Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 2422
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:11-CV-30-JRG-RSP
`
`COMCAST CORPORATION, CHARTER
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CEQUEL
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC dba
`SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS,
`CABLE ONE, INC., ALMEGA CABLE
`INC., LONGVIEW CABLE TELEVISION
`COMPANY, INC., AND KILGORE
`VIDEO, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 2423
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i(cid:3)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................iii(cid:3)
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1(cid:3)
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION................................................ 2(cid:3)
`
`DESCRIPTION OF AN ORDINARY PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART...................... 4(cid:3)
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE ........................ 4(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`Preamble Terms ...................................................................................................... 4(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`“a shared transmission means for signalling data and user information”
`(claim 1) / “a shared transmission means” (claim 6) .................................. 4(cid:3)
`
`“user information” (claim 1)....................................................................... 9(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`“Signalling Data Channel” and “Signalling Data” ............................................... 11(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`“signalling data channel” (claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) ............................... 11(cid:3)
`
`“signalling data” (claim 1)........................................................................ 12(cid:3)
`
`“Remote Terminals” (Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12).......................................... 14(cid:3)
`
`Channel Assignment Steps ................................................................................... 16(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`“pair of predetermined signalling data channels” (claims 1, 4 and 5)...... 16(cid:3)
`
`“predetermined signalling data channels of a plurality of signalling data
`channels” / “each of said plurality of remote terminals can be assigned to
`any pair of said plurality of signalling data channels” (claim 6) .............. 19(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`Monitoring and Reassignment of Channels Steps ................................................ 20(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`“monitoring the status of a plurality of the signalling data channels in use .
`. . for the usability of said signalling data channels” (claim 1(b))............ 20(cid:3)
`
`“determining whether one of said plurality of remote terminals needs to be
`reassigned” (claim 1(c))............................................................................ 21(cid:3)
`
`“is available” (claims 1 and 5).................................................................. 23(cid:3)
`
`“said predetermined signalling data channel” (claims 1 and 4) / “said
`predetermined channel” (claims 1 and 5) ................................................. 23(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 2424
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`“reassigning by said central controller said remote terminal to a different
`and suitable signalling data channel” (claim 1) ........................................ 26(cid:3)
`
`F.(cid:3)
`
`Polling and Resolving Contention (claims 6 and 7) ............................................. 27(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`“polling a plurality of said plurality of remote terminals simultaneously”
`(claim 6).................................................................................................... 27(cid:3)
`
`“resolving contention . . . by said central controller if there is a pending
`request from more than one remote terminal on the same signalling data
`channel” (claim 6)..................................................................................... 29(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 30(cid:3)
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 2425
`
`Cases(cid:3)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007).............................................. passim
`
`Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................... 6, 10
`
`Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 632 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................... passim
`
`Cies Bisker, LLC v. 3M Co.,
`No. 2:08-CV-115 (DF), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10055 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2009) ........ 26
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc., v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d, 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................ 22
`
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
`138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)........................................................................... 3
`
`Dayco Prods. v. Total Containment Inc., 258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................... 28
`
`Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................... 23, 27
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................... 24
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................ passim
`
`Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns., Inc.,
`No. 9:06-cv-259-RC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2008)............ 26, 30
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................ passim
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................... 14, 18
`
`In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................ 24
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................... 8
`
`Ishida Co. v. Taylor, 221 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 9
`
`JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................... passim
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 2426
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc.,
`324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 3, 8, 9
`
`M.I.T. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................... 7, 8
`
`Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Moody v. Aqua Leisure Int’l,
`Civil Action No. H-10-1961, 2012 WL 5335842 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2012) ................. 7, 8
`
`Paradox Sec. Sys. Ltd. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.,
` 710 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D. Tex. 2008)............................................................................. 24
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)............................................................... 2, 12, 17
`
`ResQNet.Com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................. 28
`
`Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods, Inc., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................... 21
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................... 6
`
`Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft,
`305 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 16
`
`Slimfold Manuf. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
` 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987)........................................................................................ 24
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................. passim
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................ 15
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................... passim
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................... 3, 19, 21
`
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 8
`
`Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ............................................... 10
`
`York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............. 28
`
`Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007).............................................................. 26
`
`Statutes(cid:3)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6................................................................................................................. 7, 8, 9
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 2427
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff C-Cation Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “C-Cation Tech”) hereby
`
`respectfully submits its Opening Claim Construction Brief in support of its proposed
`
`constructions for the claim terms at issue in U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 (“the ’883 patent”).1
`
`The ’883 patent relates to improving the quality of services delivered by cable service
`
`providers to subscribers. These services include telephone, television, and/or internet service.
