Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF VERMONT
`
`ARNOUSE DIGITAL DEVICES, CORP.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 5;11-cv-155
`
`ARNOUSE DIGITAL DEVICES. CORP.'S REPLY TO MOTOROLA MOBILITY'S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 4
`II. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 4
`A.
`The Law Requires A Clear And Unmistakable Disavowal Of Claim Scope
`In Order For Prosecution Disclaimer To Apply ..................................................... .4
`The Patentee's Statements During The Prosecution Of The '484 Patent Do
`Not Amount To An Unambiguous Disavowal ........................................................ 6
`1.
`The Patentee's Statements Do Not Refer Directly To The Phrase
`At Issue ........................................................................................................ 6
`The Patentee's Statements Are Subject To Multiple Reasonable
`Interpretations .............................................................................................. 7
`Defendant's Claim Constructions Are Too Broad And Merely An Effort
`To Avoid Infringement, Not To Reach The Proper Claim Construction ................ 8
`1.
`Defendant's Construction Of The Preamble Is Woefully
`Incomplete ................................................................................................... 9
`Defendant's Construction Of"Non-Functioning Shell" Is
`Nonsensical ................................................................................................ ! 0
`Defendant's Construction Of "wherein the readers are configured
`so that they will not operate with a computer other than a portable
`computer of the system" Is Incorrect.. ...................................................... .12
`Defendant's Construction Of"wherein the reader and portable
`computer are configured to become a fully functioning computer
`when connected" Is At Odds With Claim 15 And The Specification
`Of The '484 Patent. .................................................................................... 14
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 15
`
`1v.
`
`u.
`
`11.
`
`111.
`
`- 2-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......... 5
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F. 3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................. 5
`
`Aventis Pharma SA. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................... 5
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................... 9, 13
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................. 5
`
`Digital-Vending Svcs. Intern. v. Univ. of Phoenix, 672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................... 9
`
`Energizer Holdings v. International Trade Comm'n, 435 F. 3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................ 13
`
`N Telecom Ltd v. Samsung Elec. Co., 215 F.3d 1281, 1293-95 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................... .5
`
`Purdue Pharma LP v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................ 5
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................. 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`
`Robert C. Faber, Faber On Mechanics ofPatent Claim Drafting, 61h ed. (August 2010) ............. .12
`
`- 3 -
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 4 of 16
`
`I. SUMMARY
`
`Defendant Motorola Mobility, LLC's, formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`
`("Defendant") arguments rest on claims of"common sense" and a steady dose ofhand waving
`
`around the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,484 1 ("the '484 patent"). Defendant's
`
`claim constructions, however, are not consistent with relevant case law and the facts at hand.
`
`Moreover, Defendant's characterization of the prosecution history fails to both elucidate the
`
`requirements under the law and explain how any statements made therein meet the standard of
`
`prosecutorial disclaimer. Accordingly, Plaintiff Amouse Digital Devices Corp. ("Plaintiff')
`
`requests that the Court adopt its constructions for the reasons set forth below and in Doc. No. 47,
`
`Arnouse Digital Devices, Corp.'s Markman Brief Regarding Construction ofthe Disputed Claim
`
`Terms in U.S. Patent No. 7,516,484 ("Doc. No. 4 7") and reject the constructions proposed in
`
`Doc. No. 50, Motorola Mobility's Responsive Claim Construction Brief ("Doc. No. 50").
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Law Requires A Clear And Unmistakable Disavowal Of Claim Scope In
`Order For Prosecution Disclaimer To Apply.
`
`Defendant's central argument rests on the proposition that certain statements made by the
`
`patentee of the '484 patent requires construction of disputed claim terms (referred to as
`
`prosecution disclaimer) in the manner asserted by Defendant. Yet, Defendant failed to discuss
`
`important requirements under the law for prosecution disclaimer and failed to apply the facts in
`
`this case to those requirements. A full and proper evaluation of the patentee's statements
`
`demonstrates that there has been no prosecution disclaimer that would alter the meaning of the
`
`disputed claim terms as asserted by Defendant.
`
`1 The '484 patent issued on April 7, 2009, and is based on U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/099,032, filed with
`the USPTO on April 7, 2008 ("the '032 application"). For the purposes of this brief and for clarity, "the '484 patent"
`will be used to refer to both the issued patent as well as the '032 application.
`
`- 4-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 5 of 16
`
`As Defendant surely is aware, prosecution disclaimer applies only when an applicant
`
`"clearly and unmistakably" disclaims claim scope or meaning during the prosecution of the
`
`patent. See, e.g., Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F. 3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Computer Docking Station
`
`Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Purdue Pharma LP v. Endo Pharms.,
`
`Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Statements made that "describe[] features of the
`
`prior art" but do "not distinguish the claimed invention based on those features," see Computer
`
`Docking, 519 F.3d at 1375, or lead to multiple interpretations are not enough to constitute
`
`prosecution disclaimer. !d. (citing N Telecom Ltd v. Samsung Elec. Co., 215 F.3d 1281, 1293-
`
`95 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that prosecution disclaimer did not "support the judicial narrowing
`
`of a clear claim term" because the inventors' statements were amenable to multiple reasonable
`
`interpretations). Similarly, prosecution disclaimer cannot be found if the "specification
`
`expressly defines a claim term and 'remarks made to distinguish claims from the prior art are
`
`broader than necessary to distinguish the prior art, [because] the full breadth of the remark is not
`
`'a clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope as required to depart from the meaning of
`
`the term provided in the written description."' !d. ((quoting 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery
`
`Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys.,
`
`Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Thus, the courts have insisted that the patentee's
`
`disavowal must be clearly unambiguous. See Grober v. Mako Products, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`"while the prosecution history can inform whether the inventor limited the claim scope in the
`
`course of prosecution, it often produces ambiguities created by ongoing negotiations between the
`
`inventor and the PTO. Therefore, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer only applies to
`
`unambiguous disavowals." (citing Abbott Labs., 566 F.3d at 1289)(emphasis added).
`
`- 5-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 6 of 16
`
`Here, when the law is applied to the facts, Defendant's central argument disintegrates.
`
`B. The Patentee's Statements During The Prosecution Of The '484 Patent Do Not
`Amount To An Unambiguous Disavowal
`
`Defendant makes repeated assertions that because certain statements were made by the
`
`patentee to the USPTO, the scope of the claims of the '484 patent is necessarily limited. See,
`
`e.g., Doc. No. 50 at pages 3, 4, 7, 9, 16 and 17. However, repeating something over and over
`
`does not make it is true. A review of the full discourse between the patentee and the USPTO, the
`
`language used by the patentee, and the claim language, reveals that it is anything but clear that
`
`the words expressed by the patentee limited the scope of the claims as proposed by Defendant.
`
`i.
`
`The Patentee's Statements Do Not Refer Directly To The
`Phrase At Issue
`
`During the prosecution of the '484 patent, the patentee made the following statement:
`
`Claim 1 is amended to recite that the portable computer is without
`input and output means for interacting directly therewith. In other
`words, the portable computer needs the reader for the user to
`interact with the computer. Support for these elements is found in
`paragraph [0019] and paragraph [0021], respectively.) Hogdahl
`does not disclose or suggest that the computer lacks input and
`output means for interacting directly therewith. (See e.g., Hogdahl,
`col. 4, lines 63-67, describing that workslate unit is capable of full
`computing operations without the docking station.)
`
`Doc. No. 50, Exhibit B at pages 9-10.
`
`As is clear from the excerpt above, the patentee is only discussing the phrase "portable
`
`computer is without input and output means for interacting therewith," and importantly, not the
`
`phrase that is in need of construction, "[a] reader configured to interact with a portable computer
`
`without input and output means for interacting directly therewith." Doc. No. 47 at page 12
`
`(emphasis added). The fact that the patentee is not referencing the italicized language eliminates
`
`the possibility of a disavowal of any interpretation of the italicized language. At best, the
`
`- 6 -
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 7 of 16
`
`patentee has only reiterated the plain meaning of the phrase - that the reader works with a
`
`computer that lacks input and output means. The patentee never suggests, as Defendant has
`
`argued, that the words "configured to" are restricted to an interpretation that limits the type of
`
`computer the reader is designed to operate with. Thus, the patentee has not restricted the phrase.
`
`ii.
`
`The Patentee's Statements Are Subject To Multiple
`Reasonable Interpretations
`
`Contrary to Defendant's assertions, Plaintiff has not contended that the reader of claim 1
`
`works with a portable computer that includes input and output means that can be interacted with
`
`at all times, i.e., when attached and detached to the reader. Doc. No. 47 at pages 12-18. Rather,
`
`Plaintiff has merely interpreted the phase "[a] reader configured to interact with a portable
`
`computer without input and output means for interacting directly therewith" to mean that the
`
`reader is configured to work with a device that does not include input or output means when
`
`connected to the reader. Unlike Defendant's interpretation, this is in accordance with
`
`specification and the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. See Doc. No. 47 at pages 12-18.
