Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 80 PageID #: 1205
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`SCRIPT SECURITY SOLUTIONS ,
`L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:15-cv-1030-JRG
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. SAMUEL H. RUSS
`IN SUPPORT OF SCRIPT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 79
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 3 of 80 PageID #: 1206
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS, RETENTION, AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .........................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Compensation ..........................................................................................................1
`
`Qualifications ...........................................................................................................1
`
`Materials Reviewed and Relied Upon .....................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................................4
`
`Means-Plus-Function ...............................................................................................4
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art..................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ...............................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`The ‘078 Patent ........................................................................................................7
`
`i.
`
`“detector adapted to detect movement of said object and provide an
`indication of said movement” ..................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`“information gathering device adapted to . . . ” ........................................ 13
`
`B.
`
`The ‘091 Patent ......................................................................................................16
`
`i.
`
`“wireless movement detecting and signal transmitting means for
`transmitting security information” ............................................................ 16
`
`V.
`
`RESERVATION TO RESPOND TO OPINIONS AND EXTEND REMARKS .............19
`
`
`Page 2 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 4 of 80 PageID #: 1207
`
`This report is submitted pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Plaintiff Script Security Solutions, LLC (“Script”) to
`
`analyze the meaning of certain claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,542,078 (the “’078 Patent”) and
`
`7,113,091 (the “’091 Patent”). More specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion as to
`
`whether certain claim terms/phrases connote sufficient, definite structure to those having ordinary
`
`skill in the art and, if they do not, which structures in the specification are clearly linked to the
`
`function associated with those terms/phrases.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS, RETENTION AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
`
`A.
`
`2.
`
`Compensation
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this case at the rate of $300 per hour. No
`
`portion of my compensation is dependent on the substance of my opinions or the outcome of this
`
`or any other litigation. Aside from consulting on this litigation for Script, I have no other affiliation
`
`with Script.
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`Qualifications
`
`My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this declaration are
`
`summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as part of
`
`Exhibit A. Exhibit A also includes a list of my publications and the cases in which I have testified
`
`at deposition, hearing, or trial during the past four years.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the Georgia Institute
`
`of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in 1986 and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech
`
`in 1991.
`
`Page 3 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 5 of 80 PageID #: 1208
`
`
`
`5.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have been a member of the faculty of the University of
`
`South Alabama as an Assistant and Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering. During that time, I have won awards for excellent teaching and have been
`
`actively publishing research in home networking and digital video recording (DVR) technologies.
`
`I am active in the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and am a Distinguished
`
`Lecturer for the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society. As a consultant, I have conducted briefings
`
`for members of the financial community on technology trends in the cable, satellite, and IPTV
`
`sectors. I have also recently authored a textbook, Signal Integrity, published by Springer.
`
`6.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, I worked for Scientific-Atlanta (now Cisco’s Service Provider
`
`Video Tech. Group), where I managed a cable set-top box (STB) design group that designed four
`
`STB models, including the Explorer 4200 (non-DVR) and 8300 (DVR) models. Both models sold
`
`several million units. As design-group manager, I was responsible for managing the design and
`
`prototyping activities of the group and for interfacing with other groups (especially integrated-
`
`circuit design, procurement, software developers, the factory where prototypes were built, and
`
`product managers) and for maintaining the hardware and mechanical development schedule. Since
`
`the products were produced in extremely high volumes, the projects had very high visibility in the
`
`company, and therefore carried a great deal of responsibility.
`
`7.
`
`Also while at Scientific-Atlanta, I became a staff expert in home networking,
`
`conducting demonstrations of wireless video technology and managing a group that developed a
`
`new coaxial home networking system. The coaxial system won a Technology and Engineering
`
`Emmy® Award in 2013. I became a staff expert in DVR reliability, and led a team that improved
`
`the software, hardware, repair, and manufacturing processes. I was a named inventor on forty-
`
`Page 4 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 6 of 80 PageID #: 1209
`
`eight (48) patent applications that were filed while I was at Scientific-Atlanta, twenty six (26) of
`
`which have issued as U.S. patents as of the writing of this report.
`
`8.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was a Staff Electrical Engineer and then Matrix Manager at
`
`IVI Checkmate (now Ingenico), where I managed the hardware design team that completed the
`
`design of the eN-Touch 1000 payment terminal. This terminal was in widespread use, for example,
`
`at the self-checkout at Home Depot.
