Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 2798
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`(lead case)
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-751-JRG-JDL
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., AND
`APPLE INC.—GROUP 3 PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1022 Page 00001
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 2799
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,907,823 .............................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Technology Summary ............................................................................................. 1
`
`Terms 1-4: Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 20) .............................................. 1
`
`Terms 5-7: Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 25) .............................................. 4
`
`Term 8: The Preamble of Claim 1 is Limiting. ....................................................... 5
`
`Terms 9 and 10: “signal power measuring means” / “the signal power
`measuring means” (Claim 21) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Term 11: “the sound pressure” (Claim 4) ............................................................... 7
`
`Term 28: “third measured value p3” (Claims 4 and 5) ........................................... 7
`
`III.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,027,667 .............................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Technology Summary ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Term 15: The Preambles of Claims 12 and 13 Are Limiting. ................................ 8
`
`Term 12 : “message” (Claims 12-15) ..................................................................... 9
`
`Term 14: “location finding information based on the cell occupied by at
`least one mobile station” (Claims 12 and 13) ....................................................... 11
`
`Term 13: “provision of the location finding information” (Claim 13) ................. 12
`
`Terms 18-20: “circuitry operable” (Claims 13 and 15) ........................................ 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Circuitry Operable” Is A Nonce Term. ................................................... 13
`
`CW Fails To Identify Any Structure In The Claim. ................................. 14
`
`The Specification Does Not Supply Sufficient Structure. ........................ 15
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,434,020 AND 8,713,476 ..............................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................................... 15
`
`Terms 21 and 22: “display on the screen an application summary window
`reached directly from the main menu” (’020 patent, Claims 1 and 16);
`
`- i -
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 2800
`Table of Contents
`
`“display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly
`from the menu” (’476 patent, Claims 1 and 20) ................................................... 17
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,498,671 ...........................................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................................... 23
`
`Term 23: “idle screen” (Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16) ........................................ 24
`
`Term 24: “priority setting” (Claim 9) ................................................................... 25
`
`VI.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,693,552 ...........................................................................................25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................................... 25
`
`Term 27: “further information” (Claims 5 and 21) ............................................... 26
`
`Term 25: “processor means for controlling a display device to display
`thereon one or more ideogrammatic representations of a phonetic onput
`according to a language” (Claim 21) .................................................................... 28
`
`Term 26: “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” (Claim 21) ............................................................................................. 30
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 2801
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
`No. 6:13-CV-638, 2015 WL 1737853 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2015) .......................................7, 27
`
`Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
`460 F. Supp. 2d 541 (D. Del. 2006) .........................................................................................18
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Beneficial Innovations v. Advance Publ’ns, Inc.
`No. 2:11-CV-229-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 47301 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014) ...................................5
`
`Bennett Marine, Inc. v. Lenco Marine, Inc.
`549 F. App’x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................4
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................13
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................................9
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................24
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................12
`
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent, Inc.
`No. 6:13-CV-880-JDL, 2015 WL 233433 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2015) .........................................5
`
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L v. Apple Inc.
`No. 6:12-CV-100, 2014 WL 3885935 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2014) ............................................28
`
`Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.
`224 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................25
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................................6
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc.
`741 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Tex. 2010) .......................................................................................4
`
`- ii -
`
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 2802
`
`
`Freeny v. Murphy USA Inc.
`No. 2:13-cv-791-RSP, 2015 WL 294102 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2015) .........................................6
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.
`754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................9
`
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc.
`236 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................4
`
`Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.
`417 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................29
`
`His Americas Found. LP v. DK Joint Venture 1
`No. 4:09CV611, 2010 WL 3632763 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2010) ............................................23
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................21
`
`Intel Corp. v. Via Techs., Inc.
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................15
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................28
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................13
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................22
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................................3, 14
`
`L.C. Eldridge Sales Co. v. Azen Mfg. Pte.
`No. 6:11-cv-599, 2013 WL 2285749 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2013) ............................................13
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.
`939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................................................................................................4
`
`Masimo Corp. v. Mallinckrodt Inc.
`18 F. App’x 852 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..............................................................................................7
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................18
`
`Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC
`671 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3
`
`- iii -
`
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 2803
`
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................3
`
`MIT v. Abacus Software
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................15
`
`Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Leap Wireless Int’l, Inc.
`No. 2:13-CV-885-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 2250056 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2015) ............................6
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................15
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................22
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................9
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.
`No. 2:04-CV-211, 2005 WL 6220101 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2005) ..........................................17
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd.
`457 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................11, 24
`
`S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................15
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................8
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................25
`
`Univ. of N.M. v. Knight
`321 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`Vantage Point Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`No. 2:13-CV-909-JRG, 2015 WL 575167 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2015) ......................................7
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
`-- F.3d --, 2015 WL 3687459 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2015) ....................................................13, 14
`
`- iv -
`
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 2804
`
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................28
`
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp.
`769 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 2805
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. (together, “LG”) hereby respond to Core Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l.’s (“CW”) Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief – Group 3 Patents, filed on July 27, 2015.
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,907,8231
`
`A.
`
`Technology Summary
`
`The ’823 patent describes a technique for adjusting the “level and/or dynamic range” of
`
`an audio signal to improve the sound quality of that signal. (’823 patent, Abstract.) The patent
`
`is directed to adjusting a received audio signal (e.g., a voice signal from the person to whom the
`
`user is speaking) based on three distinct measurements: (1) the level of the received signal itself
`
`(denoted “p1” in the patent); (2) the noise level of the received signal (“p2”); and (3) the level of
`
`ambient noise in the receiving phone’s environment (“p3”). (Id., 4:59-5:59, Fig. 3, claims 1-17,
`
`20-24.) The patent also discusses adjusting a transmitted signal based on (1) the level of the
`
`signal and (2) the level of ambient noise from the phone’s environment present in the signal. (Id.,
`
`5:60-6:9, Fig. 3, claims 18-19, 25-26.) The patent admits it was known to adjust the level and/or
`
`dynamic range of a received signal based on any of the three measurements described above
`
`separately, but claims it was inventive to use all three measurements together. (Id., 1:38-2:36.)
`
`B.
`
`Terms 1-4: Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 20)2
`
`Apple’s and LG’s constructions for Terms 1-4 correctly recite the function in each term
`
`verbatim and identify the specific structure in the specification linked to those functions:
`
`Term 1: Figure 3 shows that the signal s1a is never fed directly into the power measuring
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`unit 303 to perform the claimed function; rather, s1a is first fed into the weighting filter 302 to
`1 To streamline the issues in dispute, LG has adopted Apple’s constructions for this patent.
`2 Appendix A includes a summary of the disputed terms and the parties’ respective positions.
`All “Term__” numbers refer to the numbers and terms identified in Appendix A.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 2806
`
`
`produce “[f]requency-weighted signal s1f,” and signal s1f is then fed into unit 303, which in turn
`
`generates p1. (Id., Fig. 3, 4:50-62.) Thus, even though the weighting is done prior to the power
`
`measurement (Br. 5), the weighting filter described at 4:50-58 is required structure because it is
`
`necessary to produce the intermediate signal s1f that is measured. Moreover, the patent explains
`
`at 4:50-52 and 4:59-64 that the power measuring unit performs a specific type of measurement
`
`on s1f: a “running average calculation”; therefore, this description must also be included.
`
`Term 2: The claimed function of measuring p2 is generated using the same structure used to
`
`generate p1: weighting filter 302 and power measuring unit 303. (’823 patent, Fig. 3, 4:59-64).
`
`Thus, both are part of the required structure for Term 2 as well. Moreover, 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.” (Id., 4:62-64.) Thus,
`
`the VAD as described at 4:50-52, 4:64-5:7, and shown in Figure 3, is required structure too.
`
`Term 3: The patent explains that “[a] 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 unit 311, thereby producing measurement result p3.” (5:10-13.)
`
`Thus, these structures, as described in the specification and shown in Figure 3, are required.3
`
`Term 4: Adjusting the level and/or dynamic range is accomplished by “multiplying, in a
`
`multiplier 306 the delayed signal s1b [produced by delay unit 305] by value d1 determined by
`
`the adjusting unit [304].” (Id., 5:20-23.) Because the specification describes specific
`
`implementations of “adjusting unit,” “delay unit,” and “multiplier” (5:2-9, 5:15-24, 5:29-30,
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`3 CW’s attempted distinction between a “measurement” and a “measurement result” (Br. 6 n.36)
`is groundless—a measurement result necessarily involves a measurement. The claim language
`requires “measuring the noise level in said space to obtain a third measured value (p3).” (’823
`patent, 9:23-24 (emphasis added).) And as noted above, it is the combination of the three
`structures that produces this value.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 2807
`
`
`5:36-48), these structures, as described in the specification and shown in Figure 3, are required.
`
`See Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC, 671 F.3d 1291, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (an means-
`
`plus-function term “is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents,”
`
`even “[i]f a patentee chooses to disclose [only] a single embodiment”).4
`
`CW’s proposals, by contrast, improperly seek to stretch the asserted claims beyond the
`
`functions and structures disclosed in the specification.
`
`First, determining the function of a means-plus-function limitation requires identifying “the
`
`recited function within th[e] limitation.” Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d
`
`1311, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). The functions recited in Terms 1-4 include
`
`reference characters expressly recited in the claim that identify the specific signals to be
`
`measured (s1a) and/or values to be obtained from those measurements (p1, p2, p3). CW cannot
`
`read these terms out of the claimed functions. See 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 claim[.]”).5
`
`Second, CW ignores key structure corresponding to the claimed functions by trying to
`
`limit the structure of Terms 1 and 2 to “power measuring unit 303” and the structure of Term 3
`
`to “power measuring unit 313.” The “corresponding structure” for a means-plus-function term
`
`must include all structure that actually performs the recited function. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak,
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`4 CW’s argument that the structure should not be limited because the patent uses terms like “can
`be” and “for example” (Br. 8) ignores the rule that the construction of a means-plus-function
`term is limited to the disclosed embodiments. Mettler-Toledo, 671 F.3d at 1296. Moreover, the
`patent makes clear that the delay unit 305 must be used for the adjustment so that the adjustment
`can be “correctly timed.” (’823 patent, 5:20-23.)
`5 None of the authorities cited by CW in support of its argument that the MPEP controls here
`(Br. 5 n.28) address the issue of reference characters in a means-plus-function term, and none is
`binding on this Court in any event. See Univ. of N.M. v. Knight, 321 F.3d 1111, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
`2003) (“The MPEP sets forth PTO procedures; it is not a statement of law.”).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 2808
`
`
`Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001). And here, as noted above, the structures disclosed
`
`for performing the “measuring” functions of Terms 1-3 include more than just generic “power
`
`measuring units,” which are incapable of performing the claimed functions alone. See, e.g.,
`
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc., 236 F.3d 1363, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(“UID” was required structure for “license file means” with claimed “storing” function because
`
`“UID” was needed to compare license files, and because embodiments and drawings in patent
`
`both relied on presence of “UID”).6 Moreover, CW’s proposals stretch the claims beyond the
`
`specific measurement techniques in the specification to cover any structure capable of measuring
`
`power. This is improper. See, e.g., Bennett Marine, Inc. v. Lenco Marine, Inc., 549 F. App’x
`
`947, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (limiting structure for means-plus-function term to “specific circuit
`
`shown in figure 2” rather than to “the generic circuit shown in figure 1, i.e., any circuit fulfilling
`
`the required function”).
`
`For similar reasons, CW’s proposal for Term 4 is incorrect because it leaves out the
`
`required delay unit and seeks to claim any “adjusting unit” and “multiplier”—instead of just the
`
`specific structures in the specification, as captured by Apple’s and LG’s construction.
`
`C.
`
`Terms 5-7: Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 25)
`
`Apple’s and LG’s constructions for Terms 5-7 similarly recite the functional language
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`6 Neither case cited by CW (Br. 6 n.34) requires a different result. Asyst concerned a simple “line
`51” that “merely enable[d] the pertinent structure to operate as intended” but did not “actually
`perform the recited function.” 268 F.3d at 1371 (“An electrical outlet enables a toaster to work,
`but the outlet is not for that reason considered part of the toaster.”). Similarly, EON Corp. IP
`Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 783, 805 (E.D. Tex. 2010) concerned
`structures that “play[ed] a role in generating [data]” but were not involved in the claimed function
`of “transmitting” the data. Id. at 805. Here, the additional structures that Apple and LG have
`identified are actually used to perform the recited functions. Nor can CW read structure out of the
`claim via a claim differentiation argument (Br. 6 n.36). See Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d
`1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“‘[C]laim differentiation’ cannot override the statute. A means-plus-
`function limitation is not made open-ended by the presence of another claim specifically claiming the
`disclosed structure which underlies the means clause or an equivalent of that structure.”).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 2809
`
`
`from the claims verbatim and properly include all structure that performs the claimed functions,
`
`while CW’s proposals omit critical structure and ignore the only embodiment described.
`
`
`
`Term 5: The patent explains that “[a] 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 unit 311, thereby producing measurement result p3.” (’823 patent,
`
`5:10-13.) Thus, these structures as described in the specification and Figure 3 are required.
`
`CW’s construction improperly reads out required structures such as the VAD 311.
`
`
`
`Term 6: In the patent, p4 is generated using the specific implementations of the
`
`“weighting unit” and “power measurement unit” described in the specification. (’823 patent,
`
`5:63-66.) Thus, the described components are required structure.
`
`
`
`Term 7: Figure 3 and 5:60-63 make clear that adjusting the level and/or dynamic range of
`
`s2a is accomplished using adjusting unit 314, delay unit 315, and multiplier 316. CW’s inclusion
`
`of dynamic and level change block 122 is improper because that element is simply a black box
`
`with no defined structure. See, e.g., Beneficial Innovations v. Advance Publ’ns, Inc., No. 2:11-
`
`CV-229-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 47301, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014) (“the identified structure” for
`
`a means-plus-function term “needs to be more than a ‘black box.’ … The structure needs to be
`
`described in detail and not abstraction.” (citing Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d
`
`1371, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2009))).
`
`D.
`
`Term 8: The Preamble of Claim 1 is Limiting.
`
`“Dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit
`
`claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the
`
`claimed invention.” ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-880-JDL, 2015 WL
`
`233433, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2015). The preamble of claim 1 is limiting because it recites “a
`
`first audio signal,” which provides antecedent basis for multiple limitations that refer to “said
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 2810
`
`
`first audio signal.” See, e.g., Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Leap Wireless Int’l, Inc., No.
`
`2:13-CV-885-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 2250056, at *12-13 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2015) (preamble
`
`reciting “a plurality of transmitters” “recite[s] essential structure” and is limiting “in light of the
`
`extensive use of these preambles to provide antecedent basis for [“said plurality of transmitters”]
`
`terms used in the bodies of the claims”).7
`
`E.
`
`Terms 9 and 10: “signal power measuring means” / “the signal power
`measuring means” (Claim 21)
`
`Claim 20 requires “[a] circuit arrangement for adjusting the level and/or dynamic range
`
`of an audio signal,” and claim 21 (which depends from claim 20) further requires “a weighting
`
`filter (302, 312), disposed prior to the signal power measuring means (303, 313), having an
`
`output signal (s1f) level which depends on the frequency of the input signal (s1a) in order to
`
`make the power measurement value (p1,p2,p3) dependent on the signal frequency distribution.”
`
`The parties agree that “signal power measuring means” is a means-plus-function limitation (Br.
`
`11), but dispute whether the specification describes any structure that provides the three power
`
`measurement values (p1,p2,p3) based on “the signal frequency distribution” of “input signal
`
`(s1a)”—which it does not, thereby rendering claim 21 indefinite. See EON Corp. IP Holdings
`
`LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`CW contends that sufficient structure is found in “power measuring units 303 and 313 as
`
`shown in Fig. 3.” (CW Appendix A at 5; see Br. 11.) But Figure 3 shows that power measuring
`
`unit 303 only produces values p1 and p2 (based on signal s1a)—unlike power measuring unit
`
`313, which produces value p3 (based on signal s2a, not s1a). Thus, separately or combined,
`
`none of CW’s identified structure produces power measurement values p1, p2, and p3 based on
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`7 Freeny v. Murphy USA Inc. (Br. 10 n.53) is inapposite because Freeny did not deal with
`whether a preamble was necessary to provide antecedent basis, as is the case here. No. 2:13-cv-
`791-RSP, 2015 WL 294102, *5-6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2015).
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00751-JRG-JDL Document 100 Filed 08/13/15 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 2811
`
`
`signal s1a, as claim 21 requires. Thus, the claim is indefinite. See Vantage Point Tech., Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-909-JRG, 2015 WL 575167, at *18 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2015).
`
`Further, the term “the signal power measuring means (303, 313)” also is indefinite
`
`because it lacks antecedent basis (and CW has not identified any such bases in its opening brief).
`
`See, e.g., Masimo Corp. v. Mallinckrodt Inc., 18 F. App’x 852, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[C]laim
`
`terms must have proper antecedent basis to avoid an indefiniteness rejection.”). Moreover, a
`
`person of ordinary skill cannot determine the scope of the claim without the antecedent basis
`
`because the term refers to two different signal power measuring means, 303 and 313, and a
`
`person of ordinary skill has no way of knowing which one is “the” means covered by the claim.
`
`F.
`
`Term 11: “the sound pressure” (Claim 4)
`
`The term “the sound pressure” in claim 4 lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear as to
`
`what element the limitation is making reference. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which recites
`
`three different audio signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would lack reasonable certainty as
`
`to which