`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before the Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
` Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO
`RECEIVERS AND RELATED
`HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
`COMPONENTS
`
`
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1011
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................1
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,779,011 and 7,937,394 ..........................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’011 and ’394 Patents ....................................................................3
`
`Agreed Claim Terms ................................................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`“prefix substring(s)”.....................................................................................8
`
`C.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms .............................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Preamble” ...................................................................................................9
`
`“a computer readable medium comprising instructions for
`causing a computer system to:” / “a computer-readable
`medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon
`which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor
`to:”..............................................................................................................12
`
`“Items” .......................................................................................................16
`
`“Directly Mapped” .....................................................................................19
`
`V.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,585..................................................................................................22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’585 Patent ..................................................................................22
`
`Disputed Claim Terms ...........................................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“Random access digital storage device” ....................................................22
`
`“Preambles” for Claim 1 (Agreed) and Claim 8 (Disputed) ......................29
`
`“Interactive television program guide” ......................................................30
`
`“Implemented on user television equipment” ............................................32
`
`“Storage setting configured to control how [programs
`are/the program is] to be digitally stored” .................................................34
`
`“Circuitry”..................................................................................................36
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,294,799..................................................................................................37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’799 Patent ..................................................................................37
`
`Agreed Claim Terms ..............................................................................................37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“display[ed]” ..............................................................................................37
`
`“first user equipment” ................................................................................38
`
`“second user equipment” ...........................................................................38
`
`C.
`
`Disputed Claim Term .............................................................................................38
`
`1.
`
`“profile of a/the user” .................................................................................38
`
`VII. U.S. Patent No. 9,369,741..................................................................................................43
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’741 Patent ..................................................................................43
`
`Agreed Claim Terms ..............................................................................................44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Storage circuitry for storing archived copies of videos” ..........................44
`
`“Means for transmitting a video to a plurality of user
`equipment, wherein the transmitting begins at a start time
`and ends at an end time” ............................................................................45
`
`“Means for accessing a database to determine whether an
`archived copy corresponding to the video is available to a
`user after the start time” .............................................................................45
`
`“Means for receiving a user response to the indication that
`is displayed” ...............................................................................................46
`
`C.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms ...........................................................................................47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“Archived copy” ........................................................................................47
`
`“Specified time” / “A specified time after the start time but
`before the end time” ...................................................................................51
`
`“Configured prior to the start time” ...........................................................53
`
`“Control circuitry configured to…” / “Control circuitry
`further configured to…” ............................................................................55
`
`“Means for causing, based on the determining, an
`indication corresponding to the archived copy to be
`
`ii
`
`

`

`displayed simultaneously with the video after a specified
`time after the start time, but before the end time” .....................................64
`
`6.
`
`“Means for retrieving from storage, based on the received
`user response, the archived copy” ..............................................................67
`
`VIII. U.S. Patent No. 9,578,363..................................................................................................68
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’363 Patent ..................................................................................68
`
`Agreed Claims Terms ............................................................................................68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“channel” ....................................................................................................68
`
`“standard definition” / “high definition” ....................................................69
`
`C.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms ...........................................................................................70
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“responsive to the second media source becoming
`available” ...................................................................................................70
`
`“automatically” ..........................................................................................72
`
`“accessing the media content” and “access the media
`content” ......................................................................................................75
`
`“a processor configured to” .......................................................................77
`
`IX.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,668,014..................................................................................................82
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’014 Patent ..................................................................................82
`
`Agreed Claim Terms ..............................................................................................82
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Media Asset Identifier” ............................................................................82
`
`“Command” ...............................................................................................83
`
`C.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms ...........................................................................................84
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Media Asset” ............................................................................................84
`
`“Control Circuitry Configured To” ............................................................86
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................99
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc.,
`641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................9, 11, 13, 29
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................9
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comp., Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................36, 59, 89, 90
`
`Apple Comp., Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc.,