`
`Figure 1 shows an example of a communication system. A central controller 10, located at the
`
`service provider, communicates with wide area networks 18 on one end, and to the service
`
`provider’s customers on the other. See Ex. 1. The subscriber obtains services through remote
`
`terminal 14, which can include a cable modem or set top box.
`
`In modern cable systems, the communication between a central controller and remote
`
`terminals is bidirectional and spans a wide spectrum of frequencies (channels). The ’883 patent
`
`discloses two types of channels—signalling data channels and traffic bearer channels. Signalling
`
`data channels carry both signalling and data traffic. Id. at col. 5:59-62. The patent discloses that
`
`the central controller may organize the remote terminals into smaller groups of terminals, with
`
`all terminals in a group being assigned to the same forward and reverse signalling data channels.
`
`See id. at col. 3:40-50. In certain circumstances, a specific remote terminal may have traffic
`
`demands that exceed the practicality of transmission over a channel that is shared with other
`
`remote terminals. In this unique circumstance, the ’883 patent describes setting up a dedicated
`
`traffic bearer channel for that specific remote terminal. See id. at 7:45-49.
`
`The ’883 patent discloses and claims a system for the intelligent and flexible
`
`
`1
`Exhibits are annexed hereto. A copy of the ’883 patent in searchable PDF form has been
`provided as Exhibit 1 in accordance with P.R. 4-5(a).
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 2428
`
`management of channels by the central controller to maximize quality of service and minimize
`
`communication errors. Claim 12 recites a method of: (1) assigning a forward and reverse
`
`signalling data channel to each remote terminal (see step (a)); and then (2) managing the
`
`channels by monitoring for various quality measures (step (b)), determining if there is a need to
`
`assign a remote terminal to a more suitable channel (steps (c) and (d)), and reassigning the
`
`remote terminals to the more suitable channel to achieve a better quality of service (step (e)).
`
`Claim 6 includes a channel assignment methodology similar to claim 1 (step (a) of claim
`
`6) with additional elements directed to resolving communication conflicts among remote
`
`terminals. In claim 6, the central controller solicits remote terminals to determine whether they
`
`have any pending requests (step (b)), and resolves any contention caused by two or more remote
`
`terminals attempting to transmit on the same channel simultaneously (step (c)).
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning” as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, when read in the
`
`context of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
` However, it is not necessary to construe every claim term.
`
`See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Computer, 669 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that the term
`
`“attached” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Secure
`
`Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2011); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim construction “is not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy”).
`
`
`2
`Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 12 are asserted in this litigation, of which claims 1 and 6 are
`independent claims.
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 2429
`
`There are only two exceptions to the general rule that words are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). It is not enough for a patentee to
`
`simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the
`
`patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. Id. Limitations should not be
`
`imported from the specification into the claims without a “clear intention to limit the claim
`
`scope.” Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011); i4i
`
`Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Kara Tech. Inc. v.
`
`Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“a patentee is entitled to the full scope
`
`of his claims and [a court] will not limit him to his preferred embodiment or import a limitation
`
`from the specification into the claims.”); see also Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800,
`
`807-09 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
` Means-plus-function limitations require special consideration. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶
`
`6, the court must first identify the claimed function, then the structure that is disclosed in the
`
`specification as corresponding to that function. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral,
`
`Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The corresponding structure “must not only perform
`
`the claimed function, but the specification must clearly associate the structure with performance
`
`of the function.” JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1330 n.1
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The identified structure must
`
`include all structure minimally necessary to carry out the claimed function. Cybor Corp. v. FAS
`
`Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1458 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
`
`3
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 2430
`
`C-Cation Tech’s proposed claim constructions are dictated by the claim language,
`
`specification and prosecution history of the patent-in-suit. By contrast, defendants seek claim
`
`constructions on an excessive number of terms and take positions that are at odds with the
`
`intrinsic evidence, improperly import limitations from the specification, and/or are contrary to
`
`the ordinary meanings of the identified terms.
