Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 27
`
`EXHIBIT 13
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`GEORGE A. RILEY (S.B. #118304) griley@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (S.B. #203526) lsimmons@omm.com
`MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN (S.B. #278786) mdrummondhansen@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone:
`(415) 984-8700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 984-8701
`
`RYAN K. YAGURA (S.B. #197619) ryagura@omm.com
`XIN-YI ZHOU (S.B. #251969) vzhou@omm.com
`BRIAN M. COOK (S.B. #266181) bcook@omm.com
`KEVIN MURRAY (S.B. #275186) kmurray2@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`Telephone:
`(213) 430-6000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 430-6407
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE
`
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision, SA, and Nagra
`France S.A.S.,
`
`v.
`Apple Inc.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN
`MELVIN, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLE INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`I, Stephen Melvin, hereby declare as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have prepared this Declaration in connection with Apple Inc.’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief, which is to be filed concurrently with this Declaration.
`2.
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the ’169 Patent, its prosecution file
`history, Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (ECF 81), the Declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth (ECF 81-15), as well as other documents discussed in this Declaration.
`3.
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as an expert in the fields of computer
`science, computer communications, and related technologies. I am being compensated at my
`normal consulting rate of $445 per hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and
`in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`II.
`QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley in
`1991 and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the University of
`California at Berkeley in 1982. I have more than 30 years of experience in computer science and
`computer engineering. I am an inventor on over 45 patents, and I am a registered patent agent
`before the USPTO.
`5.
`My Ph.D. research areas included high-performance computer architecture and
`microarchitecture and microcode-based system performance analysis tools. From September
`2001 through April 2002, I was a Visiting Scholar at the University of Texas, Austin, where I
`directed graduate students in research in the area of high-performance computer architecture.
`6.
`In May 2001, I co-founded and was the Chief Architect of Flowstorm, Inc., a start-up
`company based in Silicon Valley, where I defined and guided the overall chip architecture for a
`multithreaded packet processor. From March 2000 through May 2001, I worked as the Senior
`CPU Architect at Clearwater Networks, where I was involved in defining the architecture and
`microarchitecture of Clearwater’s CNP810S multithreaded network processor.
`7.
`From August 1983 to the present, I have been the President of Zytek Communications
`Corporation (“Zytek”). Zytek is an engineering, consulting, and small-scale manufacturing
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`company that currently provides intellectual property consulting services as well as services
`related to the design, implementation, and testing of embedded systems. Zytek’s general areas of
`activity have included industrial control and measurement, Internet-related services, hard disk
`analysis and file recovery, and computer engineering research services. Through my work at
`Zytek, I have designed numerous microprocessor-based embedded systems, including analog and
`digital circuit design, firmware development for embedded microcontrollers, and software
`development for host interfacing, product development, and debugging.
`8.
`I am a member of the following professional organizations: The Institute of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE); The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); The American
`Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA); The Intellectual Property Owners Association
`(IPO); and The National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP).
`9.
`I served as General Chair of the 45th Annual International Symposium on
`Microarchitecture (Micro-45), held in Vancouver in December of 2012. I also served as co-chair
`of the 29th Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture (Micro-29), held in Paris in
`December of 1996.
`10.
`For further details regarding my employment and academic history, please refer to my
`curriculum vitae, attached to this Declaration.
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`11.
`I have been informed and understand that claim construction is a matter of law and that
`the final claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the Court.
`12.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this Declaration, I have been informed about
`certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. Some of those understandings of the
`law are summarized below.
`13.
`I understand that claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning to one
`of skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and the prosecution history.
`14.
`I have been informed and understand that a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
`if it fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129-30 (2014).
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`15.
`I have been informed and understand that, for means-plus-function limitations, the court
`must determine the claimed function and then identify the structure in the written description that
`clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. Noah Sys., Inc. v.
`Inuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2012). I have also been informed and understand
`that the disclosure of the corresponding structure must be adequate—the patent’s specification
`must provide an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by the claim language—and thus a
`means-plus-function clause is indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to
`recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the
`claim. Id. at 1312. Finally, I have been informed and understand that, where a general purpose
`computer or microprocessor is claimed for specialized functions that cannot be accomplished
`absent specialized programming, sufficient structure must be disclosed in the form of computer
`algorithms. Id. at 1311-18.
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that a dependent claim must further limit the subject
`matter claimed. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4.
`IV.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`17.
`Based on my review of the ’169 Patent and my background and experience in the field of
`computer science, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date would
`be someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or the
`equivalent, plus approximately two years of experience in the field of computer engineering or
`software development, or an equivalent amount of relevant work and/or research experience.