`
`The patentee's statements in the prosecution history do not indicate otherwise and are, in fact,
`
`supportive of Plaintiffs interpretation.
`
`For example, the patentee states that the prior art reference "Hogdahl does not disclose or
`
`suggest that the computer lacks input and output means for interacting directly therewith." Doc.
`
`No. 50, Exhibit B, at page 9. This is an accurate description of the Hogdahl reference-
`
`Hogdahl's computer, at all times, includes input and output means that are capable of being
`
`interacted with when coupled to the reader. See Declaration of Justin W. McCabe, Esq. at Tab A
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 5,264,992 to Hogdahl et al.) at col. 4, lines 63-67. Given the clear teachings of
`
`Hogdahl, the patentee's statement need not be read to limit the scope of the '484 patent's claims
`
`-7-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 8 of 16
`
`to a reader that only works with a computer lacking input and output means at all times because
`
`that limitation is unnecessary to distinguish the patentees' invention from Hogdahl.
`
`Rather than looking at the patentee's statements in the context of the entire paragraph
`
`presented above, Defendant improperly (but understandably) chooses to focus on the patentee's
`
`statement that "the portable computer needs the reader for the user to interact with the computer"
`
`See, e.g., Doc. No. 50 at page 4. Defendant interprets this phrase, and specifically, the word
`
`"needs," to constitute an admission by the patentee that the only way to interact with the
`
`computer is through the reader. However, this overreaches. There is no statement by the
`
`patentee that the reader is configured this way in either the specification of the '484 patent or
`
`when viewing the prosecution history as a whole. For example, as discussed above, the
`
`patentees' interpretation ofHogdahl does not require that the statement be interpreted in the way
`
`proposed by Defendant. Thus, the more appropriate interpretation of the "needs" language, is
`
`that when the computer and the reader are connected, there is no way to interact with the
`
`computer without the reader, but when separated, the computer may have its own input and
`
`output means. This interpretation also comports more completely with the express language of
`
`the claim. See also Doc. No. 47 at page 13-14.
`
`C. Defendant's Claim Constructions Are Too Broad And Merely An Effort To
`Avoid Infringement, Not To Reach The Proper Claim Construction
`
`Although Plaintiff addresses only some ofDefendant's arguments below, Plaintiff
`
`believes that all of its constructions, as presented in its Markman Brief, i.e., Doc. No. 47, should
`
`be adopted based on the reasoning presented in the Markman Brief and as further supported
`
`below.
`
`- 8 -
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 9 of 16
`
`i. Defendant's Construction Of The Preamble Is Woefully
`Incomplete
`
`Plaintiffs construction of the preamble of claim 1 of the '484 patent is well supported in
`
`its prior brief, giving the proper effect to each and every word of the preamble, as is required by
`
`law. See Digital-Vending Svcs. Intern. v. Univ. of Phoenix, 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(Setting forth that it is a "well-established rule that 'claims are interpreted with an eye toward
`
`giving effect to all terms in the claim."') (quoting Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945,
`
`950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Doc. No. 47 at pages 13-18.
`
`In contrast, Defendant pleads with the Court to ignore terms in the preamble, claiming
`
`they are not necessary to construe. Doc. No. 50 at page 10-11. Notably, Defendant cites to no
`
`case law to support this dubious proposition, instead relying on a "common sense" argument to
`
`claim construction. Specifically, Defendant chooses not to define the term "portable computer"
`
`and the term "interacting directly." As explained by Plaintiff previously, in order to understand
`
`the scope of the claims, each of the terms in the preamble must be given effect, including the
`
`term "portable computer." See Doc. No. 47 at page 14-16. Defendant's proposed construction
`
`fails to do so. Indeed, Defendant does not offer any reason for not construing the term "portable
`
`computer," but attempts to justify its decision not to construe the term by stating that "Motorola
`
`does not dispute that each of the accused smartphones has connectors and memory including
`
`software and user information." Doc. No. 47 at page 8. This statement by Defendant is
`
`irrelevant to this Markman proceeding. How Defendant's smartphones work has nothing to do
`
`with the Markman analysis. If Defendant chooses to admit that its smartphones meet certain
`
`limitations, the Court can take those into account during the infringement phase of the litigation,
`
`but it is immaterial at this time.