`
`III. DESCRIPTION OF AN ORDINARY PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`In the present case, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s of science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`
`closely related field and two to three years of employment experience in telecommunications, or
`
`a closely related field.
`
`IV.
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE
`
`The parties agree upon the following proposed construction:
`
`Claims
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`6, 7 and 12
`
`polling
`
`soliciting
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties’ agreement is supported by the specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1, col. 3:55-58.
`
`The disputed terms of the ’883 patent are discussed below.
`
`A. Preamble Terms
`
`1. “a shared transmission means for signalling data and user information”
`(claim 1) / “a shared transmission means” (claim 6)
`
`Term
`
`C-Cation Tech’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`a shared
`transmission means
`for signalling data
`and user
`information
`
`Phrase should be given its ordinary
`meaning and does not require
`additional construction.
`
`To the extent construction is deemed
`necessary: a medium for transmitting
`signalling data and user information
`between a plurality of remote terminals
`
`If construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
`
`Function: carrying both signalling data
`and user information
`
`Structure: a physical medium or media
`having forward and reverse bandwidth
`separated into dedicated signalling
`
`4
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 2431
`
`data channels and dedicated user
`traffic channels as shown in Fig. 2
`
`If not construed under 35 U.S.C. §
`112(f): a physical medium or media
`having forward and reverse bandwidth
`separated into dedicated signalling
`data channels and dedicated user
`traffic channels
`
`Same proposed construction as “a
`shared transmission means for
`signalling data and user information”
`
`a shared
`transmission means
`
`and a central controller
`
`Phrase should not be construed under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6). If, however,
`construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`is deemed appropriate:
`
`Function: shared transmission of
`signalling data and user information
`
`Structure: includes: (1) airwaves; (2)
`coaxial cable; (3) fibre optic cable; or
`(4) wires
`Phrase should be given its ordinary
`meaning and does not require
`additional construction.
`
`To the extent construction is deemed
`necessary: a medium for transmitting
`communications between a plurality of
`remote terminals and a central
`controller
`
`Phrase should not be construed under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6). If, however,
`construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`is deemed appropriate:
`
`Function: shared transmission
`
`Structure: includes: (1) airwaves; (2)
`coaxial cable; (3) fibre optic cable; or
`(4) wires
`
`C-Cation Tech submits that the phrases “a shared transmission means for signalling data
`
`and user information” and “a shared transmission means” are not limitations and do not require
`
`construction. These phrases appear only in the preambles of claims 1 and 6, respectively. In
`
`each instance, the preamble, and particularly each of these phrases, simply describes a feature (a
`
`medium for transmission) that necessarily exists in any multiple access communication system,
`
`which is specifically the field of the ’883 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1, col. 1:5-12; col. 5:8-12. The
`
`preamble does not specify how the invention is to operate, and deletion of all or part of the
`
`preamble would not affect the steps of the claimed invention. Instead, it is the language of the
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 2432
`
`body of claims 1 and 6 that sets forth the steps of operation of the system. In such
`
`circumstances, the language of a preamble is not properly considered to be a claim limitation.
