Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 70 PageID #: 3816
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:16-CV-505
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Plaintiff Image Processing
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) (Dkt. No. 133, filed on April 14, 2017), the response of
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Defendant”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 138, filed on April 28, 2017), and the reply of Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 148, filed on May 5,
`
`2017). The Court held a claim construction hearing on June 2, 2017. Having considered the
`
`arguments and evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction
`
`briefing, the Court issues this Claim Construction Order.
`
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`1
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:87)(cid:71)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:17)(cid:3)
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 70 PageID #: 3817
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 3
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 7
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS ........................................................................ 9
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ................................................................... 10
`A. “histogram”......................................................................................................................... 10
`B. “time coincidence” terms.................................................................................................... 13
`C. Claim 3 of the ʼ293 patent .................................................................................................. 18
`1.
`“values typical of a sequence of each of these registers” ............................................ 21
`2.
`“wherein the test unit is provided for calculating and storing statistical data
`processes, after receiving the data aijT corresponding to the space at an instant T, a
`content of the analysis memory in order to update the output memory of the analysis
`output unit” ........................................................................................................................... 24
`D. “configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion” ........ 27
`E. “automatic” classification terms ......................................................................................... 31
`F. “domain” and “class”.......................................................................................................... 36
`G. “forming at least one histogram…” .................................................................................... 40
`H. “said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said target” ............................... 43
`I. “identifying…” terms ......................................................................................................... 46
`J. “generating …” terms ......................................................................................................... 50
`K. “displaying an outline associated with the target”.............................................................. 52
`L. “wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises determining X minima
`and maxima and Y minima and maxima of boundaries of the target” ............................... 55
`M. “…the outline…” terms [claims 26 and 27 of the ʼ445 patent].......................................... 59
`N. “successively increasing the size of a selected area until the boundary of the target is
`found” ................................................................................................................................. 63
`O. “analyzing the at least one histogram over time” ............................................................... 67
`V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 69
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 70 PageID #: 3818
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,717,518 (“the
`
`ʼ518 patent”), 6,959,293 (“the ʼ293 patent”), 7,650,015 (“the ʼ015 patent”), 8,805,001 (“the ʼ001
`
`patent”), 8,983,134 (“the ʼ134 patent”), and 8,989,445 (“the ʼ445 patent”) (collectively the
`
`“patents-in-suit”) by the Defendant.
`
`The ʼ015, ʼ001, ʼ134, and ʼ445 patents are related and share the specification, and are
`
`generally referred to collectively as “the ʼ015 patent family.” In particular, the ʼ001 patent is a
`
`continuation of the application leading to the ʼ015 patent, the ʼ134 patent is a continuation of the
`
`application leading to the ʼ001 patent, and the ʼ445 patent is a continuation of a continuation of
`
`the application leading to the ʼ001 patent. Each of the patents in the ʼ015 patent family is entitled
`
`“Image Processing Method.” The application leading to the ʼ015 patent was filed on February 20,
`
`2007, is based on a series of earlier U.S. patent applications with an earliest priority date of
`
`September 13, 1999, which itself claims priority to an earlier filed PCT application filed on July
`
`22, 1997, which itself claims priority to a French application filed on July 26, 1996. The ʼ015
`
`patent issued on January 19, 2010. The application leading to the ʼ001 patent was filed on
`
`November 17, 2009 and issued on August 12, 2014. The application leading to the ʼ134 patent
`
`was filed on March 17, 2014 and issued on March 17, 2015. The application leading to the ʼ445
`
`patent was filed on August 13, 2014 and issued on March 24, 2015.
`
`In general, the ʼ015 patent
`
`family is directed to an image processing method and apparatus for face and/or object detecting
`
`and tracking using histograms of the image. The Abstract of the ʼ015 patent states:
`
`A method and apparatus for localizing an area in relative movement and for
`determining the speed and direction thereof in real time is disclosed. Each pixel of
`an image is smoothed using its own time constant. A binary value corresponding to
`the existence of a significant variation in the amplitude of the smoothed pixel from
`the prior frame, and the amplitude of the variation, are determined, and the time
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 70 PageID #: 3819
`
`constant for the pixel is updated. For each particular pixel, two matrices are formed
`that include a subset of the pixels spatially related to the particular pixel. The first
`matrix contains the binary values of the subset of pixels. The second matrix
`contains the amplitude of the variation of the subset of pixels. In the first matrix, it
`is determined whether the pixels along an oriented direction relative to the
`particular pixel have binary values representative of significant variation, and, for
`such pixels, it is determined in the second matrix whether the amplitude of these
`pixels varies in a known manner indicating movement in the oriented direction. In
`each of several domains, histogram of the values in the first and second matrices
`falling in such domain is formed. Using the histograms, it is determined whether
`there is an area having the characteristics of the particular domain. The domains
`include luminance, hue, saturation, speed (V), oriented direction (D1), time
`constant (CO), first axis (x(m)), and second axis (y(m)).
`
`Asserted claim 6 of the ʼ015 patent is shown below:
`
`A process of tracking a target in an input signal implemented using a system
`comprising an image processing system, the input signal comprising a succession
`of frames, each frame comprising a succession of pixels, the target comprising
`pixels in one or more of a plurality of classes in one or more of a plurality of
`domains, the process performed by said system comprising, on a frame-by-frame
`basis: forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more of a plurality
`of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains, said at least one histogram
`referring to classes defining said target, identifying the target from said at least one
`histogram, drawing a tracking box around the target, and centering the tracking box
`relative to an optical axis of the frame.
`
`The application leading to the ʼ293 patent was filed on February 23, 2001, claims priority
`
`to a French patent application filed on February 24, 2000, and issued on October 25, 2005. The
`
`ʼ293 patent is entitled “Method and Device for Automatic Visual Perception.” In general, the ʼ293
`
`patent is directed to detecting/analyzing an event by the formation of a histogram. The Abstract
`
`of the ʼ293 patent states:
`
`A visual perception processor comprises histogram calculation units, which
`receive the data DATA(A), DATA(B), . . . DATA(E) via a single data bus and
`supplying classification information to a single time coincidences bus. In a
`preferred embodiment the histogram calculation units are organized into a matrix.
`
`Claim 1 of the ʼ293 patent is shown below:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 70 PageID #: 3820
`
`A visual perception processor for automatically detecting an event
`occurring in a multidimensional space (i, j) evolving over time with respect to at
`least one digitized parameter in the form of a digital signal on a data bus, said digital
`signal being in the form of a succession aijT of binary numbers associated with
`synchronization signals enabling
`to define a given
`instant (T) of
`the
`multidimensional space and the position (i, j) in this space, the visual perception
`processor comprising:
`
`the data bus;
`
`a control unit
`
`a time coincidences bus carrying at least a time coincidence signal; and
`
`at least two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the at least one
`parameter,
`
`the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram
`representative of the parameter as a function of a validation signal and to determine
`by classification a binary classification signal resulting from a comparison of the
`parameter and a selection criterion C, wherein the classification signal is sent to the
`time coincidences bus, and wherein the validation signal is produced from time
`coincidences signals from the time coincidence bus so that the calculation of the
`histogram depends on the classification signals carried by the time coincidence bus.
`
`The application leading to the ʼ518 patent was filed on February 9, 2001, is based on an
`
`earlier filed PCT application filed on January 15, 1999, which itself claims priority to a French
`
`application filed on January 15, 1998. The ʼ518 patent issued on April 6, 2004. The ʼ518 patent
`
`is entitled “Method and Device for Automatic Visual Perception.” In general, the ʼ518 patent is
`
`directed to detecting the drowsiness of a person based on analyzing the person’s face. The Abstract
`
`of the ʼ518 patent states:
`
`In a process of detecting a person falling asleep, an image of the face of the
`person is acquired. Pixels of the image having characteristics corresponding to an
`eye of the person are selected and a histogram is formed of the selected pixels. The
`histogram is analyzed over time to identify each opening and closing of the eye,
`and characteristics indicative of the person falling asleep are determined. A sub-
`area of the image including the eye may be determined by identifying the head or a
`facial characteristic of the person, and then identifying the sub-area using an
`anthropomorphic model. To determine openings and closings of the eyes,
`histograms of shadowed pixels of the eye are analyzed to determine the width and
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 6 of 70 PageID #: 3821
`
`height of the shadowing, or histograms of movement corresponding to blinking are
`analyzed. An apparatus for detecting a person falling asleep includes a sensor for
`acquiring an image of the face of the person, a controller, and a histogram formation
`unit for forming a histogram on pixels having selected characteristics. Also
`disclosed is a rear-view mirror assembly incorporating the apparatus.
`
`Claim 1 of the ʼ518 patent is shown below:
`
`1. A process of detecting a person falling asleep, the process comprising:
`
`acquiring an image of the face of the person;
`
`identifying a sub-area of the image comprising at least one eye of the
`person, including:
`
`identifying the head of the person in the image; and
`
`identifying the sub-area of the image using an anthropomorphic model;
`
`selecting pixels within the sub-area of the image having characteristics
`corresponding to characteristics of the at least one eye of the person;
`
`forming at least one histogram of the selected pixels;
`
`analyzing the at least one histogram over time to identify each opening and
`closing of the eye; and
`
`determining from the opening and closing information of the eye,
`characteristics indicative of a person falling asleep.
`
`The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) instituted Inter Partes Review (“IPR)
`
`proceedings on five of the six patents-in-suit on May 25, 2017. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 153 (Notice of
`
`Activity in Related IPR Proceedings). Some of the claim terms disputed between the parties are
`
`generally discussed in these grants. Id.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 7 of 70 PageID #: 3822
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is guided by the Federal Circuit’s decision in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips, the court
`
`reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right
`
`to exclude.” 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “The construction that stays true to the claim language
`
`and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the
`
`correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158
`
`F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`In claim construction, patent claims are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
`
`Id. at 1312-13. This principle of patent law flows naturally from the recognition that inventors are
`
`usually persons who are skilled in the field of the invention and that patents are addressed to, and
`
`intended to be read by, others skilled in the particular art. Id.
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id. The written description set forth in the specification, for example, “may act as
`
`a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims.”
`
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Thus, as the Phillips court emphasized, the specification is “the primary
`
`basis for construing the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–17. However, it is the claims, not
`
`the specification, which set forth the limits of the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, “there would
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 8 of 70 PageID #: 3823
`
`be no need for claims.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`(en banc).
`
`The prosecution history also plays an important role in claim interpretation as intrinsic
`
`evidence that is relevant to the determination of how the inventor understood the invention and
`
`whether the inventor limited the invention during prosecution by narrowing the scope of the
`
`claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–17; see also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
`
`1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether
`
`relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”). In this sense, the
`
`prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because the prosecution history,
`
`however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant,” it may
`
`sometimes lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim construction. Id.
`
`Courts are also permitted to rely on extrinsic evidence, such as “expert and inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises,” id. (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980), but Phillips
`
`rejected any claim construction approach that sacrifices the intrinsic record in favor of extrinsic
`
`evidence. Id. at 1319. Instead, the court assigned extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries, a role
`
`subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the court emphasized that claim construction issues
`
`are not resolved by any magic formula or particular sequence of steps. Id. at 1323–25. Rather,
`
`Phillips held that a court must attach the appropriate weight to the sources offered in support of a
`
`proposed claim construction, bearing in mind the general rule that the claims measure the scope of
`
`the patent grant. “In cases where . . . subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make
`
`subsidiary factual findings about [the] extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction [discussed] in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 9 of 70 PageID #: 3824
`
`be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841
`
`(2015).
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties have agreed to the following meanings for the following terms. See, e.g., Dkt.
`
`No. 150 (Joint Claim Construction Chart.); Dkt. No. 155 (Joint Notice).
`
`TERM
`“parameter” (ʼ293 patent)
`
`“classification value” (ʼ445 patent)
`
`“tracking a target” (ʼ445 patent; ʼ001 patent,
`ʼ015 patent, ʼ134 patent)
`“moving a center point of the outline” (ʼ445
`patent, claim 6)
`“anthropomorphic model” (ʼ518 patent)
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`“a numerical characteristic [numerical
`characteristics]”
`“a value resulting from determining whether a
`pixel meets a selected classification criterion
`for a domain”
`The parties have agreed for purposes of this
`litigation that the preamble is limiting
`“calculating new x and y coordinates of the
`center point of the outline”
`“mathematical representation specifying the
`spatial relationship of human facial features”
`
`Accordingly, the Court adopts the constructions agreed to by the parties as listed above.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 10 of 70 PageID #: 3825
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`The parties’ positions and the Court’s analysis as to the disputed terms are presented below.
`
`A. “histogram”
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed Construction
`“a statistical representation of the frequency
`of occurrence of values of a ‘parameter’”
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed Construction
`“a statistical representation of the frequency of
`occurrence with which values of a parameter
`fall within defined intervals of the range of
`values of the parameter”
`
`The disputed term “histogram” appears in claims in each of the patents-in-suit.
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that the claim language and specification of the patents refers to calculating
`
`a histogram for/of a “parameter.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 133, Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief, at pages 2-3. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s construction would exclude embodiments
`
`that use non-continuous digital data. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also argue that nothing in the claim
`
`language or the specification requires the intervals of the histogram to be “defined.” Id. Plaintiff
`
`argues that the specification makes clear that the intervals can be adapted in real-time, and
`
`therefore are not necessarily “defined.” Id.
`
`Defendant argues that the intrinsic evidence and textbooks on statistical methods confirm
`
`Defendant’s proposal. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 138, Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`
`at page 2. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s construction would cover any statistical
`
`representation, including bar charts, scatter plots, and essentially any mechanisms that counts the
`
`occurrence of something. Id. Based on various extrinsic textbooks and dictionaries, Defendant
`
`argues that to form a histogram the intervals are defined within a range of values. Id. at 3.
`
`Defendant argues that the requirement that the range of values be divided into defined intervals is
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 11 of 70 PageID #: 3826
`
`what distinguishes histograms from other data representations. Id. at 3-4. Defendant argues that
`
`the specification supports its arguments, in that every parameter disclosed in the specifications
`
`takes on a range of values that is divided into defined intervals for forming the histogram. Id. at
`
`4-5.
`
`In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that a “range of values” is incorrect because it could exclude
`
`binary parameters disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 148, Plaintiff’s Reply Claim
`
`Construction Brief, at page 5. Plaintiff argues that by requiring a “histogram” to have “defined”
`
`intervals, Defendant’s construction would improperly exclude adapting intervals in real-time and
`
`using variable-width intervals. Id. Plaintiff admits that a histogram has “intervals,” but argues
`
`that the intrinsic evidence does not require those intervals to be “defined.” Id. Plaintiff argues
`
`that its construction would not encompass bar charts or scatter plots. Id. at 5-6.
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Both parties agree that the “histogram” term needs to be construed. Both parties agree that
`
`the term means “a statistical representation of the frequency of occurrence of values of a
`
`parameter,” but disagree as to whether something “more” (as argued by the Defendant) is needed
`
`to accurately define the term “histogram.” In particular, the parties dispute whether a histogram
`
`is merely any statistical representation, or more specifically, a statistical representation formed by
`
`dividing a parameter’s range of values into defined intervals and counting how often the value of
`
`that parameter falls within each defined interval.
`
`The “histogram” term appears in all of the patents-in-suit. The parties’ arguments focus
`
`on the claim language, the specification, and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Claim 1 of the ʼ293 patent is representative, and is reproduced below in relevant part:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 12 of 70 PageID #: 3827
`
`at least two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the at least one
`parameter,
`
`the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram
`representative of the parameter as a function of a validation signal and to determine
`by classification a binary classification signal resulting from a comparison of the
`parameter and a selection criterion C, wherein the classification signal is sent to the
`time coincidences bus, and wherein the validation signal is produced from time
`coincidences signals from the time coincidence bus so that the calculation of the
`histogram depends on the classification signals carried by the time coincidence bus.
`
`(emphasis added.) As a whole, the claims do not provide much (if any) guidance as to the parties’
`
`dispute.
`
`Plaintiff does not rely on any technical dictionaries for its proposed construction.
`
`Defendant relies on numerous technical sources that support its proposed constructions. Those
`
`extrinsic sources generally require a histogram to be divided into intervals that are plotted along a
`
`horizontal axis and a vertical axis with the frequency of occurrence of values for that interval.
`
`Both parties cite to different portions of the specifications that allegedly support their
`
`constructions. On balance, the Court is not persuaded by the Defendant’s specification citations
`
`that the histogram must be “defined intervals” of the “range of values of the parameter.” The Court
`
`is not convinced that the plain meaning of the “histogram” term requires such a construction.
`
`Further, the Court is not convinced that the language is appropriate or necessary based on the
`
`intrinsic record. To the extent Defendant’s construction is based around an embodiment of the
`
`specification, the Federal Circuit has consistently held that “particular embodiments appearing in
`
`the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”
`
`Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d at 1117.
`
`On balance, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s construction is too broad and would cover
`
`statistical representations that are not typically considered a histogram. Regarding the “intervals”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 13 of 70 PageID #: 3828
`
`word as proposed by Defendant, the Court finds that there is no dispute that a “histogram” has
`
`“intervals.” Indeed, Plaintiff admits that a histogram has “intervals,” but argues that the intrinsic
`
`evidence does not require those intervals to be “defined.” (See Plaintiff’s Reply, Dkt. No. 148 at
`
`page 5.) While the inherent meaning of the term “histogram” clearly supports some type of
`
`“interval” for the parameter values, the Court rejects the “defined” intervals language proposed by
`
`the Defendant. Instead, the Court finds that the phrase “series of intervals” is appropriate based
`
`on the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Further, the Court is not convinced that the Defendant’s
`
`proposed limitation that the intervals be in a “range of values” is a necessary or warranted
`
`limitation to the disputed term.
`
`The Court hereby construes “histogram” to mean “a statistical representation of the
`
`frequency of occurrence with which values of a parameter fall within a series of intervals.”
`
`B. “time coincidence” terms
`
`Disputed Term
`
`“wherein the validation signal is
`produced from time coincidences
`signals from the time coincidence
`bus so that the calculation of the
`histogram depends on the
`classification signals carried by the
`time coincidence bus”
`
`(ʼ293 patent, claim 1)
`“time coincidences unit” /
`“coincidence unit”
`
`(ʼ293 patent, claim 3; claims 18, 22)
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`“wherein the validation signal
`is produced when two or more
`classification signals satisfy
`stored conditions at the same
`time”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“unit that generates an enable
`signal when the outputs of two
`or more classification units
`satisfy stored conditions at the
`same time”
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 14 of 70 PageID #: 3829
`
`“enabling the calculating step when
`classified data satisfies
`predetermined time coincidence
`criteria”
`
`(ʼ293 patent, claim 29)
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“enabling the calculating step
`when the classified data
`satisfies two or more stored
`conditions at the same time”
`
`The disputed “time coincidence” terms appear in claims 1, 3, 18, 22, and 29 of the ʼ293
`
`patent.
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that the phrases are easily understood in the context of the surrounding
`
`claim language and do not require construction. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 133, Plaintiff’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, at pages 5, 7, 8. The terms are not limited to “two or more classification units,”
`
`“stored conditions,” or the “same time” as proposed by the Defendant, as those additional
`
`limitations do not appear in the claim. Id. at 6-8.
`
`Defendant argues that the “coincidence” terms represent a key feature of the claimed
`
`system – the use of two or more classification signals to determine whether to include a particular
`
`pixel in the histogram. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 138, Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`
`at pages 7-9. Defendant argues that the specification consistently describes the coincidences unit
`
`as receiving inputs from multiple classifiers and evaluating them at the same time. Id. at 7-8.
`
`Defendant argues that the very purpose of the “coincidence unit” is to evaluate coincidences
`
`between the multiple classifiers in the system at the same time to construct the logical validation
`
`signal “out” described above. Id. at 8. Defendant argues that the word “coincidence” means
`
`“taking place at the same time. Id. Defendant argues that the claims support its construction
`
`because they recite plural classification signals compared to “criteria” (plural) in the coincidences
`
`unit. Id. Defendant argues that the coincidence unit’s only function is to evaluate multiple
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 15 of 70 PageID #: 3830
`
`classification outputs to create a validation signal controlling whether a pixel should be added to
`
`the histogram. Id. at 9.
`
`In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s constructions add impermissible additional
`
`limitations to the claims. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 148, Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, at
`
`page 6. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s construction excludes multiple embodiments from the
`
`specification. Id. Plaintiff argues that coincidence does not require coincidence at the same time
`
`but instead refers to coincidence for each frame or pixel, and thus exact temporal equivalence is
`
`not required. Id.
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`The disputed terms “time coincidences unit” and “coincidence unit” (by themselves)
`
`appear in claims 3, 18, and 22 of the ’293 patent. As detailed later in this opinion (see sections C
`
`and D below), however, because other terms are found to be indefinite in claims 3, 18, and 22, the
`
`Court declines to expressly construe the “time coincidences unit” and “coincidence unit” terms on
`
`their own, as such a construction is unnecessary in light of the indefinite findings for those claims.
`
`Nevertheless, disputes remain regarding the other “time coincidence” terms appearing in claims 1
`
`and 29 of the ’293 patent.
`
`The parties’ disputes as to these terms are generally the same and are grouped and argued
`
`by the parties together. In general, the parties dispute whether the term has a plain and ordinary
`
`meaning or whether a specific constructi