`
`- 9-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 10 of 16
`
`Defendant's construction also fails to give any effect to the preamble phrase "for
`
`interacting directly therewith." However, understanding the meaning of this phrase is necessary
`
`in order to understand the scope of the claims at issue because it provides the basis for the
`
`configuration of a type of portable computer that the reader is designed to interact with. Thus,
`
`Plaintiff has construed the preamble to give this phrase the meaning the patentee expressly
`
`intended. See Doc. No. 47 at page 16-18. Nevertheless, in response to Plaintiffs construction,
`
`Defendant only states that Plaintiff did not give explicit effect to the patentee's statement of
`
`"functionality such as sounds, visuals, etc." Doc. No. 50 at pages 7-8. Plaintiff disagrees. The
`
`term "user information," which is a term used by the patentee, is a broad term that would include
`
`just this functionality. One can envision that a portable computer would include personal
`
`preferences for how the computer behaved as well as unique personal information. See also,
`
`Doc. No. 47, Declaration of Justin W. McCabe, Esq., Tab B, at column 11, lines 1-24. In fact,
`
`since the patentee used the term "etc.", which commonly means "and other things," Plaintiffs
`
`construction fairly encompasses all of the aspects that patentee explicitly chose to include.
`
`ii. Defendant's Construction Of "Non-Functioning Shell" Is
`Nonsensical
`
`Defendant contends that Plaintiffs definition of"non-functioning shell" is too
`
`complicated and characterizes its own construction as "simple." Doc. No. 50 at pages 12-13.
`
`However, as with many of Defendant's arguments, Defendant offers no legal support for why a
`
`"simple" definition should govern. Nor does Defendant adequately address the problems with its
`
`construction. The two parties' constructions are presented below for convenience:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Claim 1 and Claim 15:
`non-functioning shell
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed
`Construction
`means that the reader can access
`the programs, hardware, and
`user information stored on the
`
`Defendant's Proposed
`Construction
`non-working device
`
`- 10-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 11 of 16
`
`portable computer when
`connected thereto, and ceases
`to function and does not retain
`any user information when not
`connected to the portable
`computer.
`
`Defendant's "simple" interpretation of "non-functioning shell" is plainly part of a larger
`
`scheme to introduce a broad swath of prior art that is aimed at setting up an invalidation claim
`
`and is otherwise irrelevant to proper construction of terms in the '484 patent. To set the stage, as
`
`discussed above, Defendant has chosen not to define the "portable computer," and now chooses
`
`to define the term "non-functioning shell" as merely a "non-working device." Thus, if
`
`Defendant's definitions (or lack thereof) are used:
`
`a) the reader could be any device that has an input or output means and does not work
`
`without the portable computer, but works when the computer is attached; and
`
`b) a portable computer could be any device that lacked input and output means when
`
`coupled to the reader and was connectable to the reader.
`
`Placing these two constructions in the context of a real world example-a power supply
`
`fits within the scope of the term portable computer and a reader could be a clock radio that does
`
`not include a power supply. Thus, until the reader, i.e., clock radio, is connected to the power
`
`supply, the clock radio is a non-working device that meets all of the other limitations of the
`
`claim. This extraordinarily broad interpretation is completely nonsensical given the teachings of
`
`the '484 patent, but might invalidate the patent based on the prior art of clock radios.
`
`Defendant's proposed constructions are not aimed at properly construing terms as a
`
`matter oflaw as required by Markman and its progeny, but instead are plainly self-serving
`
`attempts to either avoid infringement or result in invalidation. As such, they should not be
`
`trusted or adopted.
`
`- 11 -
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 12 of 16
`
`iii. Defendant's Construction Of "wherein the readers are
`configured so that they will not operate with a computer other
`than a portable computer of the system" Is Incorrect
`
`By failing to address the phrase "a portable computer" found in the phrase "wherein the
`
`readers are configured so that they will not operate with a computer other than a portable
`
`computer of the system" the Defendant fails to properly construe the phrase to include the full
`
`scope of what the patentee refers to as "the system", i.e., the reader and the portable computers
`
`that can be used with it. As Plaintiffhas made clear, claim 1 defines the features of a reader.
