Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1260
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00239-JRG
`
`
`
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP
`(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ASUS
`COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
`
`(“Avago”) and Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International
`
`(collectively, “ASUS”) hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction Statement (the
`
`“Statement”). To the extent that the parties do not identify any claim terms or phrases as agreed
`
`pursuant to P.R. 4-3(a) or disputed pursuant to P.R. 4-3(b), the parties submit that any such
`
`claim terms or phrases require no construction and should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a): Agreed Claim Constructions
`
`a.
`
`Agreed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 5,670,730
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“global header”
`
`(Claims 18, 19, 31, 32)
`
`“a single data structure that contains
`information corresponding to the way in
`which all pre-recorded audio tracks are
`encoded for storage in memory, which is
`used by the audio player to decode all tracks
`for playback”
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1261
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“second header”
`
`(Claims 1, 4, 5)
`
`“individual header”
`
`(Claims 18, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34)
`
`The issue of whether the preamble
`is a limitation
`
`(Claims 1, 18, 31)
`
`“a data structure on a music chip, which
`includes information distinct from the
`information in the first header, that can be
`used to select individual tracks of music”
`
`“a data structure on a chip which includes
`general description information distinct
`from the information in the global header,
`relating to an individual music track”
`
`The preambles for Claims 1, 18, and 31 are
`limiting
`
`b.
`
`Agreed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`None
`
`N/A
`
`c.
`
`Agreed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 6,430,148
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“sub-carrier signals”
`
`(Claims 8, 14, 18, 19)
`
`“sub-carrier frequency signals”
`
`(Claims 8, 18, 19)
`
`“sub-channel signals”
`
`(Claim 14)
`
`The parties agree that the term “sub-carrier
`signals” is interchangeable with “sub-channel
`signals.” The parties further agree that,
`otherwise, no construction necessary.
`
`The parties agree that the term “sub-carrier
`frequency signals” is interchangeable with
`“sub-channel frequency signals.” The
`parties further agree that, otherwise, no
`construction necessary.
`
`The parties agree that the term “sub-channel
`signals” is interchangeable with “sub-carrier
`signals.” The parties further agree that,
`otherwise, no construction necessary.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1262
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“sub-channel frequency signals”
`
`(Claims 14, 19)
`
`“timing information”
`
`(Claim 11)
`
`“transmitted intermittently between
`packets of data”
`
`(Claim 13)
`
`The parties agree that the term “sub-channel
`frequency signals” is interchangeable with
`“sub-carrier frequency signals.” The parties
`further agree that, otherwise, no
`construction necessary.
`
`“information usable at the second station at
`least to time synchronise the second OFDM
`device to the first OFDM device”
`
`“transmitted at regular or irregular intervals
`between packets of data”
`
`d.
`
`Agreed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 6,982,663
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`The issue of whether the preamble
`is a limitation
`
`(Claims 1, 12)
`
`The preambles of Claim 1 and Claim 12 are
`limitations at least to the extent Claim 1
`requires “generating an index value from a
`codeword” and Claim 12 requires
`“generating a codeword from an index
`value”
`
`e.
`
`Agreed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 6,744,387
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“means for determining if a code
`symbol index value is less than a
`threshold”
`
`(Claim 3)
`
`This term is a means-plus-function
`limitation under § 112(6) corresponding to
`the structure: “Binarization module (62) in
`an encoder (16), as shown in Fig. 2, and
`described at 4:1-5; 6:26-8:10.”
`
`This term is a means-plus-function
`limitation under § 112(6) corresponding to
`the structure: “Binarization module (62) in
`an encoder (16), as shown in Fig. 2, and
`described at 4:1-5; 6:26-8:10.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`“means for constructing a codeword
`using a unary binarization if said
`code symbol index value is less than
`said threshold value”
`
`(Claim 3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1263
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“means for constructing a codeword
`using a exp-Golomb binarization if
`said code symbol index value is
`[not] less than a threshold value”
`
`(Claim 3)
`
`The parties agree that the word “not”
`omitted from the claim as originally issued
`should be corrected by the Court during
`claim construction consistent with the
`certificate of correction issued by the U.S.
