US 8804727

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 8804727:

Title: Signal processing apparatus and methods
Assignee: Contentnexus LLC (current assignee as of June 9, 2025). The original assignee was Personalized Media Communications LLC.
Inventors: John Christopher Harvey; James William Cuddihy
Filing Date: June 2, 1995 (for application US08/458,760).
Issue Date: August 12, 2014.
Abstract: An integrated system of programming communication and processing that includes apparatus and methods for generating and distributing programming by means of combining studio generated information and user specific information at a plurality of receiver stations. The system provides for automatic control of apparatus at the subscriber station by means of signals embedded in the programming. The system further includes means for monitoring programming use and for metering programming charges.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for providing a customized media experience to a user. It involves:

  • Transmitting a main program (e.g., a TV show) that contains hidden control signals.
  • Receiving this program and the control signals at a user's device.
  • Having separate user-specific content (e.g., personal financial data) available at the user's device.
  • Using the embedded control signals to automatically combine the main program with the user-specific content and then display this combined presentation to the user.
  • The control signals can also instruct the user's device to record content and monitor how the programming is used.
  • The system can automatically send this usage data from the user's device to a remote location for billing or monitoring purposes.

• Claim 11 (Apparatus Claim): This claim describes a device (apparatus) located at a user's receiving station designed to deliver a combined media presentation. This apparatus includes:

  • A receiver to obtain the main program, which carries embedded control signals.
  • A processor that can detect and interpret these embedded control signals.
  • A memory component that stores user-specific information.
  • A display for presenting visual information.
  • The processor is configured to use the control signals to integrate the main program with the user-specific information and manage its display. It also handles recording of programming and monitors its usage.
  • A communication module allows the device to transmit usage data to a distant station.

• Claim 17 (System Claim): This claim outlines a comprehensive system for providing personalized media experiences. The system comprises:

  • A central transmission station that broadcasts main programming with embedded control signals.
  • Multiple user receiver stations, each equipped with:
    • A receiver for the main programming and control signals.
    • User-specific information accessible at the station.
    • A processor capable of detecting the control signals, merging the main programming with the user-specific information, and outputting the resulting combined content.
  • A remote station configured to receive and process usage data from the individual receiver stations, which can be used for billing or monitoring.

Legal Status and Litigation:
US Patent 8804727 is currently Active, with an anticipated expiration date of August 12, 2031.

The patent family associated with US8804727 B1 has ongoing litigation. Specific US cases have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, including case numbers 2:26-cv-00325, 2:25-cv-00990, and 2:25-cv-00987.

US Patent 8804727 is currently involved in litigation. The Google Patents page for US8804727B1 explicitly states "Family has litigation" and provides several links to cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court via Unified Patents.

Here is a summary of the known litigation involving US patent 8804727, based on the provided information:

• Case 1:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00325
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but implied by the case number 2:26-cv-00325 as being in 2026.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

• Case 2:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00990
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but implied by the case number 2:25-cv-00990 as being in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

• Case 3:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00987
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but implied by the case number 2:25-cv-00987 as being in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

The Google Patents page itself lists these cases as directly associated with US8804727B1. Unified Patents offers a "Litigation Case List" where such details are usually found. While the provided snippets from Google Patents confirm the existence of these cases in the Texas Eastern District Court and provide their case numbers and filing years, specific plaintiffs, defendants, and detailed outcomes or current statuses beyond "litigation" and "active" are not present in the provided text. To get more details like the specific parties, further investigation into each case using the provided case numbers on a platform like Unified Patents or PACER would be necessary, which is beyond the scope of this response given the direct data provided.Known litigation involving US patent 8804727 includes multiple cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court:

• Case 1:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00325
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but the case number suggests a filing year of 2026.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation.

• Case 2:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00990
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but the case number suggests a filing year of 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation.

• Case 3:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00987
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but the case number suggests a filing year of 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation.

The provided patent information indicates that the patent family is involved in litigation, with links to Unified Patents for these specific cases. Further details on plaintiffs, defendants, and specific outcomes would require accessing the full case dockets on platforms such as Unified Patents or PACER.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8,804,727.

