throbber
Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:534
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`JOSEPH DIAMANTE(Admitted Pro Hac
`VINCENT J. BELUSKO (CA SBN
`Vice, NY State Bar Reg. No. 1672120)
`100282)
`KENNETH L. STEIN (Admitted Pro Hac
`BITA RAHEBI (CA SBN 209351)
`Vice, NY State Bar Reg. No. 2595569)
`ALEX S. YAP (CA SBN 241400)
`IAN G. DIBERNARDO (Admitted Pro Hac
`JARED W. MILLER (CA SBN 287424)
`Vice, NY State Bar Reg. No. 2780989)
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`180 Maiden Lane
`Telephone: (213) 892-5200
`New York, NY 10038
`Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
`Telephone: 212.806.5400
`Email: vbelusko@mofo.com
`Facsimile: 213.806.6006
`Email: jdiamante@stroock.com
`Email: brahebi@mofo.com
`Email: kstein@stroock.com
`Email: ayap@mofo.com
`Email: idibernardo@stroock.com
`Email: jaredmiller@mofo.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant-
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`Counterclaimant
`JAMES E. FITZGERALD (State Bar No.
`APPLE INC.
`108785)
`CRYSTAL Y. JONELIS (State Bar No.
`265335)
`
`JOHN R. LOFTUS (State Bar No. 126841)
`2029 Century Park East
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
`Telephone: 310-556-5800
`Facsimile: 310-556-5959
`lacalendar@stroock.com
`Email:
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-
`Defendant FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY,
`INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. SA CV13-01537-ODW-JEM
`
`FINAL JOINT CLAIM CHART
`
`
`Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II
`Discovery Cutoff: April 6, 2015
`Pretrial Conf.:
`June 15, 2015
`Trial:
`
`July 7, 2015
`
`
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Plaintiff.
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.
`Defendant.
`
`APPLE INC.
`Counterclaim-Claimant.
`
`v.
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Counter-Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NY 75402723
`
`FINAL JOINT CLAIM CHART
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:535
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Patent Standing Order, Plaintiff Farstone Technology,
`
`Inc. (“Farstone”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby submit the Final Joint
`
`Claim Chart in connection with the claim construction proceedings for U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,120,835 (“‘835 Patent”). See Ex. A. The Final Joint Claim Chart includes
`
`citations to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that each party has identified in support
`
`of its proposed constructions.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Alex S. Yap
`Vincent J. Belusko
`Bita Rahebi
`Alex S. Yap
`Jared W. Miller
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Telephone: (213) 892-5200
`Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
`
`Attorneys for Defendant-
`Counterclaimant APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kenneth L. Stein
`Joseph Diamante
`Kenneth L. Stein
`Ian G. DiBernardo
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`180 MAIDEN LANE
`NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038
`Telephone: (212) 806-5400
`Facsimile: (213) 806-6006
`
`James E. Fitzgerald
`Crystal Y. Jonelis
`John R. Loftus
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`2029 Century Park East
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
`Telephone: 310-556-5800
`Facsimile: 310-556-5959
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-
`Defendant FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY,
`INC.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`NY 75402723
`
`- 1 -
`FINAL JOINT CLAIM CHART
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:536
`
`
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`“a backup/recovery
`module, said
`backup/recovery
`module creating at least
`one recovery unit to
`hold backup data”
`(Claim 1)
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`FINAL JOINT CLAIM CHART
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`Recited Function:
`creating at least one
`recovery unit to hold
`backup data
`
`Corresponding
`Structure:
`No corresponding
`structure disclosed
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`See, e.g., ’835 Patent,
`Abstract; FIGS. 1-2;
`2:30-41; 3:19-34; 4:30-
`43; 5:11-18; 5:48-51;
`7:1-16; 7:30-46; 7:47-
`53; 7:54-59, 7:60-63.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`Contrary to Apple’s
`assertion, this limitation is
`not governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. No
`construction of it is
`necessary.
`
`If, however, the Court
`determines that 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, ¶ 6 applies,
`Farstone proposes the
`following construction:
`
`The recited function is
`creating at least one
`recovery unit to hold
`backup data.