`Patent Office on March 10, 2015.
`
`Further, this term is a means-plus-function
`limitation under § 112(6) corresponding to
`the structure: “Binarization module (62) in
`an encoder (16), as shown in Fig. 2, and
`described at 4:1-5; 6:26-8:10.”
`
`f.
`
`Agreed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 5,982,830
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`None
`
`N/A
`
`
`II.
`
`P.R. 4-3(b): Disputed Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Disputed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 5,670,730
`
`Claim Term
`
`“first header”
`
`(Claims 1-3, 9)
`
`“integrated circuit
`music chip”
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“a data structure on a music
`chip which includes information
`relating to the way the music
`tracks were encoded in the
`memory of the music chip for
`use by the audio player in
`decoding the stored music”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required.
`
`Alternatively, an “integrated
`circuit chip capable of storing
`music”
`
`“a single data structure that
`contains information
`corresponding to the way in
`which pre-recorded audio
`tracks are encoded for storage
`in memory, which is used by
`the audio player to decode the
`tracks for playback”
`
`“a memory chip that is adapted
`to be received into a solid state
`audio player for playing music
`contained on the chip”
`
`4
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1264
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Disputed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“single memory”
`
`(Claims 1, 10, 16)
`
`“first unified memory”
`
`(Claims 10, 11)
`
`“memory functioning as a unit”
`
`“one memory”
`
`“memory functioning as a unit”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required.
`
`Alternatively, “memory
`consisting of a single unit.”
`
`c.
`
`Disputed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 6,430,148
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“synchronisation
`signal”
`
`(Claims 8-15, 18, 19)
`
`“synchronisation
`codes”
`
`(Claim 9)
`
`“a signal added to a plurality of
`data signals prior to modulation
`to achieve or maintain at least
`frequency and timing
`synchronism”
`
`“a sequence of predetermined
`bits added to a plurality of data
`signals prior to modulation to
`achieve or maintain at least
`frequency and timing
`synchronism”
`
`“a signal introduced into a
`transmission signal to achieve
`or maintain at least frequency
`or timing synchronism”
`
`“a sequence of predetermined
`bits introduced into a
`transmission signal to achieve
`or maintain at least frequency
`or timing synchronism”
`
`“in response to
`modulating the
`synchronization signal
`and the data signals”
`
`(Claims 8, 18)
`
` “by varying some characteristic
`of the subcarrier waves to be
`produced at a later time, such as
`their amplitudes or phases, as the
`synchronisation signal and the
`data signals vary”
`
`“by varying some characteristic
`of a sub-carrier wave, e.g., the
`amplitude, frequency or phase
`of the wave, as the
`synchronization signal and data
`signals vary”
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1265
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“a synchronization
`circuit for
`synchronizing a
`transmission frequency
`of the OFDM
`transmitter according
`to the synchronization
`signal” (§ 112(6))
`
`(Claim 15)
`
`“normalize [the data
`signals]”
`
`(Claim 16)
`
`The claim term is not a means-
`plus-function limitation.
`Otherwise, no construction
`necessary.
`
`To the extent the claim term is
`deemed to be a means-plus-
`function limitation, the
`corresponding structure is
`“synchronisation circuit 52.”
`(See Fig. 4, 7:28-39, 9:22-44.)
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “adjust the sub-
`carrier signals corresponding to
`data signals based on measured
`attenuations and phase
`rotations”
`
`This term is a means-plus-
`function limitation under
`§ 112(6) for which the
`specification of the ’148 Patent
`fails to describe any
`corresponding structure for
`performing this function.
`
`This term is indefinite.
`
`Alternatively, “adjust the data
`signals based on measured
`attenuations and phase
`rotations”
`
`d.
`
`Disputed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 6,982,663
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“threshold”
`
`(Claims 1, 11-13, 18,
`19, 21)
`
`“[setting said / set an]
`index value to a
`threshold”
`
`(Claims 1 and 11)
`
`“in response to
`[said/an] index value
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required
`
`Alternatively: “A point beyond
`which there is a change in the
`manner a program/circuit
`executes.”
`
`
`The only term identified
`requiring construction regarding
`these phrases is “threshold.”
`
`Avago’s proposed construction
`for the term “threshold” is set
`forth above.
`
`
`
`6
`
`“initial predetermined
`constant”
`
`Claims 1 and 11: “[setting said
`/ set an] index value to a
`threshold” means “[setting said
`/ set an] index value to an
`initial predetermined constant”
`
`Claims 12 and 21: “in response
`to [said/an] index value being
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1266
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`being at least as great
`as a threshold”
`
`(Claims 12 and 21)
`
`“in response to said
`index value being
`below said threshold”
`
`(Claims 13, 18, and 19)
`
`
`The issue of whether
`steps must be
`performed in order
`
`(Claims 1, 11, 12, 21)
`
`The steps/system elements of
`Claims 1, 11, 12, and 21 are not
`required to be performed or
`arranged in any order
`
`at least as great as a threshold”
`means “in response to [said/an]
`index value being at least as
`great as an initial
`predetermined constant”
`
`Claims 13, 18, and 19: “in
`response to said index value
`being below said threshold”
`means “in response to said
`index value being below said
`initial predetermined constant”
`
`The steps defined in Claims 1,
`11, 12, and 21 must be
`performed in order
`
`e.
`
`Disputed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 6,744,387
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“threshold value”
`
`(Claims 1-6)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required
`
`Alternatively: “A point beyond
`which there is a change in the
`manner a program/circuit
`executes.”
`
`“predetermined constant”
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1267
`
`
`
`
`
`f.
`
`Disputed Terms For U.S. Patent No. 5,982,830
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`This term is indefinite unless
`the Court gives the term the
`following definition to preserve
`its validity:
`
`“synchronization code(s)”:
`“sequence(s) of bits in a data
`stream used to achieve or
`maintain synchronization”
`
`“said synchronization codes”:
`Claim 1: “sequences of bits in a
`data stream used to achieve or
`maintain synchronization that
`are successively spaced by a
`predetermined interval”
`
`Claim 5: “successively spaced
`sequences of bits in a data
`stream used to achieve or
`maintain synchronization”
`
`Claim 16: “sequences of bits in
`a data stream used to achieve or
`maintain synchronization
`successively spaced from each
`other by a predetermined
`interval”
`
`Claim 20: “sequences of bits in
`a data stream used to achieve or
`maintain synchronization
`spaced at a predetermined
`interval”
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required
`
`“synchronization
`code(s)”
`
`“said synchronization
`codes”
`
`(Claims 1, 5, 16, 20)
`
`
`
`8
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1268
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“a detector for
`detecting said
`synchronization codes”
`
`(Claims 1, 5)
`
`“a controller for
`determining (A)
`whether the system is
`synchronized to the
`bitstream after the
`comparator has
`detected a first
`predetermined number
`of said intervals; and
`(B) whether the system
`is unsynchronized to
`the bitstream after the
`comparator has
`detected a second
`predetermined number
`of said intervals
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`“a controller for
`determining if the
`system is synchronized
`to the bitstream
`depending on
`satisfaction of a first
`predetermined
`condition and if the
`
`This term is a means-plus-
`function limitation under
`§ 112(6) with the
`corresponding structure:
`“synchronization detecting unit
`(42), as shown in Fig. 5a and
`described at 8:10-51.”
`
`This term is a means-plus-
`function limitation under
`§ 112(6) for which the
`specification of the ’830 Patent
`fails to describe a
`corresponding structure.
`
`The claim term is not a means-
`plus-function limitation.