`18.
`I have been informed and understand that claim construction is viewed from the
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the claimed invention.
`The ’169 Patent was filed on April 21, 2003 and claims priority to a provisional application filed
`on April 19, 2002. I have been informed that Plaintiffs may claim an invention date as early as
`June 2001. I have been asked to assume for purposes of this Declaration that this is the time of
`the claimed invention the ’169 Patent. However, the opinions I expressed in this report would be
`the same if I applied a priority date of April 19, 2002 (the provisional filing date of the ’169
`Patent) or April 21, 2003 (the actual filing date of the ’169 Patent).
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`19.
`Based on my education and experience, I am familiar with the level of knowledge that one
`of ordinary skill would have possessed during the relevant period of time, and by June 2001, I
`was a person who had more than ordinary skill in the art.
`V.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’169 PATENT
`20.
` The ’169 Patent, entitled “Supporting Common Interactive Television Functionality
`Through Presentation Engine Syntax,” was filed on April 21, 2003, and issued on May 30, 2006.
`See Ex. 2 at Cover.
`21.
`The ’169 Patent discloses methods and systems for handling the presentation of audio,
`video, or graphic presentations that require a set of resources. See id. at Abstract, 2:33-57, 46:54-
`47:10, claims 1, 22, and 23.
`22.
`Specifically, the ’169 Patent discloses systems and methods that receive “directives”
`indicating an audio, video, or graphic presentation that requires a set of resources. Id.
`23.
`The methods and system claimed by the ’169 Patent require determining whether one or
`more of the received directives are a “prerequisite directive.” Id. at claims 1, 22, and 23. If the
`directives include a “prerequisite directive,” then the claims recite prohibiting the presenting or
`initiation of the presentation until the “prerequisite” resources are acquired. Id. If the directives
`do not include a “prerequisite directive,” then the presentation is initiated. Id. In one
`embodiment, the prohibiting step is in further response to detecting a corresponding time for
`expiration has not yet expired and the method for handling the presentation further comprises
`allowing the presenting of the presentation in response to detecting the time for expiration has
`expired. Id. at 21:53-22:10, claim 12.
`24.
`The ’169 Patent includes 23 claims. I understand that claims 1, 2, 12, 22, and 23 are
`asserted.
`25.
`Claim 1 is a method claim that recites a method for handling a presentation. The claimed
`method is not tied to any hardware elements or specific application.
`Independent claim 1 recites:
`1. A method comprising:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`[a] receiving one or more directives, wherein said directives are
`indicative of an audio, video and/or graphic presentation which
`requires a set of resources;
`[b] determining whether said one or more directives includes a
`prerequisite directive which indicates that acciuisition [sic] of a
`subset of said set of resources is a prerequisite for initiating the
`presentation;
`[c] initiating said presentation, in response to determining the one
`or more directives do not include said prerequisite directive; and
`[d] prohibiting initiation of said presentation until said subset of
`resources are acquired, in response to determining the one or more
`directives include said prerequisite directive.
`26.
`Claims 2 and 12 depend from independent claim 1. In dependent claim 2, the directives
`are comprised of a markup language, a scripting language, and/or a style sheet. Id. at claim 2; see
`also 46:54-47:10. In dependent claim 12, the prohibiting step is in further response to detecting a
`“corresponding time for expiration” has not yet expired and the method further comprises
`“allowing the presenting” of the presentation in response to detecting the time for expiration has
`expired. Id. at claim 12; see also at 21:53-22:10.
`27.
`Claim 22 recites “a client device in an interactive television system” comprising “a
`receiver configured to receive signals …” and a “processing unit coupled to said receiver” that is
`“configured to” perform steps similar those recited in claim 1.
`28.
`Claim 23 recites a “computer readable medium comprising program instructions
`executable by a computer” that performs steps similar to the method recited by claim 1 except in
`claim 23 the “prerequisite directive” indicates that acquisition of a subset of the resources is a
`prerequisite “for the presentation” generally, as opposed to indicating a prerequisite “for initiating
`the presentation” as in claim 1.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
`29.
`I have been asked to opine on the following claim limitations:
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`•
`
`• “directive” (claims 1, 2, 22, and 23);
`• “prerequisite directive” (claims 1, 2, 22, and 23);
`• “subset of said set of resources” (claims 1, 22, and 23);
`• “wherein said prohibiting is in further response to detecting a corresponding time for
`expiration has not yet expired, and wherein said method further comprises allowing the
`presenting of said presentation in response to detecting said time for expiration has
`expired” (claim 12);
`• “a processing unit coupled to said receiver, wherein said processing unit is configured to:
`determine whether said one or more directives includes a prerequisite directive which
`indicates that acquisition of a subset of said set of resources is a prerequisite for initiating
`the presentation; initiate said presentation in response to determining the one or more
`directives do not include said prerequisite directive; and prohibit initiation of said
`presentation until said subset of resources are acquired, in response to determining the one
`or more directives include said prerequisite directive” (claim 22); and
`the preamble of claim 22.