`
`The corresponding
`structure is a
`backup/recovery module
`as described and shown in
`the ‘835 patent at, for
`example, Abstract, Fig 1
`(reference numerals 12,
`14, 16, 18); Fig 2
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See Farstone’s citations
`to the ‘835 patent in its
`alternative construction
`of this term under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 346.
`The Authoritative
`Dictionary of Institute
`of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition
`(2000) at 703-04.
`Webster's New World
`Computer Dictionary,
`Ninth Edition (2001) at
`-1-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:537
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`“recovery unit”
`(Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10,
`11)
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`(reference numeral 32),
`2:30-36; 2:42-48; 2:58-
`65; 3:7-11; 3:19-27; 3:55-
`61; 4:30-40; 4:44-56;
`4:65-5:10; 5:11-18; 5:63-
`6:20; 6:26-37; 7:1-9;
`7:30-53; and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“a collection of file
`backup data and
`configuration information
`reflecting a state of a
`computer hardware
`resource at a point in
`time”
`
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`244.
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “recovery unit.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 Patent at Abstract;
`2:30-36; 2:42-48; 2:58-
`65; 3:7-11; 4:35-40;
`4:44-49; 5:63-6:20;
`6:26-37; 7:1-9
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “said at least one
`recovery unit
`
`-2-
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Indefinite
`
`See, e.g.,’835 Patent,
`Abstract; 2:30-41; 2:42-
`50;
`2:58-3:3; 3:4-10; 3:19-
`34; 3:44-48; 4:30-42;
`4:44-49; 5:11-18; 5:63-
`6:16; 6:23-29;
`7:1-16; 7:25-29; 7:41-
`53; File History, Oct.
`20, 2005 Amendment at
`pp. 16-18.
`
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:538
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“selecting means, said
`selecting means
`selecting a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each
`of said at least one
`recovery unit”
`(Claim 1)
`
`Contrary to Apple’s
`assertion, this phrase is
`not governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. No
`construction of it is
`necessary.
`
`If, however, the court
`determines that 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, ¶ 6 applies,
`Farstone proposes the
`following construction:
`
`The recited function is
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Recited Function:
`selecting a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each of
`said at least one recovery
`unit
`
`Corresponding
`Structure:
`No corresponding
`structure disclosed
`
`See, e.g., Abstract;
`FIGS. 1-2; 2:30-41;
`2:58-3:3; 3:19-34; 4:30-
`43; 5:37-40; 5:48-62;
`5:63-6:8;
`6:23-37; 6:61-67; 7:1-
`16; 8:9-12.
`
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`respectively reflects a
`corresponding status of
`said at least one
`hardware resource at
`the time of creation of
`each of said at least one
`recovery unit”/“said at
`least one recovery unit
`respectively reflects a
`corresponding status of
`at least one hardware
`resource of said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each
`of said at least one
`recovery unit.”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See Farstone’s citations
`to the ‘835 patent in its
`alternative construction
`of this term under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`
`-3-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:539
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`“selecting a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each
`of said at least one
`recovery unit”
`(Claim 1)
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`selecting a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each of
`said at least one recovery
`unit.
`
`The corresponding
`structure is a user
`interface and input
`devices as described and
`shown in the ‘835 patent
`at, for example, ‘835 at
`Fig. 1 (reference number
`20); 2:14-21; 2:48-49;
`3:19-24; 4:59-5:18; 5:26-
`50; 5:54-6:8; 6:15-16;
`6:23-25; 7:1-6; 7:14-16;
`8:10-11; 9:25-26; and
`equivalents thereof.
