throbber
Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 551
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C. A. No. 13-2058-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2061-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2062-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2063-RGA
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COMCAST CABLE
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59 Filed 12/12/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 552
`
`C. A. No. 13-2064-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2065-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2066-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2067-RGA
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTV LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 2
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59 Filed 12/12/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 553
`
`C. A. No. 13-2068-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2069-RGA
`
`)))))))))))
`
`))))))))))))
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIME WARNER CABLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Scheduling Order dated April 21, 2014, Plaintiff Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property LLC and the Defendants in the above captioned cases respectfully submit
`
`this Joint Claim Construction Chart. The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 5,930,444 (the “’444
`
`Patent”). The parties’ respective proposals for the terms in dispute, with citations to the intrinsic
`
`evidence in support of their respective proposed constructions, are set forth in Exhibit A hereto
`
`(“Statement of Disputed Terms”). The parties reserve their rights to amend and/or supplement
`
`the attached Joint Claim Construction Chart with additional intrinsic evidence in their claim
`
`construction briefs.
`
`-1-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 3
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59 Filed 12/12/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 554
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Richard D. Kirk (#922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (#5398)
`Sara E. Bussiere (#5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 655-5000
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Dragon Intellectual
`Property, LLC
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Ethan H. Townsend
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Ethan H. Townsend (#5813)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`rsmith@mnat.com
`etownsend@mnat.com
`
`/s/ Ethan H. Townsend
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Ethan H. Townsend (#5813)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`etownsend@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants AT&T Services, Inc.,
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Charter Communications,
`Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Cox
`Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc.,
`and Verizon Communications Inc.
`
`-2-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 4
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59 Filed 12/12/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 555
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`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 DISH Network L.L.C.
`
`/s/ Lauren E. Maguire
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`Lauren E. Maguire (#4261)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`sbalick@ashby-geddes.com
`lmaguire@ashby-geddes.com
`amayo@ashby-geddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant DirecTV LLC
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`
`/s/ Jonathan Choa
`Philip A. Rovner (#3125)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza,
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`One Rodney Square
`P.O. Box 551
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 651-7705
`Farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Time Warner Cable, Inc.
`
`-3-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 5
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 556
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Term
`No.
`1
`
`1
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“broadcast program information”1 The Defendants proposed on December 11,
`2014 that the words “broadcast program
`information” in the preamble of claim 1
`should be construed. Dragon believes
`construction is not required. The parties
`have agreed to meet and confer on
`December 15, 2014.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“programming information carried by the input
`signal source”
`
`(proposal of Apple, Charter, Comcast, Cox,
`DIRECTV, DISH, Sirius, Time Warner and
`Verizon)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 1:20-63;
`2:66-3:3; 3:54-60, 4:35-58; 5:20-36; 6:66-
`7:9; 7:26-49; 9:20-27.
`
`January 10, 2013 Request for Certificate of
`Correction
`March 5, 2013 Certificate of Correction
`
`“programming information transmitted to all
`users and carried by the input signal source”
`
`(proposal of AT&T)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: same as above.
`
`1 Defendants learned yesterday that Dragon is treating “broadcast program information” and “the broadcast program information” as two distinct terms with
`apparently different constructions, after Defendants had previously proposed a construction for “the broadcast program information” language on November 21.
`For this reason, they are presented as terms 1 and 6 on this chart. However, Defendants believe they are two occurences of the same term and thus have
`proposed the same construction for both. Dragon has not yet provided a construction for the first occurence of the term and Defendants reserve their rights to
`challenge any late proposal from Dragon as untimely.
`
`-1-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 6
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 557
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`Function: powering the apparatus
`
`Structure: AC power source
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:19-23;
`November 15, 1995 Remarks/Amendment.
`
`“a keyboard having a record key and a
`separate playback key”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 3:18-22,
`3:54-67, 5:20-31, 6:25-49, 8:55-61, Figs.