`A.
`“directive” (claims 1, 2, 22, and 23)
`30.
`Apple proposes that the claim term “directive” should be construed as “declaration or
`instruction,” while Plaintiffs propose that it should be construed as “a declaration or other
`statement that is formed using a computer language (e.g., HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.) used in
`the creation and/or manipulation of resources and content.” I agree with Apple’s construction.
`31.
`The ’169 Patent specification is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “directive,” and
`broadly recites using declarations or instructions across diverse implementations including
`television, video cassette recorder (VCR), video game console, mobile/cell phone, banking, e-
`mail, video-on-demand, and electronic program guide (EPG). Ex. 2 at 3:5-16, 6:58-7:12.
`32.
`Plaintiffs propose that “directives” should be construed as “a declaration or other
`statement that is formed using a computer language (e.g., HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.) used in
`the creation and/or manipulation of resources and content.” The term “computer language” is
`never used in the ’169 Patent, and the ’169 Patent does not explicitly limit “directives” to those
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`“formed” using a “computer language,” nor is there any specific reason that “directives” should
`be so limited.
`33.
`For example, the specification describes that directives “may [be] utilized with digitally
`recorded programs as well as with live broadcasts” (see id. 3:36-38), and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that directives utilized with digitally recorded programs and live
`broadcasts would not be limited to “computer languages.”
`34. While the specification discusses “programming languages” (see, e.g., id. at 8:19-30,
`46:56-47:10), the claimed invention is not limited to such languages. The specification
`distinguishes between procedural and declarative languages, and then goes on to explain that
`“directives” are not limited to these types of languages. Id. at 46:56-47:10.
`35.
`Plaintiffs include the examples of “HTML, JavaScript, CSS, etc.” in their proposed
`construction. However, the specification discusses those as examples of how directives are not
`limited to declarative languages and may include other languages “and constructs.” See id. at
`47:3-7. Plaintiffs’ proposal suggests that “directives” would be limited to computer languages
`like the examples of “HTML, JavaScript, CSS, etc.,” but the specification does not use these as
`examples of “computer languages” but as “languages and constructs,” as noted above.
`36.
`Also, while the specification says that “the declarations or other statements used in the
`creation and/or manipulation of resources and content in this document may be generally referred
`to as ‘directives,’” (id. at 47:7-10), this passage does not say that this defines everything that
`would be considered a “directive” and the specification also refers to directives as “describ[ing]
`or otherwise indicat[ing] an audio and/or video presentation.” Id. at 2:39-42. The claims also
`only refer to directives as “indicative of an audio, video, and/or graphic presentation requiring a
`set of resources” in Claims 1 and 22 (or “which requires a set of resources” in Claim 23), without
`requiring directives to be used in the creation or manipulation of resources.
`37.
`Plaintiffs and Dr. Almeroth argue that under Apple’s construction, directives might
`include any sort of declaration or instruction, unbounded by the context of computer languages,
`including something spoken like the English language. ECF 81 at 12; ECF 81-15 ¶ 47. However,
`in my opinion, Apple’s construction is consistent with the claims and specification, which are not
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`limited to the specific context of “computer languages,” and are not limited as proposed by
`Plaintiffs’ construction to those “formed” using a “computer language.” Claim 1, for instance,
`broadly recites a method for handling a presentation. The claimed method is not tied to any
`hardware elements or specific application. And, as discussed above, the specification does not
`limit “directives” to those “formed” using a “computer language,” either.
`38.
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that, in the context of the ’169 Patent, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood “directive” to mean “declaration or instruction.”
`B.
`“prerequisite directive” (claims 1, 2, 22, and 23)
`39.
`Apple proposes that the claim term “prerequisite directive” is indefinite, while Plaintiffs
`propose that it should be construed as “directive for specifying that a particular subset of
`resources required for a presentation needs to be obtained prior to the presentation being
`initiated.” Because neither the claims nor the specification inform a person of ordinary skill in
`the art with reasonable certainty the meaning of a “prerequisite directive,” it is my opinion that
`the term “prerequisite directive” is indefinite.
`40.
`The term “prerequisite directive” does not have any well-recognized meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`41.