`
`See Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A preamble
`
`is not regarded as limiting, however, when the claim body describes a structurally complete
`
`invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the
`
`claimed invention.”) (internal quotations omitted); Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308
`
`F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the “shared transmission means” terms in particular do
`
`not set out any aspect of the invention, and therefore do not require construction. See Schumer,
`
`308 F.3d at 1310 (“It is well settled that if the body of the claim sets out the complete invention,
`
`and the preamble is not necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim, then the
`
`preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or
`
`explain a claim limitation.”) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`Should the Court determine that these terms are claim limitations, C-Cation Tech submits
`
`that they need not be construed as their ordinary meaning is clear to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-66. Indeed, these terms are easily
`
`understood in the context of this patent as simply the medium, such as cable, wires or airwaves,
`
`by which a terminal and a central controller communicate. See Ex. 1, col. 1:7-10, 1:39-49, 5:54-
`
`57. This is further supported by numerous publications from the same time period, which each
`
`refer to a shared transmission medium in similar context as the ’883 patent without explicitly
`
`describing the components that would comprise the medium.3 Construction of commonly
`
`
`3
`See, e.g., Ex. 2 (’366 patent), at abstract, 1:59-61, 6:7-20, 6:28-42, 6:48-8:27 (concerning
`intermixing circuit and packet data on a shared transmission medium); Ex. 3 (’413 patent),
`abstract, figs. 1-2, 1:23-36, 2:55-3:30, 3:45-55, 5:48-6:12, 6:26-7:21, 7:40-62 (concerning
`allocation of bandwidth over a shared transmission medium); Ex. 4 (’735 patent), figs. 2-4, 3:66-
`4:31, 9:3-5, 9:21-28 (referring to a plurality of stations that communicate on a shared broadcast-
`(continued…)
`
`6
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 2433
`
`understood terms such as the “shared transmission means” terms is not necessary. See, e.g.,
`
`Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1368; Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1207; U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568.
`
`Nevertheless, defendants assert that “a shared transmission means for signalling data and
`
`user information” and “a shared transmission means” require construction and should be
`
`construed as means-plus-function terms.4 However, inclusion of the word “means,” does not
`
`necessitate construction under § 112 ¶ 6 when the term connotes sufficient structure. See Micro
`
`Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Allen Eng’g Corp.
`
`v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The mere use of the word ‘means’
`
`after a limitation, without more, does not suffice to make that limitation a means-plus-function
`
`limitation.”). Indeed, “if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the
`
`pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if
`
`the term identifies the structures by their function,” application of 112 ¶ 6 may be avoided.
`
`M.I.T. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).
`
`As demonstrated by the extrinsic evidence referred to above (see supra, n. 3), it was well
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that each of these terms simply means a
`
`
`
`type transmission medium); Ex. 5 (’167 patent), abstract, fig. 1, 1:32-36, 1:59-2:2, 3:65-4:5, 7:3-
`12, 13:44-14:10, 29:32-30:5 (referring to a plurality of processors connected to a shared
`transmission medium); Ex. 6 (’577 patent), abstract, 1:55-64, 2:5-11, 2:55-64, 3:28-68, 5:18-68
`(describing a method for providing access by secondary stations to a shared transmission
`medium); Ex. 7 (’907 patent), abstract, 1:25-35, 1:50-56, 2:4-28, 2:43-3:37, 4:13-31, 6:24-40
`(describing an ATM network as a shared transmission medium).
`
`4
`Defendants request the Court to construe the instant terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f),
`which, under the America Invents Act (“AIA”) replaced 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. However, this
`amendment is applicable only to patents filed on or after September 16, 2012. See AIA, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29 § 118(e), 125 Stat. 297 (2011). In any event, the change to section 112 has no
`substantive effect. See Moody v. Aqua Leisure Int’l, Civil Action No. H-10-1961, 2012 WL
`5335842, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2012).
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 2434
`
`transmission medium commonly used in multiple access telecommunication systems. Indeed,
`
`reciting a “shared transmission means” in a telecommunications patent is similar to claiming a
`
`“circuit” in a patent in the field of electronics. Both connote sufficient structure and neither
`
`requires construction under § 112, ¶ 6. See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas
`
`Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e have concluded that a claimed ‘circuit,’
`
`coupled with a description of the circuit’s operation in the claims, connoted sufficiently definite
`
`structure to skilled artisans to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6.”) (citing M.I.T., 462 F.3d at
`
`1355-56); Moody, 2012 WL 5335842, at *10-12 (finding that the term “pump means”
`
`sufficiently described structure and that the term was not subject to § 112, ¶ 6).
