UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUDIO PROCESSING
`HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-949
`
`ORDER NO. 27:
`
`CONSTRUING TERMS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`(January 7, 2016)
`
`The claim terms construed in this Order are done so for the purposes of this Investigation.
`
`Hereafter, discovery and briefing in this Investigation shall be governed by the construction of the
`
`claim terms in this Order. Those terms not in dispute need not be construed. See Vanderlande
`
`Indus. Nederland BV v. Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the
`
`administrative lawjudge need only construe disputed claim tenns).
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, Cover
`
`

`

`Table of Abbreviations
`
`CMIB
`CMRB
`CBPS
`RMIB
`RMRB
`RBPS
`SMIB
`SMRB
`SBPS
`Tr.
`
`Complainant's Initial Markman Brief
`Complainant's Reply Markman Brief
`Complainant's Bullet-Point Summary
`Respondents' and Intervenors' Initial Markman Brief
`Respondents' and Intervenors' Reply Markman Brief
`Respondents' and Intervenors' Bullet-Point· Summary
`Staffs Initial Markman Brief
`Staffs Reply Markman Brief
`Staffs Bullet-Point Summary
`Transcript of the Markman Hearing
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. (cid:76)
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`RELEVANT LAW ............................................................................................................. 2
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ....................................................................................... 5
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345 ............................................................................................ 6
`A.
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Disputed Claim Term- "magnitude of the frequency bin/magnitude of the
`corresponding frequency bin" (claims 1, 38; 4, 5, 9, 10, 39, and 40) ................................. 8
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 .............. : .................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9
`B.
`Disputed Claim Terms .......................................................................................... 1 0
`"interference signal" (claims 1, 2, 25, 26) ................................................ 1 0
`1.
`2.
`"beam splitter for beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of band
`limited target signals and beam-splitting said interference signal into band-limited
`interference signals" (claim 1) .............................................................................. 14
`"beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of band limited target signals and
`beam-splitting said interference signal into band-limited interference signals"
`(claim 25) .............................................................................................................. 14
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. (cid:76)(cid:76)
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`This investigation was instituted on March 11, 2015, based on a complaint filed by
`
`Complainant Andrea Electronics Corp. ("Complainant") on February 9, 2015. (80 Fed. Reg.
`
`14,159-160 (Mar. 18, 2015).) The Respondents in this investigation are: ASUSTeK Computer
`
`Inc.; ASUS Computer International; Dell Inc.; Hewlett Packard Co.\ Lenovo Holding Co., Inc.;
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; and Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc.
`
`(collectively "Respondents"). In addition, two third-parties have sought and obtained
`
`nonrespondent intervenor status: Contexant Systems, Inc. and Waves Audio, Ltd. (collectively
`
`"Intervenors"). (Order No. 15 (Aug. 7, 2015) (nonreviewed Sept. 10, 2015).)
`
`On August 7, 2015, I issued the procedural schedule for this investigation. (See Order
`
`No. 16 (August 7, 2015).) In accordance with that schedule, the parties exchanged: (i) on
`
`September 4, 2015, their lists of proposed terms for construction, as required by G.R. 8.1; and
`
`(ii) on September 18, 2015 their preliminary constructions for those terms, as required by G.R.
`
`8.2. After meeting and conferring to narrow the issues, the pmiies filed their Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart on September 25, 2015. Thereafter, on Octob~r 19, 2015, the parties filed
`
`their initial claim construction briefs and on November 2, 2015, the parties filed their rebuttal
`
`claim construction briefs. On November 13, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion, which is
`
`hereby Granted, seeking leave to amend their joint claim construction chmi to reflect the fact that
`
`the parties no longer dispute the construction of a number of claim terms that the parties had
`
`previously asked me to construe. (Motion Docket No. 949-035.) On November 16-17, 2015, in
`
`accordance with the procedural schedule, I held a technology tutorial and Markman hearing. I
`
`informed the parties during the hea1'ing that I would allow them to file a bullet-point summary of
`
`1 Pending is a motion to terminate HP from this investigation based on settlement. (Motion
`Docket No. 949-052.)
`·
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 1
`
`