`234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................10, 80, 81
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................80
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................9, 29
`
`In re Bendamustine Consolidated Cases,
`2015 WL 3509277 (D. Del. June 3, 2015) ...............................................................................85
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................17
`
`Bowers v. Baystate Techs.,
`320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................14
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,
`749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 764 (2014) ......................................83
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................3
`
`Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................10
`
`In the Matter of Certain Computing or Graphics Sys., Component Thereof, and
`Vehicles Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-984, Order No. 42, 2016 WL 9990813 (July 15, 2016)...............................90
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Order 45 (Nov. 6, 2015) ..............................................................2, 3, 82
`
`Certain Two-Way Radio Equipment and Systems, Related Software and
`Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1053, Order 25 (Dec. 29, 2017) .....................................................................2
`
`Certain UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and
`Products Containing the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1031, Order 17 (May 10, 2017) .........................................................2, 23, 24
`
`Chicago Bd. Options Exch. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................61, 64, 93, 98
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys.,
`No. 15-cv-03853-EMC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161809 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2,
`2015) ........................................................................................................................................81
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2015 WL 6956722 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2015) ..........................................................................90
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................49
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. DISH Networks Corp.,
`2017 WL 568669 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2017) ...........................................................................90
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................85
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................1
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................93, 95
`
`Finjan, Inc., v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) .........................................81
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................15
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................3
`
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................2
`
` v
`
`
`
`

`

`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.,
`206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................10
`
`Intellicheck Mobilisa, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`2017 WL 6550700 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2017) ....................................................................90
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................2
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................95
`
`Kropa v. Robie & Mahlman,
`187 F.2d 150 (C.C.P.A. 1951) .................................................................................................14
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................17
`
`Marrin v. Griffin,
`599 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................9, 10, 11, 29
`
`Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec’s. N.A. Corp.,
`Case No. 09-80-LPS, at 16 (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2015) ..................................................................79
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. and Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................36, 59, 90
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................2
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................83
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................13
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................................ passim
`
`Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Inc.,
`133 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................17
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................17
`
`Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation,
`Case No. 16-CV-9278 (JPO) ...................................................................................................18
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.,
`440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................83
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Comp. Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................9, 13, 29
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple,
`2015 WL 4208754 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2015) ...........................................................................79
`
`Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. v. Emcure Pharms. Ltd.,
`887 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................18
`
`Syncpoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-247, 2016 WL 55118 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) .............................................80, 81
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd.,
`2016 WL 8902602 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) ........................................................................90
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................1
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................48, 54
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................14
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) ............................................................................................................................23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ..............................................................................................................16, 86, 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 313, Rovi Guides, Inc. v.
`Comcast Corporation, Case No. 16-CV-9278-JPO (Aug. 11, 2017)
`
`Memorandum Opinion, Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec’s. N.A. Corp., Case No.
`09-80-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2015)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`MARKMAN EXHIBITS CITED
`
`XM Exhibit No. Description
`
`CXM-0001
`
`CXM-0002
`
`"Automatic / Definition of Automatic by Merriam-Webster,"
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/automatic
`
`"Automatically / Definition of Automatically in English by Oxford
`Dictionaries," https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/automatically
`
`CXM-0003
`
`"Dictionary of Electrical and Computer Engineering," McGraw Hill, 2004
`
`CXM-0004
`
`"Microsoft Computer Dictionary," Fifth Ed., Microsoft Press, 2002
`
`CXM-0008
`
`CXM-0011
`
`"Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," Eleventh Ed., Merriam-
`Webster, 2014
`
`"Dictionary of Computing A-Z, Information Processing, Personal
`Computing, Telecommunications, Office Systems, IBM-specific Terms,"
`IBM, Eighth Ed., March 1987
`
`CXM-0012
`
`"The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,"
`Standards Coordinating Committee 10, Terms and Definitions, J. Radatz,
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Chair, Sixth Ed., IEE Std. 100, 1996
`
`CXM-0013
`
`"The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia," A. Freedman, 1996
`
`CXM-0014
`
`"Scientific and Technical Terms Dictionary," McGraw-Hill, Sixth Ed., 2003
`
`CXM-0015
`
`"Microsoft Computer Dictionary," Third Ed., Microsoft Press, 1997
`
`CXM-0016
`
`"Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," Tenth Ed., Merriam-Webster,
`1998
`
`CXM-0017
`
`"Merriam-Webster Dictionary," Merriam-Webster, 1998
`
`CXM-0018
`
`"The Oxford - American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus," Second Ed.,
`Berkley Books, 2001
`
`JXM-0011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,827,585 to Hassell, et al. File History (certified copy)
`
`RXM-0008
`
`Excerpts from Principles of Computer Hardware (Second Edition) (Alan
`Clements) (1993)
`
`DECLARATIONS
`
`
`
`Declaration of Vijay Madisetti
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos
`
`Declaration of Ravin Balakrishan
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The purpose of claim construction is 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).