`1-9.
`Summary of April 30, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of April 26, 1996 Examiner
`Interview
`
`Term
`No.
`2
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“means for powering the apparatus” Function: powering the apparatus.
`
`1
`
`3
`
`“a keyboard having a record key
`and a playback key”
`
`Means: An AC power source, or alternative
`power sources such as DC power sources or
`batteries.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:19-23;
`4:28-34.
`
`Plain meaning. Alternatively,
`
`“A keyboard that has one or more keys
`that function as a record key2 and a
`playback key.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 3:64-
`67; 4:39-61; 5:20-31.
`
`2 Bold terms are separately construed.
`
`-2-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 7
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 558
`
`Term
`No.
`4
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`1
`
`“record key”
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`Plain meaning. Alternatively,
`
`“A key that, when actuated, signals the
`control circuit to initiate storage of
`program information in the memory unit
`of the device.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 3:64-
`67; 4:39-53; 5:20-25; 6:45-48; 8:55-57.
`
`Page 5, Paper No. 7 (Office Action
`Response dated 02/02/1994) of the
`prosecution history of the ’444 patent.
`
`Page 4, Paper No. 12 (Preliminary
`Amendment dated 04/28/1994) of the
`prosecution history of the ’444 patent.
`
`-3-
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“key that, when actuated, turns on a recording
`function of the apparatus to initiate recording”
`
`(proposal of Charter, Comcast, Cox,
`DIRECTV, Time Warner and Verizon)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 3:54-67,
`4:35-58, 5:20-36, 6:25-49, 7:10-24; Figs.
`1-9; Claims 1-14;
`May 5, 1993 Non-Final Office Action
`September 9, 1993 Remarks/Amendment
`December 2, 1993 Final Office Action
`February 2, 1994 Remarks/Amendment
`April 28, 1994 Remarks/Amendment
`November 17, 1994 Non-Final Office
`Action
`May 19, 1995 Remarks/Amendment
`August 11, 1995 Non-Final Office Action
`November 15, 1995 Remarks/Amendment
`February 20, 1996 Final Office Action
`July 22, 1996 Remarks/Amendment
`November 27, 1996 Non-Final Office
`Action
`March 8, 2013 Request for Supplemental
`Examination
`May 9, 2013 Supplemental Examination.
`Summary of January 15, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of April 26, 1996 Examiner
`Interview
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 8
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 559
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`
`5
`
`“control circuit”
`
`Plain meaning.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`“Circuitry that receives and outputs
`control signals.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 3:60-
`67; 4:39-61; 5:5-31; 6:31-48; 6:65-7:5.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“key that controls a recording function”
`
`(proposal of Apple, AT&T, DISH and Sirius)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: same as above.
`
`Function: enabling substantially simultaneous
`recording and playback of program
`information is achieved when said record key
`is first actuated to begin a recording by
`initiating storage of the broadcast program
`information in said memory unit, and said
`playback key is subsequently and solely
`actuated to begin time delay playback of the
`recording from the beginning thereof by
`initiating retrieval of the stored program
`information in said memory unit.
`
`Structure: none disclosed, and therefore it is
`indefinite.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at Abstract;
`3:54-67; 5:5-36; 6:25-49; 6:66-7:9; Figs.
`7-9;
`July 22, 1996 Remarks/Amendment
`March 8, 2013 Request for Supplemental
`Examination
`May 9, 2013 Supplemental Examination
`
`-4-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 9
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 560
`
`Term
`No.
`6
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`1
`
`“the broadcast program
`information”
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`See “broadcast program information”
`above. Defendants assert that all instances
`of “broadcast program information” in the
`claims have the same meaning.
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“The broadcast program information
`presented after the record key is actuated
`and before the playback key is actuated.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 1:46-
`55; 2:51-56; 5:20-36; 8:28-33.