`The claims require determining whether received directives include a “prerequisite
`directive.” See, e.g., Ex. 2 at claims 1, 22, and 23. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that the claimed methods, system, and medium require being able to distinguish
`a “prerequisite directive” from other “directives.” However, neither the claims nor the
`specification limit the “prerequisite directive” to a particular format.
`42.
`For example, while the specification describes an embodiment in which a content creator
`could label an “essential” subset of resources “using a directive such as a ‘prerequisite’ meta-data
`header” that includes the word “prerequisite” in the header (id. at 21:13-20, 26:47-56), the claims
`and specification do not limit a prerequisite directive to this exemplary metadata format.
`43.
`Another example disclosed in the specification to control rendering is a “render-policy”
`tag is given the value of “loadComplete” to specify that the resources “that will be used for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`rendering the display have been downloaded.” Id. at 21:21-52. But neither the claims nor the
`specification limit the “prerequisite directive” to that format or any other particular format.
`44.
`Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to define
`“prerequisite directives” or distinguish “prerequisite directives” based on their functionality in the
`claims or specification.
`45.
`For example, claims 1, 13, and 22 refer to “prerequisite directive[s]” as indicating “that
`acquisition of a subset of said set of resources is a prerequisite for initiating the presentation,” but
`claim 23 merely states that the prerequisite directive “indicates that acquisition of a subset of said
`set of resources is a prerequisite for the presentation” generally. Compare id. claims 1, 13, and
`22 with claim 23 (emphasis added). Also, claims 1 and 22 recite “prohibit[ing] initiation of said
`presentation,” while claim 23 recites “prohibit the presenting of said presentation.” Id. at claims
`1, 22, 23 (emphasis added). The ’169 Patent claims that directives indicate a presentation
`“requiring” a set of resources generally, thus the distinction between a resource being “required”
`for a presentation and being a “prerequisite” for the presentation is not clear.
`46. Moreover, while claims 1 and 22 refer to “prerequisite directives” as indicating that
`acquisition of a subset of resources is required for “initiating” the presentation, both the claims
`and the specification contradict that definition. For example, claim 12, which depends from claim
`1, explicitly allows for presenting the presentation when a time for expiration has expired,
`independent of whether the subset of resources indicated by the “prerequisite directives” has been
`acquired. See id. at claim 12. In that scenario, acquisition of the subset of resources was not a
`prerequisite for initiating the presentation.
`47.
`The specification also uses qualifying language to describe the “prerequisite” resources,
`such as “all resources which are labeled as a pre-requisite must generally be available prior to
`rendering the corresponding page for presentation.” Id. at 26:48-51 (emphasis added).
`48.
`The specification also describes multiple possible outcomes where acquisition of alleged
`“prerequisite” resources are not acquired. The specification discloses that if a timeout occurs and
`“some of the prerequisite resources have not been acquired” then it may be preferable to show a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`previous page, for an error message to appear, or “the box may render and display those resources
`which it has been able to acquire.” Id. at 21:53-67.
`49.
`Based on the claims and specification, whether the resources identified by the
`“prerequisite directive” are a “prerequisite” to initiating the presentation may depend on the
`circumstances. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand a
`“prerequisite directive” to be limited to a directive that indicates that a subset of resources must
`be acquired as a “prerequisite” for initiating the presentation.
`50.
`Plaintiffs and Dr. Almeroth argue that “prerequisite” has a plain and ordinary meaning,
`and that a “prerequisite directive” acts in accordance with that meaning. ECF 81 at 12-13; ECF
`81-15 ¶¶ 48-50. I agree that the word “prerequisite” does have a plain and ordinary meaning. I
`disagree, however, that the “prerequisite directive” of the ’169 Patent, as described by the
`specification and claims, acts in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`“prerequisite.”
`51.
`Thus, neither the claims nor the specification inform a person of ordinary skill in the art
`with reasonable certainty regarding the claim scope for what defines a “prerequisite directive” as
`opposed to other directives.
`C.
`“subset of said set of resources” (claims 1, 22, and 23)
`52.
`Apple proposes that the claim term “subset” should be construed as “a set that is some or
`all of said set of resources,” while Plaintiffs propose that it should be construed as “a set that is
`some, but not all, of the larger set of resources.” I agree with Apple’s construction.
`53.
`The plain meaning of “subset” is a set that includes some or all members of its parent set.
`Plaintiffs and Dr. Almeroth acknowledge this definition. ECF at 13-15; ECF ¶ 53.
`54.