`
`Based on the patents’ claims, the patents’ specifications and file histories, and the testimony of
`
`its experts, patentee Rovi has proposed constructions that adhere to this tenet and are helpful to
`
`the ALJ in understanding the scope and meaning of the claims. In contrast, Comcast’s proposed
`
`constructions are not plain, ordinary, or supported by the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, nor are
`
`they helpful to the fact finder. Indeed, many of Comcast’s proposed claim constructions are
`
`transparent attempts to improperly include ready-made non-infringement arguments which are
`
`divorced from the intrinsic and extrinsic sources of meaning. For the reasons stated below, the
`
`ALJ should adopt Rovi’s proposed constructions.
`
`II.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As discussed in Rovi’s response to Interrogatory Number 6, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art for each of the Asserted Patents would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or applied mathematics as well as two or more years of
`
`relevant industry experience, including in electronic content delivery, electronic program guides,
`
`television video signal processing, graphical user interfaces, cable or satellite television systems,
`
`set-top boxes, multimedia systems, or data search techniques. See Madisetti Decl. ¶ 7; Madisetti
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 17-23; Balakrishnan Decl. ¶ 12.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to
`
`clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the
`
`determination of infringement.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Cir. 1997). “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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Certain Two-Way Radio Equipment and Systems,
`
`Related Software and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1053, Order 25 at 17 (Dec. 29,
`
`2017) (“Claim construction begins with the language of the claims themselves.”). Claims are to
`
`be construed from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Certain UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and
`
`Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1031, Order 17 at 8 (May 10, 2017) (citing
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-1313).
`
`There is a heavy presumption that a “claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.” Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`ordinary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to “one of skill in the
`
`art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Hill-Rom Servs. v.
`
`Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “There are only two exceptions to this
`
`general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer or 2)
`
`when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Id.
`
`As explained by the Federal Circuit, “Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give
`
`effect to the terms chosen by the patentee.” K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). The “claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms.” Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Order 45 at 3 (Nov. 6, 2015) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314). And when
`
`considering the ordinary meaning in light of the specification, it “is improper to read limitations
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—
`
`into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the
`
`claims to be so limited.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014); see Certain Network Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Order 45 at 4 (citing Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1323, for the “general rule … [that] the particular examples or embodiments
`
`discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations”). Where multiple
`
`embodiments are taught, a construction that “excludes a [disclosed] embodiment from the scope
`
`of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1333
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (alteration in original).
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,779,011 AND 7,937,394
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`The ’011 patent, titled “Method and System for Dynamically Processing Ambiguous,
`
`Reduced Text Search Queries and Highlighting Results Thereof,” relates to searches for items,
`
`including, but not limited to, television content items, in which the user’s search query is input
`
`using a device having a text input interface with overloaded keys. The ’394 patent is a
`
`continuation of the ’011 patent, and thus it shares the same specification as the ’011 patent but
`
`has different claims.
`
`An overloaded key is a single key that is associated with a plurality of alphabetical and/or
`
`numerical symbols. An example of overloaded keys are the keys of a touchtone telephone,
`
`where, for example, the “2” key is associated not only with the number “2,” but also with the
`
`letters “A,” “B,” and “C.” Figure 1 of the ’011 patent shows an example of a keypad with
`
`overloaded keys (0 and 2-9):
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`The ’011 patent describes and claims methods and systems for processing search queries
`
`comprised of one or more unresolved keystroke entries from a keypad (like the one above)
`
`having overloaded keys. An unresolved keystroke is one keystroke that could represent more
`
`than one of the characters associated with an overloaded key, e.g., pressing the “2” key above
`
`which could represent the number “2” or the letter “a,” b,” or “c.” ’011 Patent at 1:41-43.
