Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 2524
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-68
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`Personalized Media
`Communications, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Zynga, Inc.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 2525
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Legal Principles of Claim Construction ........................................................ 3
`III. Agreed Constructions ....................................................................................... 4
`IV. Zynga’s Proposed Terms for Construction ................................................ 5
`A.
`“Subscriber” ................................................................................................................... 5
`B.
`“Video” and “Video Image” ....................................................................................... 9
`C.
`“Processor” and “Processing” ............................................................................... 12
`D. The “Programming” Terms ................................................................................... 14
`E.
`“Control Signal” and “Instruct Signals” .............................................................. 17
`F. The “Remote” Terms ................................................................................................ 19
`G. The “Locally Generated” Terms ........................................................................... 21
`H. The “Benefit Datum” Term .................................................................................... 22
`I. The “Combined Medium Presentation” Element ............................................ 23
`J.
`“Commercial” ............................................................................................................... 25
`K. The “Remotely Originated Data” Term ............................................................. 26
`L. The “Audio Which Describes” Term ................................................................... 26
`M. The “Schedule” Term .............................................................................................. 27
`N.
`“Peripheral Device”.................................................................................................. 29
`V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 2526
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux, Inc., 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...............................10
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`2006) .........................................................................................................................10
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................5
`
`Ex parte Harvey, No. 2007-1837 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2009) ..................................1, 4, 5, 21
`
`Ex parte Harvey, No. 2007-1837 (B.P.A.I. June 24, 2009) .............................................2, 5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................4
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) .........................................................................................................................17
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..............................3
`
`McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 160 U.S. 110 (1895) ...................................................9
`
`Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 742 F. Supp. 2d 875 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ........................4
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................9, 17
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................................9
`
`Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-432, 2009 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 71264 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2009) .................................................................25
`
`Personalized Media Commc’n, LLC v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-70-CE,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112590 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011) .................................1, 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................4, 5, 6
`
`Saffran v. Boston Sci. Corp., 740 F. Supp. 2d 899 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ..................................4
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)...........................5, 14
`
`
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 2527
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`This lawsuit arises from Zynga’s infringement of the following claims from four
`
`of Personalized Media Communication, LLC’s (“PMC”) patents: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and
`
`11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,131 (“the ‘131 patent,” attached as Ex. 1), Claims 17, 18, 19,
`
`22-24, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251 (“the ‘251 patent,” attached as Ex. 2), Claims
`
`1, 2, 3, 6, 11-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,638 (“the ‘638 patent,” attached as Ex.
`
`3), and Claims 1-7 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,797,717 (“the ‘717 patent,” attached as Ex.
`
`4) (collectively, “the Asserted Claims” from “the Asserted Patents”).
`
`The four Asserted Patents are part of a large family of related patents that trace
`
`their priority back to a U.S. patent application filed on November 3, 1981, and a continu-
`
`ation-in-part application filed on September 11, 1987. Claim terms from related patents
`
`were previously construed, most recently in Personalized Media Communication, LLC v.
`
`Motorola, Inc., 2:08-cv-70-CE (E.D. Tex.) in a claim construction order issued on Sep-
`
`tember 30, 2011. Personalized Media Commc’n, LLC v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-
`
`70-CE, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112590 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011), ECF No. 271 (“the
`
`EchoStar Order”), attached as Ex. 5. Two of the claim terms at issue in the EchoStar Or-
`
`der are also at issue in this case.1 The EchoStar Order includes a summary of the prior
`
`claim construction proceedings. See Ex. 5 at 1-3.
`
`The file history of one of the Asserted Patents, the ‘251 patent, includes a Deci-
`
`sion on Appeal2 decided by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on March 20,
`
`
`1 “Control signal” and “Instruct Signals”
`2 Ex parte Harvey, No. 2007-1837 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2009) (“the ‘251 Board De-
`cision”), attached as Ex. 6.
