throbber
Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 686
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Case No. Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`APPLE INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`APL 1007
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`0001
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 687
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1
`I.
`A. The ’290 Patent ................................................................................................................... 1
`B. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................................................... 3
`II. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 3
`A. “code sequence” .................................................................................................................. 3
`B. “which is/are timed in relation to” ...................................................................................... 9
`C. “time slots” ........................................................................................................................ 13
`D. “RF synchronizing beacons” ............................................................................................. 16
`E. “[RF bursts at] intervals determined by a code sequence” ................................................ 18
`F. “controlled by said oscillator” / “controlled by said server unit oscillator” ...................... 20
`G. “a local oscillator” ............................................................................................................. 22
`H. “a server microcomputer” ................................................................................................. 25
`I. “adapted to operate within a short range of [said server unit]” .......................................... 28
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 30
`
`i
`0002
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 688
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 3, 28
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 27
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004).......................................................................................... passim
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 25
`MyMail, Ltd. v. Am. Online., Inc.,
`476 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).......................................................................................... passim
`Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 26, 27, 28
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 24
`Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc.,
`451 F.3d 841 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 21
`Retractable Tech., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 24
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................... 17
`
`ii
`0003
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 689
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`DSS’ infringement read tries to wedge a square peg into a round hole. Because of this,
`
`DSS has to take strained readings of fundamental terms in the patent. For example, DSS takes
`
`the term “code sequence” (the purported point of novelty) and uses its construction to literally
`
`read out the words “code” and “sequence” such that the term has no meaning. DSS cannot do
`
`this. In conjunction with other terms, DSS wants to hide from the facts and tells the Court to
`
`ignore the accepted meaning in the art that is reiterated in the specification (e.g., the term “a local
`
`oscillator”). DSS cannot do this either. These sorts of errors, and others, pervade DSS’
`
`constructions, and the Court should reject DSS’ constructions as detailed below.
`
`A.
`
`The ’290 Patent
`
`
`
`At the outset, it is important to understand the problem the ’290 patent sought to solve
`
`and how its claims solve the problem.1 The goal of the ’290 patent was to substantially reduce
`
`power consumption and interfering signals between a server microcomputer and a plurality of
`
`peripherals. ’290 patent, Abstract, 1:57-61. This goal was purportedly achieved by generating
`
`“code sequences” which control the operation of transmitters in a low duty cycle pulsed mode of
`
`operation. See, e.g., id. at 1:57-61, 2:35-39. While the specification is clear on this point, the
`
`lone inventor also has averred that the “code sequences” that control the operations of the
`
`transmitters was the key novel concept disclosed in the patent. Ex. A, Declaration of Inventor
`
`1 The ’290 patent was filed as a continuation in part of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/611,695,
`which was filed on March 6, 1996, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,699,357. The specifications
`of the ’290 and ’357 patents are similar, except that the ’290 patent provides the additional
`disclosure that the peripheral units can operate “within short range of the server unit, e.g., 20
`meters.” ’290 patent at Abstract.
`
`1
`0004
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 690
`
`Philip P. Carvey Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 (“Carvey Decl.”), ¶¶5-6. This is
`
`important because DSS ignores the purported invention in proffering its constructions.
`
`The only “server microcomputer” disclosed in the ’290 patent is “characterized as a
`
`personal digital assistant (PDA).” ’290 patent, 2:66-3:1. Like conventional PDAs, the server
`
`microcomputer “is powered by a battery 12 and may be carried on the person of a user, e.g., in
`
`his hand or on a belt hook.” Id. at 3:3-3:5. The peripheral units, referred to as “personal
`
`electronic accessories or PEAs,” include body-mounted accessories such as displays “mounted
`
`on a headband or eyeglasses” and “physiological sensors.” Id. at 1:67-2:18.
`
`The server microcomputer and peripherals are linked in close physical proximity, e.g.,
`
`within twenty meters, to establish a common time base or synchronization. ’290 patent, 1:50-55.
