Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`David E. Sipiora (SBN 124951)
`Kristopher L. Reed (SBN 235518)
`Matthew C. Holohan (SBN 239040)
`Jeffrey M. Connor (pro hac vice)
`1400 Wewatta St., Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone:
`(303) 571-4000
`Facsimile:
`(303) 571-4321
`Email:
`dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mholohan@kilpatricktownsend.com
`jmconnor@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert J. Artuz (SBN 227789)
`Eighth Floor, Two Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 273-4713
`Facsimile:
`(415) 576-0300
`Email:
`rartuz@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL
`IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP
`(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.: 3:15-CV-04525-EMC
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ASUS
`COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Pat. L.R. 4-3 and the Court’s Order Regarding Claim Construction Schedule
`
`dated December 8, 2015 (“the Order”), Plaintiff Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte.
`
`(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 1
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`terms or phrases require no construction and should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The case captioned LSI Corp. et al. v. Funai Elec. Co. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04307-
`
`EMC, was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on February 4, 2016
`
`and has thus been terminated. See Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)
`
`(dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) “is effective on filing and no court order is required”).
`
`Accordingly, the defendants in that case are no longer participating in these claim construction
`
`proceedings.
`I.
`
`Pat. L.R. 4-3(a): Agreed Claim Constructions
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,707,087
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“demultiplexing one or more
`multimedia data streams” (Claim
`10) / “demultiplexes one or more
`multimedia data streams” (Claims 1
`and 16)
`
`“separate the multiplexed encoded stream
`into one or more individual streams”
`
`“control functions” (Claims 1 and
`16)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,148
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“(i) add a synchronisation signal to
`a plurality of data signals” (Claim
`8) / “(A) adding a synchronisation
`signal to a plurality of data signals”
`(Claim 18)
`
`“Step (i)/(A): Inserting a synchronisation
`signal into a bitstream containing a plurality
`of data signals prior to the modulation in
`step (B)/(ii)”
`
`“in response to” (Claims 8, 14, 18,
`19)
`
`“as a result of”
`
`“(iii) generate a plurality of sub-
`carrier frequency signals in
`response to an inverse fast fourier
`transformation of the sub-carrier
`signals for transmission of the sub-
`carrier signals to the remote station”
`(Claim 8) / “(C) generating a
`
`“Step (iii)/(C): Following the completion of
`step (ii)/(B), performing an inverse fast
`fourier transformation on the sub-carrier
`signals generated in step (ii)/(B) to generate
`a plurality of sub-carrier frequency signals”
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 2
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 2
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`plurality of sub-carrier frequency
`signals in response to an inverse fast
`fourier transformation of the sub-
`carrier signals”
`
`Whether the steps must be
`performed in order.
`
`The steps, if performed, must be performed
`in order.
`
`“sub-carrier frequency signals” /
`“sub-channel frequency signals”
`
`The terms “sub-carrier frequency signals”
`and “sub-channel frequency signals” are
`interchangeable. Otherwise, the terms
`should be given their plain and ordinary
`meaning, and no further construction is
`necessary.
`
`“transmitted intermittently between
`packets of data” (Claim 13)
`
`“transmitted at regular or irregular intervals
`between packets of data”
`
`“timing information”
`
`“information usable at the second station at
`least to time synchronise the second OFDM
`device to the first OFDM device”
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,982,663
`
`Claim Term
`
`Claim preambles
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,670,730
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`The preambles of the asserted claims are
`claim limitations.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`“global header” (Claims 18, 19, 31,
`and 32)
`
`“second header” (Claims 1, 4, and
`5)
`
`“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”
`
`“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”
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 3
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 3
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`“individual header” (Claims 18, 20,
`21, 31, 33, and 34”
`
`The issue of whether the preamble
`is a limitation (Claims 1, 18, and
`31)
`
`“a data structure on a chip that includes
`general description information, distinct
`from the information in the global header,
`relating to an individual track of music”
`
`The preambles for claims 1, 18, and 31 are
`limiting.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,188,835
`
`E.
`There are no agreed-upon constructions for the ‘835 Patent.
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,744,387
`
`Claim Term
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`“means for determining if a code
`symbol index value is less than a
`threshold” (Claim 3)
`
`“means for constructing a codeword
`using a unary binarization if said
`code symbol index value is less than
`said threshold value” (Claim 3)
`
`“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)
`
`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; 6:26-8:23.
`
`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; 6:26-8:23.
`
`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; 6:26-8:23.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 4
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`G.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,982,830
`
`Claim Term
`
`“predetermined condition(s)”
`(Claims 5, 16, and 20)
`
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`II.
`
`Pat. L.R. 4-3(b)-(c): Proposed Constructions for Each Disputed Terms and
`
`Identification of Significant Terms
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the parties have identified the following ten (10) claim terms to be
`
`construed by the Court:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“synchronisation signal” (‘148 Patent)
`
`“the sub-channel reference signals” (‘148 Patent)
`
`“modulating” / “demodulating” (‘148 Patent)
`
`“(A) setting said index value to a threshold” (claim 1) / “(i) set an index value to a
`
`threshold” (claim 11) (‘663 Patent)
`
`5.
`
`“generating said index value based on a fourth pattern in said first portion in
`
`response to said fourth pattern being other than said first pattern” (‘663 Patent).
`
`6. Whether the steps must be performed in order. (‘663 Patent)
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`“navigation data” (‘835 Patent)
`
`“first header” (‘730 Patent)
`
`“synchronization code(s)” (‘830 Patent)
`
`10.
`
`“a detector for detecting said synchronization codes” (‘830 Patent)
`
`A chart setting forth the parties’ proposed constructions of each of the disputed terms
`
`above, together with an identification of all references from the specification or prosecution
`
`history that support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the
`
`party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction or to oppose any other
`
`party’s proposed construction, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Defendants’ Position: Defendants have also identified a number of additional claim
`
`terms in dispute. A chart setting forth the parties’ proposed constructions of the additional
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 5
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`disputed terms, together with an identification of all references from the specification or
`
`prosecution history that support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence
`
`known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction or to
`
`oppose any other party’s proposed construction, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The parties do
`
`not request that the Court construe these additional disputed terms at this time, but Defendants
`
`reserve the right to seek leave of court to request the Court’s construction at a later, appropriate
`
`stage of the litigation, if necessary. See, e.g., Finisar Corp. v. Oplink Comm’ns, Inc., 2011 WL
`
`7102553, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011).
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: The Order limits the identification of claim terms in the Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement to those terms identified pursuant to the Order.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to the inclusion of Exhibit B, and further objects to any claim terms
`
`being construed beyond the ten (10) claim terms identified above.
`III.
`
`Pat. L.R. 4-3(d): Anticipated Length of Time for the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`The parties believe that the time currently set aside by the Court for the Claim
`
`Construction Hearing will be sufficient.
`IV.
`
`Pat. L.R. 4-3(e): Witnesses
`
`The parties agree that no witnesses will be called at the claim construction hearing. The
`
`parties intend to submit expert declarations from Dr. Sachin Katti and Dr. David Lyon with their
`
`respective claim construction briefs. The parties agree that each party has made sufficient
`
`disclosures concerning the anticipated testimony of Drs. Katti and Lyon, respectively, to permit
`
`the parties to submit declarations from these witnesses. The parties are prepared to submit
`
`summaries of the witnesses’ testimony, including each opinion to be offered related to claim
`
`construction, upon the Court’s request.
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 6
`
`

`
`/s/ David E. Sipiora
`David E. Sipiora
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`Attorneys for Avago Technologies General IP
`(Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
`
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. Newton (with permission)
`Michael J. Newton
`
`By:
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.
`and ASUS Computer International
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 5, 2016
`
`
`Dated: February 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 7
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170 Filed 02/05/16 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 5, 2016, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document entitled JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`on all interested parties in this action by electronic mail addressed and sent as follows:
`
`
`Derek Scott Neilson
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`derek.neilson@alston.com
`
`Michael J. Newton
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`mike.newton@alston.com
`
`Sang Lee
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`michael.lee@alston.com
`
`Executed on February 5, 2016 at Denver, Colorado.
`
` /s/ Matthew C. Holohan
`Matthew C. Holohan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`68179625V.1
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 8
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 20
`EXHIBIT B
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`Avago’s Proposed Construction
`ASUS’s Proposed Construction
`
`“a single memory device which
`stores code and data for the transport
`logic, system controller and MPEG
`decoder functions”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’087 Patent at Abstract; Figs. 3-4;
`1:30-34; 4:14-5:42; 5:3-10; 5:24-28;
`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.
`
`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, unit,
`combine, amalgamate, coalesce,
`bring together, fuse, join, weld,
`merge, confederate, incorporate,
`integrate.” The Oxford American
`Dictionary and Thesaurus (2003
`Oxford University Press).
`“a component of the video decoding
`
`Disputed Claim
`Term
`“single memory”
`/ “single unified
`memory”
`(Claims 1, 10,
`16)
`
`“memory functioning as a unit”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`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.
`
`“transport logic” Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`
`
`
`2
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 20
`EXHIBIT B
`
`(Claims 1, 16)
`
`“system
`controller”
`(Claims 1, 10,
`16)
`
`“channel receiver
`for receiving and
`MPEG encoded
`stream” (Claims
`1, 16)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’087 Patent
`at Abstract, Fig. 3, 4:22-27, 4:65-
`5:28,
`7:36-55, 7:65-8:62, 11:6-20, 15:51-
`16:3, and Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 16, and
`17.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`system, separate from the system
`construction necessary.
`
`controller and MPEG decoder logic,
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`which operates to demultiplex
`See, e.g., ’087 Patent
`received data into a plurality of
`at Abstract, Figs. 3, 9,
`individual multimedia streams”
`12, and 13, 4:22-27,
`
`4:65-5:29, 7:36-44,
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`8:10-21, 8:38-46, 9:3-
`’087 Patent at Abstract; 4:22-24; 5:1-
`10, 11:6-8, 12:60-63,
`6; 5:11-13; 5:19-28; 7:38-41; 8:10-
`and Claims 1, 2, 7, 16, and 17.
`21; 8:41-44; 9:6-11; 11:6-8; 12:60-
`63.
`“a component of the video decoding
`system, separate from the transport
`logic and the MPEG decoder logic,
`which controls operations in the
`system and executes programs or
`applets comprised in the MPEG
`stream”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’087 Patent at Abstract; 1:31-34;
`4:24-27; 4:33-43; 5:1-6; 5:13-15;
`5:19-28; 7:41-44; 8:29-53; 9:3-10;
`11:7-30; 15:55-63; 16:35-36; 16:43-
`60.
`This is a means-plus-function claim
`term under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6.
`The term is invalid under this
`paragraph because the specification
`fails to disclose sufficient
`structure/algorithm for performing
`the stated function:
`
`Function – receiving an MPEG
`encoded stream
`
`Structure - undefined
`
`Alternatively, if not MPF:
`“the component that receives an
`encoded video stream as an input and
`provides the stream to the transport
`logic”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, if “channel receiver
`for receiving and [sic] MPEG
`encoded stream” is deemed to be
`means-plus function:
`
`Function: “receiving a coded stream
`and providing the coded stream to a
`transport logic.” (Claims 1 and 16)
`
`Structure(s): An input device such
`as an ATM (Asynchronous Transfer
`Mode) adapter card or an ISDN
`(Integrated Services Digital
`Network) terminal adapter, or other
`digital data receiver.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`
`3
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-04525-EMC Document 170-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 4 of 20
`EXHIBIT B
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`See, e.g., ’087 Patent at Figs. 1 and 3,
`’087 Patent at 8:1-9.
`6:49-7:35, 7:66-8:9, and Claims 1
`and 16.
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no
`construction necessary.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’087 Patent at Figs. 1-4,
`6:35-37, 6:53-56, 7:10-24, 9:3-10,
`11:49-62, 12:35-39, and Claims 1, 2,
`12-14, 16, and 17.
`
`“a connection between two separate
`components to allow the transfer of
`signals”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’087 Patent at Figs. 2-4; 7:9-24,
`8:38-48 and 9:3-4
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Definition of “couple” from
`American Heritage College
`Dictionary, Third Edition : “2.
`Something that joins or connects two
`things together; a link”
`
`Definition of “couple” in McGraw-
`Hill Dictionary of Engineering and
`Science: “... [ELEC] To connect two
`circuits so signals are transferred
`from one to another.”
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`“coupled to”
`(Claims 1, 16)
`
`
`
`ASUS Exhibit 1013 - Page 12