`
`1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 2528
`
`
`2009, and a Decision on Request for Rehearing3 decided on June 24, 2009. These deci-
`
`sions discuss some of the terms at issue in this case.4
`
`At a high level, the Asserted Patents describe methods and systems for delivering
`
`personalized programming. For example, this programming can include “general infor-
`
`mation applicable to large audiences” (such as “stock prices rose today in heavy trading”)
`
`combined with “information of specific relevance to each particular user in the audience”
`
`(such as “but the value of your stock portfolio went down”). Ex. 3 at 1:57-65.5 Several
`
`examples of personalized programming from the Asserted Patents are described in the
`
`technical tutorial that was submitted concurrently with this Claim Construction Brief.
`
`The inventions in the Asserted Patents are explained using numerous examples
`
`and platforms as illustrations, but, as the Asserted Patents also explain, the inventions are
`
`not limited to just those examples and platforms. The disclosed system has wide applica-
`
`bility, involving “the fields of computer processing, computer communications, televi-
`
`sion, radio, and other electronic communications.” Id. at 1:25-32. “The programming
`
`may be delivered by any means including over-the-air, hard-wire, and manual means.”6
`
`Id. at 7:11-13. The term “programming” is defined broadly:
`
`The present invention consists of an integrated system of
`methods and apparatus for communicating programming.
`The term “programming” refers to everything that is
`transmitted electronically to entertain, instruct or in-
`form, including television, radio, broadcast print, and com-
`puter programming was well as combined medium pro-
`gramming.
`
`Id. at 6:29-34. Further, a key feature of the disclosed inventions is expandability:
`
`3 Ex parte Harvey, No. 2007-1837 (B.P.A.I. June 24, 2009) (“the ‘251 Rehearing
`Decision”), attached as Ex. 7.
`4 “Locally generated” (as well as four of the terms with agreed constructions)
`5 All references to the patent specifications are in the form “Column:Lines.”
`6 All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 2529
`
`
`Yet another objective is expandability. As the operating
`capacities of computer hardware have grown in recent dec-
`ades, increasingly sophisticated software systems have
`been developed to operate computers. Often incompatibili-
`ties have existed between newly developed operating sys-
`tem software and older generations of computer hardware.
`It is the objective of the system of signal composition of the
`present invention to have capacity for expanding to ac-
`commodate newly developed subscriber station hard-
`ware while still serving older hardware generations.
`
`Id. at 22:57-66. Flexibility is another key feature:
`
`A central objective of the present invention is to provide
`flexibility in regard to installed station apparatus. At any
`given time, the system must have capacity for wide varia-
`tion in individual station apparatus in order to provide
`individual subscribers the widest range of information op-
`tions at the least cost in terms of installed equipment. Flex-
`ibility must exist for expanding the capacity of installed
`systems by means of transmitted software and for altering
`installed systems in a modular fashion by adding or remov-
`ing components.
`
`Id. at 9:10-19. The inventors saw “great potential” in their disclosed inventions, and they
`
`believed that unlocking that potential would “add substantial richness and variety to the
`
`communication of ideas, information and entertainment.” Id. at 1:57-2:5. Their object
`
`was “to unlock this great potential in the fullest measure.” Id. at 2:49-52. The illustra-
`
`tions they used to show how that potential could be unlocked were “presented by way of
`
`example only.” Id. at 287:4-5. The invention was “not to be unduly restricted” by those
`
`examples “since modifications may be made in the structure of the various parts or in the
`
`methods of their functioning without functionally departing from the spirit of the inven-
`
`tion.” Id. at 287:5-9.
`
`II. Legal Principles of Claim Construction
`
`Claim construction is a question of law to be resolved by the Court. See Mark-
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 2530
`
`
`man v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Federal Cir-
`
`cuit has provided several general principles to guide the process of claim construction:
`
` Claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
` The starting point for determining the ordinary and customary meaning of
`a term is the intrinsic record – the claims themselves, the written descrip-
`tion, and the prosecution history.
`
` Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries and expert testimony, can only be
`used to confirm, not contradict, the intrinsic record.
`
`See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-25 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see
`
`also Ex. 5 at 3-8 (“General Principles Governing Claim Construction”).