`
`Pages 4, 6 & 7, Paper No. 12 (Preliminary
`Amendment dated 04/28/1994) of the
`prosecution history of the ’444 patent.
`
`-5-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 10
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 561
`
`7
`
`1
`
`“[said record key is first actuated]3
`to begin a recording by initiating
`storage of the broadcast program
`information in said memory unit”
`
`“[said record key is first actuated] to
`initiate storage of the broadcast program
`information in the memory unit such that
`the information can be retrieved from the
`beginning and without missing any of the
`program information broadcast during the
`interruption” 4
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 1:46-55;
`2:51-56; 5:20-36; 8:28-33.
`
`Pages 4, 6 & 7, Paper No. 12 (Preliminary
`Amendment dated 04/28/1994) of the
`prosecution history of the ’444 patent.
`
`“said record key is first actuated to begin a
`recording by causing the storage of broadcast
`program information that otherwise would
`not have been stored in said memory unit”5
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 3:10-21;
`4:35-58; 5:20-36; 6:25-49; 8:28-32; Figs.
`1, 2, 6, 7;
`May 5, 1993 Non-Final Office Action
`September 9, 1993 Remarks/Amendment
`December 2, 1993 Final Office Action
`February 2, 1994 Remarks/Amendment
`April 28, 1994 Remarks/Amendment
`November 17, 1994 Non-Final Office
`Action
`May 19, 1995 Remarks/Amendment
`August 11, 1995 Non-Final Office Action
`November 15, 1995 Remarks/Amendment
`February 20, 1996 Final Office Action
`July 22, 1996 Remarks/Amendment
`November 27, 1996 Non-Final Office
`Action
`March 8, 2013 Request for Supplemental
`Examination
`May 9, 2013 Supplemental Examination.
`Summary of January 15, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of April 26, 1996 Examiner
`Interview
`
`-6-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 11
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 562
`
`3 Dragon proposed the term for construction commence with “to begin….” The Defendants disagree and have included this bracketed language for the
`proposed term and in their proposed construction. Dragon’s construction includes bracketed language to address the defendants’ proposal, but reserves the
`right to modify its proposal.
`4
`In this proposal and their proposed construction of Term No. 9, the Defendants have included statements regarding their views on the availability of the
`doctrine of equivalents with respect to certain claim terms. Dragon’s view is that these statements are not properly included in this submission, as the
`Defendants’ comments are directed to infringement issues, rather than claim construction issues. Draon requested that these statements be removed, but the
`defendants would not agree to remove the statements.
`In any event, Dragon disagrees with the Defendants’ comments, and asserts that it may prove
`infringement literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the range of equivalents is not limited in the manner suggested by the Defendants’
`comments. Dragon will elaborate on its position at the appropriate time.
`5 Defendants assert that the doctrine of equivalents is not applicable to at least this term due to prosecution history estoppel and respectfully submit that the
`question of whether the doctrine of equivalents is applicable should be determined during claim construction.
`-7-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 12
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 563
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“actuated after the record key, without
`actuating any other keys in the time between
`actuating the record key and the playback
`key”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 5:20-36;
`February 20, 1996 Final Office Action
`November 27, 1996 Non-Final Office
`Action
`July 22, 1996 Remarks/Amendment
`October 29, 1997 Remarks/Amendment
`March 8, 2013 Request for Supplemental
`Examination
`May 9, 2013 Supplemental Examination
`Summary of April 30, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of January 15, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of April 26, 1996 Examiner
`Interview
`
`Term
`No.
`8
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“subsequently and solely actuated” No construction necessary. If this term is
`to be construed, Dragon proposes the
`following construction:
`
`1
`
`“actuated after the record key, without
`actuating any other keys in the time
`between actuating the record key and the
`playback key.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 2:15-
`32; 2:47-50; 4:1-8; 5:20-36.
`
`Page 2, Paper No. 30 (Supplemental
`Amendment dated 10/29/1997) of the
`prosecution history of the ’444 patent.