`Otherwise, plain and ordinary
`meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively, in the extent the
`claim term is deemed to be a
`means-plus-function limitation,
`the corresponding structure
`includes: decoder (10),
`synchronizer (32),
`synchronization detecting unit
`(42), and/or the algorithm of
`Fig. 4.
`
`The claim term is not a means-
`plus-function limitation.
`Otherwise, plain and ordinary
`meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively, in the extent the
`claim term is deemed to be a
`means-plus-function limitation,
`the corresponding structure
`includes: decoder (10),
`synchronizer (32), and/or the
`algorithm of Fig. 4.
`
`The claim term is not a means-
`plus-function limitation.
`Otherwise, plain and ordinary
`meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively, in the extent the
`claim term is deemed to be a
`
`This term is a means-plus-
`function limitation under
`§ 112(6) with the
`corresponding structure: “AND
`gates (48) and (50) and
`synchronizer (32), shown in
`Figs. 5a and 5b and described
`at 8:10-14, 9:26-37.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1269
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Avago’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ASUS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`means-plus-function limitation,
`the corresponding structure
`includes: decoder (10),
`synchronizer (32), and/or the
`algorithm of Fig. 4.
`
`This term is not indefinite and
`should be given its plain and
`ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “information
`contained in the data header”
`
`This term is indefinite in Claim
`1.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required
`
`“after step (a) is completed and
`before step (c) begins”
`
`The preambles of Claims 1, 5,
`16, and 20 are not limiting.
`
`The preambles of Claims 1, 5,
`16, and 20 are limitations.
`
`system is
`unsynchronized to the
`bitstream depending on
`satisfaction of a second
`predetermined
`condition”
`
`(Claim 5)
`
`“said information”
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`“between steps (a) and
`(c)”
`
`(Claims 16, 20)
`
`The issue of whether
`the preamble is a
`limitation
`
`(Claims 1, 5, 16, 20)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ references from the specification and prosecution history
`
`and identification of any extrinsic evidence that support their proposed constructions are
`
`reflected in the tables attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
`
`III.
`
`P.R. 4-3(c): Anticipated Length of Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(c), the parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing will
`
`require no more than a total of 4 hours.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1270
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`P.R. 4-3(d): Live Witness Testimony
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(d), the parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses, including
`
`expert witnesses, at the Claim Construction Hearing. However, the parties do anticipate relying
`
`on the testimony of expert witnesses, via declaration and/or deposition, regarding the meaning
`
`and proper construction for the disputed terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,148. Accordingly, the
`
`parties hereby submit, for each such expert, a summary of each opinion to be offered in
`
`sufficient detail to permit a meaningful deposition of that expert. The parties further agree that
`
`each party may submit and rely upon sworn declarations of their respective experts submitted in
`
`connection with the agreed schedule for claim construction briefing (see Doc. No. 28-1);
`
`provided, however, that the substance of any such declaration is limited to discussion of any
`
`opinions disclosed in the summaries attached to this Statement or in rebuttal to another party’s
`
`expert testimony, whether offered by declaration or deposition, if any.
`
`V.
`
`P.R. 4-3(3): Other Issues
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(e), the parties submit that there are no other issues at this time that
`
`should be taken up at a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1271
`
`
`
`Dated: August 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
`LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ John D. Cadkin (with permission)
`David E. Sipiora
`dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kristopher L. Reed
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Matthew C. Holohan
`mholohan@kilpatricktownsend.com
`John D. Cadkin
`jcadkin@kilpatricktownsend.com
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO, 80202
`Telephone: (303) 571-4000
`Facsimile: (303) 571- 4321
`
`CAPSHAW DeRIEUX, LLP
`S. Calvin Capshaw
`State Bar No. 03783900
`ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux
`State Bar No. 05770585
`114 East Commerce Avenue
`Gladewater, Texas 75647
`Telephone: (903) 236-9800
`Facsimile: (903) 236-8787
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Avago Technologies
`General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Newton
`Michael J. Newton (Texas Bar No.