`
`“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation
`
`present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
`
`Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In particular, when the “claim language
`
`is clear to a lay jury who will understand the term,” the Court may properly resolve the
`
`parties’ dispute simply by rejecting an overly narrow construction and holding that the
`
`term will have its plain and ordinary meaning. Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 742 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 875, 884-85 (E.D. Tex. 2010); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`
`626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Saffran v. Boston Sci. Corp., 740 F. Supp. 2d 899,
`
`904-05 (E.D. Tex. 2010).
`
`III. Agreed Constructions
`
`The parties have agreed to the following constructions:
`
` “User specific data” is “Information that reflects something personal
`about a particular user.”7
`
` “Generate,” “Generated,” and “Generating” mean “Bring/ brought/ bring-
`ing into existence.”8
`
`7 See ‘251 Board Decision, Ex. 6 at 16-17.
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 2531
`
`
` “Store,” “Stored,” and “Storing” mean “to retain, either temporarily or
`permanently, data in a device from which it can be accessed at a later
`time.”
`
` “Storage” and “Storage device” mean “any device that can retain infor-
`mation, either temporarily or permanently, and from which it can be ac-
`cessed at a later time.”
`
` “Coordinated display” means “A display where the images used in the
`display are displayed dependent on a defined relationship between the
`content of the images.”9
`
` “Organizing information included in said at least one first discrete signal
`with information included in said second discrete signal” means “Arrang-
`ing information included in the at least one first discrete signal and infor-
`mation included in the second discrete signal.”10
`IV. Zynga’s Proposed Terms for Construction
`
`PMC does not believe that any of the terms in the Asserted Claims require con-
`
`struction beyond the agreed constructions in Section III. Zynga’s proposed constructions
`
`are simply attempts to redraft claim language that has no need of clarification and to graft
`
`onto the claims narrow limitations chosen only to avoid infringement. Claim construc-
`
`tion “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[W]hen claim language is broader than the pre-
`
`ferred embodiment, it is well-settled that claims are not to be confined to that embodi-
`
`ment.” DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323).
`
`A.
`
`“Subscriber”11
`
`The claim term “subscriber” appears in Claims 18, 22, 23, and 28 of the ‘251 pa-
`
`
`8 See ‘251 Board Decision, Ex. 6 at 18-20.
`9 See ‘251 Rehearing Decision, Ex. 7 at 3.
`10 See ‘251 Board Decision, Ex. 6 at 20-24.
`11 Term 7 in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 2532
`
`
`tent, Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9 of the ‘717 patent, Claim 3 of the ‘131 patent, and Claims 1, 6,
`
`11, 12, 13, and 15 of the ‘638 patent. The parties’ proposed constructions are:
`
`Zynga’s Proposed Construction
`“A person or company that has agreed to
`pay for access to a publication or service
`that is unavailable to non-subscribers.”
`
`PMC’s Proposed Construction
`This term does not require construction.
`However, if a construction for this term is
`entered, it should be: “A subscriber to in-
`formation is one who views, hears, reads,
`or in some other way perceives the infor-
`mation.”
`
`The primary dispute involves Zynga’s attempt to add a “payment” limitation to
`
`this term. The best place to look for the meaning of “subscriber” is in the Asserted Pa-
`
`tents, where the term is used over 500 times. “[T]he ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term
`
`is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1321. The patents recognize that “many different classes of subscriber will exist with
`
`different information demands.” Ex. 2 at 272:64-67. One class of subscribers includes
`
`television viewers:
`
`At the station of FIGS. 7 and 7B, a subscriber decides to
`watch a particular television program the audio of which
`is stereo simulcast on a local radio station, in a fashion well
`known in the art. Said subscriber switches power on to
`TV set, 202, and manually selects the proper channel,
`which is, for example, channel 13, at the television tuner,
`215, of said set, 202, thereby display of the video and audio
`information of the transmission of said channel.
`
`Id. at 209:60-67. In this case, “subscriber” refers to someone who simply elects to view
`
`programming, with no obligation to pay.
