Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 1845
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`(lead case)
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-912- JRG-RSP
`(consolidated)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
`S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
`S.A.R.L.,
`
`Case No. 6:14-cv-751-JRG-JDL
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF – GROUP 3 PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Google_LG Exhibit 1011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 1846
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Page No.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .........................................................................................................1 
`
`A. 
`
`Means-Plus-Function Elements ...............................................................................2 
`
`B.  When a Preamble Is Considered Limiting ...............................................................2 
`
`C. 
`
`Indefiniteness ...........................................................................................................3 
`
`III. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,907,823 (’823) ..................................................................................3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`Background of Technology and Invention ..............................................................3 
`
`’823 Patent: Claim 20 – means-plus-function terms (Terms
`1-4) ...........................................................................................................................4 
`
`’823 Patent: Claim 25 – means-plus-function terms (Terms
`5-7) ...........................................................................................................................9 
`
`’823 Patent: Claim 1 – Preamble (Term 8) ..............................................................9 
`
`’823 Patent: Claim 21 – “signal power measuring means” /
`“the signal power measuring means” (Terms 9 & 10) ...........................................10 
`
`’823 Patent: Claim 4 – “the sound pressure” (Term 11) ........................................11 
`
`’823 Patent: Claims 4 & 5 – re: “third measured value p3” ..................................12 
`
`IV. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,072,667 (’667) ................................................................................13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Background of Technology and Invention ............................................................13 
`
`’667 Patent: Claims 12-14 – “[the] message” (Term 12) ......................................13 
`
`’667 Patent: Claim 13 – “provision of the location finding
`information” (Term 13) ..........................................................................................15 
`
`’667 Patent: Claims 12 & 13 – “location finding information
`based on the cell occupied by at least one mobile station”
`(Term 14) ...............................................................................................................17 
`
`E. 
`
`’667 Patent: Claims 12 & 13 – Preambles (Term 15) ............................................17 
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 1847
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`’667 Patent: Claims 12 & 13 – “location message server”
`(Term 16) ...............................................................................................................19 
`
`’667 Patent: Claims 12-15 – “mobile station” (Term 17) ......................................19 
`
`’667 Patent: Claims 13 & 15 – “circuitry operable” terms
`(Terms 18-20) ........................................................................................................19 
`
`V. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,434,020 (’020) & 8,713,476 (’476) ..............................................21 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Background of Technology and Invention ............................................................21 
`
`’020/’476 Patents: ’020: claims 1, 16; ’476: claims 1, 11, 20
`– “additionally being configured to display on the screen an
`application summary window that can be reached directly
`from the main menu / additionally being configured to
`display on the screen an application summary that can be
`reached directly from the menu” (Terms 21 & 22) ................................................22 
`
`VI. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,498,671 (’671) ................................................................................24 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Background of Technology and Invention ............................................................24 
`
`’671 Patent: Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16 – “idle screen”
`(Term 23) ...............................................................................................................25 
`
`’671 Patent: Claim 9 – “priority setting” (Term 24) ..............................................26 
`
`VII.  U.S. PATENT NO. 7,693,552 (’552) ................................................................................26 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Background of Technology and Invention ............................................................26 
`
`’552 Patent: Claim 21 – “processor means for controlling a
`display device to display thereon one or more ideogrammatic
`representations of a phonetic input according to a language”
`(Term 25) ...............................................................................................................27 
`
`’552 Patent: Claim 21 – “selecting means for providing
`further information in a first language according to which the
`one or more ideogrammatic representations are each
`selectable by a user for incorporation into a text message”
`(Term 26) ...............................................................................................................28 
`
`D. 
`
`’552 Patent: Multiple claims – “further information” (Term
`27) ..........................................................................................................................28 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................29 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 1848
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No.
`
`
`CASES 
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 1
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-122, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24170 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26,
`2014) ................................................................................................................................. 23
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................. 3
`
`Argent v. U.S.,
`124 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................... 3, 10, 18, 19
`
`DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co.,
`No. 2:14-cv-199-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46177 (E.D. Tex.
`Apr. 8, 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 22
`
`E2E Processing, Inc. v. Cabela’s Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-36-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86060 (E.D. Tex.
`July 2, 2015)...................................................................................................................... 18
`
`EasyCare, Inc. v. Lander Indus.,
`No. 4:08-cv-665-TUC-CKJ (DTF), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130241
`(D. Ariz., Nov. 8, 2011) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................... 3, 11
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc.,
`741 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ............................................................................ 6, 9
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 1849
`
`Equistar Chems., LP v. Westlake Chem. Corp.,
`No. 6:14-cv-68, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80986 (E.D. Tex. June 23,
`2015) ........................................................................................................................... 10, 18
`
`e-Watch Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1061-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37216 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 25, 2015) .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Freeny v. Murphy USA Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-791-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6377 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`21, 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 10, 18
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 16
`
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co.,
`No. 2:14-cv-201-JRG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57810 (E.D. Tex.
