throbber
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`








`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-0911-JRG-RSP
`(lead)
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-0912-JRG-RSP
`(consolidated)
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE
`GROUP 3 PATENTS
`
` On September 3, 2015, the Court held a hearing to determine the construction of
`
`disputed terms in the five United States Patents: Patent Nos. 5,907,823 (“the ’823 Patent”),
`
`7,072,667 (“the ’667 Patent”), 8,434,020 (“the ’020 Patent”), 8,498,671 (“the ’671 Patent”), and
`
`8,713,476 (“the ’476 Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”). The Court, having
`
`considered the parties’ claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 120, 140 and 146)1 and their
`
`arguments at the hearing, issues this Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Group 3
`
`Patents construing the disputed terms.
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Core”) brings two actions against LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Defendants”). 2 The disputed
`
`
`1 Citations to docket numbers reference the docket numbers in Case No. 2:14-cv-0911.
`2 Originally four actions were consolidated for claim construction purposes. The other two actions were
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-751 and Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-752. The LG Defendants and Apple filed consolidated claim
`construction briefs. After the briefing, but prior to the claim construction hearing, the Apple actions were
`transferred out of this district.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
`S.A.R.L.,
`
`vs.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., AND LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 1 of 48
`
`

`
`terms in the two actions were grouped into three consolidated patent groupings for claim
`
`construction briefing and argument purposes. The patents in Group 3 are asserted by Core to not
`
`be standard-essential patents. This opinion and order relates to the Group 3 patents.
`
`
`
`The Asserted Patents relate to cellular communication systems. In general, the ’823
`
`Patent relates to techniques for reducing the effects of noise on the quality of an audio signal. For
`
`example, the ’823 Patent abstract recites:
`
`The invention relates to a method and a circuit arrangement for adjusting the level
`and/or dynamic range of an audio signal in a transmission system and particularly
`in a mobile station. According to the invention, the level of acoustic noise in the
`environment of a terminal (10, 12) and the level and noise level of a received
`signal are measured (123) and the level and/or dynamic range of the reproduced
`signal are adjusted (121, 122) according to the results from said measurements.
`The solution according to the invention helps reduce the effect of noise in the
`signal transmitted on the transmission channel (11) and of the acoustic noise in
`the environment of the terminal (12) on the intelligibility of the reproduced
`information.
`
`
`’823 Patent Abstract.
`
`In general, the ’667 Patent relates to a location finding technique that is part of the
`
`cellular network rather than requiring registration with a third party location service. For
`
`example, the ’667 Patent abstract recites:
`
`A cellular telecommunications network provides a location information service. A
`landmark location server (11) has an associated data store (12) of data concerning
`location information associated with individual cells of the network. The server
`(11) is responsive to a request for location information from a mobile station
`(MS1). The request is sent as a SMS through the network (PLMN1). The server
`(11) obtains location information from the data store (12) based on the cell (C1)
`occupied by MS1 or another mobile station (MS2). The network is configured to
`send the location information as a SMS to the mobile station (MS1) that requested
`the information, without having to pre-register the mobile station for the location
`information service.
`
`
`’667 Patent Abstract.
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 2 of 48
`
`

`
`In general, the ’020 Patent and its continuation ‘476 Patent relate to user interface
`
`techniques for accessing various functions of a mobile device application. An application
`
`summary window for an application may be selected which allows for selection of commonly
`
`used functions without the need for launching the application. For example, the ’020 Patent
`
`abstract recites:
`
`The present invention offers a snap-shot view which brings together, in one
`summary window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed
`stored data which itself can be reached directly from the main menu listing some
`or all applications. This yields many advantages in ease and speed of navigation,
`particularly on small screen devices.
`
`’020 Patent Abstract.
`
`In general, the ’671 Patent relates to techniques for utilizing a mobile device’s idle screen
`
`to display desired information. Displaying the information on the idle screen minimizes the need
`
`to engage in multiple navigation steps to obtain the desired information. For example, the ’671
`
`Patent abstract recites:
`
`The idle screen of a mobile telephone device is used to show updated information
`of a kind or from a source selected by a user (e.g. financial information, news,
`traffic etc.). Previously, the idle screen has been used to display the name of the
`network operator and alerting messages, such as ‘2 missed calls’. Placing
`information of interest to the user in the idle screen makes that information
`instantly accessible without the user having to navigate to the required function
`(e.g. a micro-browser) and select it.
`
`
`’671 Patent Abstract.
`
`
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`1. Claim Construction
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 3 of 48
`
`