`
`The millions of viewers of “Wall Street Week” over “conventional broadcast tel-
`
`evision” are called “subscribers” in the Asserted Patents:
`
`In the example, the subscriber station of FIG. 1 is in New
`York City and is tuned to the conventional broadcast tel-
`evision transmission frequency of channel 13 at 8:30 PM
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 2533
`
`
`on a Friday evening when the broadcast station of said fre-
`quency, WNET, commences transmitting a television pro-
`gram about stock market investing, “Wall Street Week.” …
`From said program originating studio said program is
`transmitted by conventional television network feed trans-
`mission means, well known in the art, to a large number of
`geographically dispersed intermediate transmission stations
`that retransmit said program to millions of subscriber
`stations where subscribers view said program.
`
`Id. at 11:19-35. Here again, “subscribers” refers to those who view programming, with-
`
`out any reference to payment obligations.
`
`Within another class, subscribers must be “duly authorized”:
`
`Flexibility must exist for varying techniques that restrict
`programming to duly authorized subscribers in order to
`identify and deter pirates of programming.
`
`Id. at 9:14-16. There is no requirement that a “duly authorized” subscriber be a paying
`
`subscriber.
`
`When desired, metering can be used to charge subscribers for viewing program-
`
`ming:
`
`It [the signal processor] meters communications and ena-
`bles owners of information to offer their information to
`subscribers in many fashions on condition of payment.
`
`Id. at 15:16-18. Charging subscribers is described in the patents as an “example,” and
`
`even then occurs only when so commanded:
`
`In the second example, the combining of FIG. 1C occurs
`only at selected subscriber stations. The second combining
`synch command is partially encrypted, and said stations are
`preprogrammed with particular information that is neces-
`sary to decrypt said command. At said stations, said com-
`mand causes its own decryption and the combining of FIG.
`1C. In addition, said command causes signal processor
`apparatus at said stations to retain meter information
`that a remote billing agency can use as a basis for
`charging the subscribers of said stations for displaying
`the combined information of said combining. At all other
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 2534
`
`
`stations, no information is decrypted, no combining occurs,
`and no meter information is collected.
`
`Id. at 45:29-40. With other classes there is also payment, but not payment by the sub-
`
`scribers:
`
`To unlock this potential also requires efficient capacity for
`providing reliable audit information to (1) advertisers and
`others who pay for the transmission and performance of
`programming… .
`
`Id. at 2:21-24. Even when programming is supplied for “conditional use,” the Asserted
`
`Patents disclose that payment by subscribers is not the only option:
`
`Moreover, this system must have the capacity to ensure that
`programming supplied for pay or for other conditional
`use is used only in accordance with those conditions. For
`example, subscriber station apparatus must display the
`commercials that are transmitted in transmissions that
`advertisers pay for.
`
`Id. at 2:33-37.
`
`In short, many different classes of subscribers are disclosed in the patents, some
`
`with payment and some without, and even when payment is included, it is not necessarily
`
`a payment made by the subscriber. What all the different types of subscribers in the As-
`
`serted Patents have in common is that they are all viewers of programming:
`
`Thus each viewer – including the subscriber of the station
`of FIGS. 7 and 7F, said second subscriber, and said third
`subscriber – can see TV568* in the upper left hand corner
`of the picture on the monitor, 202M, of his station.
`
`Id. at 259:63-67. If a “subscriber” to information is construed, and if the construction is
`
`to encompass the many ways that term is used in the patents, then it must refer to “one
`
`who views, hears, reads, or in some other way perceives the information.” That is how
`
`the Asserted Patents use the term:
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 2535
`
`
`In the case of any given programming that is outputted at
`any given output apparatus, thereby enabling a subscriber
`to view or hear or read or in some other way perceive
`the information of said programming… .
`
`Id. at 166:33-36.
`
`Ultimate receiver stations are stations where programming
`is displayed (or otherwise outputted) to one or more sub-
`scribers, thereby enabling said subscriber or subscribers
`to view (or otherwise perceive) the information content
`of the programming.
`
`Id. at 201:16-20.