Strategic summary

The absence of any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) against US Patent 8,804,727 indicates that the patent has not yet faced validity challenges at the PTAB. This could mean a few things for a potential defendant:

• Untested Claims: All claims of US 8,804,727 remain untested in the AIA trial context. This leaves the full scope of the patent available for assertion by the patent owner.
• Open Prior Art Landscape: Since no IPRs have been filed, there are no estoppel bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for potential petitioners. Any defendant could bring forward prior art that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in an IPR.
• Signal of Enforcement Activity: While the absence of PTAB challenges is not definitive, it can sometimes suggest a lower level of recent assertion activity, or that previous assertions were resolved without the need for PTAB challenges. However, it's also possible that the patent owner has chosen to assert the patent in venues where PTAB challenges are less common or less strategically advantageous for defendants.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 8,804,727, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have the full range of PTAB trial options available to them. This includes filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the patent, assuming the statutory requirements for filing an IPR are met (e.g., the patent is not a "covered business method patent" and the prior art is limited to patents and printed publications). A thorough prior art search would be crucial to identify strong invalidity grounds for such a petition.

Inventors

• John Christopher Harvey (Personalized Media Communications LLC)
• James William Cuddihy (Personalized Media Communications LLC)

Original assignee

Personalized Media Communications LLC. The patent abstract describes "an integrated system of programming communication" and methods for processing signals, including "automating the handling, recording, and retransmitting of television, radio, computer, and other electronically transmitted programming". Given the broad nature of the claims and the assignee's consistent involvement in patent litigation (as noted in the Google Patents legal status, which mentions "Family has litigation"), it is unclear whether they shipped a product directly embodying the claims or primarily engaged in licensing and assertion. Their current status is unclear based solely on the patent text and Google Patents entry; however, the reassignment in 2025 indicates a change of ownership.

Assignment timeline

• 2000-09-22 (executed) / recorded 2000-09-22 — Reel 011319/0770

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HARVEY, JOHN C., CUDDIHY, JAMES W.
  • Assignee: PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: KENNETH S. WEISS, ESQ., WEISS & WEISS, 20700 VENTURA BLVD SUITE 303, WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364.
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventors to the original assignee.

• 2025-06-09 (executed) / recorded 2025-06-09 — Reel 066708/0462

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: CONTENTNEXUS LLC
  • Correspondent: LINDEMAN, TINA, DOCKETING DIRECT, INC., 2000 M STREET NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20036.
  • Context: Transfer to new entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8804727
    1995 : Application filed by Personalized Media Communications LLC
    2000 : Assigned to Personalized Media Communications LLC
    2014 : Patent granted
    2025 : Assigned to Contentnexus LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Personalized Media Communications LLC to Contentnexus LLC on 2025-06-09 (Reel 066708/0462) suggests this pattern. Personalized Media Communications LLC has a history of patent litigation. Contentnexus LLC, as a relatively new entity (formed in 2025 as the assignee) with a name like "Contentnexus LLC" and no clear product ties evident from the patent record, is consistent with a licensing-only entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Personalized Media Communications LLC, the original assignee, is known for extensive patent litigation. The Google Patents legal status explicitly states "Family has litigation" and links to Darts-ip and Unified Patents litigation data, which frequently list NPEs.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. The correspondent for the 2000 assignment was Kenneth S. Weiss of Weiss & Weiss. The correspondent for the 2025 assignment was Tina Lindeman of Docketing Direct, Inc. These are different.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two recorded assignments, spaced 25 years apart, not multiple consecutive transfers within a short period.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent was granted in 2014, and the earliest recorded litigation on Google Patents is not clearly tied to the 2025 assignment date. While the Google Patents page mentions litigation, the provided snippets do not specify when the first suit related to this specific patent was filed in relation to the 2025 assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication from the assignment records or Google Patents data that Personalized Media Communications LLC or Contentnexus LLC have filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. There's no information in the provided context to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Contentnexus LLC, which is not a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on the presence of a known asserter (Personalized Media Communications LLC) in the chain and the subsequent transfer to a likely shell entity (Contentnexus LLC) in 2025 (Reel 066708/0462). Personalized Media Communications LLC has a documented history of patent litigation, as evidenced by the "Family has litigation" flag and links to litigation data on the Google Patents page, which is a strong indicator of NPE activity. The transfer to Contentnexus LLC, an entity whose name and timing of acquisition (after the patent's issuance) suggest a focus on licensing or assertion rather than product development, further supports this conclusion.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US8804727

The most relevant prior art for US patent 8,804,727, based on its own discussion of prior art, includes several U.S. patents that address various aspects of signal processing, content delivery, and monitoring. The patent US8804727 itself claims priority from US06/317,510, which is related to US Patent 4,694,490, indicating this as a foundational reference.

Here is an analysis of the identified prior art references:

1. U.S. Patent 4,381,522 to Lambert

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522, "Cable television system with viewer controlled programming," invented by Albert L. Lambert.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: April 26, 1983; Filed: August 26, 1980.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a cable television system where a minicomputer controls programming based on viewer preferences received via telephone. The computer generates and transmits a schedule, then actuates preloaded video players (tape, disc, film) to transmit programs to designated cable channels.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: US8804727 distinguishes itself from Lambert by noting several limitations in the prior art. 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." It also lacks the ability to load video players, identify programming loaded on them, verify correct program playback, or record programming from any source. Crucially, it "has no capacity to operate under the control of instructions transmitted by broadcasters" and cannot "insert signals that convey information to or control, in any way, the automatic operation of ultimate receiver station apparatus other than television receivers." Therefore, claims in US8804727 that involve automatic and flexible scheduling, comprehensive control over video players, recording capabilities, operation via broadcaster-transmitted instructions, or control of non-television receiver apparatus would likely not be anticipated by Lambert. However, general claims relating to cable television systems with viewer-controlled programming and schedule generation might find overlap with Lambert.

2. U.S. Patent 4,025,851 to Haselwood et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,025,851, "Television program monitor system," invented by Henry F. Haselwood et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: May 24, 1977; Filed: December 27, 1974.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for monitoring television programming by means of embedded digital signals.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: US8804727 identifies limitations in this prior art, stating it "has capacity to monitor only single broadcast stations, channels or units and lacks capacity to monitor more than one channel at a time or to monitor the combining of media." It also "lacked capacity to identify encrypted signals then decrypt them" and "lacked capacity to record and also transfer information to a remote geographic location simultaneously." Furthermore, the embedded signals are "used only to identify programming." Claims in US8804727 directed to simultaneous multi-channel or multi-media monitoring, decryption of encrypted signals, simultaneous recording and remote data transfer, or using embedded signals for complex control functions beyond mere identification would likely not be anticipated by Haselwood. Basic claims regarding monitoring programs via embedded digital signals for identification could be anticipated.

3. U.S. Patent 3,845,391 to Crosby

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 3,845,391, "Program monitoring method and apparatus," invented by Philip B. Crosby.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: October 29, 1974; Filed: August 3, 1973.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that monitors programming using "substantially inaudible" audio codes.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Similar to Haselwood, US8804727 highlights that Crosby's system "has capacity to monitor only single broadcast stations, channels or units and lacks capacity to monitor more than one channel at a time or to monitor the combining of media." It also "lacked capacity to identify encrypted signals then decrypt them" and "lacked capacity to record and also transfer information to a remote geographic location simultaneously." The embedded signals are primarily "used only to identify programming." Claims in US8804727 that involve simultaneous monitoring of multiple channels or mixed media, decryption, simultaneous recording and remote data transfer, or more sophisticated uses of embedded signals (e.g., in non-audio or different audio ranges for control or personalized content) would likely not be anticipated by Crosby. Basic program monitoring using inaudible audio codes for identification might be anticipated.

