Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95 Filed12/19/14 Page1 of 5
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN 264717)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Aliza A. George (pro hac vice)
`Robert D. Wells (SBN 277903)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:
`(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile:
`(404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc. and Nagravision, SA
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OPENTV, INC., AND NAGRAVISION, SA
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-01622-JST
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterdefendants,
`
`Defendant and
`Counterplaintiff.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-2
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 1
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95 Filed12/19/14 Page2 of 5
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants OpenTV Inc. and Nagravision,
`
`SA (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant and Counterplaintiff Apple Inc. (“Defendant”) submit this Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement with respect to Plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent Nos. 5,566,287,
`
`5,689,799, 5,884,033, 6,985,586, and 7,900,229 (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”).
`
`II.
`
`Agreed Claim Constructions
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“a programming signal” (’229 patent)
`
`“a signal containing television programming”
`
`“Internet sites” (’033 patent)
`
`“resources available over the Internet”
`
`“the authorization” (’586 patent)
`
`“at least one key or right that is necessary to
`decrypt the product”
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Top Ten Terms for Construction Pursuant to Patent Local Rule
`4-3(c)
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), the parties identify the following ten terms “whose
`
`construction will be most significant to the resolution of the case”:
`
`’799 Patent
`
`1
`
`“a response collector component for storing the application identifier and
`
`vendor routing information, associating the application identifier with the
`
`vendor routing information, receiving the application identifier and user
`
`response information from the reception component, and transmitting the
`
`user response information to the vendor associated with the application
`
`identifier received” (799)
`
`2
`
`Whether the preambles of claims 1 and 3 are limiting in the 799 patent
`
`(799)
`
`’287 Patent
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 2
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95 Filed12/19/14 Page3 of 5
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`“drawing request” (287)
`
`“image update request” (287)
`
`“requesting that respective graphic objects be redrawn if any portion of the
`
`graphic object lies within the drawing area represented by the retrieved
`
`entry” (287)
`
`’033 Patent
`
`6
`
`7
`
`“filters specifying deferred action” (033)
`
`“filters specifying immediate action” (033)
`
`’229 Patent
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“activity [related/unrelated] to television programming” (229)
`
`“broadcast station” (229)
`
`10
`
`“set-top box” (229)
`
`The parties dispute fourteen additional claim terms, included in the Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement chart. The ten terms above are identified in bold. See Exhibit A, attached. The Court’s
`
`Scheduling Order provides that the Court “will construe only the terms the parties identify in their
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement as ‘most significant to the resolution of the case
`
`up to a maximum of 10,’” citing Patent Local Rule 4-3(c). ECF No. 59 at 3:5-7. The parties are
`
`continuing to discuss the disputed terms.
`
`Statement by OpenTV
`A.
`OpenTV believes that the parties’ briefing should be limited to the ten terms identified under
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), absent compelling circumstances and permission from the Court. OpenTV
`
`understands that Apple intends to submit claim construction briefing on the fourteen additional
`
`disputed terms in addition to the ten terms jointly identified by the parties as “most significant to the
`
`resolution of the case.” OpenTV may seek clarification from the Court whether leave is required for
`
`the parties to submit briefing on terms in excess of the identified ten terms, and if so under what
`
`conditions.
`
`B.
`
`Statement by Apple
`
`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
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95 Filed12/19/14 Page4 of 5
`
`Apple believes construction of additional terms beyond the ten terms identified above will be
`
`necessary, particularly given that disputes for most remaining terms center around means-plus-
`
`function treatment or indefiniteness issues that are resolved through claim construction. Apple
`
`believes the parties should address all disputed terms in claim construction briefing, as parties have
`
`done in past cases, such as Symantec Corp. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-05331-JST and Emblaze
`
`Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 3:12-cv-5422-JST. Absent other guidance from the Court, Apple intends to
`
`brief all disputed terms, and Apple will be prepared to address disputed terms at the Court’s claim
`
`construction hearing or at such other time as the Court directs. Apple will continue to discuss with
`
`OpenTV in an attempt to reach agreement regarding briefing.
`
`IV.
`
`Proposed Constructions of Disputed Terms
`The Joint Claim Construction Statement chart attached as Exhibit A presents the parties’
`
`proposed constructions for the ten terms identified by the parties under Patent Local Rule 4-3(c) and
`
`the remaining fourteen disputed terms with intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting such
`
`constructions. Each party reserves the right to use evidence identified or relied upon by any other
`
`party and to use any portion of documents identified in the attached charts, not just those portions
`
`expressly cited.
`
`V.
`
`Length of Claim Construction Hearing
`The Court has set the Claim Construction Hearing for March 23, 2015, starting at 2:00 pm.
`
`The parties anticipate the hearing will take the full 2 and a half hours the Court has allotted for claim
`
`construction. See ECF No. 59. The parties will divide this time evenly, with 1.25 hours for each side.
`
`VI.
`
`Anticipated Witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing
`The parties do not anticipate calling witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`By her signature below, counsel for Plaintiffs attests that counsel for Defendants concur in
`
`the filing of this document.
`
`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
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95 Filed12/19/14 Page5 of 5
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Melody Drummond Hansen
`George A. Riley (S.B. #118304)
`griley@omm.com
`Luann L. Simmons (S.B. #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`Melody Drummond Hansen (S.B. #278786)
`mdrummondhansen@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
`
`Ryan K. Yagura (S.B. #197619)
`ryagura@omm.com
`Vincent Zhou (S.B. #251969)
`vzhou@omm.com
`Kevin Murray (S.B. #275186)
`kmurray2@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Elizabeth A. Niemeyer
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Aliza A. George (pro hac vice)
`Robert D. Wells (SBN 277903)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: (202) 408-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN 264717)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone: (650) 849-6600
`Facsimile: (650) 849-6666
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone: (404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile: (404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OPENTV, INC. AND NAGRAVISION, SA
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 5
`
`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
`
`

`
`Amendment dated July 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Preliminary
`Action dated April 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Final Office
`Office Actiondated January 8, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Response to
`dated July 8, 1997;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Office Action
`Claims, May 15, 1996;
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History,Original
`dated July 6, 1998 at 1-5.
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Amendment
`dated January 8, 1998 at 1-5, 7-8.
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Amendment
`
`4, 5, 6.
`4:39-55; 5:24-28; 6:10-28;8:2-16;Claims 1, 3,
`3:64-4:11; 4:22-37; 4:65-5:1; 4:14-17; 4:18-20,
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent at 2:63-3:19, 3:42-49;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`(3rd ed. 1996).
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks
`
`yering/ISO.htm.
`http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/peb/cs637/la
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowability.
`Office Action; September 29, 1998, Notice of
`Office Action; September 2, 1998, Response to
`Preliminary Amendment; August 6, 1998,
`Prosecution Application Request and
`Office Action; July 6, 1998, Continued
`Response to Office Action; April 6, 1998, Final
`8, 1997, Office Action; January 7, 1998,
`See, e.g., May 15, 1996, Original Claims; July
`Prosecution History
`
`4:45-50; 1:30-52; 2:26-29; 3:64-4:64; 6:10-18.
`See, e.g., claims 3, 4; Figs. 2, 3, 4; 4:12-20;
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`address specified in the message
`blocked based on a port number or network
`message should be unconditionally allowed or
`filters specifying whether transmission of the
`Proposed Construction
`
`seven-level ISO protocol model”
`the presentation and application levels of the
`transmission immediately and operate between
`“filters specifying whether to allow or block a
`Proposed Construction
`
`1, 15, 23
`
`immediate action”
`“filters specifying
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`’033 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 5,884,033
`
`I.
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page1 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 6
`
`

`
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Office Action
`Claims, May 15, 1996;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Original
`dated July 6, 1998 at 1-5.
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Amendment
`dated January 8, 1998 at 1-5, 7-8.
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Amendment
`
`16;Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6.
`4:22-37; 4:65-5:1; 5:8-15; 5:24-28; 6:10-28;8:2-
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent at 3:42-49; 3:64-4:11;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`number or network address
`information in the message other than a port
`message should be allowed or blocked based on
`filters specifying whether transmission of the
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Charles D. Knutson.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowance dated September 29, 1998.
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Notice of
`Office Action dated September 2, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Response to
`dated August 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Office Action
`
`Office Action; September 2, 1998, Response to
`Preliminary Amendment; August 6, 1998,
`Prosecution Application Request and
`Office Action; July 6, 1998, Continued
`Response to Office Action; April 6, 1998, Final
`8, 1997, Office Action; January 7, 1998,
`See, e.g., May 15, 1996, Original Claims; July
`Prosecution History
`
`2:26-29; 4:12-21, 37-54; 4:19-51; 6:43-7:13.
`4; 4:65-5:1; 5:8-19; 6:19-27; 6:19-42; 1:30-52;
`See, e.g., Claims 5-8, 10, 13, 14, 19; Figs. 2, 3,
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`seven-level ISO protocol model”
`the presentation and application levels of the
`transmission conditionally and operate between
`“filters specifying whether to allow or block a
`Proposed Construction
`Almeroth.
`Expert testimony of Tim Williams or Kevin
`
`1993).
`The Open Systems Networking Standard (1 ed.
`Computer Technology Research Corp., OSI,
`
`Network Management (1993).
`Motorola Codex, The Basics Book of OSI and
`
`1, 15, 23
`
`deferred action”
`“filters specifying
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`’033 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page2 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 7
`
`

`
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent at 3:42-49; 3:64-4:11;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`with the message”
`“information arranged asa tableto be compared
`Proposed Construction
`
`Expert testimony of Charles D. Knutson.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowance dated September 29, 1998.
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Notice of
`Office Action dated September 2, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Response to
`dated August 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Office Action
`Amendment dated July 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Preliminary
`Action dated April 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Final Office
`Office Actiondated January 8, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Response to
`dated July 8, 1997;
`
`See, e.g., Claims 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19; Figs.
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`easily understood by the jury.
`and ordinary meaning of this phrase can be
`No construction is necessary because the plain
`Proposed Construction
`Almeroth.
`Expert testimony of Tim Williams or Kevin
`
`1993).
`The Open Systems Networking Standard (1 ed.
`Computer Technology Research Corp., OSI,
`
`Network Management (1993).
`Motorola Codex, The Basics Book of OSI and
`
`(3rd ed. 1996).
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks
`
`Collegiate Dictionary 302 (10th ed. 1995).
`Definition of “defer,” Merriam-Webster’s
`
`yering/ISO.htm.
`http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/peb/cs637/la
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowability.
`Office Action; September 29, 1998, Notice of
`
`1, 15, 23
`
`of filters”
`comprising a table
`filtering information
`“a database of
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`’033 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page3 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Allowance dated September 29, 1998.
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Notice of
`Office Action dated September 2, 1998;
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Response to
`dated August 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Office Action
`Amendment dated July 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Preliminary
`Action dated April 6, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Final Office
`Office Actiondated January 8, 1998;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History, Response to
`dated July 8, 1997;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Office Action
`Claims, May 15, 1996;
`See, e.g.,’033 Patent File History,Original
`dated July 6, 1998 at 1-5.
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Amendment
`dated January 8, 1998 at 1-5, 7-8.
`See, e.g., ’033 Patent File History, Amendment
`
`4:22-37; 8:2-16.
`
`Dictionary(1991).
`Definition of “database,” Microsoft Computer
`
`1993).
`Heritage College Dictionary 353 (3rd ed.
`Definition of “database,” The American
`
`Collegiate Dictionary 293 (10th ed. 1995).
`Definition of “database,” Merriam-Webster’s
`
`1083 (6th ed. 1996).
`Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
`Definition of “table,” IEEE Standard
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowability.
`Office Action; September 29, 1998, Notice of
`Office Action; September 2, 1998, Response to
`Preliminary Amendment; August 6, 1998,
`Prosecution Application Request and
`Office Action; July 6, 1998, Continued
`Response to Office Action; April 6, 1998, Final
`8, 1997, Office Action; January 7, 1998,
`See, e.g., May 15, 1996, Original Claims; July
`Prosecution History
`
`16.
`4:55; 5:30-51; 5:66-6:9; 5:60-7:8; 7:16-67; 8:1-
`1, 2; 3:64-66; 1:30-64; 2:12-20; 3:42-49; 3:64-
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`’033 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page4 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 9
`
`

`
`System, Prentice Hall, NJ (1989) at 15.
`Oliver Jones, Introduction to the X Windows
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowance,dated May 30, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Notice of
`dated May 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment,
`dated February 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Office Action,
`dated June 28, 1994.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Original Claims,
`dated May 9, 1996 at 7.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment
`
`3:19-27; 5:16-27; 9:33-53; Fig. 1.
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at 1:22-31; 2:48-51;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`of Networking11 (1 ed. 1994).
`Definition of “application,” Novell’s Dictionary
`
`Computing 27, 28, 535 (10th ed. 1993).
`program,” and “program,” IBM Dictionary of
`Definitions of “application,” “application
`
`Terms 117 (5th ed. 1994).
`Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Definition of “application program,” McGraw-
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`9:10-53.
`48-53; 2:13-24, 48-53, 54-67; 3:1-27; 5:12-27;
`See, e.g.,Figs. 1, 2; Abstract; 1:5-10, 22-38,
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`graphical objects”
`responsible for changing attributes of
`“program, separate from a display manager,
`Proposed Construction
`
`can be easily understood by the jury.
`plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase
`No construction is necessary because the
`Proposed Construction
`
`1
`
`program”
`“application
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 5,566,287
`
`II.
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page5 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 10
`
`

`
`2:48-51; 3:19-27; 5:16-30; 9:33-53; Fig. 1.
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at Abstract; 2:13-24;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“instruction to initiate screen redraw”
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Brad Myers
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowance,dated May 30, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Notice of
`dated May 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment,
`dated February 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Office Action,
`dated June 28, 1994.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Original Claims,
`
`3:19-27; 5:16-27; 9:33-53; Fig. 1.
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at Abstract; 2:48-51;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`47; 2:13-29, 41-43, 48-53; 3:19-39, 47-61;
`See, e.g.,Claim 16; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Abstract; 1:22-
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`objects on the display device”
`“a request to redraw one or more graphic
`Proposed Construction
`
`Expert testimony of Ben Bederson
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`4:20-27; 6:13-23; 9:10-32.
`47; 2:13-29, 41-43, 48-53; 3:19-39, 47-61;
`See, e.g., Claims 5, 7;Fig. 1; Abstract; 1:22-
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`1, 16
`
`request”
`“image update
`
`object has changed”
`“notification that an attribute of a graphical
`Proposed Construction
`
`objects on the display device”
`“a request to draw one or more graphic
`Proposed Construction
`
`1, 5, 7
`
`request”
`“drawing
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page6 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 11
`
`

`
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment,
`dated February 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Office Action,
`dated June 28, 1994.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Original Claims,
`dated May 9, 1996 at 1-2, 6.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment,
`
`3:47-61; 5:27-33; Fig. 1.
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at Abstract; 3:33-39;;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`requiring update”
`“new data identifying an object or region
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Brad Myers
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Allowance,dated May 30, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Notice of
`dated May 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment,
`dated February 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Office Action,
`dated June 28, 1994.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Original Claims,
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`9:10-32.
`5:27-34, 48-61; 6:51-67; 7:1-8:14; 8:44-59;
`4(a)-4(c), 5(b); Abstract; 2:13-19; 3:28-5:19;
`See, e.g.,Claims 2-10, 12, 14; Figs. 1, 2, 3,
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`can be easily understood by the jury.
`plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase
`No construction is necessary because the
`Proposed Construction
`
`Expert testimony of Ben Bederson
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`5:20-47; 6:13-51, 62-67; 7:1-9:32.
`
`1
`
`drawing area”
`representing the
`“a new entry
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page7 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 12
`
`

`
`Allowance,dated May 30, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Notice of
`dated May 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Amendment,
`dated February 9, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Office Action,
`dated June 28, 1994.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Original Claims,
`
`7:22-38.
`6:17-23; 6:62-7:6; 6:23-37; 6:38-50; 7:7-17;
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at Abstract; 5:20-47;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`redraw itself”
`entry to call low level graphic routines to
`drawingarea represented by the retrieved
`“commanding every object that overlaps the
`Proposed Construction
`
`Allowance,dated May 30, 1996.
`See, e.g., ’287 File History, Notice of
`dated May 9, 1996.
`
`1994).
`of Scientific and Technical Terms 1373 (5th ed.
`Definition of “object,” McGraw-Hill Dictionary
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`39, 47-61; 5:20-47; 6:13-51, 62-67; 7:1-9:32.
`Abstract; 1:22-47; 2:13-29, 41-43, 48-53; 3:19-
`See, e.g., Claim 11, 12, 14, 16; Figs. 1, 2, 3;
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`can be easily understood by the jury.
`plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase
`No construction is necessary because the
`Proposed Construction
`Computing240 (10th ed. 1993).
`Definition of “entry,” IBM Dictionary of
`
`1994).
`of Scientific and Technical Terms 125 (5th ed.
`Definition of “area,” McGraw-Hill Dictionary
`Extrinsic Support
`
`1
`
`entry”
`the retrieved
`represented by
`the drawing area
`object lies within
`the graphic
`any portion of
`be redrawn if
`graphic objects
`respective
`“requesting that
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page8 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 13
`
`

`
`Expert testimony of Brad Myers
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at Claims 1, 16.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Indefinite
`Proposed Construction
`
`Expert testimony of Brad Myers
`
`System, Prentice Hall, NJ (1989) at 145.
`Oliver Jones, Introduction to the X Windows
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Definition of “update,” IBM Dictionary of
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`6:13-51, 62-67; 7:1-9:32.
`29, 41-43, 48-53; 3:19-39, 47-61; 5:20-47;
`See, e.g.,Figs. 1, 2, 3; Abstract; 1:22-47; 2:13-
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`updating the complete image”
`construction is required: “request for
`To the extent the Court determines
`
`can be easily understood by the jury.
`plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase
`No construction is necessary because the
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Ben Bederson
`
`Networking 207 (1 ed. 1994).
`Definition of “object,” Novell’s Dictionary of
`
`Computing 471 (10th ed. 1994).
`Definition of “object,” IBM Dictionary of
`
`16
`
`complete image”
`update the
`“request for
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page9 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 14
`
`

`
`Expert testimony of Brad Myers
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’287 Patent at Claims 1, 16.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Indefinite
`Proposed Construction
`
`Computing721(10th ed. 1994).
`Definition of “update,” IBM Dictionary of
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Notice of Allowability.
`Response to Office Action; May 30, 1996,
`February 9, 1996, Office Action; May 9, 1996,
`See, e.g.,June 28, 1994, Original Claims;
`Prosecution History
`
`5:20-47; 6:13-51, 62-67; 7:1-9:32.
`47; 2:13-29, 41-43, 48-53; 3:19-39, 47-61;
`See, e.g.,Claim 1; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Abstract; 1:22-
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`an image update request”
`construction is required: “step of receiving
`To the extent the Court determines
`
`can be easily understood by the jury.
`plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase
`No construction is necessary because the
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Ben Bederson
`
`College Dictionary 1160, 1482 (3rd ed. 1993).
`Definition of “request,” The American Heritage
`
`Computing721(10th ed. 1994).
`
`16
`
`request”
`a screen update
`“step of receiving
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page10 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 15
`
`

`
`(1997).
`of Computer Science and Technology at 27-64
`Allen Kent & James G. Williams, Encyclopedia
`
`Video Technology at 165-93 (3rd ed. 2001).
`Eugene Trundle, Newnes Guide to Television &
`
`52, 183-210, 239-46, 269-84 (1999).
`Digital Set-Top Boxes and Interactive TV at 1-
`Gerard O’Driscoll, The Essential Guide to
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’229 Patent at 6:42-47.
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`signals”
`“device that decodes and tunes television
`Proposed Construction
`
`Om Srivastava, 2001, e.g., pp. 104-05, 383.
`Interactive TV Technology and Markets, Hari
`
`Michael D. Scott.
`Technology Law Desk Reference, 2002 Edition,
`Definition of “set-top box,” Internet and
`Extrinsic Support
`
`4:26-49; 5:42-44; 6:42-52; 7:59-8:4.
`Figs. 1-3; 1:13-18; 2:22-27; 3:35-43; 3:44-49;
`See e.g., Claims 6, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27;
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`presentation on a display”
`and outputs audio and video signals for
`“a device that receives a programming signal
`Proposed Construction
`
`27
`20, 21,
`16, 18,
`6, 11, 14,
`
`“set-top box”
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Claim
`
`’229 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,900,229
`
`III.
`
`Expert testimony of Ben Bederson
`
`College Dictionary 1160, 1482 (3rd ed. 1993).
`Definition of “request,” The American Heritage
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`
`Claim(s)OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Patent
`Claim Term ’287
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page11 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 16
`
`