`
`The Asserted Claims say nothing about payment by subscribers. “[I]f we once
`
`begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in order to limit such claim we
`
`should never know where to stop.” NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d
`
`1282, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 160 U.S. 110,
`
`116 (1895)). Further, the patents disclose embodiments in which no payments occur, and
`
`construing “subscriber” to require payments would exclude those embodiments from the
`
`scope of the claims. “[A] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from
`
`the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk
`
`Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`B.
`
`“Video” and “Video Image”12
`
`The claim term “video” appears in Claims 17, 18, 19, 24, and 28 of the ‘251 pa-
`
`tent, and Claim 1 of the ‘717 patent. The claim term “video image” appears in Claims
`
`17, 18, and 24 of the ‘251 patent. The parties’ proposed constructions are:
`
`Zynga’s Proposed Construction
`“Video”: “A series of still images intended
`to be displayed in sequence to allow for the
`
`12 Terms 1 and 8 in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`PMC’s Proposed Construction
`“Video”: This term does not require con-
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 2536
`
`
`appearance of movement.”
`“Video Image”: “Still visual representation,
`which could include textual information,
`that is part of a series of still visual repre-
`sentations intended to be displayed in se-
`quence to allow for the appearance of
`movement.”
`
`struction.
`However, if a construction for this term is
`entered, it should be: “information that rep-
`resents a visually perceivable presentation,
`such as graphics, images, or text”
`“Video Image”: This term does not require
`construction.
`
`As with “subscriber,” “video” is a term that occurs frequently in the Asserted Pa-
`
`tents – nearly 300 times in the specification. And, as with “subscriber,” the Asserted Pa-
`
`tents are the best place to look for the meaning of “video” in the claims. “Apart from the
`
`claim language itself, ‘the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a claim
`
`term.’” AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux, Inc., 657 F.3d 1264, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quot-
`
`ing Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006)). What one finds in the patents is that “video” is contrasted with “audio” – that is,
`
`“video” refers to that which is visually perceivable:
`
`And as said master station transmits conventional video
`and audio information that shows visually and describes
`aurally information of general interest to farmers in all of
`said nations… .
`
`Ex. 2 at 278:32-35.
`
`“Video” information in the patents is “picture” information:
`
`Said output could be audio and/or video information out-
`putted to a monitor, 202M, and caused to be emitted as
`sound and/or displayed as picture information.
`
`Id. at 258:15-18. The Asserted Patents refer both to “the picture screen of the monitor,
`
`202M” and to “the video screen of TV monitor, 202M.” Id. at 252:53, 13:67.
`
`“Video” in the patents can refer to the “digital bit information” of Figure 1A that
`
`is stored in “video RAM” and “transmitted alone” to a “video screen”:
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 2537
`
`
`Then in a fashion well known in the art, the instructions
`cause microcomputer, 205, to enter digital bit information
`at the video RAM of the graphics card in a particular
`pattern that depicts the said percentage change as it would
`be graphed on a particular graph with a particular origin
`and set of scaled graph axes. …
`
`If the information at video RAM at the end of these steps
`were to be transmitted alone to the video screen of a TV
`monitor, it would appear as a line of a designated color,
`such as red, on a background color that is transparent when
`overlaid on a separate video image. Black is such a back-
`ground color, and FIG. 1A shows one such line.
`
`Id. at 13:36-50.
`
`
`
`Id. at Figure 1A. That this graphic image is stored in “video RAM” demonstrates that
`
`“video” is broader than Zynga proposes in that it need not be “a series of still images.”
`
`“Video” is also used to refer to “binary video image information of several telephone
`
`numbers” and dollar amounts. Id. at 188:39-40; 250:25-29 (“causes binary image infor-
`
`mation of ‘$1,071.32’ to be placed at bit locations of video RAM that produce video im-
`
`age information in the upper left hand of a video screen when video RAM information is
`
`transmitted to said screen.”).