`
`To the extent that the Court determines that the “shared transmission means” claim terms
`
`should be construed under § 112, ¶ 6, the Court should reject defendants’ proposed construction
`
`as it provides functional limitations that are not recited in the respective claims. Lockheed
`
`Martin Corp., 324 F.3d at 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (For means-plus-function elements, the court
`
`must first determine what the claimed function is and then “construe the meaning of the words
`
`used to describe the claimed function, using ordinary principles of claim construction.”); Wenger
`
`Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Under § 112, ¶ 6,
`
`a court may not import functional limitations that are not recited in the claim, or structural
`
`limitations from the written description that are unnecessary to perform the claimed function.”).
`
`For example, for the “a shared transmission means” term in claim 6, where the function is
`
`properly construed as “shared transmission,” defendants propose “carrying both signalling data
`
`and user information,” words that are not connected to “a shared transmission means” as recited.
`
`Indeed, “user information” does not appear anywhere in claim 6. Defendants’ proposed function
`
`should therefore be rejected as improperly adding limitations.
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 14 of 37 PageID #: 2435
`
`The defendants also failed to propose proper structure for the terms. The structure of the
`
`“shared transmission means” terms properly includes all of the structures disclosed in the patent
`
`specification for transmission on a shared communication network. Lockheed Martin, 324 F.3d
`
`at 1318 (A means-plus-function limitation “must be construed to cover corresponding structure,
`
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”); Ishida Co. v. Taylor,
`
`221 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The “proper application of § 112 ¶ 6 generally reads the
`
`claim element to embrace distinct and alternative described structures for performing the claimed
`
`function. Specifically, disclosed structure includes that which is described in a patent
`
`specification, including any alternative structures identified.”) (internal quotations omitted). The
`
`’883 patent explicitly discloses a “coaxial cable-TV network,” a “radiotelephony and local-area-
`
`network (CSMA/CD) environment,” a “CATV network,” including “splitters and taps
`
`connecting the branches that make up the network” and further describes that the “present
`
`invention is useful for interworking with a variety of different wide area networks.” See Ex. 1,
`
`col. 1:7-10, 1:39-49, 5:54-74. Further, “transmission medium” was understood by those of skill
`
`in the art to include, by way of example, “optical fiber, coaxial cable, and twisted-wire pairs.”
`
`See Ex. 8. Thus, the proper structure includes each communication network disclosed in the
`
`patent, and if the “shared transmission means” terms are construed under § 112 ¶ 6, C-Cation
`
`Tech’s “means-plus-function” construction provided in the above table should be adopted.
`
`2. “user information” (claim 1)
`
`C-Cation Tech’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Phrase should be given its ordinary meaning and
`does not require additional construction.
`
`To the extent construction is deemed necessary:
`information intended for a user or sent from a user
`
`information, distinct from the signalling data,
`transmitted to or from end users of the system;
`also called user data or user traffic
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 37
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 187 Filed 03/22/13 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: 2436
`
`The term “user information” appears only in the preamble of claim 1 as part of the phrase
`
`“a shared transmission means for signalling data and user information.” Thus, C-Cation Tech
`
`submits that “user information” is not a limitation for the same reasons as the “shared
`
`transmission means” terms. See supra, Section IV.A.2. Inclusion of “user information” does not
`
`specify how the invention is to operate and therefore is considered superfluous and is not a claim
`
`limitation. See Am. Med. Sys., 618 F.3d at 1358-59.
`
`To the extent “user information” is determined to be a limitation, it does not require
`
`construction because its meaning is clear both on its face and from the context of the
`
`specification and the claim language. See, e.g., Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1368; Finjan, 626 F.3d at
`
`1207; U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568. There is no technical or specialized meaning for this
`
`term. If construction is deemed necessary, the Court should reject defendants’ proposed
`
`construction, which neither clarifies nor explains the terms “user” or “information.” Indeed, in
`
`circular fashion, defendants’ construction uses the terms “user” and “information” to define
`
`“user information,” thereby highlighting the impropriety of the same. See U.S. Surgical, 103
`
`F.3d at 1566-1568 (affirming refusal to give jury instructions construing claim terms where
`
`proposed construction simply repeated words from claim); Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 712 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 549, 574 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (rejecting proposed constructions that “merely rearran