`
`Doc. No. 47 at 14-15. Claim 1, as construed by the Plaintiff, is capable of working with
`
`computers that both lack input and output means and that have input and output means. !d. 14.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 is structured so as to inform the public that once the reader and the
`
`computer are connected, the computer cannot be accessed except through the reader. As is clear,
`
`although the reader is configured to work in this way, when connected to those type of devices,
`
`the preamble does not require that the reader can only operate with those types of devices.
`
`Nothing in claim 1 or the preamble prohibits the possibility that the reader may work with other
`
`devices as well. The fact that additional types of portable computers may be used with the reader
`
`is exemplified by the phrase "wherein the readers are configured so that they will not operate
`
`with a computer other than a portable computer of the system" because, in that phrase, the
`
`patentee reintroduces the term "portable computer". This reintroduction signifies that the term in
`
`this phrase means something different from the term "portable computer" as used in the
`
`preamble. 2
`
`2 The use of"a" clearly indicates that the portable computer referenced in the preamble and the one
`referenced at the end of claim 1 are, in fact, considered by the patentee to be different. See Doc. No. 4 7, Declaration
`of Justin W. McCabe, Esq., Tab D, Robert C. Faber, Faber On Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting, 6111 ed. (August
`2010) §3.3 ("Every new element must be introduced by "a" or "an" ... "[e]very subsequent mention ofthe
`previously identified element must be preceded by the definite article "the" or by "said." To repeat the same
`element, preceded by the indefinite article "a" or "an," ... implies that a new element is being introduced in the
`clause.").
`
`- 12-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 13 of 16
`
`Defendant then argues that "the system" merely refers back to the combination of the
`
`reader and portable computer described in the preamble, a portable computer that Defendant
`
`asserts lacks input and output means at all times. 3 However, this construction renders the entire
`
`phrase completely unnecessary to claim 1 as it is wholly duplicative of Defendant's construction
`
`of the preamble of claim 1. See Doc. No. 50 at pages 5-8.4 Providing a construction of a phrase
`
`that renders it meaningless is not favored. See Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950-
`
`51 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that an interpretation needs to be given to express claim limitations
`
`that do not render the phrase meaningless).
`
`Moreover, Defendant's reliance on statements made by the patentee during the
`
`prosecution of the '484 patent regarding the phrase "wherein the readers are configured so that
`
`they will not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the system" is
`
`inappropriate. All the patentee said regarding this phrase is that the claim was amended to
`
`include it. See Doc. No. 50, Exhibit B at page 10. This hardly rises to the prosecutorial
`
`disclaimer standard as set forth by Federal Circuit. See Section II.A., infra. Moreover, as set
`
`forth in Section II.B., infra, prosecutorial disclaimer should not apply in any event because of the
`
`ambiguity revolving around the patentee's statements.
`
`Thus, the proper interpretation of the phrase at issue is the one proposed by Plaintiff,
`
`which is consistent with the preamble and the rules of drafting.
`
`3 Although Defendant argues that there may be a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase "the system", this
`argument is irrelevant at this stage of the proceedings and, in any event, is incorrect. The USPTO specifically asked
`for the language at issue. See Doc. No. 50, Exhibit Bat page 8. If"the system" was changed to "a system" so as to
`provide antecedent basis for term, it would make the entire phrase illogical. Lastly, and Defendant appears to agree,
`the term is readily understandable by those of ordinary skill in the art. See Energizer Holdings v. International Trade
`Comm'n, 435 F. 3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Stating that when the meaning of the claim would reasonably be
`understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity
`upon departure from the protocol of"antecedent basis.").
`4 Defendant's reference to the prosecution history again in support of the phrase "wherein the readers are
`configured so that they will not operate with a computer other than a portable computer of the system" shows that its
`construction of the phrase is essentially identical to what it asserts the preamble means, rendering the phrase
`completely unnecessary as it offers no additional limitation on the term reader.
`
`- 13-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 14 of 16
`
`iv. Defendant's Construction Of "wherein the reader and portable
`computer are configured to become a fully functioning
`computer when connected" Is At Odds With Claim 15 And
`The Specification Of The '484 Patent.
`
`Defendant's inclusion of "neither the reader nor the portable computer has all of those
`
`components by itself' in its construction of the phrase "wherein the reader and portable computer
`
`are configured to become a fully functioning computer when connected" is merely another back-
`
`door attempt avoid infringement and is not supported by the specification or express words of
`
`claim 15.