`
`The Asserted Claims use the term “video” in various contexts: “video apparatus,”
`
`“video output device,” “video presentation,” “remote video source,” “video image,” “vid-
`
`eo monitor,” “computer generated video display outputs,” and “video signals.” As with
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 2538
`
`
`the specification, each of these uses of “video” in the Asserted Claims shows that the
`
`term refers to something that is visually perceivable.
`
`The claims say nothing about “movement,” and “video” is used in the patents to
`
`refer to the display of static pictures, such as Figure 1A, static telephone numbers, and
`
`static dollar amounts. Zynga’s attempt to limit the broad meaning of “video” found in the
`
`patents should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`“Processor” and “Processing”13
`
`The claim term “processor” appears in Claims 17, 18, and 28 of the ‘251 patent,
`
`and Claim 1 of the ‘131 patent. The claim term “processing” appears in Claims 17, 18,
`
`and 28 of the ‘251 patent, Claim 1 of the ‘717 patent, Claim 1 of the ‘131 patent, and
`
`Claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ‘638 patent. The parties’ proposed constructions are:
`
`PMC’s Proposed Construction
`These terms do not require construction.
`
`Zynga’s Proposed Construction
`“Processor”: “Any device capable of per-
`forming operations on data. This includes
`devices that operate by executing instruc-
`tions as well as devices that operate by oth-
`er means.”
`“Processing”: “Performing operations on
`data or a signal. This includes operations
`done by executing instructions as well as
`operations done without executing instruc-
`tions.”
`
`Various forms of the root word “process” occur over 1600 times in the specifica-
`
`tion of the Asserted Patents, including each patent’s title: “Signal Processing Apparatus
`
`and Methods.” The “process” terms are used in many different ways in the specification:
`
` Computer processing (Ex. 2 at 1:21-22)
` Data processing (id. at 2:65)
` Central processor units (id. at 2:66)
`
`13 Terms 4 and 17 in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 2539
`
`
`
`Information processing (id. at 15:41-42)
` Signal processing (id. at 21:31-32)
`
`Instruction processing (id. at 24:51-52)
` Command processing (id. at 25:11)
` Message information processing (id. at 34:55)
` Data processing apparatus (id. at 44:29)
` Control information processing (id. at 82:38)
` Overlay processing (id. at 99:50)
` Processing of programming (id. at 102:35-36)
` Remote processing station (id. at 103:60)
` Metering processes (id. at 115:14)
` Header information processing (id. at 129:46)
` Task processing (id. at 142:13)
` Transmission processing (id. at 173:32)
` Record processing (id. at 175:41-42)
` Program schedule information processing (id. at 176:32-33)
` News item processing (id. at 216:25)
` Audio processing (id. at 241:2)
` Recipe processing (id. at 241:36-37)
` Data file processing (id. at 264:41)
`
`The Asserted Claims likewise use the “process” terms in various contexts:
`
` Processing remotely originated data (‘251 Claim 17, id. at 288:16-17)
` Processing user specific data (‘251 Claim 17, id.)
` Executing processor instructions (‘251 Claim 17, id. at 288:30)
` Passing signals to at least one processor (‘251 Claim 18, id. at 288:54-55)
` Processing a receiver specific control signal (‘251 Claim 24, id. at 289:26-27)
` Processor delivers generated image at video monitor (‘251 Claim 28, id.
`at 289:46-47)
` Processing first data in accordance with instruct signals (‘638 Claim 1,
`Ex. 3 at 287:48-49)
` Processing instruct signals (‘638 Claim 1, id. at 287:50)
` Processing first subscriber specific data (‘638 Claim 6, id. at 288:50-51)
` Processing a portion of generally applicable information (‘638 Claim 11,
`id. at 289:27-28)
` Processing video signals (‘717 Claim 1, Ex. 4 at 287:15)
` Enabling a processor to select a specific datum (‘131 Claim 1, Ex. 1 at
`286:65-67)
` Processing the selected datum (‘131 Claim 1, id. at 287:1-2)
`
`What these lengthy lists demonstrate is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
`
`to craft a construction of “processor”/”processing” that would make sense in each of
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2028
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-00068-JRG-RSP Document 77 Filed 03/05/13 Page 17 o