`

`their claims construction arguments after the conclusion of the Markman hearing. On November
`
`23, 2015, each of the parties filed a bullet-point summary of their claim construction arguments.
`
`II. RELEVANT LAW
`
`"An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning
`
`and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the
`
`properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing.'' Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane) (internal citations omitted), aff'd,
`
`517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim construction is a "matter oflaw exclusively for the court." Id. at
`
`970-71. "The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`language in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims."
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane); see also ~Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit
`
`in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these compone!).ts to determine the "ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of a claim term" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in art at the
`
`time of the invention. 415 F .3d at 1313. "Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source
`
`of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v.
`
`Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`"It is a 'bedrock principle' of patent law that 'the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude."' Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). "Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms."
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 2
`
`

`

`Id. at 1314; see also Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001) ("In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the
`
`language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to
`
`'particularly point [] out and distinctly claim [] the subject matter which the patentee regards as
`
`his invention."). The context in which a term is used in an asserted claim can be ""highly
`
`instructive." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, other claims in the same patent, asserted
`
`or unasserted, may also provide guidance as to the meaning Of a claim term. I d.
`
`The specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it
`
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Id. at 1315 (quoting
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "[T]he specification
`
`may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the
`
`meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs." Id. at
`
`1316. "In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of
`
`claim scope by the inventor." Id. As a general rule, however, the particular examples or
`
`embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into. the claims as limitations. Id.
`
`at 1323. In the end, "[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally
`
`aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be ... the correct construction." Id. at
`
`1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Sodeta' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998)).
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be
`
`examined, if in evidence. Id. at 1317; see also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Nledrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can "often infonn the meaning of the claim
`
`language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 3
`
`

`

`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it.
`
`would otherwise be." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d
`
`1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a
`
`claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.").
`
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`·evidence (i.e., all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, including
`
`dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent
`
`itself and its prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. I d. at 1317. "The
`
`court may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant
`
`technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is
`
`clearly at odds with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence." Elkay Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Claim construction may include a determination of claim indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ~ 2, as a "legal conclusion that is drawn from the court's performance of its duty as the
`
`construer ofpatent claims." Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1378
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade
`
`Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Statutory definiteness mandates that the patent
`
`specification "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming
`
`the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." 3 5 U.S. C. § 112, ~ 2. " [A]
`
`patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the
`
`patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 4
`
`

`

`art about the scope ofthe invention." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S.--, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).
`
`III.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`Andrea argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: (1) an undergraduate
`
`degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar degree,
`
`with introductory course work in digital signal processing and approximately three years of
`
`experience in developing and implementing digital signal processing algorithms and systems or
`
`(2) a Master's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`
`similar degree with a focus on digital signal processing and approximately one year of
`
`experience in developing and implementing digital processing algorithms and systems. (CIMB
`
`at 18.) Respondents argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: (1) a Master's
`
`degree in electrical engineering, with a specialty in digital signal processing or (2) a Bachelor's
`
`degree in electrical engineering or a related field with at least two years of industry or academic
`
`research experience in digital signal processing in areas involving the application of adaptive
`
`signal processing. (RIMB at 18.) The Staff states that it does not .disagree with either
`
`formulation as both are consistent with its proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as one with a Master's degree in electrical engineering or a related field with a specialty in
`
`digital signal processing, or, in the alternative, a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or a
`
`related field with two to three years of practical experience with digital signal processing
`
`algorithms and systems. (SIMB at 10.)
`
`The parties' proposals for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention are
`
`decidedly similar. In fact, at the Markman hearing the parties confirmed that any differences
`
`between the parties' proposals were inconsequential to any substantive dispute in this
`
`investigation. (See Tr. 96-97.) Having reviewed the parties proposals, I find one of ordinary
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 5
`
`