`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start
`
`by considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
`
`term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Generally speaking, we
`
`indulge a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”)
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the ordinary meaning
`
`of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “The claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends
`
`in all cases with the actual words of the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be
`
`instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s
`
`meaning, because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1314. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s
`
`meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it
`
`is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 4 of 48
`
`

`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the
`
`court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and
`
`examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v.
`
`Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1323. “[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.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the
`
`PTO and the inventor understood the patent. Id. at 1317. However, “because the prosecution
`
`history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the
`
`final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less
`
`useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince
`
`Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution history may be “unhelpful as
`
`an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic
`
`record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 5 of 48
`
`

`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`2. Departing from the Ordinary Meaning
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule”3 that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary 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 the claim term
`
`either in the specification or during prosecution.” Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758
`
`F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d
`
`1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure
`
`from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for
`
`finding lexicography or disavowal are “exacting.” Id.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner,
`
`669 F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must
`
`appear “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Id.
`
`
`3 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the general rule,
`such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to cover the corresponding
`structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1367.
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 6 of 48
`
`

`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or
`
`restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”) “Where an applicant’s statements are
`
`amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.”
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`3. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`The parties’ disputed terms include alleged means-plus-function limitations. Where a
`
`claim limitation is expressed in “means-plus-function” language and does not recite definite
`
`structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Braun Med.,
`
`Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`mandates that “such a claim limitation ‘be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . .
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.’” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6). When
`
`faced with a means-plus-function limitation, courts “must turn to the written description of the
`
`patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the [limitation].” Id.
`
`Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple steps. “The first step . . . is
`
`a determination of the function of the means-plus-function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v.
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next step is
`
`to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
`
`Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the
`
`specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 7 of 48
`
`

`
`recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely
`
`whether a structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather whether the
`
`corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Id. The
`
`corresponding structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.”
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). However, § 112 does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written description
`
`beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains
`
`Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`For mean-plus-function limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose
`
`computer or microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification
`
`must include an algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`
`184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose
`
`computer but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed
`
`algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008).
`
`4. Claim Indefiniteness
`
`
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of
`
`claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A
`
`party challenging the definiteness of a claim must show it is invalid by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The definiteness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 8 of 48
`
`

`
`certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while
`recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. The standard we adopt
`accords with opinions of this Court stating that “the certainty which the law
`requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-
`matter.”
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129–30 (2014) (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties agreed to the following constructions prior to the oral hearing. Dkt. No. 162-1
`
`
`
`
`
`at 1.
`
`’823 Patent Term
`“first audio signal (s1a)” / “first input signal
`(s1a)”
`(claims 1-3, 16-17, 20-21)
`
`Agreed Upon Construction
`audio signal from a far-end terminal
`
`TERMS NOT BEFORE THE COURT
`
`After the September 3, 2015 hearing, Core provided an updated notice of asserted claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`As a result of such notice, certain terms that were subject to briefing and/or oral hearing are no
`
`longer contained in any asserted claim. The Group 3 terms that are no longer at issue are Term
`
`Numbers 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 28, 20, and 24.4 Dkt. No. 178 at 4. This Order does not address those
`
`terms.5
`
`
`
`I.
`
`‘823 Patent
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`1.
`
`Claim 20 Means Plus Function Terms (Terms 1-4)
`
`“means (303) for measuring the level of the first audio signal (sla) to obtain a first
`measured value (p1)” (Term 1)
`
`4 As used herein, the term numbers reference the term numbers as used in the parties’ claim construction
`briefing.
`5 The parties also no longer seek construction for Terms 16 and 17. Dkt. No. 140-9 at 6-9.
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 9 of 48
`
`