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“selecting a recovery
`unit”
`
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`for “selecting a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each
`of said at least one
`recovery unit.”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 at Fig. 1; Abstract;
`1:8-12; 2:5-21; 2:28-49;
`2:58-3:12; 3:4-12; 3:19-
`27; 3:55-57; 4:6-30;
`4:34-50; 4:59-5:10;
`5:26-6:8; 6:15-16; 6:23-
`48; 6:56-67; 7:1-29;
`8:3-35; 8:38-50; 9:37-
`39; 9:47-49; 10:7-8;
`
`-4-
`
`See, e.g., ’835 Patent,
`Abstract; FIGS. 1-2;
`2:30-41; 2:42-50; 2:58-
`3:11; 4:30-49; 5:37-47;
`5:48-62; 5:63-6:15;
`6:23-37; 6:61-67; 7:1-
`16; 8:9-12.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:540
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Indefinite
`
`See, e.g., Abstract;
`2:30-41; 4:49-50; 2:48-
`49; 2:58-3:3; 4:30-43;
`5:32-36; 5:37-40.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“said displaying system
`displaying said selected
`status”
`(Claim 1)
`
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“the displaying system
`displays the state or
`condition of the
`processing system
`reflected in the selected
`recovery unit”
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`10:14-16.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “said displaying
`system displaying said
`selected status.”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 Patent at Fig. 1;
`Abstract; 1:8-12; 2:5-
`21; 2:28-49; 2:58-3:12;
`3:4-12; 3:19-27; 3:55-
`57; 4:6-30; 4:34-50;
`4:59-5:10; 5:26-6:48;
`6:56-67; 7:1-29; 8:3-35;
`8:38-50; 9:37-39; 9:47-
`49; 10:7-8; 10:14-16.
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Merriam Webster’s
`
`-5-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:541
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“said at least one
`recovery unit
`respectively reflects a
`corresponding status of
`said at least one
`hardware resource at
`the time of creation of
`each of said at least one
`recovery unit”
`(Claim 1)
`
`“said at least one
`recovery unit
`respectively reflects a
`
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“the recovery units reflect
`a state or condition of at
`least one hardware
`resource at the time the
`recovery unit is created”
`
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Indefinite
`
`See, e.g., ’835 Patent,
`2:42-57; 3:4-18; 4:44-
`49; 5:41-47; 5:48-53;
`6:9-22; 6:23-42.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`Collegiate Dictionary,
`Eleventh Edition (2003)
`at 1220.
`The Authoritative
`Dictionary of Institute
`of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition
`(2000) at 1107.
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 498.
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 Patent at 2:14-21;
`2:42-55; 2:62-3:11;
`4:44-56; 4:65-5:10;
`5:37-47; 6:3-15; 6:26-
`43; 9:30-31.
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Merriam Webster’s
`
`-6-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:542
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`corresponding status of
`at least one hardware
`resource of said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each
`of said at least one
`recovery unit”
`(Claim 9)
`
`“a status of said
`computer equipment at
`the time creating said
`corresponded recovery
`unit”
`(Claims 2 and 10)
`
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“state or condition of the
`computer equipment at
`the time a corresponding
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`Collegiate Dictionary,
`Eleventh Edition (2003)
`at 1220.
`The Authoritative
`Dictionary of Institute
`of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition
`(2000) at 1107.
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 498.
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “recovery unit.”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 patent at 3:4-11;
`4:6-13; 4:44-49; 5:41-
`47; 6:9-15; 6:26-43.
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`
`-7-
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Indefinite
`
`See, e.g., ’835 Patent,
`2:42-48; 3:4-11; 4:44-
`49; 4:63-5:3; 5:41-47;
`6:9-15; 6:23-37; 8:22-
`26.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:543
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`recovery unit is created”
`
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Merriam Webster’s
`Collegiate Dictionary,
`Eleventh Edition (2003)
`at 1220.
`The Authoritative
`Dictionary of Institute
`of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition
`(2000) at 1107.
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 498.
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “recovery unit,”
`“selecting a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system at the
`time of creation of each
`of said at least one
`recovery unit,” and
`“said at least one
`recovery unit
`
`-8-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:544
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Recited Function:
`creating at least one
`recovery unit
`
`Corresponding
`Structure:
`No corresponding
`structure disclosed
`
`See, e.g., ’835 Patent,
`Abstract; FIGS. 1-2;
`2:30-41; 2:42-57; 2:58-
`3:3; 3:4-11; 4:30-49;
`4:59-5:3; 5:11-18; 5:26-
`31; 5:63-6:15; 6:23-37.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“a processing system
`…, said processing
`system creating at least
`one recovery unit”
`(Claim 9)
`
`Contrary to Apple’s
`assertion, this term is not
`governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112, ¶ 6. Also, this term
`appears in the preamble
`of the claim and is not a
`limitation of the claim.
`No construction of it is
`necessary.