`24003844)
`Derek Neilson (Texas Bar No. 24072255)
`Sang (Michael) Lee (Texas Bar No.
`24083378)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 922-3400
`Facsimile: (214) 922-3899
`Email: mike.newton@alston.com
`
`
`
`12
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46 Filed 08/12/15 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1272
`
`Email: derek.neilson@alston.com
`Email: michael.lee@alston.com
`
`Michael C. Smith (Texas Bar No.
`18650410)
`SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS &
`SMITH, LLP
`113 East Austin Street, P.O. Box 1556
`Marshall, TX 75671
`Telephone: (903) 938-8900
`Facsimile: (972) 767-4620
`Email: michaelsmith@siebman.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants ASUSTeK
`Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer
`International
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 12th day of August, 2015, I caused the forgoing to be
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`/s/ Michael J. Newton
`Michael J. Newton
`
`
`
`13
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1273
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 1274
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Claim Constructions and Supporting Evidence
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Identification of Relevant Evidence*
`
`Disputed Terms for U.S. Patent No. 5,670,730 (the “’730 Patent”)
`
`“first header”
`
`“integrated circuit music
`chip”
`
`“a data structure on a music chip which
`includes information relating to the way
`the music tracks were encoded in the
`memory of the music chip for use by the
`audio player in decoding the stored
`music”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction required.
`
`Alternatively, an “integrated circuit chip
`capable of storing music”
`
`See, e.g., ‘730 Patent at Abstract, Fig. 2, 1:51-56, 2:37-
`54, 3:30-33, 6:5-12, Claims 1-3.
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Application No. 447,321, Amendment at
`6-8, 11 (Sep. 17, 1996).
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Application No. 447,321, Response to
`Office Action at 3-5 (Dec 31, 1996).
`
`See, e.g., ‘730 Patent at Abstract, Fig. 1, 1:7-10, 1:51-
`56, 2:22-36, 5:33-50, 6:5-12, and Claim 1.
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Application No. 447,321, Amendment at
`6-8, 9 (Sep. 17, 1996).
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Application No. 447,321, Response to
`Office Action at 6 (Dec 31, 1996).
`
`
`Disputed Terms for U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087 (the “’087 Patent”)
`
`See, e.g., ‘087 Patent at Abstract, Figs. 3-4, 1:31-34,
`4:28-50, 4:59-6:29, 7:48-64, 8:38-46, 9:3-20, 10:20-29,
`and Claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 16.
`
`
`
`“single memory”
`“first unified memory”
`
`“memory functioning as a unit”
`
`
`
`1
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-2 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1300
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 16
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-2 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 1301
`
`Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`“first header” (Claims 1-3, 9)
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,670,730
`
`ASUS’s Proposed Construction
`“a single data structure that contains information
`corresponding to the way in which pre-recorded
`audio tracks are encoded for storage in memory,
`which is used by the audio player to decode the
`tracks for playback”
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’730 Patent at Abstract, Figs. 2-4, 1:6-10,
`1:45-65, 2:16-19, 2:37-3:47, 4:60-64, 5:9-
`13, 5:8-14, 5:35-6:4, the asserted claims;
`’730 File History: Non-final Rejection
`dated Dec. 2, 2004 at 2-5; ’730 File
`History: Response in App. Ser. No.
`08/447,231 dated Sep. 23, 1996 at 5-6, 8,
`10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`The claim construction briefing and
`supporting materials of the defendants in
`the following cases (including the
`supporting expert declarations and any
`tutorial or Markman hearing transcripts):
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No.
`3:11-cv-2709 (N.D. Cal.) and SanDisk
`Corp. v. LSI Corp., No. 3:09-cv-2737-
`WHA (N.D. Cal.), as well as the claim
`construction decisions of Judge Chen and
`Judge Alsup, as they relate to this term.