4. U.S. Patent 4,547,804 to Greenberg

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,547,804, "Automatic broadcast monitoring system with audio-visual quality analysis," invented by William J. Greenberg.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: October 15, 1985; Filed: April 29, 1981.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that automatically monitors a plurality of broadcast channels by switching sequentially among them, and includes the capacity to monitor audio and visual quality.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: While Greenberg monitors multiple channels, US8804727 notes that it "lacks capacity to monitor more than one channel at a time or to monitor the combining of media." It also "lacked capacity to identify encrypted signals then decrypt them" and "lacked capacity to record and also transfer information to a remote geographic location simultaneously." US8804727 specifically criticizes Greenberg's reliance on transmitting a digital signal "at a particular place on a select line of each frame of a television program," deeming it inefficient and functionally limited. Therefore, claims in US8804727 relating to simultaneous multi-channel or multi-media monitoring, encryption/decryption, simultaneous recording and remote data transfer, or flexible embedded signal patterns and functions that are not limited to fixed locations for identification would likely not be anticipated by Greenberg. General claims for automatic broadcast monitoring with sequential channel switching and quality analysis could be anticipated.

5. U.S. Patent 4,694,490 to Harvey et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,694,490, "Broadcast signal processing apparatus and methods," invented by John C. Harvey, et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: September 15, 1987; Filed: November 3, 1981.
• Brief Description: This patent is a parent or related application to US8804727, sharing the same priority date of November 3, 1981 (via application US06/317,510). As such, it likely covers the foundational concepts of an "integrated system of methods and apparatus for communicating programming" that forms the basis of US8804727. This includes the general idea of using embedded signals in programming to control various receiver station apparatus and to process information.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given that US4694490A shares a priority date with US8804727 and is explicitly cited as a priority claim, it is highly probable that the broadest claims of US8804727, particularly those covering the fundamental system architecture and methods for signal processing, embedding signals for control, and generating user-specific information, would be present in or anticipated by US4694490A. Any claims in US8804727 that are not sufficiently distinguished by novel features or improvements over US4694490A would likely be anticipated or rendered obvious. The claims of US8804727 would therefore focus on more specific implementations, enhancements, or novel combinations of the broader concepts disclosed in US4694490A.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This analysis requires identifying the scope and content of the prior art, distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art, and determining the motivation for a PHOSITA to combine or modify prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, along with any secondary considerations of non-obviousness (though none are requested or provided in this context).

The US patent 8804727 describes an integrated system for communicating programming across various media, including television, radio, broadcast print, and computer programming, utilizing embedded signals for control, personalization, monitoring, and encryption/decryption at subscriber stations. The patent itself provides a detailed discussion of existing prior art and its perceived limitations, which forms the basis for this obviousness analysis.

Core Features of US8804727 (as presented by the patent):
The invention's core features revolve around:

1. Embedding digital control and data signals within various media broadcasts (e.g., television vertical blanking interval (VBI) or inaudible audio frequencies).
2. Using these embedded signals to automatically control multiple types of apparatus at a subscriber station, such as microcomputers, video recorders, and other peripherals, often in a synchronized and personalized manner.
3. Generating user-specific information (e.g., graphic overlays) at the subscriber station based on these control signals and combining it with the broadcast content.
4. Monitoring usage data and automatically transferring these records to remote stations for billing or ratings.
5. Encrypting and decrypting programming and/or instructions based on embedded keys or instructions.
6. Providing ease of use, transparency, and privacy for personalized programming.

Prior Art References and their Limitations (as described by US8804727):

1. Dataspeed Corporation (Lotus Development Corporation) / Equatorial Communications Company systems: These systems transmit real-time financial data over radio frequencies to microcomputers with receivers, modems, and decryptors. Subscribers program their stations to select data.

   • Limitations: They only transmit data; they do not control data processing or simultaneously cause generation of user-specific information at multiple receiver stations. They lack capacity to cause subscriber computers to process data in ways not inputted by subscribers. They also cannot overlay information other than what is transmitted to all stations simultaneously, nor can they cause receiver computers to generate user-specific information for overlays.

2. Lambert U.S. Pat. No. 4,381,522: Describes a cable television system controlled by a minicomputer that responds to viewer signals (by telephone) to generate a schedule for prerecorded programs and actuate video players for transmission.

   • Limitations: It cannot automatically schedule or transmit programming not immediately loaded on players. It lacks capacity to load video players, identify programming, verify playback, or record programming from any source. It cannot operate under broadcaster-transmitted instructions, nor can it insert signals to control automatic operation of apparatus other than television receivers. It also lacks capacity to coordinate programming content with other transmitted programming or control separate systems like a radio and television simulcast.

3. Monitoring Systems (e.g., Haselwood, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 4,025,851; Crosby U.S. Pat. No. 3,845,391; Greenberg U.S. Pat. No. 4,547,804): These systems monitor programming and generate "ratings" using embedded digital signals (Haselwood on a select line of each TV frame), or audio codes (Crosby). Greenberg monitors multiple channels sequentially for audio/visual quality.

   • Limitations: They monitor only single stations/channels/units, not multiple channels simultaneously or combined media. They monitor either what is transmitted or what is received, but not both. They assume specific signal formats/locations and cannot vary them, distinguish signal absence, or interpret non-monitored signals. They lack capacity to identify and decrypt encrypted signals or simultaneously record and transfer information to a remote geographic location. The patent notes that embedded signals in these systems are used only to identify programming.

4. Video Tape Recorders: Have capacity for automatic delayed recording of television transmissions based on manual viewer input.

   • Limitations: Lack capacity for automatically embedding/removing signals, controlling external apparatus, retransmitting prerecorded programming while controlling its decryption based on embedded keys, or operating based on control signals to record user-specific information at multiple subscriber stations.

5. "Interactive video" systems: Can locate prerecorded TV programming and digital data on a disc and transmit them to TV receivers and computers.

   • Limitations: The patent asserts similar limitations as video tape recorders regarding embedding signals, controlling external apparatus, retransmission with decryption, and recording user-specific information.

6. Decoders and Decryptors ("Addressable" systems): These systems restrict programming use to authorized subscribers and can control individual subscriber station decoder/decryptor apparatus via broadcast control instructions (e.g., turning on/off service for non-payment).

   • Limitations: Lack capacity for decrypting combined media programming, selectively decrypting embedded control instructions in unencrypted programming, selectively transferring programming/instructions to a decryptor, transferring decryptor output to one of multiple output apparatus, automatically identifying decryption keys, or identifying/recording decryptor input/output identity. The patent also notes that each service broadcasts encrypted programming and controls its own dedicated receiver/decryptor at each subscriber station.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A PHOSITA in the early 1980s, facing the limitations described above, would be motivated to improve broadcast communication systems by integrating existing technologies to achieve greater automation, interactivity, and personalization. The following combination of prior art references would render many claims of US8804727 obvious:

Combination: Haselwood U.S. Pat. No. 4,025,851 + Dataspeed/Equatorial systems + Lambert U.S. Pat. No. 4,381,522 + Addressable Systems + General Knowledge of Computer Graphics and Video Overlay.

1. Embedding Digital Control Instructions in Broadcast Signals:

• Haselwood U.S. Pat. No. 4,025,851 explicitly teaches embedding digital signals in television programming, specifically on a select line of each frame, for the purpose of monitoring and identifying programming.
• Addressable systems were known to control specific individual subscriber station apparatus (e.g., decoder/decryptors) by means of control instructions transmitted in broadcasts.
• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, observing Haselwood's technique for embedding digital data in TV signals and the existence of addressable systems for broadcasting control instructions, would find it obvious to use Haselwood's embedding method to carry control instructions (rather than just identification data) to subscriber apparatus. This would allow broadcasters to initiate actions at the receiver more dynamically, overcoming the limitation of previous embedded signals serving "only one function". The idea of placing these signals in non-visible (VBI) or inaudible (audio frequency ranges not normally heard) portions of the broadcast, as described by US8804727, would be a conventional engineering choice to avoid interference with primary content.

2. Transmitting Signals with Programming to a Subscriber Microcomputer for Processing:

• Dataspeed/Equatorial systems already transmit digital data over broadcast frequencies (radio, satellite) to microcomputers that are equipped to receive and process digital signals, and include decryptors.
• Motivation to Combine: Given that Dataspeed/Equatorial systems deliver data to microcomputers, and embedded control signals can be transmitted (as per Haselwood/Addressable systems combination), it would be an obvious next step for a PHOSITA to combine these. The goal would be to overcome Dataspeed's limitation that it "only transmits data; it does not control data processing". By embedding instructions via Haselwood's method within the broadcast accompanying the data (or separate from it but synchronizing), the broadcaster could command the subscriber's microcomputer to process the received data in specific ways.