`
`While potentially relevant to an infringement analysis, whether Defendant's phones
`
`include an input and output means, a memory, a processor, and an operating system when not
`
`coupled to its Lapdock is immaterial to the claim construction analysis. For the same reason,
`
`whether or not any of Defendant's smartphones lack input and output means when coupled to the
`
`Lapdock is immaterial at this stage of the litigation. Instead, the claim construction analysis
`
`should focus on the claims ofthe '484 patent. Here, the computer system of claim 15 has many
`
`elements, but it certainly does not require that when the portable computer is disconnected from
`
`the reader it lacks any certain functionality or features, as promoted by Defendant. Thus,
`
`Defendant's efforts to include the above-referenced language into the claims in order to avoid the
`
`plain meaning of claim 15 which would find that their phone/Lapdock combinations infringe,
`
`should be given no weight. Since there is nothing in the specification that supports Defendant's
`
`interpretation, it should be rejected.
`
`- 14-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 15 of 16
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiff requests that the Court construe the contested terms in accord with Plaintiff's
`
`proposed definitions.
`
`Brattleboro, Vermont
`August 27, 2012
`
`DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
`
`By
`
`Is/ R. Bradford Fawley
`R. Bradford Fawley
`Lawrence H. Meier
`28 Vernon Street, Suite 501
`P.O. Box 9
`Brattleboro, VT 05302-0009
`Telephone: (802) 258-3070
`Facsimile: (802) 258-4875
`bfawley@drm.com
`lmeier@drm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`ARNOUSE DIGITAL DEVICES
`
`- 15-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51 Filed 08/27/12 Page 16 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF VERMONT
`
`I hereby certify that on August 27, 2012, I electronically filed Arnouse Digital Devices,
`Corp's Reply To Motorola Mobility's Responsive Claim Construction Brief and Declaration of
`Justin W. McCabe in Support with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
`notification of such filing(s) to the following: Samuel Hoar, Jr., Esq.
`
`Is/ R. Bradford Fawley
`R. Bradford Fawley
`Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
`28 Vernon Street, Suite 501
`Brattleboro, VT 05301
`Telephone: (802) 258-3070
`bfawley@drrn.com
`
`- 16-
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 16
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51-1 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF VERMONT
`
`ARNOUSE DIGITAL DEVICES, CORP.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-155
`
`DECLARATION OF JUSTIN W. MCCABE, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF ARNOUSE
`DIGITAL DEVICES, CORP.'S REPLY TO MOTOROLA MOBILITY'S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1. My name is Justin W. McCabe, and I am counsel to Plaintiff in the above captioned
`
`matter.
`
`2. I am over 18 years of age and understand the obligations of an oath.
`
`3. I make this Declaration based on my personal knowledge.
`
`4. I make this Declaration in support of Arnouse Digital Devices Corp.'s Reply To
`
`Motorola Mobility's Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
`
`5. Attached hereto as Tab A is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,264,992 to
`
`Hogdahl et al.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
`
`and correct.
`
`Dated:
`
`August 27, 2012
`
`By: /s/ Justin W. McCabe
`
`Justin W. McCabe
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 17
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51-2 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 28
`
`TABA
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1016 - Page 18
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00155-cr Document 51-2 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 28
`
`United States Patent [!9J
`Hogdahl et al.
`
`[75]
`
`[54] MODULAR COMPUTER SYSTEM HAVING
`SELF CONTAINED WORKSLATE UNIT
`DETACHABLY COUPLED TO BASE UNIT
`INCLUDING KEYBOARD
`Inventors: Per HogdUl, Palm Beach Gardens;
`William Hai1, Lake Park; Charles
`Krallman, Singer Island; Kennetb
`Sbaw, Palm Beach Gardens, all of
`Fla.
`[73] Assignee: Tusk, Incorporated. Palm Beach
`Gardens, Fla.
`
`[21) Appl. No.: 17,355
`[22] Filed:
`Feb. 11, 1993
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`[63) Continuation of Scr. No. 739,984, Aug. 2, 1991, aban·
`doned.
`Int. a.s ......................... HOSK 7/10; H05K 9/00;
`[51)
`G06F 1/16
`[52] u.s. Cl ..................................... 367/681; 361/686;
`361/818; 16/334; 403/93; 403/96; 428/317.1;
`428/318.4; 428/319.1; 428/902; 428/922;
`3641708.1
`[58] Field of Searcb ....................... 403/80, 91, 92, 93,
`403/95, 96; 3641708; 340/712, 784; 428/35.8,
`35.9, 36.2, 36.5, 902; 16/334; 361/380, 390-395,
`414, 424
`
`