`
`The claimed inventions all require “low duty” cycle operation. Id. at claims 1, 5, 6 and 9. This
`
`low duty cycle operation ensures that the units’ transmitters are only active for relatively short
`
`durations of time, which “substantially reduces power consumption and facilitates the rejection
`
`of interfering signals.” Id. at 1:59-61. Critical to low duty cycle operation is the use of “code
`
`sequences” or “sparse codes,” which “control the operation of the several transmitters in a low
`
`duty cycle pulsed mode of operation.” Id. at 1:57-59. The ’290 patent teaches that a code
`
`sequence is a series of values, where each value in the series represents a time slot within a frame
`
`interval when a unit’s transmitter is energized or a time slot when a unit’s transmitter is
`
`depowered. In the Preferred Embodiment (the only disclosed embodiment), “the codes are
`
`mostly zeros with three scattered ones representing the locations of the slots in which RF bursts
`
`are to be transmitted or received.” Id. at 7:27-29.
`
`2
`0005
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 691
`
`B.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would be a person with an
`
`undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and 1-2 years of experience working with wireless
`
`network technology, or equivalent education and/or work experience. Ex. B, Declaration of Dr.
`
`Jing Hu in Relation to U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290 (“Hu Decl.”), ¶24.2
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`“code sequence”
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“a series of values, where each value in the
`series represents a time slot within a frame
`interval where a unit’s transmitter is energized
`or a time slot where a unit’s transmitter is
`depowered”
`
`DSS’ Construction
`“information specifying the time at which a
`communication may occur”
`
`
`
`The inventor is clear that the use of the claimed “code sequence” was the “key novel
`
`concept” in the project that led to his patent and the “primary core concept of the ’290 patent
`
`technology.” Ex. A, Carvey Decl., ¶6. The specification supports this testimony. The whole
`
`point of the ’290 patent was to reduce power consumption and interfering signals. ’290 patent,
`
`Abstract, 1:50-61. This is achieved by using a common time base where:
`
`The server and peripheral unit transmitters are energized in low duty cycle pulses
`at intervals which are determined by a code sequence which is timed in relation
`to synchronizing information initially transmitted from the server microcomputer.
`
`Id. at 2:35-39 (emphasis added); see also 1:57-61.
`
`DSS ignores the core concept of the patent and impermissibly proffers a construction that
`
`reads both the words “code” and “sequence” out of the term. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon
`
`Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (rejecting construction because it
`
`“effectively read[] the term ‘free’ out of the limitation”). Moreover, DSS ignores that “code
`
`2 Apple agrees that there is no real substantive difference between the parties’ articulation of
`what constitutes a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’290 patent.
`
`3
`0006
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 692
`
`sequence” is a coined term3 that lacks an accepted meaning in the art and can only be construed
`
`“as broadly as provided for by the patent itself.” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`
`383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MyMail, Ltd. v. Am. Online., Inc., 476 F.3d 1372, 1376
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). DSS instead proposes a construction that replaces the core concept of the
`
`patent with literally any “information” that specifies when communication can occur. DSS is
`
`wrong.
`
`
`
`As explained below, Apple’s construction is consistent with the use of the term “code
`
`sequence” in the claims and specification and ascribes meaning to both words in the term.
`
`Apple’s construction also takes into account that this is a coined term that can be read no more
`
`broadly than the specification. As such, Apple’s construction should be adopted.
`
`The term “code sequence” appears in asserted independent claim 1. As set forth in claim
`
`1, and consistent with Apple’s construction, the claimed code sequence controls when the
`
`system’s transmitters are energized: “said server and peripheral transmitters being energized
`
`in low duty cycle RF bursts at intervals determined by a code sequence which is timed in
`
`relation to said synchronizing information.” ’290 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). The claim
`
`itself thus confirms that the code sequence must dictate when transmitters are energized and not
`
`just any information about when communication may occur as DSS posits.
`
`The specification also confirms that the code sequence includes a series of values, where
`
`each value in the series represents a “time slot” within a “frame interval.” See, e.g., ’290 patent,
`
`7:18-33. The disclosed code sequence is a series of values (1s and 0s) that define when the
`
`3 Ex. C, Carvey Depo. Tr. at 59:3-11 (“…the word code sequence came from Henry Paul. What I
`did is I explained the protocol to him, and then he tried to convert that into understandable
`language. So the code sequence was his way of collapsing a very complicated concept into two
`words, "code sequence." … Henry Paul was the BBN lawyer that I worked with who actually
`wrote the majority of this patent.”).
`
`4
`0007
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 693
`
`peripheral units are energized and transmit/receive, or are not energized and depowered. Ex. B,
`
`Hu Decl., ¶28. In the only disclosed embodiment, each “frame interval” is divided into “sectors”
`
`(or “sections”), with each sector having 64 time slots. ’290 patent, 7:20-33. A maximum of
`
`three RF bursts can be assigned per sector. Id. The position of each RF burst is indicated by a
`
`one (1) in the code sequence and dictates when the peripheral units are energized. Id. at 7:23-24.
`
`The specification teaches that “the codes are mostly zeros with three scattered ones representing
`
`the locations of the slots in which RF bursts are to be transmitted or received.” ’290 patent,
`
`7:27-29. An example of a code sequence defined by the patent is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in the example above, the 64 values in the sequence correspond to a sequence
`
`of time slots, displayed in yellow and green. In this example, in the green time slots the unit’s
`
`transmitter would be energized. In all of the other 61 yellow time slots, the unit’s transmitter
`
`would be depowered. Because the number of slots when a unit’s transmitter is depowered is
`
`substantially greater than the number of slots when the unit’s transmitter is energized, the unit is
`
`said to have a low duty cycle – which saves power.
`
`Apple’s construction is correct because it incorporates the required aspects of “code
`
`sequence” as set forth in the specification – i.e., (1) it is a series of values (e.g., 1s and 0s) that
`
`(2) represent time slots within a frame interval where (3) a unit’s transmitter is energized or not.
`
`5
`0008
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 694
`
`Apple’s construction is fully supported by the intrinsic record and the extrinsic record as
`
`well. Again, the inventor testified that “code sequence” was a coined term used to refer to the
`
`protocol disclosed in the patent for energizing and depowering the various units. Ex. C, Carvey
`
`Depo. Tr. at 59:3-11. As such, the term cannot be defined any more broadly than the
`
`specification. Irdeto, 383 F.3d at 1300; MyMail, 476 F.3d at 1376. The inventor also averred
`
`that the claimed “code sequence” was the key novel concept to the invention itself. Ex. A,
`
`Carvey Decl., ¶6. He further explained that the claimed “code sequence” is critical to saving
`
`power because it “control[s] the operation of the several transmitters in a low duty cycle pulsed
`
`mode of operation.” Id. at ¶6. Finally, Mr. Carvey testified that:
`
`In my invention, each value in the series occupies one time slot within a frame
`interval where transceiver elements are energized for a small fraction of the time
`slot defined by the one bits of the code value and de-energized for the remaining
`fraction of the time slot defined by the zero bits of the code value. Id. at ¶7.
`
`Id. at ¶7. This extrinsic evidence shows that the claimed “code sequence” is not just any
`
`information that specifies when communication may occur. Rather, it is the scheme designed by
`
`the inventor and disclosed in the ’290 patent for saving power.
`
`Technical dictionaries also buttress Apple’s construction and expose the flaws in DSS’
`
`construction. The word “sequence” connotes a “series” or succession of values, which is
`
`consistent with Apple’s construction.4 In contrast, DSS attempts to read the term “sequence”
`
`completely out of the phrase “code sequence” by equating it with any form of “information.” A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a “sequence” is a specific construct that
`
`4 Ex. B, Hu Decl., Id. at ¶29, Ex. 1, Dictionary Definitions: The American Heritage College
`Dictionary 2d Ed at p. 1119 (“sequence: .. 3. A related or continuous series”), The Dictionary of
`Computer, Information Processing & Telecommunications 2d. Ed. (sequence: 1. “a series of
`items that has been sequenced”), The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics 7th Ed. (“sequence: 1.
`A succession of objects, parameters, or numbers”), The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
`and Electronics Terms 6th Ed. (“sequence: …(1)(C) A set of items that have been sequenced.”).
`
`6
`0009
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 695
`
`requires a series of values instead of any form of information. Ex. B, Hu Decl., ¶30.
`
`Apple’s construction is also consistent with the inherent nature of the word “code,” which
`
`is a representative value (e.g., Morse Code uses dashes and dots to represent letters) and not just
`
`“any information” as DSS would have the Court believe. Apple’s construction reflects the fact
`
`that each value of the code sequence represents a time slot within a frame interval where a unit’s
`
`transmitter is energized or not, as is taught by the specification. In stark contrast, Plaintiff’s
`
`generic “information” construction has nothing to do with a code. In essence, DSS seeks a
`
`construction of “code sequence” divorced from the meaning of a “code” or a “sequence.”