3. Generating and Overlaying User-Specific Information (Graphics):

• The patent itself acknowledges that "graphic overlay techniques" for combining graphic information onto video are "well known in the art". The description of the IBM Personal Computer with a "PC-MicroKey Model 1300 System with Techmar Graphics Master Card" (a commercially available product at the time) further demonstrates the existing capability of microcomputers to generate and overlay graphics.
• Dataspeed/Equatorial systems deliver user-selected data (e.g., financial data) to microcomputers.
• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, wanting to enhance the user experience beyond merely displaying raw data from a Dataspeed-type system, would be motivated to utilize the microcomputer's known graphics capabilities. It would be obvious to program the microcomputer to visualize the user-specific data (e.g., a stock portfolio graph). Furthermore, combining this local, user-specific graphic with a related broadcast image (e.g., a financial news program) using "well known" overlay techniques would be an obvious design choice to provide context and immediacy, thereby overcoming Dataspeed's limitation regarding not generating user-specific information or overlays. The embedded control signals (from the Haselwood/Addressable systems combination) would provide the necessary synchronization to display the personalized overlay at the appropriate moment in the broadcast, as demonstrated by the "GRAPHICS ON" command example in the patent.

4. Controlling External Apparatus at the Subscriber Station:

• Lambert U.S. Pat. No. 4,381,522 demonstrates a minicomputer controlling media playback devices (video tape, disc, or film players) in a cable TV system.
• Addressable systems show that broadcasters can send control instructions to individual subscriber apparatus.
• Motivation to Combine: Extending the control functionality of embedded broadcast instructions (from the Haselwood/Addressable systems combination) to other peripherals at the subscriber station, such as VCRs for automatic recording or printers for "broadcast print," would be an obvious engineering improvement. A PHOSITA would seek to create a more integrated and automated subscriber experience, building on Lambert's concept of computer-controlled media devices. This would address Lambert's limitation of not being able to act on instructions transmitted by broadcasters to control peripheral systems.

5. Monitoring Usage and Remote Data Transfer:

• Monitoring systems (Crosby, Haselwood, Greenberg) specifically teach monitoring programming and generating ratings. Greenberg's system even monitors multiple channels sequentially for quality.
• Dataspeed/Equatorial systems use modems for data reception, implying communication capabilities, and the general concept of an "automatic dialer" for contacting remote sites was known.
• Motivation to Combine: If systems exist to monitor program usage (Haselwood/Crosby/Greenberg), and microcomputers can communicate data (Dataspeed's use of modems; general telephony), it would be obvious to combine these to automatically transfer the collected monitoring data from the subscriber station back to a remote location (e.g., a central "ratings" or billing station). This directly addresses Greenberg's limitation of lacking capacity to "record and also transfer information to a remote geographic location simultaneously".

6. Encryption and Decryption:

• Dataspeed/Equatorial systems include "decryptors" in their receiver apparatus.
• Addressable systems utilize "decoder/decryptor apparatus" to restrict programming use to authorized subscribers.
• Motivation to Combine: Given the established use of decryption in both data transmission (Dataspeed) and conditional access (Addressable systems), it would be obvious for a PHOSITA to apply these known encryption/decryption techniques to the embedded control signals and the content they protect. This would enhance security and enable conditional access for the broader, integrated system described by the invention, thereby addressing the limitations of prior art decryptors that lacked capacity for decrypting combined media programming or selectively decrypting embedded control instructions.

Conclusion:
While US8804727 describes a sophisticated integrated system, many of its individual components and the underlying concepts for their integration were present in the prior art identified by the patent itself. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the features of:

• Embedding digital signals (Haselwood) for purposes of control (Addressable systems) rather than just identification.
• Transmitting these control signals and data to microcomputers (Dataspeed/Equatorial).
• Utilizing the microcomputer's capability to generate graphics and overlay them onto broadcast video (general knowledge and available hardware like the Techmar Graphics Master Card), triggered by the embedded control signals for synchronization.
• Expanding computer control to various peripherals (Lambert, Video Tape Recorders).
• Automating the reporting of monitoring data (Greenberg) via telecommunication means (Dataspeed's modems, automatic dialers).
• Applying known encryption/decryption methods (Dataspeed, Addressable systems) to secure the transmissions.