`May 4, 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 20
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. AT&T Corp.,
`No. 1:13-cv-116-LY, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89293 (E.D. Tex. July
`8, 2015) ............................................................................................................................. 15
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 3, 16
`
`KEG Kanalreinigungstechnick GmbH v. Laimer,
`No. 1:11-cv-1948 (JEC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188220 (N.D. Ga.,
`Jan. 11, 2013) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Konami Corp. v. Roxor Games, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .............................................................................. 11
`
`L.C. Eldridge Sales Co. v. Azen Mfg. Pte,
`No. 6:11-cv-599, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73359 (E.D. Tex. May 23,
`2013) ................................................................................................................................. 16
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 2, 9
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 20
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................... 1
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 1850
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................... 20
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 23
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
`546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Mobile Telecomns. Techs, LLC v. LG Elecs. Mobilecomm USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-947-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62392 (E.D.
`Tex., May 12, 2015) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................ 3, 7, 11, 12
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Opti Inc. v. Silicon Integrated Sys. Corp., No. 2:10-cv-279-JRG, 2012 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 180834 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2012) ................................................................ 7
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. ITC,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................. passim
`
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. AAA Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1081, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51245 (E.D. Tex. Apr.
`18, 2015) ........................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Relume Corp. v. Dialight Corp.,
`63 F. Supp. 2d 788 (E.D. Mich. 1999) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Ring & Pinion Serv. Inc. v. ARB Corp.,
`743 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................. 8
`
`RMail Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:10‐cv‐258‐JRG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34912 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 11, 2013)............................................................................................................. 25, 26
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 1851
`
`S3 Inc. v. nVidia Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 20
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-11-JRG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54264 (E.D. Tex. Apr.
`27, 2015) ........................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91669 (E.D.
`Tex. July 16, 2015) ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`Stragent LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:11-cv-421 LED-JDL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128979 (E.D.
`Tex., Aug. 8, 2013) ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.,
`712 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ................................................................................ 8
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082 (Fed. Cir. June 16,
`2015) ............................................................................................................................. 2, 20
`
`STATUTES 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Mar. 2014) ..................................................................................... 12
`
`MPEP § 608.01(m) (9th ed., Mar. 2014) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 1852
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This brief provides support for Core Wireless’s claim constructions for six patents that
`
`have not been declared standard essential – patents that the parties have called “implementation
`
`patents” and that are now referred to as the Group 3 patents. Five of these patents are asserted
`
`against both LG and Apple. U.S. Patent No. 7,693,552, however, is asserted only against Apple.
`
`For each of the disputed terms the Court should adopt Core Wireless’s constructions
`
`because they are consistent with the intrinsic record. LG’s and Apple’s proposals, on the other
`
`hand, suffer from a host of problems. For example, in many instances, LG and Apple include
`
`unnecessary language or additional components in the corresponding structures that are not
`
`supported by the intrinsic record. Elsewhere, LG and Apple improperly import limitations from
`
`the specification, sometimes reading out the preferred embodiment. For these reasons, Core
`
`Wireless asks the Court to reject LG’s and Apple’s proposals and adopt Core Wireless’s
`
`constructions set forth in Appendix A.1
`II.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`The principles of claim construction are well established. Claim terms are to be given their
`
`“ordinary and customary meaning,” as determined by “a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.”2 When construing the claims, the Court first considers
`
`intrinsic evidence, including the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, and the
`
`prosecution history.3 As such, a claim construction that “excludes the preferred embodiment is
`
`rarely, if ever, correct.”4 Although these concepts allow the Court to construe claims with
`
`
`1 Appendix A sets forth all parties’ constructions with headings corresponding to the headings in this brief.
`Appendix A was written to be read in conjunction with this brief so that the Court would have in one place
`a summary of the parties’ various claim constructions while reading this brief. Additionally, Core Wireless
`understands that all parties have agreed that the term “first audio signal” used in asserted claims of the ’823
`patent should be construed as “audio signal from a far-end terminal.”1 Core Wireless respectfully requests
`the Court to adopt that construction. See No. 2:14-cv-911, Dkt. 74; No. 6:14-cv-751, Dkt. 66.
`2 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`3 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517
`U.S. 370 (1996); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315-17.
`4 Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal
`quotation omitted).
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 1853
`
`guidance from the patent specification,5 the Court should refrain from writing the specification
`
`into the claims.6 “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the
`
`specification – even if it is the only embodiment – into the claims absent a clear indication in the
`
`intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”7
`A. Means-Plus-Function Elements
`
`A claim limitation expressed in “means plus function” language is governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(6). However, “the failure to use the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, P 6 does
`
`not apply.”8 In evaluating whether or not § 112(6) applies, “[t]he standard is whether the words of
`
`the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite
`
`meaning as the name for structure.”9 If § 112(6) applies, the first step in construing a means-plus-
`
`function limitation is to identify the function of the limitation.10 The next step is to identify the
`
`corresponding structure in the written description necessary to perform that function.11 A structure
`
`disclosed in the specification must be clearly linked or associated to the function recited in the
`
`claim to be considered “corresponding.”12 “Features that do not perform the recited function do
`
`not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.”13 The court also
`
`may not import into the claim structures that are unnecessary to perform the claimed function.14
`B. When a Preamble Is Considered Limiting
`
`Whether a preamble is limiting is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the
`
`overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the
`
`
`5 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`6 Id. at 1322.
`7 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`8 Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`9 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082, *18-19 (Fed. Cir. June
`16, 2015).
`10 Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 546 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
`11 Id.
`12 Id.
`13 Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp., 325 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`14 Id.; see also Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he structure
`must be necessary to perform the claimed function.”)
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 1854
`
`prosecution history.”15 A claim’s preamble is limiting only if “it recites essential structure or
`
`steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.”16 Conversely, a claim’s
`
`preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim
`
`body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.”17
`C.
`Indefiniteness
`
`A party seeking to invalidate a patent must overcome a presumption that the patent is
`
`valid.18 The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in
`
`the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”19 While mixed method and
`
`apparatus claims may be invalid if there is ambiguity as to infringement,20 “apparatus claims are
`
`not necessarily indefinite for using functional language.”21 It is also a “well-settled rule that
`
`claims are not necessarily invalid for a lack of antecedent basis.”22 Even absent an explicit
`
`antecedent basis, a claim is not indefinite “[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably
`
`ascertainable by those skilled in the art.”23
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,907,823 (’823)
`
`A.
`
`Background of Technology and Invention
`
`The invention of the ’823 patent makes speech signals easier to hear and understand during
`
`a cellular phone call, particularly in noisy environments. Wireless voice communications are
`
`subject to interference and noise related to both the distant, transmitting end device (known as the
`
`
`15 Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572-73 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996).
`16 Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citation
`omitted).
`17 Id. (internal citation omitted).
`18 35 U.S.C. §282.
`19 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
`20 IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`21 Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc. [MEC], 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`2008).
`22 Id. at 1376.
`23 Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal
`quotation omitted).
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 1855
`
`“far end”), and the receiving end device (known as the “near end”). A transmitted far-end signal
`
`may carry interference and noise from various sources, e.g., external signals, the transmission
`
`channel, or acoustic noise at the far end. Acoustic noise in the environment of the near-end device
`
`may also affect the intelligibility of the received signal. Accordingly, noise reduction features are
`
`desirable in wireless communication devices.
`
`Systems and methods for noise reduction in wireless communication devices before the
`
`’823 patent’s inventions had several drawbacks making them unsuitable for implementation.24 For
`
`example, certain systems did not account for the acoustic environment at the near end. Other
`
`systems reduced noise at the near-end before transmission, but did not improve the reproduction
`
`quality of a received signal. Other systems disadvantageously over amplified noise on the received
`
`signal. As the patentee noted, even a combination of known systems resulted in implementations
`
`too complex and costly to effectively and efficiently produce in mobile devices.25
`
`The ’823 patent discloses an improvement over prior art that allows for clearer
`
`conversations suitable for incorporating into mobile devices. A key innovation of the ’823 patent
`
`is to adjust the level and/or dynamic range of a sought-after speech signal in the near-end device in
`
`response to inputs, including: 1) the level of the speech signal itself received from the far end, 2)
`
`the noise from the far-end device and 3) the noise in the environment of the near-end device.26
`
`The result is a cellular phone conversation with less noise and clearer speech.
`B.
`
`’823 Patent: Claim 20 – means-plus-function terms (Terms 1-4)27
`
`The parties agree that Terms 1-4 as shown in Appendix A, and which are recited in claim
`
`20, are means-plus-function (“MPF”) limitations requiring construction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(6). The parties’ primary disputes center on the corresponding structures identified for each of
`
`the terms. Core Wireless’s constructions include only structures actually performing the claimed
`
`function, while LG and Apple seek to incorporate extraneous structures and passages from the
`
`
`24 See Ex. 1 [’823 patent] at 1:38-2:30.
`25 Id. at 2:31-37.
`26 Id. at 2:46-50.
`27 All term numbers refer to the numbers and terms identified in Appendix A hereto.