`

`sldll in the art at the time of the invention would have had: ( 1) a Bachelor's degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a related field with two to three years of practical experience with digital signal
`
`processing algorithms and systems; or (2) a Master's degree in electrical engineering or a related
`
`field with a specialty in digital signal processing.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,345
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (the '345 patent) is titled "System, Method, and Apparatus for
`
`Cancelling Noise." The '345 patent issued on March 26, 2002.
`
`The invention of the '345 patent generally relates to noise cancellation and reduction
`
`using spectral subtraction. ('345 patent at 1: 19-21.) In an illustrative embodiment, a digital
`
`input signal is sampled at a frequency that is at least twice the bandwidth of the audio signal.
`
`(!d. at 4:50-53.) When 256 input samples have been collected, they are combined with the
`
`previously collected 256 points to provide 512 input points which, after processing, are
`
`converted to the frequency domain through a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) processor. (!d.
`
`at 4:65-5:14.) The points are then processed in the noise processil).g block as follows. First, the
`
`magnitude of each frequency bin is estimated. (Id. at 5:34-44.) Next, a separate adaptive
`
`threshold is implemented for each frequency bin. (Id. at 6:10-45.) Ifthe estimated magnitude of
`
`the frequency bin is below the threshold value for that bin, it is allowed as noise and used by an
`
`exponential averaging unit that determines the level of the noise of that frequency. (Id. at 6:46-
`
`52.) Next, for each bin, the value of the estimated bin noise is subtracted from the bin using a
`
`filter multiplication process. (!d. at 6:58-7:33.) Next, a residual noise reduction processor
`
`.reduces the remaining noise present during non-speech intervals. (!d. at 7:34-36.) Finally, an
`
`Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) processor converts the noise-processed data to 512 time ·
`
`domain poirits. (Id. at 5:21-24.) The first 256 time domain points are summed with the previous
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 6
`
`

`

`last 256 data points and are outputted as a noise-processed output signal. (Id. at 5:24-28.) The
`
`remaining 256 points are saved for the next iteration. (Id. at 5:28-29.) See generally id., Fig. 1,
`
`reproduced below.
`
`104
`
`102
`lnpil
`Samples . .
`
`Combine
`256 New
`Point With
`256 History
`
`1'10
`
`112 (200)
`
`J.QQ
`
`Spectral Subtraction System
`FIG~ 1
`
`The asserted claims focus on the operations performed in the noise processing block 112
`
`(200) depicted in figures 1 and 2 of the '345 patent. For example, asserted independent claim 1
`
`reads as follows:
`
`1. An apparatus for canceling noise, comprising:
`an input for inputting an audio signal which includes a noise signal;
`
`a frequency spectrum generator for generating the frequency spectrum of said
`. audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of said audio signal; and
`
`a threshold detector for setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise
`estimation process and for detecting for each frequency bin whether the
`magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby
`detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin.
`
`(Id. at 9:34-46.)
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 7
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Disputed Claim Term - "magnitude of the frequency bin/magnitude of the
`corresponding frequency bin" (claims 1, 38; 4, 5, 9, 10, 39, and 40)
`
`All parties agreed at the Markman hearing that the term "magnitude" as used in the
`
`phrases "magnitude of the frequency bin" and "magnitude of the corresponding frequency bin"
`
`has a meaning that would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention. Nothing in the specification or prosecution history evinces intent by the applicant
`
`to assign the term "magnitude" a special meaning or limit the term's breadth. To the contrary,
`
`the parties agreed the term is used in the specification in accordance with its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. Likewise, I find nothing in the intrinsic evidence
`
`restricts the calculation of the magnitude to a particular formula.
`
`The specification teaches that "each frequency bin (n) 202 magnitude is estimated."
`
`('345 patent at 5:35-36.) The specification provides two exemplary approaches to estimating the
`
`magnitude. The first, which is referred to as the "straight forward approach," estimates the
`
`magnitude by calculating: Y(n) = ((Real(n)i + (Imag(n))2Y2
`
`. (Jd. at 5:36-39.i The second is
`
`said to save processing time and complexity by using an estimator 204 to estimate the signal
`magnitude (Y) using the formula: Y(n) = Max[JReal(n)J, Jimag(n)J] + 0.4 * Min [JReal(n)J,
`
`Jimag(n)J]. (Id. at 5:36-44.)
`
`Accordingly, I find one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would construe the
`
`term "magnitude" in the claims of the '345 patent to have its plain and ordinary meaning and that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the magnitude may be calculated by either
`
`2 All parties agree that the equation corresponding to the straight-forward approach shown at
`column 5, line 39, includes a typographical error. Instead of the sum of the squares of the real
`and imaginary components being raised to the -2 power, it should be raised to the ~power to
`denote a square root operation. This would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 8
`
`