`
`9.
`
`I also served on the faculty of Mississippi State University from 1994 to 1999 as an
`
`Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering where I taught circuit
`
`board design and two-way interactive video classes, among other things.
`
`10.
`
`I have also authored 32 journal articles and conference papers. A recent conference
`
`paper on digital video recording won second place in a “best paper” competition at the 2011
`
`International Conference on Consumer Electronics in Las Vegas, NV. A complete list of
`
`publications is included in my curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit A.
`
`C. Materials Reviewed and Relied Upon
`
`11.
`
`In preparing the opinions and discussion outlined in this report, I have reviewed
`
`and considered the materials listed in attached Exhibit B.
`
`12.
`
`An additional basis for my opinions is my own experience as an engineering
`
`manager and as a staff expert while at Scientific-Atlanta (“S-A”). As noted above, I have managed
`
`the design of four electronic products that entered mass production (three cable set-top boxes, the
`
`Explorer 1840, 4200, and 8300, and one point-of-sale retail terminal, the eN-Touch 1000). Two of
`
`those products (the 4200 and 8300) were produced in million-unit quantities. I also became a staff
`
`expert in home networking and DVR reliability and performance, as well as all aspects of design
`
`Page 5 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 7 of 80 PageID #: 1210
`
`of computer-based systems, embedded systems, electronics manufacturing, and design for low
`
`product cost.
`
`13.
`
`I have also relied on years of education, teaching, research, and experience
`
`concerning software, circuit design, signal integrity, computer architecture, digital logic design
`
`and synthesis, embedded systems, distributed computing, and computer design. As I continue my
`
`work on the issues raised in this case, I may supplement, refine or revise my opinions and findings
`
`as a result of further review and analysis. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions – including documents that may not yet have been
`
`produced and testimony that may not yet have been given.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`14.
`
`I am not an attorney. I have been advised of the following general principles of
`
`patent law to be considered in formulating my opinions as to the issues of infringement of the
`
`Asserted Claims.
`
`A.
`
`15.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`It is my understanding that the court performs a necessary step called claim
`
`construction. It is my understanding the terms in a claim are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art informed by the claim itself and by
`
`the specification. It is my understanding that the court performs this step so that the jury has a
`
`clear understanding of the meanings of terms. It is my understanding that the terms in a claim
`
`must be construed before infringement can be analyzed.
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that a patentee may draft a claim term as what is referred to
`
`as a “means-plus-function” (“MPF”) limitation. For example, a patentee may draft a term that
`
`Page 6 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 8 of 80 PageID #: 1211
`
`recites “a means for driving a nail into a wall.” Because this phrase is a MPF limitation, the
`
`patentee is entitled to all structures disclosed in the specification, and their equivalents, that are
`
`clearly linked to the function of “driving a nail into a wall.” For instance, if the only structure
`
`disclosed in the patent specification is a hammer, then the scope of the “means for driving a nail
`
`into a wall” is limited to a hammer and its equivalents.
`
`17.
`
`It is further my understanding that when the term “means” is used there is rebuttable
`
`legal presumption that the corresponding claim term is a MPF limitation. This presumption can be
`
`overcome by showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disputed phrase to
`
`connote sufficiently definite structure. Conversely, when the term “means” is not used, there is a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the corresponding claim term is not a MPF limitation.1 This
`
`presumption can be overcome by showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand
`
`the disputed phrase to connote sufficiently definite structure.
`
`18.
`
`I have further been informed that when determining whether a disputed term does
`
`or does not connote sufficiently definite structure, one must consider not only the disputed claim
`
`limitation, but also the surrounding claim language and the specification. If, when viewed in light
`
`of the specification and surrounding claim language, the disputed term connotes sufficiently
`
`definite structure to those of ordinary skill in the art, then the disputed phrase is not a means-plus-
`
`function limitation. A disputed term does not need to connote a specific structure or a precise
`
`1 I have also been informed by counsel that, under the law, terms such as “device,”
`“mechanism,” and “element” have been found by courts to constitute generic terms that do not
`reflect any particular structure, and that they can sometimes be interpreted to be a substitute for
`the term “means.” The court’s refer to these terms as “nonce words.”
`
`Page 7 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 9 of 80 PageID #: 1212
`
`physical structure to connote “sufficiently definite structure.” Instead, a disputed term can connote
`
`a broad class of structures, or even identify a known structure by its particular function.
`
`19.
`
`Once it has been determined that a claim term is a means-plus-function limitation,
`
`the specification must be consulted to determine which structure(s) in the specification is clearly
`
`linked to the recited function of the means-plus-function limitation. For example, if the phrase
`
`“means for driving a nail into a wall” is found to be a means-plus-function limitation, and the only
`
`structures disclosed in the specification that “drive a nail into a wall” are a hammer and nail-gun,
`
`then only those structures (and their equivalents) would correspond to the MPF term.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`20.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`It is my understanding that when construing claim terms, including when
`
`determining whether a term is a means-plus-function and its corresponding structure, the disputed
`
`terms must be viewed from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) at the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
` The relevant date for the “time of the invention” is determined based on what is
`
`referred to as the “priority” date of the patent. I have not been asked to analyze or determine the
`
`appropriate priority date for either of the ‘078 or ‘909 patents. Instead, counsel has asked me to
`
`assume that the priority date for claim 1 of the ‘078 patent claims is April 23, 1996 and July 2,
`
`Page 8 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 10 of 80 PageID #: 1213
`
`2004 for claim 2 of the ‘091 patent. For the purposes of this declaration, I have assumed these are
`
`the appropriate priority dates.2
`
`22.
`
`The ‘078 and ‘091 patents relate to security alarm systems that can provide alarm
`
`notifications to remote locations. See e.g., ‘078 patent at claim 1 (“A system for detecting the
`
`movement of an object and providing information relative to said movement to a remote location.
`
`. . .”); ‘091 patent at claim 2 (“A security network comprising a security administration system and
`
`at least one portable security alarm system having a wireless receiver means . . . .”). Based on my
`
`review of the ‘078 and ‘091 patents, it is my opinion that a PHOSITA would have had: (1) a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree; and (2) at least
`
`two years of experience working with security systems or similar such systems (e.g., wireless entry
`
`systems).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`The ‘078 Patent
`
`23.
`
`The ‘078 Patent is entitled “Portable Motion Detector and Alarm System and
`
`Method” is directed towards a wireless alarm system that can provide remote notifications. I have
`
`formed an opinion on two of the disputed terms.
`
`2 I understand that Defendants are taking the position that the priority date of claim 1 of the ‘078
`
`patent is February 16, 2001. However, the difference in time between the priority dates proffered
`
`by the parties is slight, and those differences would not be meaningful enough to alter any of my
`
`opinions in this report regarding how these claim terms would be interpreted.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 11 of 80 PageID #: 1214
`
`i. “detector adapted to detect movement of said object and provide an
`indication of said movement”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: to detect movement of said
`object and provide an indication of
`said movement
`
`Structure: retractable wire, movable
`magnets, and a magnetic field sensor
`
`Disputed Term
`“detector adapted to
`detect movement of said
`object and provide an
`indication of said
`movement”
`(Claim 1)
`
`Script’s Construction
`No construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively:
`
`Function: detecting
`movement of said object
`and to provide an
`indication of said
`movement
`
`Structure: a circuit that
`can sense shifts in
`magnetic fields.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that the Defendants have asserted that the phrase is a means-
`
`plus-function limitation. Additionally, the Defendants have proposed the definitions listed above
`
`with regards to the function and structure of the phrase.
`
`25.
`
`I disagree with the Defendants’ constructions on two main points.
`
`26. My first point of disagreement is this: I believe that the phrase is not a means-plus-
`
`function limitation. The phrase does not contain the word “means” and so it must be presumed that
`
`the phrase is not subject to means-plus-function treatment. Even ignoring that fact, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would easily understand the disputed phrase to connote a particular class of
`
`structures known as “motion detectors.” Specifically, the disputed phrase recites a “detector
`
`adapted to detect movement of said object and provide indication of said movement.” Thus, the
`
`“detector” must be for “detecting movement.” Any person of ordinary skill would immediately
`
`recognize this as the disclosure of a motion detector. Moreover, the title of the ‘078 patent is
`
`“Portable Motion Detector and Alarm System and Method,” and the patent explains that “[t]he
`
`Page 10 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 12 of 80 PageID #: 1215
`
`invention relates generally to an improved motion detector and alarm system. . . .” These lend
`
`further credence to my opinion that the disputed phrase would be understood to connote a motion
`
`detector, which one of ordinary skill in the art would grasp as a well-known class of structures in
`
`the art.