`
`Paragraphs 5-15 of “Reasons for
`Substantial New Question of Patentability
`Determination,” dated 05/09/2013, of the
`prosecution history of a supplemental
`exam (Application No. 96/000,013) of the
`’444 patent.
`
`-8-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 13
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 564
`
`Term
`No.
`9
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`1
`
`“to begin time delay playback of
`the recording from the beginning
`thereof”
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`to begin time-delay playback of the
`recording of the broadcast program
`information from the beginning of the
`recording.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 2:51-
`56; 4:59-61; 5:20-36; 8:28-3.
`
`Page 4, Paper No. 12 (Preliminary
`Amendment dated 04/28/1994) of the
`prosecution history of the ’444 patent.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`“to begin time delay playback of the just
`recorded program information from the
`beginning of that recording” 6
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 2:58-65;
`5:20-36;
`December 2, 1993 Final Office Action
`February 2, 1994 Remarks/Amendment
`April 28, 1994 Remarks/Amendment
`November 17, 1994 Non-Final Office
`Action
`May 19, 1995 Remarks/Amendments
`August 11, 1995 Non-Final Office Action
`November 15, 1995 Remarks/Amendment
`February 20, 1996 Final Office Action
`July 22, 1996 Remarks/Amendment
`November 27, 1996 Non-Final Office
`Action
`March 8, 2013 Request for Supplemental
`Examination
`May 9, 2013 Supplemental Examination.
`Summary of April 30, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of January 15, 1997 Examiner
`Interview
`Summary of April 26, 1996 Examiner
`Interview
`
`6 Defendants assert that the doctrine of equivalents is not applicable to at least this term due to prosecution history estoppel and respectfully submit that the
`question of whether the doctrine of equivalents is applicable should be determined during claim construction.
`-9-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 14
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 565
`
`Term
`No.
`10
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`3
`
`“means for wireless
`communication between said
`remote control unit and said
`control circuit”
`
`11
`
`8
`
`“key means for enabling user
`control of the rate or sequence or
`both of transfer of program
`information from said memory unit
`to the user’s display device”
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`Function: wireless communication
`
`Means: A receiver and transmitter
`interposed between the control circuit and
`keyboard for communication
`therebetween so as to enable keyboard to
`be placed within a discrete remote control
`housing.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:’444 Patent at 6:7-18.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`Function: providing wireless communication
`between said remote control unit and said
`control circuit.
`
`Structure: infrared light emitting diode and
`infrared photo detector.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:7-18;
`Figs. 3-4.
`
`Function: enabling the user to control the rate
`or sequence, or both, of the transfer of
`program information from the memory unit to
`the user’s display device.
`
`Function: enable user control of the rate or
`sequence or both of transfer of program
`information from said memory unit to the
`user’s display device
`
`Means: keys on the keyboard that, when
`actuated, cause the control circuit to vary the
`rate or sequence, or both, of the transfer of
`program information from the memory unit to
`the user’s display device.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:24-48.
`
`Structure: a discrete remote control with fast
`forward, reverse, pause and frame advance
`keys
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:7-65;
`Figs. 4-5.
`
`-10-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 15
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02066-RGA Document 59-1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 566
`
`Term
`No.
`12
`
`Claim Proposed term for construction
`
`10
`
`“a rate sufficiently slowly so that a
`user may review the content of the
`program information transferred
`from said memory unit on a frame
`by frame basis”
`
`Dragon’s proposed construction
`Citiation to Intrinsic Evidence
`Plain meaning. This claim term is self
`explanatory, and means:
`
`A rate that allows a user to view, on a
`frame by frame basis, program
`information being retrieved from the
`memory unit.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:49-55.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction
`Citation to Intrinsic Evidence
`Indefinite.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: ’444 Patent at 6:25-65;
`Figs. 4-5.
`
`-11-
`
`Dish, Exh. 1014, p. 16

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