`
`Turning specifically to DSS’ construction, it fails to find any basis in the intrinsic or
`
`extrinsic record. Indeed, it ignores the teachings of the specification, the testimony of the
`
`inventor (i.e., that “code sequence” is the key novel concept) and strips all meaning from the
`
`words “code” and “sequence.” DSS has basically made up a broad construction out of nowhere
`
`with literally no support. Indeed, DSS’ construction has nothing to do with a code or a sequence.
`
`Because it has no support for its own construction, DSS instead chides Apple’s
`
`construction – a clear indication that DSS cannot support its own position. DSS asserts that by
`
`incorporating a “series of values,” Apple’s construction “limits ‘code sequence’ to codewords”
`
`and “does not encompass the additional ‘rotation,’ selection and ‘time slot assignment’
`
`information necessary to determine when individual transmitters are permitted to be energized.”
`
`DSS Br. at 8-11. DSS is wrong and its argument is irrelevant.
`
`Apple’s construction is not limited solely to “codewords.” Rather a series of values
`
`representing time slots in a frame interval that is used by the devices to determine when to
`
`transmit is covered by Apple’s construction. This includes both the concept of Optimally
`
`Orthogonal Codes (OOCs), as well as what is referred to as rotation. Rotation just shifts the
`
`7
`0010
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 696
`
`positions of the values within the code sequence. ’290 patent, 7:23-27. Apple’s construction
`
`does not require any particular positioning, so it equally covers sequences of values that have
`
`been “rotated,” as well as those that have not. The figure below illustrates this:
`
`Nothing in Apple’s construction excludes any specific position of values resulting from rotation.
`
`DSS’ claim that Apple’s construction somehow excludes “selection” and “time slot
`
`assignment” information is likewise incorrect. DSS Br. at 11. Apple’s construction explicitly
`
`recites those very concepts—i.e., “each value in the series represents a time slot within a frame
`
`interval where a unit’s transmitter is energized or a time slot where a unit’s transmitter is
`
`depowered.” Thus, Apple’s construction expressly includes the representation of time slots
`
`within a frame interval, which are selected and assigned to a server microcontroller or peripheral
`
`unit by the series of values. DSS’ argument to the contrary is without merit, and is again
`
`irrelevant because its own construction has nothing to do with any of these concepts.
`
`DSS’ complaint that Apple’s construction fails to capture enough technical detail from
`
`8
`0011
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 697
`
`the specification is an incredible criticism given that DSS incorporates no technical detail in its
`
`own construction, much less the details it criticizes Apple for not additionally including.5
`
`B.
`
`“which is/are timed in relation to”
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“the values of the code sequence are aligned to
`correspond to time slots in a frame interval” /
`“the RF bursts are aligned to correspond to
`particular time slots in a frame interval”
`
`DSS’ Construction
`“occurring at a specified interval of time
`relative to”
`
`
`
`As set forth below, “timed in relation to” means that the values of the “code sequence” in
`
`claim 1, and the “RF bursts” in claim 6, are “aligned to correspond to time slots in a frame
`
`interval.” This is consistent with the claim language and the specification.
`
`In claim 1, the full disputed phrase appears in bold: “said server and peripheral
`
`transmitters being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts at intervals determined by a code
`
`sequence which is timed in relation to said synchronizing information.” As set forth in Apple’s
`
`construction, when modifying a “code sequence” in claim 1, the phrase “which is timed in
`
`relation to” means “the values of the code sequence are aligned to correspond to time slots in a
`
`frame interval.” This relationship is illustrated in the Figure below:
`
`As explained above in section II.A., the values of the “code sequence” (e.g., the 1s and 0s) are
`
`5 In connection with “code sequence” and other terms, DSS filed and cited to an untimely
`declaration of its expert that was signed the day DSS filed its Opening Brief and after the close
`of claim construction discovery. DSS Br. at 12 (citing Ex. C to DSS’ Opening Brief). This
`untimely declaration –mentioned only in passing – should either be stricken or disregarded.
`
`9
`0012
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 698
`
`each aligned to correspond to a time slot within a frame interval.