`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: measuring the level of the first
`audio signal (s1a) to obtain a first measured
`value (p1)
`
`
`
`Structure: weighting filter 302 as described
`in 4:50-58 and Figure 3; and power measuring
`unit 303 as described in 4:50-52, 4:59-64, and
`Figure 3
`
`
`
`Core Wireless’s Construction
`Function: measuring the level of the first
`audio signal to obtain a first measured value
`
`Structure: power measuring unit 303 as
`shown in Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents
`thereof
`
`“means (303) for measuring the noise level in the first audio signal (sla) to obtain a
`second measured value (p2)” (Term 2)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: measuring the noise level in the
`first audio signal (s1a) to obtain a second
`measured value (p2)
`
`Structure: weighting filter 302 as described
`in 4:50-58 and Figure 3; power measuring
`unit 303 as described in 4:50-52, 4:59-64, and
`Figure 3; and known voice activity detector
`(VAD) unit 301 as described in 4:50-52, 4:64-
`5:7, and Figure 3.
`
`Core Wireless’s Construction
`Function: measuring the noise level in the
`first audio signal to obtain a second measured
`value
`
`Structure: power measuring unit 303 as
`shown in Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents
`thereof
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“means (313) for measuring the noise level in said space to obtain a third measured
`value (p3)” (Term 3)
`
`
`Core Wireless’s Construction
`Function: measuring the noise level in said
`space to obtain a third measured value
`Structure: power measuring unit 313 as
`shown in Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents
`thereof
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: measuring the noise level in said
`space to obtain a third measured value (p3)
`
`Structure: weighting unit 312 as described in
`4:50-58, 5:10-13, 5:60-66, and Figure 3;
`power measuring unit 313 as described in
`4:50-52, 4:59-64, 5:10-13, 5:60-66, and
`Figure 3; and VAD unit 311 as described in
`4:63-5:7, 5:10-15, 5:60-6:3, and Figure 3
`
`“means (304, 306) for adjusting the level and/or dynamic range of the first audio
`signal (sla) in accordance with said first, second, and third measured values (p1, p2,
`p3)” (Term 4)
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 10 of 48
`
`

`
`Core Wireless’s Construction
`Function: adjusting the level and/or dynamic
`range of the first audio signal in accordance
`with said first, second and third measured
`values
`
`Structure: adjusting unit 304 and multiplier
`306 as shown in Fig. 3, and statutory
`equivalents thereof
`
`
`
`The parties dispute whether the reference numbers should be included in the functions.
`
`The parties also have conflicting positions for the structure for each term.
`
`Positions of the Parties
`
`
`
`As to the functions, Core objects to the inclusion of reference numbers. Core notes the
`
`MPEP states that the use of reference characters in a claim is considered to have no effect on the
`
`scope of the claim. Dkt. No. 120 at 5. Core cites to three district court cases that have rejected
`
`the use of reference characters to limit claims. Id. at 5, n.28. Core asserts that the reference
`
`numbers will confuse the jury into believing the reference numbers are limiting.
`
`Defendants assert that the functions of means-plus-function terms are the explicitly
`
`recited functions in the claims. Dkt. No. 140 at 3 (citing Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains
`
`Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Section 112(f) “does not permit limitation of a
`
`means-plus-function claim by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the
`
`claims)). Defendants assert the recited functions include the reference characters. Defendants
`
`assert that none of Core’s citations relate to the use of reference characters in a means-plus-
`
`function term, and that, in any case, the MPEP is not binding on Courts. Dkt. No. 140 at 3, n.5.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: adjusting the level and/or dynamic
`range of the first audio signal (s1a) in
`accordance with said first, second and third
`measured values (p1, p2, p3)
`
`
`
`Structure: adjusting unit 304 as described in
`5:2-9, 5:15-20, 5:36-48 (“a processor,” “a
`memory,” and “a parameter table,” “whereby
`the memory permanently stores the parameter
`table”), and Figure 3; delay unit 305 as
`described in 5:29-30 (“a shift register”) and
`Figure 3; and multiplier 306 as described in
`5:21-24 and Figure 3
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 11 of 48
`
`

`
`As to the Term 1 and 2 structures, Core objects to Defendants’ inclusion of the weighting
`
`filter 302. Core asserts that the weighting filter does not perform the claimed function. Core
`
`asserts that the weighting filter function is performed prior to power measurements (’823 Patent
`
`4:52-55, claim 21). Id. Core also objects to Defendants’ inclusion of the VAD in Term 2. Core
`
`asserts that the VAD is used to determine when to measure the noise level (’823 Patent 4:62-66).
`
`
`
`As to Term 3, Core asserts its construction includes the sole structure that performs the
`
`claimed function of measuring the noise level in a space (the power measuring unit 313). Core
`
`argues that neither the weighting unit 312 nor VAD unit 311 actually performs this function.
`
`Core notes the specification states that a combination of structures might be used for “producing
`
`measurement result” (’823 Patent 5:10-14) but not for the measurement itself. Core asserts that
`
`the specification further references the “the measurement result from the power measuring unit
`
`313.” ’823 Patent 6:1-3. Core asserts that Defendants acknowledge that the weighting filter (at
`
`issue in Terms 1-3) performs a weighting function separate from the “power measurement”
`
`function because Defendants’ brief stated that the weighting function “is done prior to the power
`
`measurement.” Dkt. No. 146 at 1, n.7 (quoting Dkt. No. 140 at 2).
`
`
`
`As to Term 4, Core objects to Defendants’ inclusion of delay unit 305. Core asserts that
`
`the adjusting unit 304 and the multiplier 306 are the only structures that perform the function of
`
`adjusting the level and/or dynamic range of a first audio signal. Dkt. No. 120 at 7 (citing ’823
`
`Patent 5:43-47). Core argues that the adjusting unit 304 chooses dynamic range and level
`
`adjusting parameters based on various near- and far-end measurements to determine a control
`
`value and that the multiplier 306 applies that control value to the signal. Id. (citing ’823 Patent
`
`5:15-19, 5:42-44, 5:20-24). Core asserts that the delay unit 305 only corrects the timing signal, it
`
`does not adjust it. Further, Core argues that the delay unit is optional, as the specification states
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 12 of 48
`
`

`
`that adjustment of the signal “can be performed” using the delay unit. Id. at 8 (citing ’823 Patent
`
`5:20-24). Core contends that if the delay unit 305 was mandatory, it would have been included in
`
`the claim itself.
`
`As to terms 1 and 2, Defendants assert that Figure 3 shows that the signal s1a is never fed
`
`directly into the power measuring unit 303 to perform the claimed function. Defendants assert
`
`that s1a is first fed into a weighting filter 302 to produce “frequency-weighted signal s1f” and
`
`that s1f is then fed into unit 302. Dkt. No. 140 at 1-2 (citing ’823 Patent Figure 3, 4:50-62).
`
`Defendants thus conclude that the weighting filter is required structure as it produces s1f, which
`
`is the signal that is measured. Defendants also assert that the power measuring unit performs a
`
`specific type of measurement on s1f: a “running average calculation;” therefore, this description
`
`must also be included in the construction. Id. at 2.
`
`As to Term 2, Defendants also assert that the voice activity detector (VAD) is integral to
`
`the measurement of p2, which can only take place when the VAD detects “silent moments, i.e.
`
`when the signal contains no speech.” ’823 Patent 4:63-64. Defendants assert the VAD is, thus,
`
`also required structure. Dkt. No. 140 at 2.
`
`As to Term 3, Defendants assert that the measurement result p3 is obtained as follows:
`
`“corresponding noise level power measurement is performed for the signal s2a picked up at the
`
`near-end, using the weighting unit 312, power measuring unit 313 and VAD 311, thereby
`
`producing measurement result p3.” ’823 Patent 5:10-13.
`
`Defendants assert that for each of Terms 1-3, the additional structure is required for
`
`performing the “measuring” functions as merely generic power measuring units are incapable of
`
`performing the functions alone. Dkt. No. 140 at 4. Defendants also assert that Core’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 13 of 48
`
`

`
`constructions would encompass any measuring circuits, beyond the specific measurement
`
`techniques disclosed. Id.
`
`As to Term 4, Defendants contend that “adjusting the level and/or dynamic range” is
`
`accomplished by “multiplying, in a multiplier 306 the delayed signal s1b by value d1 determined
`
`by the adjusting unit.” ’823 Patent 5:22-24. Defendants assert the delayed signal s1b is produced
`
`by the delay unit 305. Dkt. No. 140 at 2. Defendants argue that Core’s construction leaves out
`
`the required delay unit and claims any adjusting unit and multiplier. Id. at 4.
`
`Analysis
`
`
`
`Courts that have considered the implications of the use of reference numbers in a claim
`
`have followed the general rule that reference numbers do not limit the claims. Relume Corp. v.
`
`Dialight Corp. et al., 63 F. Supp. 2d 788, 796, n. 6 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (“A reference numeral is
`
`simply a convenient tool for directing the reader to an example of the element the patentee has
`
`claimed. Had the drafter wanted to incorporate the limitations of the preferred embodiment into
`
`the language of claim 1, he or she could have done so quite easily with words.”); EasyCare, Inc.
`
`v. Lander Industry, No. 4:08-cv-665, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130241, *28 (D. Ariz., Nov. 8,
`
`2011); KEG Kanalreinigigungstechnick GmbH v. Laimer, No. 1:11-cv-1948, 2013 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 188220, *74-78 (N.D. Ga., Jan. 11, 2013). The MPEP similarly states that reference
`
`numbers are “considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims:”
`
`Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description
`and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same
`element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however,
`should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other
`numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. The use of reference
`characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims.
`
` MPEP §608.01(m) (9th ed., March 2014). Though Defendants are correct that none of the prior
`
`courts have specifically addressed reference numbers within means-plus-function terms, the
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 14 of 48
`
`

`
`rationale for excluding such numbers is equally applicable to means-plus-function terms. The
`
`Court finds that the function does not include the reference numbers.6
`
`
`
` As to Terms 1 and 2, the stated functions are merely measuring the level of the audio
`
`signal to obtain a first/second measured value. Defendants would have the functions of Terms 1
`
`and 2 include weighting a signal and then measuring a weighted signal. The specification states
`
`that:
`
`Prior to power measurement, a frequency weighting with a weighting filter 302 is
`performed for the digital signal s1a received from the far-end to achieve even
`loudness perception at various frequencies.
`
`
`’823 Patent 4:52-55. The claimed function for Term 1 is merely related to measuring the level of
`
`the first audio signal to obtain a measured value. The weighting filter is described as adjusting
`
`the signal to achieve even loudness perception at various frequencies. This is a different function.
`
`The additional weighting filter structure Defendants add is, thus, directed toward an additional
`
`unclaimed function. The corresponding structure is limited to only the structure that is linked to
`
`the recited function. Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Rayteck Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003). Thus, the corresponding structure includes the power measuring unit 303 shown and
`
`described in the specification but does not include the weighting filter 302.
`
`
`
`As to Term 2, the weighting filter discussion above is equally applicable. However, the
`
`dispute regarding the voice activity detector (VAD) is different. The function for claim 2 is
`
`“measuring the noise level in the first audio signal to obtain a second measured value.” The
`
`technique to measure the noise level in the input signal is described in the patent as requiring
`
`more than just the power measuring unit 303. In particular, the ’823 Patent describes a structure
`
`
`6 The Court notes that even if the reference numbers were included, the analysis of the corresponding
`structure would remain the same as the Court’s conclusions are not based upon inclusion or exclusion of
`the reference numbers.
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2003
`Page 15 of 48
`
`

`
`that enables the circuitry to detect when the speech signal level is silent, thus the remaining
`
`signal being the noise:
`
`The received signal level p1 is measured continuously and the noise level p2 is
`measured at silent moments, i.e. when the signal contains no speech. Detection of
`such silent moments is performed with a known voice activity detector (VAD)
`unit 301. The output signal v1 of the VAD unit has two states depending on
`whether the input signal measured by the VAD unit is substantially speech or
`noise/interference. When the output signal v1 of the

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket