IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-259-LPS-CJB
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-258-LPS-CJB
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`D&M HOLDINGS U.S. INC. and
`DENON ELECTRONICS (USA), LLC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff Implicit, LLC
`
`(“Implicit” or “Plaintiff”), Defendant Sonos, Inc. (“Sonos”), and Defendants D&M Holdings U.S.
`
`Inc. and Denon Electronics (USA) LLC (collectively, “Denon” and, along with Sonos,
`
`“Defendants”) have met and conferred and jointly provide this Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`identifying for the Court the terms and phrases of the claims at issue in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,391,791
`
`(the “’791 patent”) and 8,942,252 (the “’252 patent”) that have been identified for construction.
`
`Attached as Exhibits hereto are copies of the above identified patents as well as those portions of
`
`the intrinsic record upon which the parties rely.
`
`Page 1 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Further, the parties state that they have stipulated to the following constructions for the
`
`following claim terms:
`
`
`
`
`
`’791 patent, claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 16, 19, 23-25: the preambles are limiting
`
`“master device time” / “slave device time” / “device time” of a “slave” means “time
`indicated by a designated clock of the [master/slave] device”
`
`The parties jointly and respectfully request that, if the Court deems it appropriate, the Court include
`
`these stipulated constructions in its claim construction order.
`
`The parties respectfully submit the following chart setting forth their proposed
`
`constructions and intrinsic evidence for the claim terms proposed for construction.
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions and Intrinsic Evidence1,2,3,4
`
`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`“time domain”
`
`’791 patent, claims
`1-3, 6-9, 12, 16,
`19, 23-25
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“the way a device clock
`tracks time”
`
`“a reference of time”
`
`’791 patent at 1:36-49,
`3:27-59, 4:28-33, 4:46-
`5:60, 6:24-34, 6:51-7:18,
`FIGS. 1-3, 6-7.
`
`’791 patent at 1:35-47,
`1:66-68, 2:1-2, 3:27-59,
`4:47-5:4, 5:6-35, 6:14-
`20, 6:51-59, 7:60-8:8,
`FIGS. 5, 6, 10, claims 1,
`16, 23, 26, 27.
`
`1 The ’252 patent is a continuation of the ’791 patent and therefore shares a common specification with the ’791 Patent.
`As such, each citation to disclosure in the ’791 or ’252 patent specification included in this chart shall be understood
`to encompass the corresponding disclosure from the other specification.
`2 Citations to a particular figure from the ‘791 or ‘252 Patent specification shall be understood to encompass any text
`referring to or discussing the figure (and vice versa).
`3 The parties reserve the right to rely upon, brief, and/or otherwise utilize any evidence identified by any other party
`in this JCCC or otherwise relating to the proper construction of these claim terms/phrases, including any language
`surrounding the cited intrinsic evidence that provides additional context of that passage’s meaning.
`4 The parties reserve the right to rely upon any evidence identified by any other party relating to certain claim terms
`(such as, by way of example only, “time domain”) as evidence relating to broader claim phrases that include those
`claim terms (such as, by way of example only, “determining a master device time domain, a slave device time domain,
`and a source time domain”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“time domain
`differential”
`
`’791 patent, claims
`1-3, 6-9, 12, 16, 19
`
`“a difference between
`time domains”
`
`
`
`’791 patent at 1:58-61,
`3:27-59, 4:47-5:4, 5:5-
`35, 5:45-52, 7:7-17,
`FIGS. 2, 5, 7, claims 1,
`7, 16, 17, 23, 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is improper to construe
`this phrase in isolation.
`See, e.g., Hockerson-
`Halberstadt, Inc. v.
`Converse Inc., 183 F.3d
`1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (“Proper claim
`construction . . . demands
`interpretation of the entire
`claim in context, not a
`single element in
`isolation.”); see also, e.g.,
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545
`F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (“[The Federal
`Circuit] does not interpret
`claim terms in a vacuum,
`devoid of the context of
`the claim as a whole.”);
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
`v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 11-
`515-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL
`3950663, at *4 (D. Del.
`Aug. 8, 2014).
`
`See “determining whether
`a time domain differential
`exists between the master
`rendering time, the slave
`rendering time” and
`“determining at least one
`time domain differential
`between the master
`rendering time and the
`slave rendering time
`between the master device
`and the one or more slave
`devices”
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“master
`rendering
`time” / “slave
`rendering
`time” /
`“rendering
`time” of a
`“device”
`
`’791 patent, claims
`1-3, 6-9, 12, 16,
`19, 23-25
`
`’252 patent, claims
`1-3, 8, 11, 17
`
`“a content position”
`
`’791 patent at Abstract,
`2:13-61, 5:61-6:40,
`7:60-8:59.
`
`
`
`
`
`“a time measure of the
`amount of content of a
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the [master/slave]
`device”
`
`
`
`’791 patent at Abstract,
`1:19-52, 2:13-61, 3:60-
`4:8, 7:42-44.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“rendering
`time
`differential”
`
`’252 patent claims
`1-3, 8, 11, 17
`
`“a difference between
`rendering times”
`
`’791 patent at 7:60-8:11,
`FIG. 10.
`
`It is improper to construe
`this phrase in isolation.
`See, e.g., Hockerson-
`Halberstadt, Inc. v.
`Converse Inc., 183 F.3d
`1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (“Proper claim
`construction . . . demands
`interpretation of the entire
`claim in context, not a
`single element in
`isolation.”); see also, e.g.,
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545
`F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (“[The Federal
`Circuit] does not interpret
`claim terms in a vacuum,
`devoid of the context of
`the claim as a whole.”);
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
`v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 11-
`515-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL
`3950663, at *4 (D. Del.
`Aug. 8, 2014).
`
`See “configured to smooth
`a rendering time
`differential” / “smoothing
`the rendering time
`differential,” “determining
`a smoothed rendering time
`differential,” and
`“rendering time
`differential that exists
`between the master device
`and the [first] slave
`device”
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`1-3, 6-9, 12
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`’791 patent claims
`16, 19
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“an indication
`of when the
`master device
`renders
`content
`corresponding
`to the master
`rendering
`time”
`
`“a master
`device time
`corresponding
`to the master
`rendering
`time of the
`master
`device”
`
`“an indication of the
`master device time at
`which the corresponding
`master rendering time
`occurred”
`
`
`
`’791 Patent at Abstract,
`1:36-49, 2:13-61, 4:20-35,
`6:33-39, 7:42-44, 7:51-
`8:11, FIGS. 9-10.
`
`’252 Patent at Claims 1-2
`
`“an indication of the
`master device time at
`which the corresponding
`master rendering time
`occurred”
`
`
`
`’791 Patent at Abstract,
`1:36-49, 2:13-61, 4:20-35,
`6:33-39, 7:42-44, 7:51-
`8:11, FIGS. 9-10.
`
`’252 Patent at Claims 1-2
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`1-3, 6-9, 12
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`’791 patent claims
`1-3, 6-9, 12
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“determining
`a master
`device time
`domain, a
`slave device
`time domain,
`and a source
`time domain”
`
`“determining
`whether a
`time domain
`differential
`exists
`between the
`master
`rendering
`time, the slave
`rendering
`time”
`
`“determining a time
`domain of a master device
`at a device other than the
`master device, determining
`a time domain of a slave
`device at a device other
`than the slave device, and
`determining a time domain
`of a source that is different
`from the master and slave
`devices at a device other
`than the source”
`
`‘791 Patent at 1:36-49,
`3:27-59, 4:28-33, 4:46-
`5:60, 6:24-34, 6:51-7:18,
`FIGS. 1-3, 6-7, Claim 6.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`“at each slave device,
`determining whether a
`time difference exists
`between the amount of
`content of a particular
`presentation that has
`already been rendered by
`the master device and the
`amount of content of the
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the slave device”
`‘791 Patent at Abstract,
`1:19-52, 2:13-24, 2:37-
`4:8, 4:15-46, 5:61-6:14,
`6:33-39, 7:19-8:11, FIGS.
`1, 8-10.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`16, 19
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“determining
`at least one
`time domain
`differential
`between the
`master
`rendering
`time and the
`slave
`rendering
`time between
`the master
`device and the
`one or more
`slave devices”
`
`“at each slave device,
`determining a time
`difference between the
`amount of content of a
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the master device and
`the amount of content of
`the particular presentation
`that has already been
`rendered by the slave
`device”
`‘791 Patent at Abstract,
`1:19-52, 2:13-24, 2:37-
`4:8, 4:15-46, 5:61-6:14,
`6:33-39, 7:19-8:11, FIGS.
`1, 8-10.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`16, 19
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“adjusting the
`rendering of
`the content at
`the one or
`more slave
`devices to
`account for a
`difference in
`the slave
`rendering
`time and the
`master
`rendering
`time
`calculated
`based on the
`master device
`time adjusted
`for a
`difference in
`time domains
`of the one or
`more slave
`devices and
`the master
`device”
`
`“at each slave device,
`adjusting the rendering of
`the content at the slave
`device to account for a
`time difference between
`the amount of content of a
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the slave device and the
`amount of content of the
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the master device,
`where this difference is
`calculated based on a
`master device time that
`has been adjusted for a
`time difference between
`the device times of the
`slave device and the
`master device”
`‘791 Patent at Abstract,
`2:32-61, 3:12-59, 4:28-46,
`5:61-6:14, 6:33-39, 7:19-
`8:11, FIGS. 1, 8-10, Claim
`8, 10.
`
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`23-25
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“calculating a
`time domain
`difference
`between the
`master
`rendering
`time of the
`master device
`and the slave
`rendering
`time of the
`slave device
`based on a
`master device
`time adjusted
`for a
`difference in
`time domains
`of the slave
`device and the
`master
`device”
`
`“at each slave device,
`calculating a time
`difference between the
`amount of content of a
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the master device and
`the amount of content of
`the particular presentation
`that has already been
`rendered by the slave
`device, where the
`calculating is based on a
`master device time that
`has been adjusted for a
`time difference between
`the device times of the
`slave device and the
`master device”
`‘791 Patent at Abstract,
`1:19-52, 2:13-24, 2:37-
`4:8, 4:15-46, 5:61-6:14,
`6:33-39, 7:19-8:11, FIGS.
`1, 8-10.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`16, 19
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“sending to
`each device
`content to be
`rendered at
`that device
`synchronized
`with the
`content sent
`to the other
`devices”
`
`“sending content from the
`source of that content to
`each rendering device over
`a network, where the
`content sent from the
`source is to be rendered at
`each rendering device in a
`manner that is
`synchronized with content
`sent to the other rendering
`devices”
`‘791 Patent at 1:19-52,
`2:62-3:26, 3:60-4:46,
`5:36-51, 5:61-6:14, 6:20-
`22, 6:39-49, 7:22-24,
`FIGS. 1, 3-4, 8.
`
`Office Action mailed Aug.
`2, 2007 (‘791 Patent).
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`Notice of Allowability
`mailed Feb. 25, 2008 at
`pp. 4-9 (‘791 Patent).
`
`‘252 Patent at Claims 1, 7-
`10.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`’791 patent claims
`16, 19
`
`
`
`’791 patent claims
`23-25
`
`“at each slave device,
`exchanging time domain
`information with the
`master device and with
`each of the other one or
`more slave devices”
`‘791 Patent at 3:27-59,
`4:46-5:60, 6:24-33, 6:51-
`7:18, FIGS. 2-3, 6-7.
`
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`“at the one or
`more slave
`devices,
`exchanging
`time domain
`information
`between the
`master and
`one or more
`slave devices”
`
`
`
`“for each slave
`device,
`exchanging
`time domain
`information
`between the
`master and
`one or more
`slave devices”
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’791 patent claims
`12, 19
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“wherein the
`content is sent
`from different
`sources to the
`master device
`and the at
`least one slave
`device”
`
`“wherein the content is
`sent from a first source
`over the network to the
`master device and from a
`second source over the
`network to the at least one
`slave device, where the
`second source is different
`from the master device”
`‘791 Patent at 2:62-3:26,
`3:60-4:29, 6:20-22, 6:45-
`50, 7:22-24, FIG. 1, Claim
`1, 11, 16.
`
`Office Action mailed Aug.
`2, 2007 (‘791 Patent).
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`Notice of Allowability
`mailed Feb. 25, 2008 at
`pp. 4-9 (‘791 Patent).
`
`‘252 Patent at Claims 1, 7-
`10.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`’252 patent claims
`1-3, 8
`
`
`
`’252 patent claims
`11, 17
`
`“configured to
`smooth a
`rendering
`time
`differential” /
`“smoothing
`the rendering
`time
`differential”
`
`
`“determining
`a smoothed
`rendering
`time
`differential”
`
`“[configured to
`apply]/[applying] a
`function such as averaging
`that reduces the volatility
`in a set of calculated
`values for the rendering
`time differential”
`‘252 Patent at 7:15-27,
`FIG. 7, Claims 5-6, 13-14.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Aug. 29, 2014 (‘252
`Patent).