`
`In claim 6, the full disputed phrase appears in bold: “said server and peripheral and
`
`peripheral transmitters being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts which are timed in relation
`
`to said synchronizing information.” ’290 patent, claim 6 (emphasis added). As set forth in
`
`Apple’s construction, when modifying “RF bursts” in claim 6, the phrase “which is timed in
`
`relation to” means “the RF bursts are aligned to correspond to particular time slots in a frame
`
`interval.” As illustrated in the Figure above, the times of the RF bursts (shown in green) are
`
`aligned to correspond to particular time slots in a frame interval. Apple’s construction correctly
`
`reflects the usage of the phrase in each individual claim, which modifies a “code sequence” in
`
`claim 1 and “RF bursts” in claim 6. Thus, the claim language supports Apple’s construction.
`
`The specification also supports Apple’s construction. As discussed in Section II.A.
`
`above, the timing of RF bursts is dictated by values of a code sequence, which correspond to the
`
`location of time slots in a frame interval. In the only disclosed embodiment, the position of each
`
`RF burst is indicated by a 1 in the code sequence. ’290 patent, 7:23-24. “[T]he codes are mostly
`
`zeros with three scattered ones representing the locations of the slots in which RF bursts are to be
`
`transmitted or received.” Id. at 7:27-29. The common time base or synchronizing information
`
`ensures that the values of the code sequence and RF bursts are properly aligned so that the
`
`transmitters are energized at the correct times. Id. at 1:57-59, 7:63-8:7. This is illustrated below:
`
`10
`0013
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 699
`
`Thus, in the context of a code sequence, being “timed in relation to” refers to the fact that the
`
`values of the code sequence are aligned to correspond to the location of time slots in a frame
`
`interval, which is specified by the synchronizing information. ’290 patent, 7:27-29, 8:1-7.
`
`Similarly, in the context of RF bursts, being “timed in relation to” the synchronizing information
`
`refers to the fact that the RF bursts are aligned to correspond to particular time slots in a frame
`
`interval, which is specified by the synchronizing information. Id. The patent specification,
`
`therefore, supports Apple’s constructions of the disputed phrases.
`
`In contrast, DSS’ construction conflicts with the claim language and the teachings of the
`
`specification. For example, DSS’ single construction for both phrases causes a nonsensical and
`
`unsupported result. In particular, DSS’ construction of “which is timed in relation to” results in
`
`the “code sequence” “occurring at a specified interval of time relative to” the synchronizing
`
`11
`0014
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 700
`
`information. But nothing in the patent talks about transmitting or generating a code sequence at a
`
`“specified interval of time” relative to synchronizing information. That the specification does
`
`not do this makes sense because synchronizing information is for synchronization, not for
`
`determining when to transmit/receive. Rather, the patent explains the timing of code sequences
`
`means that its values (the 1s and 0s) are aligned with time slots in a frame interval, as
`
`contemplated by Apple’s construction. ’290 patent, 7:27-29, 8:1-7.
`
`DSS seems to acknowledge that its construction requiring the “code sequence” to occur
`
`at a time relative to the synchronizing information makes little sense. DSS Br. at 14-15. Indeed,
`
`DSS attempts to explain away the nonsensical result by stating:
`
`. . . the timing described by the code sequence is going to a occur at a time
`relative to the synchronizing information. In other words, the code sequence
`specifies an interval of time for communication that is relative to the
`synchronizing information.
`
`Id. Thus, under DSS’ construction, the “timing” is going to occur “at a time,” which is circular.
`
`DSS’ sole objection to Apple’s construction is that it purportedly does not make
`
`grammatical sense if you literally insert the construction back into the claims. DSS Br. at 15-16.
`
`But DSS cites no case law that prohibits a construction that does not read perfectly when
`
`reinserted into a claim, just as a dictionary definition of any word would not necessarily read
`
`perfectly if imported into a sentence. Even if there was a requirement that construction need to
`
`be inserted into a claim in a grammatically correct fashion (there is no such requirement), the
`
`Court could easily solve this issue by adding a short phrase to Apple’s construction (e.g.,
`
`“specified by”), which would read as follows:
`
`Claim 1: said server and peripheral transmitters being energized in low duty cycle RF
`bursts at intervals determined by a code sequence [the values of the code sequence are
`aligned to correspond to time slots in a frame interval specified by] said synchronizing
`information.
`
`12
`0015
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 701
`
`Claim 6: said server and peripheral transmitters being energized in low duty cycle RF
`bursts [the RF bursts are aligned to correspond to particular time slots in a frame
`interval specified by] said synchronizing information.