`
`If, however, the court
`determines that 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, ¶ 6 applies,
`Farstone proposes the
`following construction:
`
`The recited function is
`creating at least one
`recovery unit.
`
`The corresponding
`structure is a processing
`system including a
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`respectively reflects a
`corresponding status of
`said at least one
`hardware resource at
`the time of creation of
`each of said at least one
`recovery unit.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See Farstone’s citations
`to ‘835 patent in its
`alternative construction
`of this term under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 346.
`The Authoritative
`Dictionary of Institute
`of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition
`(2000) at 703-04.
`
`-9-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 10 of 12 Page ID
` #:545
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`“loading said selected
`recovery unit into said
`processing system”
`(Claim 9)
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`backup/recovery module
`as described and shown in
`the ‘835 patent at, for
`example, Abstract, Fig.
`1(reference numerals 10,
`12, 16, 14 and 18; Fig 2
`(reference numeral 32),
`2:30-36; 2:42-48; 2:58-
`3:11; 3:19-27; 4:30-40;
`4:44-56; 4:63-5:18; 5:63-
`6:20; 6:26-37; 7:1-9;
`7:30-53; and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“copying some or all of
`the selected recovery unit
`into memory in the
`processing system”
`
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`Webster's New World
`Computer Dictionary,
`Ninth Edition (2001) at
`244.
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “recovery unit” and
`“a backup/recovery
`module, said
`backup/recovery
`module creating at least
`one recovery unit to
`hold backup data.”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 Patent at Abstract;
`1:36-37; 3:42-44; 5:48-
`53.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Merriam Webster’s
`Collegiate Dictionary,
`Eleventh Edition (2003)
`at 729.
`The Oxford American
`College Dictionary
`(2002) at 787.
`
`-10-
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`“making the selected
`recovery unit available as
`a logical drive”
`
`See, e.g., ’835 patent,
`Abstract; 1:25-37; 1:47-
`50; 2:7-11; 2:65-3:3;
`4:22-26; 5:48-51; 6:3-8;
`6:23-24; 8:36-38.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 11 of 12 Page ID
` #:546
`
`
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`Indefinite
`
`See, e.g., ’835 Patent,
`Abstract; FIGS. 1-2;
`2:30-41; 2:48-49, 4:49-
`50; 2:58-3:3; 3:19-34;
`4:30-43; 5:26-31; 5:32-
`36; 5:63-6:8; 7:1-16.
`
`Opinions of Dr. David
`Cummings
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“displaying a status
`corresponding to said
`processing system
`which corresponds to
`said selected recovery
`unit”
`(Claim 9)
`
`No construction is
`necessary. However, if
`the Court rules that one is
`necessary, Farstone
`proposes the following
`construction:
`
`“displaying the state or
`condition of the
`processing system that
`corresponds to the
`selected recovery unit”
`
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`Dictionary of
`Computing, Fourth
`Edition (2002) at 213.
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 315.
`
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘835 Patent at Fig. 1;
`Abstract; 1:8-12; 2:5-
`21; 2:28-49; 2:58-3:12;
`3:4-12; 3:19-27; 3:55-
`57; 4:6-30; 4:34-50;
`4:59-5:10; 5:26-6:48;
`6:56-67; 7:1-29; 8:3-35;
`8:38-50; 9:37-39; 9:47-
`49; 10:7-8; 10:14-16.
`File History,
`Amendment dated
`10/18/05 at 24 and
`Amendment dated
`4/10/06 at 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Merriam Webster’s
`Collegiate Dictionary,
`Eleventh Edition (2003)
`
`-11-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 44-1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 12 of 12 Page ID
` #:547
`
`CLAIM TERM,
`PHRASE, OR
`CLAUSE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`
`FARSTONE’S
`SUPPORTING
`EVIDENCE
`at 1220.
`The Authoritative
`Dictionary of Institute
`of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers
`(“IEEE”) Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition
`(2000) at 1107.
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition (2002) at 498.
`Declaration and/or
`testimony of Dr. Martin
`E. Kaliski.
`
`See also intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence cited
`for “said displaying
`system displaying said
`selected status.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NY 75403332
`
`-12-
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1004 Page 14

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