`
`27.
`
`Examples of the term motion detector in the prior art abound:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`“active motion detectors, such as ultrasonic, sonic, and microwave
`detectors.” Robert L. Barnard, Intrusion Detection Systems, 177 (2nd ed.
`1988) (Exhibit 6 to Script’s Opening Brief)
`
`“The system consists of a motion detector . . . . The motion detector senses
`motion and sends the appropriate signal to the control unit. . . . The typical
`ceiling-mounted system consists of a motion detector/controller . . . .”
`California Energy Commission Staff, Advanced Lighting Guidelines, 1, 4
`(1993) (Exhibit 7 to Script’s Opening Brief)
`
`“The Black & Decker Home Protector comes with a Controller, Motion
`Detector, Yard Sign, and Window/Door Decals.” Popular Science, Best of
`What’s New (1989) (Exhibit 8 to Script’s Opening Brief);
`
`
`
`28.
`
`For example, passive infrared motion detectors, ultrasonic motion detectors, and
`
`microwave motion detectors were well-known and commonly used motion detectors at the time
`
`of the invention. And each of these types of motion detectors would be understood by those having
`
`ordinary skill to have a known structure. For example, a passive infrared (PIR) motion detector
`
`would be known to contain an infrared-sensitive sensor made from pyroelectric materials for
`
`detecting IR radiation, while an ultrasonic motion detector would be known to have an ultrasonic
`
`transducer (i.e., for emitting and detecting ultrasonic sound).
`
`29.
`
`Passive infrared motion detectors were extremely common in 1996, and indeed are
`
`commonly used now. Some examples of references that discuss these detectors in detail are:
`
`- H. J. Keller, "Advanced passive infrared presence detectors as key elements
`integrated security and building automation systems," Security
`in
`
`Page 11 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 13 of 80 PageID #: 1216
`
`Technology, 1993. Security Technology, Proceedings. Institute of
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers 1993 International Carnahan
`Conference on, Ottawa, Ont., 1993, pp. 75-77 (Exhibit C)
`
`“Passive infrared detector,” United States Patent 5,107,120, Filed
`09/22/1989 (Exhibit D)
`
`“Passive infrared detector,” United States Patent 4,672,206, Filed
`07/25/1985 (Exhibit E)
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In short, it is my opinion that: (i) this disputed phrase would be understood by those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to connote a motion detector, and; (2) a motion detector has sufficiently
`
`definite, well-known structure for performing the claimed function. As such, I do not believe that
`
`this phrase is a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`31. My second point of disagreement with Defendants is this: even if it is assumed, for
`
`the sake of argument, that the disputed phrase is a means-plus-function limitation, the Defendants’
`
`proposed construction links structures to the recited function that are not necessary to perform the
`
`function of detecting movement of an object and providing an indication of said movement.
`
`32.
`
`It is very important to view this disputed phrase in the context of the entire claim,
`
`which I have reproduced below:
`
`1. [Preamble] A system for detecting the movement of an object and providing
`information relative to said movement to a remote location comprising
`
`[A] an object whose movement is to be detected,
`
`[B] a detector adapted to detect movement of said object and provide an
`indication of said movement,
`
`[C] a first transmitter associated with said detector and adapted to wirelessly
`transmit a predetermined signal in response to said indication,
`
`[D] an information gathering device adapted to receive said predetermined signal,
`to gather information relating to said movement, and to transmit said information,
`and
`
`Page 12 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 14 of 80 PageID #: 1217
`
`
`[E] a remote notification device adapted to receive said information from said
`information gathering device, to establish data communication with a remote host,
`and to provide said information to said remote host.
`
`
`33.
`
`As shown here, the claim first calls for [A] “an object whose movement is to be
`
`detected” and then [B] “a detector adapted to detect movement of said object and provide an
`
`indication of said movement.” That is, it calls for, first, an object that can move and, second, a
`
`detector that detects its movement. In the specification, the objects whose “movement is to be
`
`detected” are magnets, while the detector is the magnetic sensor circuitry that “detects” movement
`
`of the magnets. More specifically, the circuit of Figure 9 (reproduced below) is an example of the
`
`circuit that detects the motion of the magnets.
`
`
`
`
`
`The “detector” is a circuit like that of Figure 9 – one adapted to sense shifts in magnetic fields.
`
`There is no need to add any more structure to the claimed “detector” because Figure 9 is a fully
`
`functional circuit that detects movement of an object and provides an indication of its movement
`
`based on shifts in magnetic fields. Indeed, neither the magnets nor the retractable wire, both of
`
`which are proposed by Defendants, “detect” anything, which is a clear requirement of the recited
`
`Page 13 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 15 of 80 PageID #: 1218
`
`function, even under the Defendant’s proposed function. Instead, it is the sensor circuitry that
`
`“detects” movement by sensing changing magnetic fields. My opinion is bolstered by the
`
`specification, which actually refers to the magnetic field sensor (56) as a “means for detecting
`
`movement” (e.g., a motion detector). See e.g., ‘078 patent at 7:49–53, emphasis added (“A
`
`schematic diagram of a type readily understood by those skilled in the electronic arts illustrated a
`
`preferred circuit connection for means 56 for detecting movement, is provided in Fig. 9). In stark
`
`contrast, the corresponding magnets and wire are referred to as distinct and separate components
`
`that are not within, or part of, the “means for detecting movement.” See ‘078 patent at 7:67–8:2
`
`(referring to the magnets as “movable magnet means” (54)); ‘078 patent at 8:50–52 (referring to
`
`the retractable wire as “retractable wire means” (22)). If the motion detector required the magnets
`
`or retractable wire to “detect movement,” they would logically be part of the “magnetic field
`
`sensor” or “means for detecting movement,” which is the structure that performs the recited
`
`detecting function. As such, I disagree with Defendants proposal that the magnets and a retractable
`
`wire are required to perform the function of “detecting movement.”
`
`34.
`
`Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a magnet is somehow required, I
`
`disagree that the magnet must be a “moveable” magnet. The specification states that the magnets
`
`“may be of a type commonly available from sources such as Radio Shack. One such magnet means
`
`suitable for use in a preferred embodiment of the present invention is a common 1/8” diameter
`
`earth magnet available from Radio Shack . . . .” ‘078 patent at 7:3–7. One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand this phrase to state that any commonly available type of magnet could be
`
`used in the disclosed system. Whether a commonly available magnet is “moveable” or not is
`
`entirely dependent on how the magnet is used, not the structure of the magnet itself. For example,
`
`Page 14 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 16 of 80 PageID #: 1219
`
`if a magnet is mounted to a rotatable frame the magnet could be said to be “movable,” while if that
`
`same magnet is mounted to the floor the magnet may be said to be “static” or “stationary.” The
`
`fact remains, however, that the structure of the magnet remains the same whether it is mounted in
`
`a static or movable fashion. As such, one of skill in the art would not understand the disclosed
`
`magnets to be limited to the “movable” type, as the specification clearly states any type of
`
`commonly available magnet could have been used, and commonly available magnets could be
`
`statically or moveably mounted. Indeed, the magnet itself need not be moveable – it might be the
`
`case that the detector circuit moves and the magnet remains stationary.
`
`ii. “information gathering device adapted to . . . ”
`
` Disputed Term
`“information gathering
`device adapted to
`received said
`predetermined signal, to
`gather information
`relative to said movement,
`and to transmit said
`information”
`(Claim 1)
`
`Script’s Construction
`Function: to receive said
`predetermined signal, to gather
`information relating to said
`movement, and to transmit said
`information
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: to receive said
`predetermined signal, to gather
`information relating to said
`movement, and to transmit said
`information
`
`Structure: an RF receiver, a
`camera and/or microphone, RF
`transmitter, and a power
`supply
`
`
`Structure: an RF receiver, a
`camera, RF transmitter, and a
`power supply within a single
`device.
`
`35. My understanding is that the parties agree that this disputed phrase is a means-plus-
`
`function limitation, and that the corresponding structure includes an RF receiver, camera, RF
`
`transmitter, and a power supply. I agree that these structures are clearly linked to the recite function
`
`and required to perform that function. However, I disagree with Defendants’ position that (i) the
`
`RF receiver, camera, RF transmitter, and power supply must be “within a single device” (which
`
`presumably means contained inside a single housing) and (ii) that a microphone is excluded from
`
`the corresponding structure.