`Indeed, the Random House Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2000) defines “subset” as “a
`set that is a part of a larger set … a set consisting of elements of a given set that can be the same
`as the given set or smaller.” Ex. 8 (OPENTV2008-00009969-72). The Random House
`Dictionary of the English Language (1987) provides the same definition. Ex. 9 (OPENTV2008-
`00009966-68). The American Heritage College Dictionary (1993) defines “subset” as “a set
`contained within a set.” ECF 81-8.
`
`
`10
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`55.
`
`The ’169 Patent claims “directives [] indicative of an audio, video and/or graphic
`
`presentation which requires a set of resources” and “a prerequisite directive which indicates that
`
`acquisition of a subset of said set of resources is a prerequisite for the presentation” or for
`
`“initiating the presentation.” See, e.g., Ex. 2 at claims 1, 22, and 23. While the claims and
`
`specification fail to inform one of ordinary skill with reasonable certainty regarding what
`
`“prerequisite directives” are, the ’169 Patent does not limit the “subset” of resources that may be
`
`indicated by prerequisite directives to only “some” of the resources. See, e.g., id. at Abstract,
`
`2:33-47, 21:9-20, 21:21-52, 21:53-22:11, 47:23-37, 47:45-48:3, 48:54-56, 48:58-67 (discussing
`
`“prerequisite directives” without limiting the subset of resources that may be identified by them
`
`to only some of the resources). Furthermore, the specification never discloses that a content
`
`author would be limited such that they could not label all resources as prerequisites. Instead, the
`
`’169 Patent discusses “enabl[ing] content authors to use directives … to create and/or control …
`
`content.” Id. at 2:33-36. The ’169 Patent explicitly contemplates that all resources could be
`
`labeled “prerequisite” resources. For example, the specification discusses a “loadComplete
`rendering policy” that “indicates that the graphics may not be displayed until all resources that
`
`will be used for rendering the display have been downloaded.” Id. at 21:45-47 (emphasis added).
`
`The specification states, “The only difference between the loadComplete rendering policy and
`labeling all resources as prerequisites, is that in the first case the OnLoad event will have been
`
`delivered to the appropriate handler, if any, prior to rendering, and hence may affect the rendered
`
`view.” Id. at 21:47-52 (emphasis added). This statement just means that in the case that the
`
`content author chooses to perform some function triggered by the OnLoad event, then it will be
`
`delivered at a different point in time in the two scenarios described. In the case that there is no
`
`function triggered by the OnLoad event, or in the case that a function triggered by the OnLoad
`
`event does not influence page rendering, there would be no difference at all between the two
`
`scenarios. Thus, the ’169 Patent acknowledges that all resources could be “labeled” as
`
`prerequisites.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 83-13 Filed 04/12/16 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`56.
`Thus, despite Plaintiffs’ and Dr. Almeroth’s arguments to the contrary (see ECF 81 at 13-
`15; ECF 81-15 ¶ 52), in my opinion the ’169 Patent specification clearly does not limit a subset to
`less than all of the full set of resources.
`57. Moreover, the specification elsewhere uses the term “strict subset” with respect to
`allocating receiver privileges. Ex. 2 at 45:51-55. A “strict subset” refers to a set that includes
`some, but not all, members of its parent set. A strict subset is also sometimes referred to as a
`“proper subset.” One of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would understand that when the ’169
`Patent meant to identify a “strict subset,” it did so by using the term “strict subset.” Neither the
`claims nor the specification are limited to a “strict subset” of resources that are indicated by the
`“prerequisite directive.”
`58.
`Thus, it is my opinion that, in the context of the ’169 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood “subset of said set of resources” to mean “a set that is some or all
`of said set of resources.”
`D.
`“wherein said prohibiting is in further response to detecting a corresponding
`time for expiration has not yet expired, and wherein said method further
`comprises allowing the presenting of said presentation in response to
`detecting said time for expiration has expired” (claim 12)
`59.
`Apple proposes that the claim term “wherein said prohibiting is in further response to
`detecting a corresponding time for expiration has not yet expired, and wherein said method
`further comprises allowing the presenting of said presentation in response to detecting said time
`for expiration has expired” is indefinite, while Plaintiffs propose that no construction is necessary
`because the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase can be easily understood by the jury.
`Because the claims and specification fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what is
`claimed by a “corresponding time for expiration” and because dependent claim 12 impermissibly
`expands the scope of the independent claim, it is my opinion that the term is indefinite.
`60.
`Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation of “wherein said prohibiting is in
`further response to detecting a corresponding time for expiration has not yet expired, and wherein
`said method further comprises allowing the presenting of said presentation in response to
`detecting said time for expiration has expired.” See Ex. 2 at claims 1 and 12.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`MELVIN DECL. ISO CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Documen