The motivation for such a combination would be to overcome the explicit limitations of the prior art systems, particularly their lack of integrated, automated, and personalized control over subscriber-side data processing and peripherals, and to provide a more interactive and controlled broadcast experience. Therefore, a PHOSITA would have found the system described in US8804727, as a whole, to be obvious.

For US Patent 8804727, here's a detailed breakdown of its patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation/divisional applications, related family members, and projected expiration date:

1. Patent Term Adjustments (PTA):
Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is a mechanism to extend the term of a U.S. patent to compensate for administrative delays by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. This adjustment adds to the standard 20-year term from the earliest effective filing date. The USPTO automatically calculates PTA at the time of patent issuance and includes it in the Issue Notification Letter.

To determine the specific PTA for US 8804727, one would need to access the patent's file wrapper in Patent Center on the USPTO website. The calculation involves factors such as:

• A Delay: USPTO's failure to issue a first Office Action within 14 months of filing, respond to applicant replies within 4 months, or issue the patent within 4 months after issue fee payment.
• B Delay: The patent application remaining pending for more than 3 years.
• C Delay: Delays due to interferences, secrecy orders, or successful appeals.
• Applicant Delay: Delays caused by the applicant's actions, such as late responses or Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), which are subtracted from the USPTO delays.
• Overlap: Any overlapping periods between different types of delays are subtracted to avoid double-counting.

Without direct access to the patent's prosecution history in Patent Center, the exact PTA granted to US 8804727 cannot be definitively stated.

2. Patent Term Extensions (PTE):
Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available for patents on certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products. It aims to restore patent term lost due to delays in obtaining premarket government approval from a regulatory agency, such as the FDA.

Given that US 8804727 is titled "Signal processing apparatus and methods" and the abstract describes an integrated system for programming communication and processing, it is highly unlikely to be eligible for Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, as it does not appear to relate to products requiring regulatory approval from agencies like the FDA.

3. Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members:
US 8804727 is a utility patent. According to the Google Patents entry, it claims priority from US06/317,510, which itself is associated with US4694490A. This indicates that US 8804727 is part of a patent family.

• Parent Application: US08/458,760, filed on June 2, 1995.
• Priority Claim: The patent claims priority to US06/317,510, filed on November 3, 1981. This earlier application (US06/317,510) is a "prior art date" and "priority claimed from" entry, suggesting it's the ultimate priority document for this patent family.
• Related Patent: US4694490A, titled "Broadcast signal processing apparatus and methods," shares the same priority date of November 3, 1981, via application US06/317,510. This indicates that US4694490A is a related family member, likely a parent or sibling application from which US 8804727 derived.

Without reviewing the full prosecution history of US 8804727, it's not possible to definitively state if it is a direct continuation or divisional of US08/458,760 or if there were other intermediate applications. However, the explicit priority claim to US06/317,510 ties it back to the earlier work.

4. Projected Expiration Date:
The general rule for U.S. patents (other than design patents) filed on or after June 8, 1995, is that the term begins on the issue date and ends 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed, or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest application to which it claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).

For US 8804727:

• Earliest Priority Date: November 3, 1981 (from US06/317,510).
• Application Filing Date: June 2, 1995 (for US08/458,760).
• Issue Date: August 12, 2014.

Since the application was filed on or after June 8, 1995 (June 2, 1995 is before this date, however it explicitly states filing date of application US08/458,760 is June 2, 1995, and this specific patent publication date is August 12, 2014. The priority date of 1981 is the earliest priority claimed), the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest priority date. The patent states a priority date of November 3, 1981. However, the legal status on Google Patents lists the anticipated expiration date as August 12, 2031.

This discrepancy (20 years from 1981 would be 2001, but the patent issued in 2014 and expires in 2031) indicates that the "greater of the twenty-year term or seventeen years from the patent grant" rule might apply, or more likely, significant Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was granted due to the long prosecution history. The application US08/458,760 was filed in 1995, and the patent was not granted until 2014, suggesting a lengthy examination period that would likely result in substantial PTA.

Therefore, the projected expiration date of August 12, 2031, already considers any applicable PTA.