`
`Systems at 769 (2nd ed. 1990).
`Harvey M. Deitel, An Introduction to Operating
`
`22, 64, 281-82 (2nd ed. 1991).
`Vol. I: Principles, Protocols, and Architecture at
`Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP
`
`ed. 2001).
`Internets with Internet Applications at 125 (3rd
`Douglas E. Comer, Computer Networks and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`35, 6:33-52, Fig. 1.
`See, e.g., ’229 Patent at 1:30-42, 2:44-47, 4:26-
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`network destinations simultaneously”
`“station configured to deliver programming to all
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Charles D. Knutson.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,345,389 (Dureau) at 6:18-25.
`
`Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1997, at 38.
`Frank Vizard, Web TV Gets More Muscle,
`
`Hardware/Software Co-Design at 57-136 (1998).
`Joris van den Hurk & Jochen Jess, System Level
`
`Multimedia and Interactive Digital TV:
`
`347.
`Om Srivastava, 2001, e.g., pp. 1-12, 113-16,
`Interactive TV Technology and Markets, Hari
`
`American Heritage College Dictionary, 2002.
`Definitions of “broadcast” and “station,”
`Extrinsic Support
`
`5:23-35; 6:33-41; 6:42-64; 7:43-8:4; 8:5-15.
`3:44-46; 3:53-59; 4:4-25; 4:26-4:49; 4:62-5:14;
`See, e.g., Claims 11, 14, 18; Figs. 1, 3; 2:44-56;
`Specification
`Supporting Evidence
`
`those devices”
`multiple devices and to receive signals from
`“a facility equipped both to convey signals to
`Proposed Construction
`
`Almeroth.
`Expert testimony of Tim Williams or Kevin
`
`pp. x-xv, 53-74, 96-133, 215.
`Convergence, Margherita Pagani, 2003, e.g.,
`Managing the Opportunities Created by Digital
`Multimedia and Interactive Digital TV:
`
`18
`11, 14,
`
`station”
`“broadcast
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Claim
`
`’229 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page12 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 17
`
`

`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`
`and Technology (2000) at 54.
`Dictionary of Computer Science, Engineering,
`
`Technology (1999) at 148.
`Chambers Dictionary of Science and
`
`7-15, 367-74 (3rd ed. 1996).
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks at
`
`Communications at 8, 229, 531 (3rd ed. 1991).
`William Stallings, Data and Computer
`
`147-58 (2000).
`Jochen H. Schiller, Mobile Communications at
`
`493 (1996).
`Computer Networks: A Systems Approach at
`(2003).Larry L. Peterson & Bruce S. Davie,
`Sockets: Practical Guide for Programmers at 2-3
`David Makofske & Kevin Almeroth, Multicast
`
`Protocol Design at 363 (1998).
`Mohamed G. Gouda, Elements of Network
`
`Programmers at 77 (2001).
`TCP/IP Sockets in C Practical Guide for
`Michael J. Donahoo & Kenneth L. Calvert,
`
`Almeroth.
`Expert testimony of Tim Williams or Kevin
`
`pp. x-xv, 53-74, 96-133, 205, 213.
`Convergence, Margherita Pagani, 2003, e.g.,
`Managing the Opportunities Created by Digital
`
`Supporting Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Supporting Evidence
`OpenTVProposed Construction and
`
`Claim
`
`’229 Patent
`Claim Term for
`
`Case3:14-cv-01622-JST Document95-1 Filed12/19/14 Page13 of 27
`
`Apple 1018 - Page 18
`
`

`
`Action at 2-3, 6-8;
`Final Rejection at 2-4, 6; Sep. 9, 2004 Office
`June 15, 2005 at 2, 4, 6, 8-13; June 15, 2005
`Aug. 1, 2005 Response to Final Office Action of
`Office Action of November 16, 2005 at 8-11;
`Office Action at 2-8; Feb. 21, 2006 Response to
`Action of May 9, 2006, at 8-10; May 3, 2006
`10, 12; Aug. 9, 2006 Response to Final Office
`4, 6-7, 9-10; Dec. 19, 2006 Office Action at 2-
`March 22, 2007 Response to Office Action at 2,
`May 17, 2007 Final Office Action at 3-5, 7-13;
`4;
`2007 Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review at 1-
`March 6, 2008 Appeal Brief at 5-12; Aug. 24,
`See, e.g., ’229 Patent File History, including:
`
`Figs. 4 and 5.
`61; 7:18-53; 8:1-34, 9:25-67, 10:61-67, 11:1-67,
`See, e.g., ’229 Patent at 2:1-10, 2:59-3:2, 6:42-
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Indefinite
`Proposed Construction
`Expert testimony of Charles D. Knutson.
`
`Technical Terms (6th ed. 2003) at 286-87.
`Mc