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 1856
`
`specification.
`
`As preliminary matter, the parties are in near agreement concerning each of the functions
`
`identified in Terms 1-4 (and Terms 5-7 addressed next). However, LG and Apple seek to
`
`incorporate reference characters designated in parentheses in the claims. This is incorrect. The
`
`USPTO’s Manual for Patent Examining Procedure provides that the “use of reference characters is
`
`to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims.”28 Not only are the reference
`
`characters superfluous in a construction, they are likely to be confusing to a jury, who might
`
`mistakenly believe the reference characters to be limiting. Accordingly, the Court should adopt
`
`Core Wireless’s constructions comprising just the non-parenthetical functional claim language for
`
`each of Terms 1-7.
`
`For Terms 1 and 2, the parties agree that the power measuring unit 303 is a corresponding
`
`structure performing the claimed functions. Power measuring unit 303 is identified in the claim
`
`and shown in Figure 3.29 Yet, LG’s and Apple’s further proposals seek to import extraneous
`
`structures in an improper attempt to narrow the scope of claim 20.
`
`LG’s proposal seeks to include all of the “description in 4:50-5:9.”30 That description
`
`describes power measuring unit 303, but it also describes voice activity detector (VAD) unit 301
`
`and its output signals, and a weighting filter 302; neither of which are necessary to perform the
`
`claimed functions. The VAD is used only to determine when to measure the noise level.31 And,
`
`the function of the weighting filter 302 is performed “[p]rior to the power measurement.”32 Thus,
`
`neither structure performs the actual measuring functions that power measuring unit 303 does.
`
`
`28 MPEP § 608.01(m) (9th ed., Mar. 2014); see also EasyCare, Inc. v. Lander Indus., No. 4:08-cv-665-
`TUC-CKJ (DTF), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130241, *28 (D. Ariz., Nov. 8, 2011) (citing MPEP § 608.01(m));
`KEG Kanalreinigungstechnick GmbH v. Laimer, No. 1:11-cv-1948 (JEC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188220,
`*74-78 (N.D. Ga., Jan. 11, 2013) (confirming reference numbers do not limit claims); Relume Corp. v.
`Dialight Corp., 63 F. Supp. 2d 788, 796 n.6 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (refusing to limit claim based on reference
`numerals).
`29 Ex. 1 at 9:17-18 and Fig. 3.
`30 Appendix A at 1.
`31 See Ex. 1 at 4:62-66.
`32 Id. at 4:52-55; see also claim 21 at 9:29-30 (“weighting filter (302, 312), disposed prior to the signal
`power measuring means (303, 313)….”).
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 37
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 120 Filed 07/27/15 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 1857
`
`Apple’s proposals cite more specific portions of the specification as compared to LG, yet still
`
`suffer from the same fundamental error as LG’s proposals by seeking to include the weighting
`
`filter in the construction for Term 1 and both the weighting filter and VAD in the construction for
`
`Term 2.33 The Court should reject LG’s and Apple’s proposals because they include structures
`
`that do not actually perform the claimed functions.34
`Core Wireless’s construction for Term 3 also identifies the sole structure that actually
`
`performs the claimed function, “measuring the noise level in said space . . . .” As with Terms 1
`
`and 2, LG and Apple seek to import unnecessary structures. Here, power measuring unit 313,
`
`which like power measuring unit 303 is identified in claim 20, is the only structure that actually
`
`measures the noise level in a space. As described above, neither the weighting unit 312 nor VAD
`
`unit 311 actually performs the recited function.35 Indeed, the specification states that a
`
`combination of structures might be used for “producing measurement result” (not for the
`
`measurement itself) and further states definitively that “the measurement result [is] from the power
`
`measuring unit 313….”36 The Court should adopt Core Wireless’s construction for Term 3
`
`because it is correct in view of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`The parties’ differing constructions of Term 4 (“means for adjusting the level and/or
`
`dynamic range . . .”) demonstrate why both LG’s and Apple’s proposals for the claim 20 MPF
`
`terms overreach. LG first contends that no structure corresponding to the claimed function is
`
`disclosed, allegedly making Term 4 indefinite. Apple makes no such claim. LG is wrong for at
`
`
`33 See Appendix A at 1.
`34 See Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rejecting district court’s
`corresponding structure for MPF term where structure enabled but did not actually perform the claimed
`function); Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 783, 805 (E.D. Tex. 2010)
`(rejecting defendant’s attempt to “unnecessarily incorporate[] structure” unrelated to claimed function).
`35 Ex. 1 at 4:52-55; 4:62-66. In claim 25 concerning a “second audio signal” (as compared to a “first audio
`signal” at issue in claim 20), the inventors included identification of weig