`

`of the two approaches set forth above or by any other means "consistent with the meaning of
`
`magnitude to a person of ordinary skill in the art." (See Tr. at 94:14-98:2.)
`
`V.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 ("the '607 patent") is titled "Interference Canceling Method
`
`and Apparatus." The '607 patent issued on April11, 2000.
`
`The 607 patent relates to an interference canceling method and apparatus providing, for
`
`example, echo-canceling in full-duplex communication teleconferencing. (' 607 patent at 1: 15-
`
`19.) The '607 invention cancels, from a target signal generated from a target source, an
`
`interference signal generated by an interference source. (Id. at 3:49-53.) It does so by beam-
`
`splitting each signal into a plurality of band-limited target signals and a plurality of band-limited
`
`interference signals. (Id. at 3 :55-58.) Preferably, the amount and frequency of the signals are
`
`such that, for each band-limited target signal, there is a corresponding band-limited interference
`
`signal. (Id. at 3:58-62.) An adaptive filter then filters each band-limited interference signal from
`
`eachcorresponding band-limited target signal. (I d. at 3 :62-64.) When the target signal
`
`represents speech generated at a near end of a teleconference, the interference signal canceled by
`
`the adaptive filter is an echo present in the reference signal broadcast from a far end of the
`
`teleconference. (Id. at 3:65-4:1.) The filtering removes the echo from the target signal, leaving
`
`just the desired speech.
`
`Exemplary independent claims 1 and 2 read as follows:
`
`1. An interference canceling apparatus for canceling, from a target signal
`generated from a target source, an interference signal generated by an
`interference source, said apparatus comprising:
`
`a main input for inputting said target signal;
`
`a reference input for inputting said interference signal;
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 9
`
`

`

`a beam splitter for beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of band-limited
`target signals and beam-splitting said interference signal into band-limited
`interference signals, wherein the amount and frequency of band-limited target
`signals equal the amount and frequency of band-limited interference signals,
`whereby for each band-limited target signal there is a corresponding band-limited
`interference signal;
`
`an adaptive filter for adaptively filteritig, each band-limited interference signal
`from each corresponding band-limited target signal.
`
`2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said target signal represents
`speech generated at a near end of a teleconference, said reference signal
`represents said target signal broadcast from a far end of said teleconference and
`said interference signal represents an echo generated by said broadcast of said
`reference signal of said far end.
`
`(Jd. at 10:11-27.)
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms
`
`1. "interference signal" (claims 1, 2, 25, 26)
`
`The term "interference signal" is recited in independent claims 1 and 25 and dependent
`
`claims 2 and 26.
`
`signal from far end that is
`picked up as an echo by the
`main input
`
`Complainant's Construction Respondents' /Intervenors'
`Construction
`signal from far end that is
`INDEFINITE
`·picked up as an echo by the
`"Interference signal" is used
`inconsistently in specification, main input
`claim 1, and claim 2 rendering
`the term indefinite.
`
`Staff's Construction
`
`IF NOT FOUND
`INDEFINITE
`signal from the far end that is
`picked up as an echo by the
`main input
`
`It is axiomatic that each claim defines a separate invention. See, e.g., Altoona Publix
`
`Theatres v. Am. Tri-Ergon Corp.,294 U.S. 477 (1935) ("[I]t is the claims of the patent which
`
`define the invention. And each claim must stand or fall, as itself sufficiently defining invention,
`
`independently of the others.") (internal citations omitted). Contrary to Respondents' and
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 10
`
`

`

`Intervenors' argument, as discussed in more detail below, I find the use of the term "interference
`
`signal" in claims 1 and 25 consistent with the specification of the '607 patent and consequently
`
`understandable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Dependent claims 2 and 6, on the other hand,
`
`appear to be not only at odds with the independent claims on which they depend, but also the
`
`specification.
`
`The parties all agree that if the term "interference signal" is not found indefinite that it is
`
`properly construed to mean a "signal from far end that is picked up as an echo by the main
`
`input." The fact that the parties could agree on a construction cuts against the notion that the
`
`term is indefinite as Respondents and Intervenors argue, because it tends to indicate that those of
`
`skill in the art would be able to ascertain the meaning of the term.
`
`With regard to claim 1, the claim language is clear that the "interference signal" is the
`
`signal that is picked up by the main input and a separate reference input. This is consistent with,
`
`and supported by, the preferred embodiment from the specification. Figure 1 of the '607 patent,
`
`reproduced below, depicts the preferred embodiment.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 11
`
`

`

`The specification teaches that during a teleconference, the acoustic sound in the "near
`
`end" room may be comprised of the desired signal from the person talking at the near-end, but
`
`also may pick up sound coming from the other party to the teleconference (i.e., the "far-end''),
`
`which is played over the near-end loudspeaker. (!d. at 1 :33-49.) This results in "a disturbing
`
`echo heard by the speaker at the far-end." (I d.) The specification discloses that the microphone
`
`·array 102, shown above, "receive[ s] and convert[ s] acoustic sound in a room into an analog
`
`signal .... " ('607 patent at 5:1-2.) The specification discloses that the analog acoustic sound
`
`received by the microphone array 102 is conditioned and converted into a digital signal. (I d. at
`
`5:2-14.) In keeping with the language of claims 1 and 25, the specification teaches that the
`
`digital signal is "split into a number of frequency bands, by the beam-splitter 114 ... " while the
`
`far end signal is split into a number of frequency bands by beam-splitter 128. (Jd. at 5:36-38,
`
`5:63-67.)
`
`The figure below from Complainant's bullet-point summary shows the claim elements
`
`discussed above mapped to the preferred embodiment of the '607 Patent.
`
`The claim elements readily map to Figure 1, indicating a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand with reasonable certainty the scope of the inventions of claims 1 and 25.
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 12
`
`

`

`Accordingly, I do not find claims 1 and 25 to be indefinite. Further, based on the language of
`
`claims 1 and 25 and the specification of the '607 patent, I find one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention would construe the term "interference signal" as the "signal from the far
`
`end that is picked up as an echo by the main input."
`
`In independent claims 1 and 25, the "interference signal" is the signal that is picked up by
`
`both the main input and a separate reference input. In dependent claims 2 and 26, however, the
`
`term is redefined in a way that appears to me to be at odds with the way the te1m is used in
`
`independent claims 1 and 25. For example, claim 2 states that "said target signal represents
`
`speech generated at a near end of a teleconference" and then seemingly inconsistently states that
`
`"said reference signal represents said target signal broadcast from a far end of said
`
`teleconference" and that "said interference signal represents an echo generated by said broadcast
`
`of said reference signal of said far end." (See '607 patent at 10:28-33.) Thus, in claims 2 and 26,
`
`the "interference signal" is seemingly not, as set forth in claims 1 and 25, the signal from the far
`
`end that is both picked up as an echo by the main input and received by a separate reference
`
`input.
`
`While Staff and Respondents argue this renders claims 2 and 26 indefinite, I am not
`
`willing at this point in time to make such a finding. As the recorcl develops and additional
`
`evidence is adduced, I will be in a better position to assess Complainant's argument re: claims 2
`
`and 26 and will benefit from hearing testimony regarding such. Thus, I am going to reserve
`
`deciding the issue of the validity of claims 2 and 26 tmtil after the evidentiary hearing in this
`
`investigation at which time I will be able to make a more informed decision or the parties will
`
`have mooted the issue by further action.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 13
`
`

