Case 2:13-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 11305
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-103-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, an individual,
`MELANIE ROZMAN, an individual,
`MEGAN ROZMAN, an individual, and
`MORGAN ROZMAN, an individual,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google - Exhibit 1011, cover
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 08/04/14 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 11312
`
`actually be understood to mean “parallel.” Id. The Federal Circuit refused to rewrite the claim
`
`even if the contradiction was obvious and could have been corrected. Id.
`
`Judge Davis’ decision in Juxtacomm-Texas Software, LLC v. Axway, Inc., is similarly not
`
`helpful for Defendant. See 2012 WL 7637197 at *4-6 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2012). In Juxtacomm, the
`
`defendant argued that the specification failed to disclose any embodiment where “data
`
`transformation occur[red] ‘within the systems interface.’” Id. Judge Davis noted his “suspicion”
`
`that the claims were likely improperly drafted, but nonetheless found the challenged claims
`
`indefinite because the specification failed to “disclose data transformation within the import and
`
`export interfaces or any systems interfaces.” Id. In contrast to Juxtacomm where no embodiment
`
`supporting the claims were present, Plaintiffs’ claims were intentionally directed towards Figure 1,
`
`and the embodiment disclosed in column 17 that teaches using the first process in some instances
`
`to communicate with the Internet, such as when performing encrypted Internet banking.
`
`The common theme in Defendant’s cited cases is that indefiniteness may be found in
`
`instances where significant claim drafting errors has occurred rendering the claims irreconcilable
`
`with the specification.9 Unlike Defendant’s cited cases, the claims are drafted as the inventors
`
`intended, and they are drafted consistent with one or more disclosed embodiments in the patents’
`
`specification. In summary, Defendant fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that all
`
`the reissue claims are indefinite for failing to claim what the inventors regarded as their invention.
`
`The Reissue Claims Requiring A Single Processor Are Not Indefinite
`B.
`Defendant further argues that the single processor claims are indefinite because they fail to
`
`claim what the inventors’ regarded as their invention. As discussed in the previous section, if the
`
`claims can be logically consistent with the specification then Defendant’s argument fails. See
`
`Juxtacomm-Texas Software, 2012 WL 7637197 at *4-5 (stating that “there must be a showing of a
`
`
`9 See also Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 946, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2008)
`(noting “[t]here is scant case law applying section 112, paragraph 2. Where it has invalidated a
`claim, the claim contradicted the specification and the patentee ‘admit[ted] as much.’”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Google - Exhibit 1011, page 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 67 Filed 08/04/14 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 11316
`
`Dated: August 4, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Charles Ainsworth____
`
`Charles Ainsworth
`State Bar No. 00783521
`Robert Christopher Bunt
`State Bar No. 00787165
`PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
`100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
`Tyler, TX 75702
`903/531-3535
`903/533-9687
`E-mail: charley@pbatyler.com
`E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com
`
`William E. Davis, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24047416
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`111 West Tyler Street
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Phone: (903) 230-9090
`Fax: (903) 230-9090
`Email: bdavis@bdavisfirm.com
`
`Eric W. Benisek
`Cal. State Bar No. 209520
`Robert S. McArthur
`Cal. State Bar No. 204604
`VASQUEZ BENISEK & LINDGREN LLP
`3685 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 300
`Lafayette, CA 94549
`925-627-4250
`925-403-0900-Fax
`Email: ebenisek@vbllaw.com
`Email: mcarthur@vbllaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Alfonso Cioffi, Melanie
`Rozman, Morgan Rozman and Megan Rozman
`
`
`
`11
`
`Google - Exhibit 1011, page 11