`
`Page 15 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 17 of 80 PageID #: 1220
`
`36. With respect to the “within a single device” structure proposed by Defendants, there
`
`is simply no basis for requiring that the structures must reside in the same housing.
`
`37.
`
`First, the patent itself teaches, for example, that the RF receiver can be separate
`
`from the other parts of the structure. An example of the claimed “information gathering device”
`
`is shown in Figure 13 of the patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`The specification states that the power supply, camera, and RF transmitter can be
`
`implemented (e.g.) in a commercially available surveillance product known as the Xcam2™ Video
`
`camera kit. ‘078 patent at 10:57–65. The patent specification goes on to teach, however, that the
`
`RF receiver may be a separate device: “The RF receiver 106 can be implemented using the RF
`
`receiving circuit components of the previously-described receiver 30 (see e.g., FIG. 10).” (‘078
`
`Patent at 10:66-11:1) So Figure 13 is an embodiment of the claimed “information gathering
`
`apparatus,” and, in one embodiment in the specification, the RF receiver is a separate device.
`
`Page 16 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 18 of 80 PageID #: 1221
`
`39.
`
`Second, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill that there are numerous ways that
`
`such an apparatus could be designed, and so multiple ways that such an apparatus might be
`
`contained in multiple housings.
`
`40.
`
`I can see numerous examples of why this might be done based on my own
`
`experiences as a design manager. The camera could be a standalone unit purchased from another
`
`manufacturer. It is quite common that a power supply is an external unit that plugs directly into a
`
`wall. (Indeed, in my experience it is commonly done this way in order to simplify the process of
`
`obtaining safety certification.) The RF transmitter may need to be remotely housed so that the
`
`antenna can be located outside a metal housing. That the entire apparatus is constructed inside a
`
`single housing is simply not taught in the specification, nor does it have any effect on the agreed
`
`structures to perform the recited function.
`
`41. With respect to whether the “microphone” is potentially part of the claimed
`
`“information gathering device,” the specification directly teaches that a microphone is an
`
`alternative structure for gathering information about the movement of the object (i.e., audio
`
`recordings of the person/thing that caused the movement):
`
`- The information gathering device may include a “color analog video camera
`that can transmit live color video (and audio) signals up to 100 feet, a
`microphone (for audio signal generation), and a 2.4 GHz transmitter into a
`single device of relatively small size.” ‘078 patent at 10:62–65 (emphasis
`added)
`
`-
`
`“If the information gathering device also includes a microphone, the RF
`transmitter 104 will also send audio information to the remote notification
`device.” ‘078 patent at 1:36–38 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Thus the specification clearly discloses both that the claimed “information
`
`gathering device” can include a microphone to gather audio information and a camera to gather
`
`Page 17 of 79
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01030-WCB Document 134-4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 19 of 80 PageID #: 1222
`
`video information to perform its claimed function of “gathering information relating to said
`
`movement.”
`
`B.
`
`The ‘091 Patent
`
`43.
`
`The ‘091 Patent was filed in July 2004, and is drawn to a similar field of art as the
`
`‘078 patent. I have formed opinions on one of the disputed terms.
`
`i. “wireless movement detecting and signal transmitting means for
`transmitting security information”
`
`
`
`Disputed Term
`“wireless movement
`detecting and signal
`transmitting means
`for transmitting
`security
`information”
`(claim 2)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: detecting movement and
`wirelessly transmitting security
`information
`
`Structure: retractable wire, gyroscope
`sensor, MEMS accelerometer sensor,
`piezoelectric film accelerometer
`sensor, earth’s magnetic poles
`magnetic field sensor, or piezoelectric
`inertial sensor and transmitter.
`
`Script’s Construction
`Function: detecting
`movement and wirelessly
`transmitting security
`information
`
`Structure: a circuit that can
`sense shifts in magnetic
`fields, gyroscope sensor,
`accelerometer sensor, or
`transducer modified to be
`sensitive to inertial
`movement; integrated circuit;
`microcontroller; and a
`communication module (such
`as a transmitter or receiver)
`
`
`
`44.
`
`The parties agree that this phrase is a means-plu