`
`
`Notice of Allowability
`mailed Sept. 10, 2014 at p.
`3 (‘252 Patent).
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`“smooth”
`
`’252 patent claims
`1-3, 8
`
`“attempt to reduce
`noise”
`
`
`
`’791 patent at 7:1-18
`
`
`‘252 Patent, claims 5-6,
`13-14
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Aug. 29, 2014
`(‘252 Patent).
`
`
`Notice of Allowability
`mailed Sept. 10, 2014 at
`p. 3 (‘252 Patent).
`
`It is improper to construe
`this phrase in isolation.
`See, e.g., Hockerson-
`Halberstadt, Inc. v.
`Converse Inc., 183 F.3d
`1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (“Proper claim
`construction . . . demands
`interpretation of the entire
`claim in context, not a
`single element in
`isolation.”); see also, e.g.,
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545
`F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (“[The Federal
`Circuit] does not interpret
`claim terms in a vacuum,
`devoid of the context of
`the claim as a whole.”);
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
`v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 11-
`515-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL
`3950663, at *4 (D. Del.
`Aug. 8, 2014).
`
`
`
`See “configured to smooth
`a rendering time
`differential” / “smoothing
`the rendering time
`differential” and
`“determining a smoothed
`rendering time
`differential”
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’252 patent claims
`1-3, 8, 11, 17
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“rendering
`time
`differential
`that exists
`between the
`master device
`and the [first]
`slave device”
`
`“a calculated time
`difference between the
`amount of content of a
`particular presentation that
`has already been rendered
`by the master device and
`the amount of content of
`the particular presentation
`that has already been
`rendered by the slave
`device”
`‘252 Patent at Abstract,
`1:23-56, 2:17-28, 2:41-
`4:12, 4:19-49, 5:65-6:18,
`6:40-46, 7:28-8:23, FIGS.
`1, 8-10.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’252 patent claim 8 Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“wherein the
`first content
`stream is sent
`from a first
`source device
`to the master
`rendering
`device and the
`second
`content
`stream is sent
`to the first
`slave device
`from a
`difference
`source device”
`
`“first content
`stream” &
`“second
`content
`stream”
`
`’252 patent claims
`1-3, 8
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“wherein the first content
`stream is sent from a first
`source device over the
`network to the master
`rendering device and the
`second content stream is
`sent from a second source
`device over the network to
`the first slave device,
`where the second source
`device is different from
`the master device”
`‘252 Patent at 2:66-3:30,
`3:64-4:33, 6:26-28, 6:52-
`57, 7:31-33, FIG. 1, Claim
`7, 9-10.
`
`Office Action mailed Aug.
`2, 2007 (‘791 Patent).
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Dec. 20, 2007 (‘791
`Patent).
`
`Notice of Allowability
`mailed Feb. 25, 2008 at
`pp. 4-9 (‘791 Patent).
`“a first stream having first
`content” & “a second
`stream having second
`content that differs from
`the first content”
`‘252 Patent at 1:22-39,
`2:66-3:30, 3:64-4:12,
`8:28-35, FIG. 1, Claim 15.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`Term/Phrase Patents/Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’252 patent claims
`1-3, 8
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`’252 patent claims
`11, 17
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`“sending, from
`the master
`rendering
`device to a
`first one of a
`plurality of
`slave devices,
`a plurality of
`master
`rendering
`times”
`
`“particular
`content
`stream” &
`“different
`content
`stream”
`
`“transmitting multiple
`rendering time values from
`a master device to a first
`one of multiple slave
`devices”
`‘252 Patent at 2:17-65,
`4:24-28, 6:5-9, 6:40-46,
`Claims 2-3, 11-12.
`
`Office Action Response
`filed Aug. 29, 2014 (‘252
`Patent).
`“a particular stream having
`first content” & “a
`different stream having
`second content that differs
`from the first content”
`‘252 Patent at 1:22-39,
`2:66-3:30, 3:64-4:12,
`8:28-35, FIG. 1, Claim 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
`TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Flynn
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`mflynn@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants D&M Holdings
`U.S. Inc. and Denon Electronics (USA), LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 13, 2018
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300 (Telephone)
`(302) 777-0301 (Facsimile)
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Sonos, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 19
`
`Implicit Exhibit 2010
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`