`
`Because Apple’s construction is consistent with the plain claim language and the teachings of the
`
`specification, while DSS’ construction is not, Apple’s construction should be adopted.
`
`C.
`
`“time slots”
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“a fixed period of time within a predetermined
`frame interval where a respective peripheral
`unit or server microcontroller unit is to
`transmit or not, and whether it will receive or
`not”
`
`DSS’ Construction
`“intervals of time”
`
`“Time slots” in the context of the ’290 patent have two characteristics and cannot be any
`
`“intervals of time.” These characteristics are that “time slots” (1) are “a fixed period of time
`
`within a predetermined frame interval” where (2) “a respective peripheral unit or server
`
`microcontroller to transmit or not, and whether to receive or not.” DSS actually agrees that the
`
`claimed “time slots” have these characteristics as set forth in Apple’s construction. DSS Br. at
`
`16. But – for some reason – DSS refuses to acknowledge these characteristics in its construction
`
`and instead just rephrases “time slots” as any “intervals of time.” They are not.
`
`The claims and the specification explain what constitutes a “time slot” in the context of
`
`the patent. The term appears in dependent claims 2, 7 and 10. In each of these claims, the “time
`
`slots” are fixed periods of time within a predetermined frame interval. ’290 patent, claims 2, 7
`
`and 10. This is reinforced by the specification, which discloses “frame intervals” that are
`
`divided into “sectors” which are in turn divided into “time slots.” Id. at Figure 6, 3:57-62, 7:20-
`
`216; Ex. B, Hu Decl., ¶42; Ex. A, Carvey Decl., ¶¶4,7. This is further demonstrated graphically
`
`6 The passage at 3:57-62 reads: “. . . the general scheme of data transmission and reception is a
`form of time division multiple access (TDMA). This TDMA access is characterized by a frame
`
`13
`0016
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 702
`
`in Figure 6:
`
`There is no disclosure of a “time slot” that is not a fixed period of time within a
`
`predetermined frame interval. Moreover, DSS actually agrees that the claimed “time slot” is “a
`
`fixed period of time within a predetermined frame interval” but this is nowhere to be found in
`
`DSS’ construction. DSS Br. at 16. The only evidence of record is that time slots are
`
`subdivisions of frame intervals.
`
`
`
`The ’290 patent is also clear that for each of the claimed time slots there will be an
`
`indication of whether “a respective peripheral unit or server microcontroller unit is to transmit or
`
`not, and whether it will receive or not,” in accord with Apple’s construction:
`
`For each slot, this TDMA program indicates that a PEA or host is to transmit, or
`not, and whether it will receive, or not. In the intervals between slots in which a
`PEA is to transmit or receive, all receive and transmit circuits are powered down.
`
`’290 patent, 4:2-6; Ex. B, Hu Decl., ¶42. Technical extrinsic evidence – dictionaries and expert
`
`interval, common to the host and all PEAs of 32.768 milliseconds, segmented into 16,384 time
`slots.” The passage at 7:20-21 reads: “In this scheme, the 16384 slots are equally segmented into
`256 intervals called sectors.”
`
`14
`0017
`
`

`
`Case 6:13-cv-00919-JDL Document 74 Filed 10/14/14 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 703
`
`testimony – also reinforce that the claimed “time slots” are characterized in this way.7
`
`
`
`At page 16 of its Opening Brief, DSS actually agrees time slots are used to tell the
`
`devices whether to transit/receive or not – but still refuses to include this in their construction:
`
`These time slots represent periods of times in which a peripheral device (called
`PEAs in the specification) may be assigned to transmit or receive data. The time
`slot is the interval of time in which the communication between the server
`microcomputer, referred to in embodiment at a PDA, and the PEA can occur.
`
`After agreeing that “time slots” are characterized in this way, DSS’ only criticism of
`
`Apple’s construction is that if you import the construction into the claims it is results “in an
`
`unnecessarily lengthy claim having many redundant terms.” DSS Br. at 17. But DSS never
`
`identifies anything that is incorrect in Apple’s construction. Moreover, there is no rule of law or
`
`case that says the construction must read perfectly if read into the claim, just as a dictionary
`
`definition of any word would not necessarily read perfectly if imported into a sentence.
`
`
`
`DSS’ construction is wrong for several reasons. First, DSS’ construction of “time slots”
`
`is so broad that it would cover “frame intervals” and “sectors” (both of whi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket