Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 6060
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.,
`ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1125-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 1 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 6061
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`VISUAL LAND, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1127-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 6062
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`DOUBLE POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`ZOWEE MARKETING CO., LTD.,
`SHENZEN ZOWEE TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD.
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1130-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 6063
`
`
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`YIFANG USA, INC. D/B/A E-FUN, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1131-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 6064
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`ACER INC.,
`ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1170-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 6065
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`HTC CORP.,
`HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1126-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 6066
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`SOUTHERN TELECOM, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1128-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Michael P. Kelly (#2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Benjamin A. Smyth (#5528)
`
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`bsmyth@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER &
`SCINTO
`Michael P. Sandonato
`John D. Carlin
`Jonathan M. Sharret
`Daniel A. Apgar
`Christopher M. Gerson
`Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia
`Robert S. Pickens
`
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`Fax: (212) 218-2200
`msandonato@fchs.com
`jcarlin@fchs.com
`jsharret@fchs.com
`dapgar@fchs.com
`cgerson@fchs.com
`jcardenas-navia@fchs.com
`rpickens@fchs.com
`
`Dated: March 3, 2017
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 6067
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... iv
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS AND DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 44,913 ................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Term 1: “keypad” – Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16 ........................ 2
`
`Terms 2, 3: “means for switching . . .” / “means for
`returning . . .” – Claims 4, 5, and 8 ........................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,387 and 7,184,064 ............................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Term 4: “terminating said scrolling motion . . .” – ’387
`Claims 9, 11, and 12 ................................................................................. 5
`
`Terms 5, 7: “finger touch program instructions . . .” /
`“stopping motion program instructions . . .” – ’064 Claims
`1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Term 6: “timer means . . .” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and
`8 ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 .................................................................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Term 8: “media presentation” – Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 13, and
`15 ........................................................................................................... 10
`
`Term 10: “parsing [the/a] control information file” –
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15 .......................................................... 11
`
`Terms 9, 11, 12: “means for parsing . . .” – Claims 12, 13,
`and 15 .................................................................................................... 11
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,910,797 .................................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Term 13: “gravitation-controlled sensor” – Claims 1 and 6 ..................... 14
`
`Term 17: “said sensing means” – Claims 1 and 6 .................................... 15
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`i
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 18 of 44 PageID #: 6077
`
`
`
`2001); Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., No. 11-1040, slip. op. at 5-7, 9, nn.5-7, 9 (D. Del. Apr.
`
`15, 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Ex. A).7 (Polish Decl. ¶¶27-
`
`38.)
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,387 and 7,184,064
`
`The ’387 and ’064 patents disclose and claim improved touchscreen scrolling systems
`
`and methods that enable users to interact with scrollable data and other items displayed on a
`
`touchscreen in a natural way. Building upon known technology underlying touchscreen display
`
`devices—e.g., the ability to detect where and when a user was touching the display screen—the
`
`inventions of the patents reside primarily in the use of such information to enable users to
`
`selectively activate a variety of functionalities. For example, depending on the characteristics of
`
`the finger touch, the patents disclose the ability to impart a variety of scrolling motion patterns to
`
`displayed images, to speed up, stop, or change the direction of scrolling, and to select and
`
`reposition individual items on the screen. (See e.g., ’064 at 1:52-2:11, 3:29-42.)
`
`1.
`
`Term 4: “terminating said scrolling motion . . .” – ’387 Claims 9, 11,
`and 12
`
`The primary dispute is whether this term requires sensing for both conditions (a) and (b)
`
`of the claim, or only one. Because the claims state that a “group of conditions” is sensed, and
`
`because the intrinsic record discloses sensing for multiple conditions, Philips’ construction
`
`(which requires sensing for both conditions) should be adopted.
`
`Claim 9 on its face states that the sensing is done for a “group of conditions” and that
`
`scrolling is terminated when one of those conditions occurs. Condition (a) requires that scrolling
`
`
`7 A precise layout for each character and key would likewise not be required structure for the
`means-plus-function claim terms whose functions require displaying keys. Those functions
`already specify where the keys are to be displayed, namely, in “the associated display area” or in
`“a respective display area.” See Wenger, 239 F.3d at 1234.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 9 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 19 of 44 PageID #: 6078
`
`
`
`be terminated upon user command; Condition (b) requires that scrolling be terminated when
`
`there is no further data to be scrolled. The two claimed conditions represent independent events,
`
`either of which should cause scrolling to be terminated when they occur. Consistent with this
`
`plain meaning, the specification discloses sensing for multiple events to occur and terminating
`
`scrolling as soon as any one of them does. (’387 at 1:60-65, 2:18-29, 4:28-34.) Further, the
`
`language of dependent claim 10 refers to conditions (a) and (b) of the claim term at issue as “said
`
`group of conditions to be sensed for terminating said scrolling motion.”8
`
`2.
`
`Terms 5, 7: “finger touch program instructions . . .” / “stopping
`motion program instructions . . .” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8
`
`These terms should be afforded their plain meaning and not be subject to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6. Initially, neither term uses the word “means,” and thus both are presumed not subject
`
`to § 112, ¶ 6. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349. Defendants cannot overcome that presumption
`
`because both terms connote sufficient structure to the POSA to perform the claimed function. Id.
`
`Both terms recite “program instructions associated with said microprocessor,” and a POSA
`
`would understand this language to connote the structure of a software program that is executed
`
`by a microprocessor. (Schmidt Decl. ¶26-28, 33, 46.)9
`
`
`
`The POSA would understand that “finger touch” refers to a user’s interaction with a
`
`touchscreen, and that “finger touch program instructions” are part of a software program
`
`8 In a pending IPR Petition, the ASUS and Acer Defendants recognize that claim 10 contains a
`typographic error, and acknowledge that claim 10 rightfully depends from independent claim
`9—not independent claim 7. (Ex. 4, IPR2017-00408 at 16.)
`9 Courts repeatedly have found that terms including similar language to the “finger touch
`program instructions . . .” and “stopping motion program instructions . . . .” terms at issue here
`connote sufficient structure to avoid application of § 112, ¶ 6. See, e.g., Rowe Int’l Corp. v.
`eCast Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 924. 944-45 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Collaborative Agreements, LLC v.
`Adobe Systems, Inc., No. 15-cv-3853, 2015 WL 7753293, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015);
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 13- 447, 2015 WL 4208754, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2015);
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc., C.A. No. 12-30-RGA, 2015 WL 5826816, at
`*2 n. 2 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2015). A more detailed discussion is in D.I. 122 at 13-14.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 10 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 20 of 44 PageID #: 6079
`
`
`
`executed by the microprocessor that operates on the information provided from a touchscreen.
`
`(Id. at ¶29.) The surrounding claim language (“a microprocessor coupled to [a] display screen to
`
`… receive interactive signals therefrom”) further connotes the structure identified above by
`
`specifying the inputs on which the “finger touch program instructions” operate, namely
`
`“interactive signals” received from the electronic touchscreen display. (Id. at ¶30.)10
`
`Regarding “stopping motion program instructions . . . ,” the POSA would understand that
`
`signal (a) refers to a user’s interaction with the touchscreen, while signal (b) is received from the
`
`source of the scroll format data. (Schmidt Decl. ¶47.) Accordingly, the POSA would understand
`
`“stopping motion program instructions . . .” to connote structure by sufficiently describing how
`
`the claim limitation’s operation (terminating scrolling displacement) is achieved in the context of
`
`the invention (through execution of a software program by the microprocessor which stops the
`
`scrolling displacement of the images displayed on the screen in response to the first appropriate
`
`signal it receives from either the touchscreen or the scroll format data source). M2M Solutions,
`
`2015 WL 5826816 at *3; see also (Schmidt Decl. ¶48).
`
`If the terms are deemed subject to § 112, ¶ 6, however, the Court should adopt Philips’
`
`alternative constructions, which are consistent with the intrinsic record and how the POSA would
`
`interpret the terms in light of the specification. For “finger touch program instructions . . .,” the
`
`function is “respond to signals from the display screen concerning speed, direction, and time
`
`duration of a finger touch contact.” (Schmidt Decl. ¶¶35-36.) The POSA would know that
`
`program instructions associated with a microprocessor cannot directly detect finger touch contact
`
`
`10 The POSA would have known how to use a touchscreen, how to couple it to a microprocessor,
`the types of touch-related information a touchscreen provided to a microprocessor in response to
`a finger touch, and how to program the processor with instructions (code) to enable
`determination of speed, direction, and duration of a finger touch. (Schmidt Decl. ¶¶31-32.)
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 11 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 21 of 44 PageID #: 6080
`
`
`
`as they are not physical constructs, but instead would respond to touch-related signals from the
`
`touchscreen and interpret them to sense the speed, direction and duration of a finger touch. (Id.
`
`at ¶37.) This function is performed by a microprocessor programmed to run an algorithm that
`
`responds to signals from the display screen, such as that disclosed in the ’064 patent at 2:12-24;
`
`3:17-61, and Fig. 1. The microprocessor is coupled to a touchscreen and a timer. (’064 at 5:16-
`
`61, Fig. 3.) Operation of the system is achieved by programming a microprocessor-based control
`
`system “to displace the image on a screen display . . . in response to a finger touch on the screen
`
`and the direction of a finger motion along the surface of the screen at the initial speed of the
`
`finger motion.” (Id. at 2:12-24.) Fig. 1 describes the algorithm, including steps 100a through
`
`100c, which describe sensing the speed, direction, and duration of a finger contacting a touch
`
`screen. (Id. at 3:17-61; Schmidt Decl. ¶¶38-42.)11 These disclosures provide structure to
`
`perform the claimed function. (Schmidt Decl. ¶43.) See Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell,
`
`Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385-86 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Regarding “stopping motion program instructions . . .”, the structure that performs the
`
`claimed function12 is a microprocessor programmed to run an algorithm that senses for signals
`
`and terminates scrolling, such as that disclosed in the ’064 patent at 2:12-24, 2:37-41, and 4:29-
`
`5:9. The microprocessor that runs the algorithm is coupled to a touchscreen, a timer, and an
`
`internal memory unit. (’064 at 5:16-61, Figs. 2-3.) In the disclosed algorithm, scrolling
`
`
`11 Defendants’ arguments that both terms lack structure or are indefinite are premature. This
`Court has stated repeatedly that indefiniteness should be raised after claim construction.
`12 The “stopping motion program instructions . . .” function should be construed as “monitoring
`for and terminating scrolling displacement of the image on said screen upon first occurrence of
`any signal in the group of signals comprising: (a) a substantially stationary finger touch on the
`screen enduring for a period longer than a preset minimum time, and (b) an end-of-scroll signal
`received from said scroll format data source.” There does not appear to be a significant
`difference between the parties’ proposed constructions of the function, as both parties agree that
`the device must sense for both signals recited in the limitation.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 12 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 22 of 44 PageID #: 6081
`
`
`
`continues at a decaying rate until one of three events occurs, each of which terminates the
`
`scrolling. (Id. at 4:32-5:9.) These disclosures provide structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`(Schmidt Decl. ¶¶52-56.) See Typhoon, 659 F.3d at 1385-86.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Term 6: “timer means . . .” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8
`
`This term connotes sufficient structure to the POSA to perform the claimed function of
`
`“providing timing capacity therefor,” and so should be afforded its plain meaning rather than be
`
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6. TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013). The POSA would understand a “timer means associated with said microprocessor” to
`
`refer to specific, well known structure (i.e., a timer) for providing timing capacity for a
`
`microprocessor. (Schmidt Decl. ¶¶57-62.)
`
` If “timer means . . .” is found subject to § 112, ¶ 6, the function should be construed as
`
`“to provide timing capacity for said microprocessor in the same manner as an internal timer
`
`facility inherent in a central processing unit.” A “timer means” associated with a microprocessor
`
`(but not necessarily internal to the microprocessor) performs the simple function of allowing the
`
`microprocessor to keep and measure time. (Id. at ¶¶63-65.) It does not restrict the manner in
`
`which the microprocessor uses the timekeeping functionality—e.g., by allowing only certain
`
`time measurements to be performed. (Id. at ¶¶65-67.) Rather, the timer means provides a
`
`general timing capacity in the same manner as an internal timer facility in a central processing
`
`unit provides timing capacity for the central processing unit. (Id. at ¶68.) Philips’ function
`
`aligns with the claim language, which does not require the timer means to perform a specific
`
`type of measurement, and the specification, which contemplates many possible uses for “timer
`
`means” beyond measuring the duration of finger touch contact. (’064 at 4:14-28, 5:33-39.)
`
`The structure disclosed in the specification that performs this function is a timer. A timer
`
`has a specific, well-known meaning to the POSA (Id. at ¶¶69-71), and the specification discloses
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 13 of 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01170-GMS Document 140 Filed 03/03/17 Page 23 of 44 PageID #: 6082
`
`
`
`that a timer may either be internal to or separate from the microprocessor for which it provides
`
`timing capacity. (See ’064 at 5:16-61, Figs. 2, 3.) In both instances, the timer is disclosed as
`
`performing the function of the timer means (’064 at 5:51-61, Fig. 3.) See Micro Chem., Inc. v.
`
`Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806
`
`The ’806 patent discloses and claims a novel way to divide an audio/video presentation
`
`into segments and to transmit those segments from a server to a client. Transmitting the
`
`presentation this way enables the client to start presentation playback as soon as a first segment
`
`is received, while simultaneously downloading subsequent segments, thus minimizing playback
`
`delay. (See, e.g., ’806 at 1:62-2:1.) A control file is used to aid the client in determining which
`
`segments to request from the server. (Id. at 2:57-63.)
`
`1.
`
`Term 8: “media presentation” – Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 13, and 15
`
`This term should be construed to make clear that the presentation can be audio or video,
`
`and must be divided into segments. The dependent claims confirm that a media presentation can
`
`be audio or video. (See ’806 at Claims 4, 5.) Further, the intrinsic record repeatedly and
`
`consistently teaches that the media presentation has multiple segments. Independent Claims 1
`
`and 12 refer to “a given segment of the media presentation.” Thus the claim language alone
`
`mandates multiple segments. Also, the detailed description and Figures, as well as the Title,
`
`Abstract and Summary, all disclose that this given segment is a part of the presentation because
`
`the invention is for a media presentation that has “separately downloadable segments. . . .” (See,
`
`e.g., ’806 at 4:15-16). In the file history, the applicants repeatedly stated that “the control script
`
`retrieves files, or segments of the media presentation, from one or more servers in a computer
`
`network for sequential play-out.” (E.g., ’806 FH, 10/01/2002 Amendment at 6). The Summary
`
`states that “the content file is split into multiple parts,” each of which “requires a relatively short
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1022
`Microsoft v. Philips - IPR2018-00026
`Page 14 of 14
`
`