IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action Nos. 10-389-LPS
`12-984-LPS
`12-985-LPS
`12-986-LPS
`12-987-LPS
`12-988-LPS
`12-989-LPS
`12-990-LPS
`12-991-LPS
`
`))))))))))))))))))))))))))
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.; AT&T MOBILITY LLC;
`DELL INC.; HTC CORP.; HTC
`AMERICA, INC.; HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.;
`FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
`KYOCERA CORP.; KYOCERA
`WIRELESS CORP.; LG
`ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG
`ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.; MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`LLC; and SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC
`and Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Hercules Plaza
`6th Floor
`1313 North Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Apple Inc. and
`AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`Motorola PX 1026_1
`
`

`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Anne Shea Gaza (#4093)
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`gaza@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Huawei
`Technologies Co., Ltd. and Futurewei
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
`Adam Wyatt Poff (#3990)
`Monté Terrell Squire (#4764)
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street
`17th Floor
`P.O. Box 391
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`msquire@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung
`Telecommunications America LLC
`
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN & SPENCE, P.A.
`John C. Phillips, Jr. (#110)
`Megan C. Haney (#5016)
`1200 North Broom Street
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`(302) 655-4200
`jcp@pgslaw.com
`mch@pgslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Kyocera Corp. and
`Kyocera Wireless Corp.
`
`
`2
`
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`John W. Shaw (#3362)
`David Fry (#5486)
`800 Delaware Avenue
`4th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 559-9623
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`dfry@shawkeller.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corp., HTC
`America Inc., and Exedea Inc.
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`Gregory Erich Stuhlman (#4765)
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street
`Suite 1200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 661-7381
`stuhlmang@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics,
`Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG
`Electronics Mobilecomm USA Inc.
`
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
`Steven J. Fineman (#4025)
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`fineman@rlf.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Dell Inc.
`
`
`Motorola PX 1026_2
`
`

`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Sony Ericsson
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.
`
`
`
`September 21, 2012
`
`3
`
`Motorola PX 1026_3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 
`APPLICABLE LAW .......................................................................................................1 
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE..................................................2 
`The Patents disclose an alleged invention that translates HTML content
`1. 
`into a “scalable vector representation” or “scalable content” for scaling,
`zooming, and panning web pages. ........................................................................2 
`Prior art web browsers laid out web pages in a “pre-rendering” process. ..............2 
`In the “present invention” of the Patents, a scalable vector representation
`is generated from the pre-rendering layout information. .......................................3 
`The scalable vector representation is used to scale, zoom, and pan. ......................4 
`4. 
`AGREED CLAIM TERMS .............................................................................................5 
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ..........................................................................................5 
`1. 
`Scalable content. ..................................................................................................5 
`a. 
`Scalable content is data in a format generated after pre-rendering. ............5 
`b. 
`Scalable content must provide the layout, functionality, and design
`of the web page at multiple user-selectable scaled resolutions. ..................7 
`SoftView’s overbroad construction is not supported by the intrinsic
`evidence. ..................................................................................................9 
`Scalable / scaling / scaled. ....................................................................................9 
`Translating. ........................................................................................................ 10 
`Processing [the] HTML-based Web content to produce scalable content. ........... 11 
`Format. .............................................................................................................. 11 
`Vector-based content / scalable vector-based content. ........................................ 13 
`Vector. ............................................................................................................... 14 
`Object datum. ..................................................................................................... 15 
`Primary datum. .................................................................................................. 16 
`a. 
`The “primary datum” is a single point..................................................... 16 
`b. 
`The “primary datum” is fixed on the full-size web page. ......................... 17 
`Layout location datum. ....................................................................................... 18 
`Enabling the user to zoom and pan a view of the Web page. ............................... 19 
`Original. ............................................................................................................. 20 
`Fit across............................................................................................................ 22 
`Tapping. ............................................................................................................. 23 
`Preserve(s) / preserved / preserving / preservation. ............................................. 24 
`
`c. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`9. 
`
`10. 
`11. 
`12. 
`13. 
`14. 
`15. 
`
`i
`
`Motorola PX 1026_4
`
`