`See, e.g., Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI
`Corp., Case No. 3:11-cv-2709 (N.D. Cal.):
`Order Re Claim Construction, Dkt. 303 at
`1-9 (Apr. 7, 2014); Barnes & Noble
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Dkt.
`270-3 at 23-27; Decl. of Paris Smaragdis,
`Ph.D. and Ex. A thereto, Dkt. 270-44&45
`(Jan. 24, 2014); Claim Construction
`
`- 1 -
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 17
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-2 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 1302
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Hearing Transcript, Dkt. 305 (filed Apr. 8,
`2014); SanDisk Corp. v. LSI Corp., No.
`3:09-cv-2737-WHA (N.D. Cal.): Tentative
`Claim Construction Order and Request for
`Critique, Dkt. 101 at 1-11 (Mar. 17, 2010);
`SanDisk Corporations’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief, Dkt. 81 at 1-11 (Feb.
`10. 2010); Decl. of Joe C. Lui and Exhibits
`1, 5-11, Dkt. 82, 82-1, 82-5 through 82-11;
`Claim Construction Hearing Transcript,
`Dkt. 118 (filed May 3, 2010); ISO/IEC
`11172-3 (1993) [ASUS_00035083-239].
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’730 Patent at Fig. 1, 2:22-27.
`
`“a memory chip that is adapted to be received
`into a solid state audio player for playing music
`contained on the chip”
`
`“integrated circuit music chip”
`(Claims 18, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-2 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 1303
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,870,087
`
`Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`“single memory” (Claims 1, 10, 16)
`
`ASUS’s Proposed Construction
`“one memory”
`
`“first unified memory” (Claims 10-
`11)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively, “memory consisting of a single
`unit”
`
`- 3 -
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’087 Patent at Abstract, Figs. 3-4, 1:30-34;
`4:14-5:42; 6:21-29; 7:36-55; 8:38-46; 9:3-
`20; 9:22-27; 10:7-10; 11:6-30; 12:35-52;
`12:57-63; 17:2-6.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., Case
`No. 3:11-cv-2709 (N.D. Cal.): Order Re
`Claim Construction, Dkt. 303 at 24-27
`(Apr. 7, 2014); Decl. of Dan Schonfeld,
`Ph.D., Dkt. 270-41 at ¶¶ 11-20 and
`exhibits (Jan. 24, 2014); Claim
`Construction Hearing Transcript, Dkt. 305
`at 24:11-39:16 (filed Apr. 8, 2014); related
`claim construction briefing filed by Barnes
`& Noble; Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions
`dated May 15, 2015.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’087 Patent at Abstract, Figs. 3-4, 1:30-34;
`4:14-5:42; 6:21-29; 7:36-55; 8:38-46; 9:3-
`20; 9:22-27; 10:7-10; 11:6-30; 12:35-52;
`12:57-63; 17:2-6.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., Case
`No. 3:11-cv-2709 (N.D. Cal.): Order Re
`Claim Construction, Dkt. 303 at 24-27
`(Apr. 7, 2014); Decl. of Dan Schonfeld,
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 19
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00239-JRG Document 46-2 Filed 08/12/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 1304
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Ph.D., Dkt. 270-41 at ¶¶ 11-20 and
`exhibits (Jan. 24, 2014); Claim
`Construction Hearing Transcript, Dkt. 305
`at 24:11-39:16 (filed Apr. 8, 2014); related
`claim construction briefing filed by Barnes
`& Noble; Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions
`dated May 15, 2015.
`
`Unify: “to make or become a single unit;
`unite.” Webster’s Encyclopedic
`Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`Language (1996 Gramercy Books).
`
`Unify: “reduce to unity or uniformity;”
`“consolidate, unite, combine, amalgamate,
`coalesce, bring together, fuse, join, weld,
`merge, confederate, incorporate,
`integrate.” The Oxford American
`Dictionary and Thesaurus (2003 Oxford
`University Press).
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1012 - Page 20