addresses aspects of monitoring, the '868 patent's claims likely extend to more complex, multi-functional, and dynamically adaptable embedded signal processing across diverse media and devices.

7. Dataspeed Corporation division of Lotus Development Corporation (Cambridge, Mass.) system

• Full Citation: Not a patent, but a described prior art system.
• Publication/Filing Date: Not applicable for a patent. The description indicates it "transmits real-time financial data over radio frequencies to microcomputers equipped with devices called 'modios'."
• Brief Description: This system transmits real-time financial data over radio frequencies to microcomputers equipped with "modios" (combining radio receivers, modems, and decryptors). Subscribers program their stations to select particular data of interest.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This system anticipates the transmission of data to microcomputers and subscriber selection of data, relevant to the general concept of delivering information to receiver stations. However, the '868 patent explicitly states that this prior art "only transmits data; it does not control data processing." It lacks the capacity to simultaneously control multiple CPUs and peripherals, cause simultaneous generation of user-specific information at multiple stations, process received data in unprogrammed ways, or explain why information might be of interest or how to change processing. This distinction strongly limits its ability to anticipate the core control and personalization aspects of the '868 patent's claims.

8. Equatorial Communications Company (Mountain View, Calif.) system

• Full Citation: Not a patent, but a described prior art system.
• Publication/Filing Date: Not applicable for a patent. The description indicates it "transmits to similarly equipped receiver systems by satellite."
• Brief Description: This company transmits data by satellite to receiver systems similar to those of Dataspeed Corporation. These systems receive transmissions and convert data into unencrypted digital signals for computer processing, with subscribers programming their stations for data selection.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to the Dataspeed system, Equatorial Communications anticipates data transmission to receiver systems. However, the same limitations highlighted for Dataspeed—lack of control over data processing, inability to generate user-specific information simultaneously, and absence of mechanisms for unprogrammed processing or explaining relevance—would apply here. This means it would not anticipate the core functionalities of the '868 patent's claims regarding embedded control signals and dynamic, personalized processing.

Summary of Anticipation Analysis:

The prior art cited by US8566868B1 generally describes systems for broadcasting, data transmission, program scheduling, and monitoring using embedded signals or similar techniques. While these references demonstrate individual components or concepts, the '868 patent consistently distinguishes itself by claiming an integrated system that provides:

• Automated and dynamic control: The '868 patent emphasizes controlling receiver station apparatus and data processing automatically via embedded signals, rather than manual input or static programming.
• Multi-media and multi-device integration: It covers controlling various apparatus (computers, printers, etc.) and combining different media (e.g., video/computer) in ways not fully addressed by the cited prior art.
• User-specific information generation: A key distinguishing feature is the ability to cause simultaneous generation of user-specific information at multiple receiver stations and to process data in ways not inputted by subscribers.
• Sophisticated signal processing: The '868 patent highlights its advanced capacity for varying embedded signal patterns, selective decryption, and dynamic interpretation of signals, going beyond simple identification or fixed monitoring.

Therefore, while the cited prior art might individually anticipate certain elements (like receiving a broadcast or embedding signals), the patent text argues that none of them anticipate the integrated system and methods for using embedded control signals to achieve dynamic, user-specific, and multi-device control and information generation as claimed in US Patent 8,566,868.