`
`16.  Machine-readable medium. ................................................................................ 25 
`17. 
`Storage means. ................................................................................................... 26 
`18. 
`Processing means. .............................................................................................. 26 
`19.  Wireless communication[s] means. .................................................................... 29 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Motorola PX 1026_5
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 27, 28, 29
`
`Cadence Pharm., Inc. v. Paddock Labs., LLC,
`No. 1:11-cv-733-LPS, slip op. (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2012) ......................................................... 1
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 25
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................ 28
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................... 27, 30
`
`Genzyme Corp. v. Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,
`346 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 27
`
`Kinik Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`362 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Med. Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 30
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................ 28
`
`O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co.,
`115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`iii
`
`Motorola PX 1026_6
`
`

`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005).............................................................................................. 23
`
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.,
`593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 23
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 6, 20
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.,
`No. 1:09-cv-354-LPS, slip op. (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2012) ........................................................... 1
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc.,
`412 F. App’x 270 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................. 1, 13
`
`TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 6, 11
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,
`199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 23, 24
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Whittaker Corp. by Technibilt Div. v. UNR Indus., Inc.,
`911 F.2d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990).............................................................................................. 22
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ............................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Motorola PX 1026_7
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,461,353 and 7,831,926 (the “Patents”) claim a certain system and
`
`method for allowing web pages to be rendered, zoomed, and panned in a web browser.
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions for the disputed terms and phrases of the Patents are
`
`consistent with the Patents’ disclosures and well-supported by the intrinsic record.1 In contrast,
`
`Plaintiff SoftView’s proposed constructions are overbroad, and if adopted would expand the
`
`claims to cover unclaimed systems and methods of rendering, zooming, and panning that were
`
`already well-known in the field and that SoftView candidly distinguished in its application and
`
`during prosecution. Defendants respectfully request that the Court adopt their proposed
`
`constructions, as set out below.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`This Court is familiar with the standards for claim construction, as recited in recent
`
`opinions. See, e.g., St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-354-
`
`LPS, slip op. at 3-6 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2012) (D.I. 747, copy attached); Cadence Pharm., Inc. v.
`
`Paddock Labs., LLC, No. 1:11-cv-733-LPS, slip op. at 1-4 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2012) (D.I. 188,
`
`copy attached). Case law supporting specific proposed constructions is discussed as appropriate
`
`
`1 The ’353 and the ’926 patents descend from a common parent and share a nearly identical
`specification. In this brief, citations to the Patents’ specification will be made to the ’353 patent
`for convenience, but are also intended to reference the identical portion of the ’926 patent
`specification. Defendants also rely on various portions of the prosecution and reexamination
`histories of the ’353 and ’926 patents and related applications, all of which constitute intrinsic
`evidence for claim construction. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (prosecution history of other patents in family can inform construction of
`claims); Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(same); Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(reexamination proceedings are part of intrinsic record and can affect claim interpretation); St.
`Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc., 412 F. App’x 270, 275-76 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) (examiner’s remarks during reexamination “are relevant prosecution history when
`interpreting claims”).
`
`1
`
`Motorola PX 1026_8
`
`

`
`below.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE
`
`1.
`
`The Patents disclose an alleged invention that translates HTML content into
`a “scalable vector representation” or “scalable content” for scaling, zooming,
`and panning web pages.
`
`HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”) is a standard, prior art format for defining text,
`
`links, and other objects in a web page. The asserted Patents, entitled “Scalable Display of
`
`Internet Content on Mobile Devices,” share substantially the same disclosures and describe a
`
`system and method for translating web pages from a native file format—typically HTML—into a
`
`“scalable vector representation,” also referred to as “vectorized content,” or “scalable content.”
`
`’353 patent at 1:42-50, 1:61-65, 2:21-34, 6:60-64, 7:38-44, 7:56-8:19, 8:57-61, 9:8-10, 12:12-14,
`
`Abstract. According to the Patents, it was familiar in the prior art Computer Aided Design
`
`(“CAD”) field for graphics in a “vector” format to be magnified and moved around in real time.
`
`Id. at 4:67-5:17. Likewise, in accordance with the “present invention,” the specification alleges
`
`that scale factors and offsets may be applied to the translated web content to simplify zooming
`
`and panning of the web page, or to more easily scale a page designed for a single, target
`
`resolution (typically, a desktop monitor) for display at different sizes or resolutions, such as a
`
`small Personal Digital Assistant (“PDA”) or a large, “billboard”-style display. Id. at 2:4-26,
`
`4:64-5:24, 5:3-24, 9:1-13, 17:42-45, 20:49-67, Figs. 7A-9B.
`
`2.
`
`Prior art web browsers laid out web pages in a “pre-rendering” process.
`
`According to the Patents, translating web content from HTML into a scalable vector
`
`representation or scalable content includes a “pre-rendering” process that was performed by prior
`
`art web browsers. Id. at 17:31-34. In the prior art, and still today, the layout of a HTML web
`
`page is not typically defined by designating specific coordinate locations for objects on a web
`
`page; instead, HTML usually defines layout by spatial relationships between objects (e.g.,
`
`2
`
`Motorola PX 1026_9
`
`

`
`requiring text to be placed below an image). Id. at 16:55-58. In a prior art “layout” process,
`
`browsers would retrieve, parse (i.e., separate and identify the constituent parts of the page), and
`
`process the HTML to define a page layout based on the location of a “bounding box” for each
`
`object on the page. Id. at 15:43-16:38, 17:16-30, Fig. 5 (blocks 150-154). In prior art browsers,
`
`such as those using the “Mozilla” rendering engine, a data structure called a “render tree” would
`
`store, for each object on the page, the X,Y location of the object relative to a previously-defined
`
`object, called a “container.” Id. at 17:16-41; Ex. A, U.S. App. No. 11/868,124, Applicant
`
`Remarks at 26-30 (Nov. 24, 2010). The Patents refer to this process as “pre-rendering.” Id. at
`
`15:43-17:41, Fig. 5 (blocks 150-154). Such prior art browsers would calculate the X,Y location
`
`of an object relative to the top-left corner of the page by “walking the render tree,” or adding
`
`together the stored X,Y coordinates in the render tree for the object, its container, its container’s
`
`container, and so forth. Ex. A at 27, 29-30; ’353 patent at 17:53-56.
`
`3.
`
`In the “present invention” of the Patents, a scalable vector representation is
`generated from the pre-rendering layout information.
`
`The Patents assert “the present invention deviates substantially from the prior art by using
`
`the various object layout data generated during the pre-rendering process to generate a scalable
`
`vector representation of the original page content.” ’353 patent at 12:12-14, 17:42-45. The
`
`Patents state that the translated content may be in a file format known as “Simple Vector
`
`Format” or “SVF.” Id. at 4:50-53, 6:5-11, 6:61-67. The SVF specification dates back to 1995
`
`and is cited prior art (as were other zooming web browsers). Id. at p. 2; Ex. B, U.S. App. No.
`
`11/045,757, Info. Disclosure Statement at FH_DEF000168, 211, 220 (Jan. 28, 2005). A prior art
`
`SVF file could define displayable elements (i.e., graphics) such as points, lines, text, and web
`
`hyperlinks in “vector” form, and these vector based graphical elements could subsequently be
`
`scaled, zoomed, and panned with a prior art SVF viewing program. Id. at FH_DEF000211.
`
`3
`
`Motorola PX 1026_10
`
`

`
`Generating a scalable vector representation from the pre-rendered layout information
`
`begins by defining a datum point for the entire page and additional datum points for each object
`
`on the page. See ’353 patent at 17:42-18:32, Fig. 5 (blocks 156-160). The page datum for the
`
`entire page, or “primary datum,” may be at any point on the page, so long as that point is used
`
`consistently in calculating the coordinates of objects on the page. Id. at 17:47-56, Fig. 4C (item
`
`262), claim 5. Likewise, the “object datum” may be at any point on an object (e.g., the top-left
`
`corner of the bounding box for the object), so long as that location is used consistently across all
`
`objects. Id. at 17:57-64, Fig. 4C (items ending in “C”).
`
`After datum points are defined, a “vector” for each object is generated from the page
`
`datum to each object datum. Id. at 17:65-67, Fig. 5 (block 158), Fig. 4C (items ending in “D”).
`
`If the page datum is chosen to be at coordinate 0,0, the vector for an object may simply be stored
`
`as the X,Y value of that object’s datum point. Id. at 17:67-18:8, Fig. 4D. The scalable vector
`
`representation is completed by creating a reference that associates an object’s content and
`
`attributes to its vector. Id. at 18:17-26, Fig. 5 (block 160).
`
`4.
`
`The scalable vector representation is used to scale, zoom, and pan.
`
`The scalable vector representation can then be used to scale the web page for displays of
`
`various sizes and resolutions and to zoom and pan the page at various user-selectable scaled
`
`resolutions and pan offsets. Id. at 5:3-24, 9:4-13, 18:47-19:3. According to the Patents, a page
`
`can be scaled simply by manipulating the vectors and resizing the bounding boxes for each
`
`object to be displayed, and then scaling the content. Id. at 19:32-56, 20:18-32, Fig. 6. More
`
`specifically, for each object to be zoomed or panned, the vector is offset and has a scale factor
`
`applied to it, and the bounding box is scaled by the same scale factor, as shown in Figure 4G of
`
`the Patents. Id. at 19:57-20:17. Thus, for example, zooming the web page in Figure 4A into the
`
`broken rectangle in Figure 4F results in the page displayed in Figure 4E. Id. at 3:31-46.
`
`4
`
`Motorola PX 1026_11
`
`

`
`IV. AGREED CLAIM TERMS
`
`As noted in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties do not dispute the
`
`constructions of “object[s]” and “bounding box.” (D.I. 467 at 2.) Accordingly, Defendants
`
`respectfully request that the Court adopt the parties’ agreed constructions for these terms.
`
`V. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A listing of the asserted claims in which the disputed claim terms appear can be found in
`
`the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart.2 (D.I. 467 at 3-12.)
`
`1.
`
`Scalable content.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`data in a format generated after pre-rendering that
`provides the layout, functionality, and design of the
`web page at multiple user-selectable scaled resolutions
`“pre-rendering”: the process of blocks 150-154 of
`Figure 5 (see ’353 patent at 15:43-17:41)
`
`Defendants’ construction of “scalable content” consists of two primary parts. First,
`
`SoftView’s Construction
`content capable of being rendered at
`multiple zoom levels
`
`scalable content is “data in a format generated after pre-rendering.” Second, scalable content
`
`“provides the layout, functionality, and design of the web page at multiple user-selectable scaled
`
`resolutions.” In contrast to SoftView’s overly broad construction, both parts of Defendants’
`
`construction are firmly grounded in, and required by, the intrinsic record, including the
`
`patentees’ own attempts to distinguish their alleged invention from the prior art.
`
`a.
`
`Scalable content is data in a format generated after pre-rendering.
`
`The specification dictates that “scalable content” be data in a format generated after the
`
`
`2 On September 17, 2012, SoftView informed Defendants that it had changed its proposed claim
`constructions for “scalable content,” “vector-based content,” and “scalable vector-based content”
`from those contained in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart (D.I. 467). SoftView’s
`proposed constructions contained in Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief reflect these
`changed constructions. Defendants reserve the right to cite additional intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence responsive to these changes.
`
`5
`
`Motorola PX 1026_12
`
`

`
`“pre-rendering” process. As discussed, pre-rendering results in layout data, which is later
`
`translated into “scalable content” or a “scalable vector representation.” See Part III.3, supra.
`
`Specifically, in describing the “present invention,” the Patents expressly define the key
`
`divergence from the prior art as translating the layout information after pre-rendering:
`
`As will be recognized by those skilled in the art, the functions performed
`in blocks 150, 152, and 154 [of Figure 5] are commonly performed by
`conventional browsers during a pre-rendering process. . . .
`At this point, the present invention deviates substantially from the prior art
`by using the various object layout data generated during the pre-rendering process
`to generate a scalable vector representation of the original page content.
`
`’353 patent at 17:31-45 (emphasis added). From the outset, the Patents emphasize that the
`
`“invention” employs “novel processing of original Web content, including HTML-based content,
`
`XML, cascade style sheets, etc. to generate scalable content.” Id. at 2:23-29.
`
`As identified above, the Patents describe the prior art “pre-rendering” process in Figure 5
`
`as: (1) parsing the HTML (Fig. 5, block 150), (2) defining a “bounding box” for each object
`
`(Fig. 5, block 152), and (3) defining the web page layout based on the bounding boxes (Fig. 5,
`
`block 154)—and explain that prior art, including Mozilla, performed pre-rendering steps (1)-(3).
`
`See id. at 15:48-50, 16:19-21, 16:32-33, 17:16-22. Indeed, the patentees admit they used prior
`
`art Mozilla to perform these steps in an embodiment of the alleged invention. Id. at 17:31-41.
`
`Because “the invention” is described as something that happens after the process disclosed in the
`
`prior art, “scalable content” necessarily refers to data that is created after pre-rendering, which
`
`the Patents expressly define as the prior art process of blocks 150-154 of Figure 5.3 Finally, for
`
`
`3 See TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When a
`patent . . . describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the
`scope of the invention.” (citation omitted)); see also Kinik Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 362 F.3d
`1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Claims cannot be construed as encompassing the prior art that was
`distinguished in the specification . . . .”); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
`Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Where the specification makes clear that the
`
`6
`
`Motorola PX 1026_13
`
`

`
`the reasons set forth in Part V.3, infra, scalable content is data in a format.
`
`b.
`
`Scalable content must provide the layout, functionality, and design of
`the web page at multiple user-selectable scaled resolutions.
`
`Scalable content must also provide the layout, functionality, and design of the web page.
`
`As an initial matter, it is the original HTML that defines these aspects of the page. E.g., ’353
`
`patent at 7:56-63; id. at claim 1 (“HTML-based Web content having an original format
`
`defining . . . an original page layout, functionality, and design”). However, the alleged invention
`
`uses only the translated content, not the original HTML, to render, zoom, and pan the page. See
`
`Part III.3-III.4, supra. In allowing the claims to issue, the Patent Office described the allowable
`
`subject matter as translating HTML content from its original format, which defines the “layout,
`
`functionality, and design of the web page,” into scalable content, which preserves that “layout
`
`functionality, and design,” as follows:
`
`[T]he claimed invention [of the ’353 patent] takes HTML-based Web content in its
`original format (which defines the page layout, functionality and design of the
`web page) and translates the HTML-based Web content into “scalable
`content” . . . . Additionally, the claimed invention preserves the functionality of
`the original HTML web page after it has been translated . . . .
`
`Ex. C, U.S. App. No. 11/045,757, Notice of Allowability at 3-4 (Aug. 8, 2008) (emphasis
`
`changed).
`
`[T]he claimed invention [of the ’926 Patent] takes HTML-based Web content in
`its original page layout of the web page and translates the HTML-based Web
`content into “scalable content” . . . for enabling Web pages in their original
`HTML-based content form to be accessed via mobile devices, viewed at various
`zoom levels by zooming in and out views of the Web pages and interacted with
`via the mobile devices in a manner that preserves the original page layout,
`
`
`invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of
`the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the
`specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.”); O.I.
`Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (where written description
`distinguished invention over prior art “smooth-walled” passages, one of skill in the art would
`conclude that the term “passage” did not encompass a smooth-walled structure).
`
`7
`
`Motorola PX 1026_14
`
`

`
`functionality (including preservation of hyperlink functionality), and design of the
`Web page content (as defined by its HTML-based content)[.]
`
`Ex. D, U.S. App. No. 11/738,486, Notice of Allowability at 28-29 (June 9, 2010) (emphasis
`
`changed).
`
`These statements by the Examiners are consistent with all three preferred embodiments
`
`disclosed by the patentees, in which HTML-based web content is translated into “vectorized
`
`content,” and only the vectorized content (along with graphics not originally part of the HTML),
`
`not the original HTML content, is sent to a “thin client,” such as a cellular phone or PDA, for
`
`display. See ’353 patent at 6:6-9, 6:42-10:55, Figs. 1A-1C at items 52-68. Thus, the scalable
`
`content must provide the layout, functionality, and design of the web page. Otherwise, as made
`
`clear throughout the intrinsic record, the client described in the three disclosed embodiments
`
`would not be able to render, scale, zoom, or pan the page on its display.4
`
`Finally, according to the specification, the translated content provides the layout,
`
`functionality, and design of the web page at multiple user-selectable resolutions. Id. at 9:7-10
`
`(“[A] representation of the original web page content may be rendered on the client device’s
`
`display screen at various user-selectable scaled resolutions . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. at 2:29-
`
`31 (“The scalable content and/or data derived therefrom are then employed to enable the Web
`
`content to be rapidly rendered, zoomed, and panned.” (emphasis added)).5
`
`
`4 See, e.g., ’353 patent at 4:64-67 (“By working tightly with a server-side content translator, web
`content and functionality can be passed seamlessly to the end user platform . . . .” (emphasis
`added)); 18:17-21 (generation of “scalable vector representation” is complete only after “a
`reference is created for each object that includes or links an object’s . . . attributes . . . to the
`object’s vector” (emphasis added)); Ex. E, U.S. App. No. 11/045,757, Supp. Amendment at 77-
`78, 90-91 (May 20, 2008) (discussing claim amendments that replaced “layout and attributes”
`with “layout, functionality, and design,” and noting that “attributes” includes web page’s
`functionality (e.g., hyperlink functionality) and design).
`5 See also ’353 patent at 18:44-45 (“scalable vector content . . . rendered at a user-selectable
`scale factor”); id. at 19:22-23 (“user selectable scale and offset (pan) values”); id. at 2:44-45
`
`8
`
`Motorola PX 1026_15
`
`

`
`c.
`
`SoftView’s overbroad construction is not supported by the intrinsic
`evidence.
`
`SoftView’s construction of “scalable content” is overly broad and contradicts the Patents’
`
`disclosures by encompassing content that is generated before or during the “pre-rendering”
`
`process, so long as that content is “capable of being rendered at multiple zoom levels.” But, as
`
`discussed, the patentees expressly disclaimed the “pre-rendering” process as prior art, and further
`
`argued that scalable content is what is created after “pre-rendering,” thereby distinguishing the
`
`“present invention.”
`
`2.
`
`Scalable / scaling / scaled.
`
`SoftView’s Construction
`capable of being rendered at multiple
`zoom levels / rendering at multiple zoom
`levels / rendered at multiple zoom levels
`
`Defendants’ Constructions
`“scaling” / “scaled”: These terms have a plain and
`ordinary meaning and do not need to be construed.
`However, if the Court chooses to construe these
`terms, the following