`

`"beam splitter for beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of
`2.
`band limited target signals and beam-splitting said interference signal into
`band-limited interference signals" (claim 1)
`
`"beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of band limited target
`signals and beam-splitting said interference signal into band-limited
`interference signals" (claim 25)
`
`After the Markman hearing, Complainant and Staff came to an agreement that the phrase
`
`"a beam splitter for beam-splitting said target signal into a plurality of band-limited target signals
`
`and beam-splitting said interference signal into band-limited interference signals" in claim 1 is
`
`properly construed as "hardware or software for dividing the target signal into band-limited
`
`components of the target signal and for dividing the interference signal into band-limited
`
`components of the interference signal." Similarly, Complainant and Staff agreed that the phrase
`
`"beam-splitting said target signal into aplurality ofband-limited target signals and beam-
`
`splitting said interference signal into band-limited interference signals" in claim 25 is properly
`
`construed as "dividing the target signal into band-limited components of the target signal and
`
`dividing the interference signal into band-limited components of the interference signal."
`
`Respondents and Intervenors do not agree with Complainant's an<;! Staffs proposed
`
`constructions, arguing that a "beam splitter" must split a target beam, not a "target signal." (See
`
`RRMB at 25-28.)
`
`Respondents and Intervenors argue that the word "beam" in the terms "beam splitter" and
`
`"beam splitting" must be given some meaning. (RBPS at 4-5.) The plain language of the claims,
`
`however, teaches that the "beam splitter" splits a "target signal," not a beam. I find the claim
`
`language is clear and unmistakable on this point. See Hormone Research Found., Inc. v.
`
`Genentech, Inc., 904 F .2d 15 58, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("It is a well-established axiom in patent
`
`law that a patentee is free to be his orher own lexicographer .... "). The specification likewise
`
`discloses that "[t]he goal ofthe beam-splitter is to split the input signal[.]" ('607 patent at 7:5-7
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.
`Ex. 1018, p. 14
`
`

`

`(emphasis added); see also id. at Abstract ("The beam splitter beam-splits the target signal ... "),
`
`3:55-58 ("A beam splitter beam-splits the target signal ... ").) Thus, the language of the claims
`
`and specification contradicts Respondents' and Intervenors' argument. Therefore, I find
`
`Respondents' and Intervenors' argument not persuasive.
`
`Accordingly, based on the intrinsic evidence, I find one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention would construe the phrase "a beam splitter for beam-splitting said target
`
`signal into a plurality of band-limited target signals and beam-splitting said interference signal
`
`into band-limited interference signals" in claim 1 as "hardware or software for dividing the target
`
`signal into band-limited components of the target signal and for dividing the interference signal
`
`into band-limited components of the interference signal" and the phrase "beam-splitting said
`
`target signal into a plurality of band-limited target signals and beam-splitting said interference
`
`signal into band-limited interference signals" in claim 25 as "dividing the target signal into band-
`
`limited components of the target signal and dividing the interference signal into band-limited
`
`components of the interference signal."
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`I find that the following terms of the asserted patents shall be construed as set forth
`
`below:
`
`• The term "magnitude" shall be construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`Further, I find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`magnitude may be calculated by either of the two approaches discussed in the
`specification (as set forth in detail, supra) or by any other means consistent with the
`meaning of magnitude to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`• The term "interference signal" shall be construed to mean "signal from the far end
`that is picked up as an echo by the main input."
`
`• The phrase "a beam s