`
`Unresolved keystrokes present a problem when used for search queries: each unresolved
`
`keystroke is ambiguous, meaning that it can have more than one meaning and therefore some
`
`kind of disambiguation action is necessary. ’011 Patent at 1:43-45. Disambiguation could occur,
`
`among other ways, upon entry of one or more subsequent keystrokes to the same overloaded key.
`
`For example, the user could tap the same overloaded key multiple times so that each entry will
`
`have a single meaning. In this example, each tap causes the overloaded key to change to one of
`
`its possible meanings, e.g., tapping the “2” key once causes the key to mean “a,” tapping it twice
`
`causes the key to mean “b,” tapping it three times causes the key to mean “c,” and tapping it four
`
`times causes the key to mean “2.” ’011 Patent at 1:46-50. One drawback of such multiple press-
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`type entry is that too many keystrokes are needed to enter a search query comprising, for
`
`example, a word of many letters. ’011 Patent, at 1:55-57.
`
`Alternatively, entry of each unresolved overloaded key could provide the user with
`
`completion choices for each word entered, i.e., upon each entry of an overloaded key as part of a
`
`search query, the system could return a list of all possible word matches generated by such
`
`ambiguous text input. ’011 Patent at 1:50-53; 1:57-60. This method is operationally problematic
`
`because it requires that the user make a choice from a list of all possible word matches, which
`
`again adds additional steps, among other things. ’011 Patent at 1:57-2:7.
`
`The methods and systems described and claimed by the ’011 and ’394 patents solve these
`
`problems by allowing the user to enter a search query for an item, where each item has a name
`
`comprising one or more words, using unresolved key strokes without such extra steps and
`
`without suffering from the disambiguation problems described above. ’011 Patent at 2:15-17;
`
`3:23-25. Using the claimed invention of the ’011 and ’394 patents, an index is created before the
`
`user ever enters any search query using unresolved keystrokes. ’011 patent at 3:43-53. In this
`
`index, a “many-to-many mapping” is performed mapping the alphanumeric space of terms (e.g.,
`
`the names of the items) to numeric strings corresponding to the various prefixes of each
`
`alphanumeric term based on the arrangement of characters on the overloaded keypad, like the
`
`one shown above. ’011 Patent at 3:49-53; 3:27-29. Thus, for example, in the index, the term
`
`“Tom” would be mapped to “8” and “86” and ” and “Jerry” would be mapped to “5,” “53,”
`
`“537,” etc.
`
`Users search for items by incrementally inputting unresolved overloaded keys (e.g.,
`
`inputting one overloaded key at a time) which are intended, when disambiguated, to represent a
`
`prefix substring of at least one word in the name of the item. ’011 Patent at 5:26-29; 7:4-8:11;
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Figs. 6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B. The user’s search query is compared to the index of item names that
`
`were previously mapped to their matching unresolved keystrokes. Since the user’s input is
`
`ambiguous (each overloaded key corresponds to more than one alphabetical character and/or
`
`number), the results would include the matches for all the ambiguous input characters
`
`represented by each overloaded key input. ’011 Patent, at 5:32-35. Because matching the
`
`ambiguous input will result in an increased set of matching content items, when compared to
`
`matching to an unambiguous input (i.e., using non-overloaded keys), the results are in a
`
`particular order when presented to the user based on criteria, including, e.g., temporal relevance,
`
`location relevance, popularity, and personal preferences. ’011 Patent at 5:38-42.
`
`The ’011 and ’394 patents describe, as an example, a search query comprising the
`
`unresolved overloaded keys “866,” the results of which are shown in Figure 6B below. ’011
`
`Patent at 7:8-41.
`
`
`Because the relationship between the overloaded characters entered by the user and the
`
`search results is complicated and not necessarily intuitive to the user, the characters in the search
`
`results that match the unresolved overloaded keys input as the search query are highlighted,
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`thereby providing the user with a visual indication of the relationship between the key pressed
`
`and the incremental match results. ’011 Patent at 7:41-48. Thus, for example, as shown in Figure
`
`6B, the letters “TOO” in the word “TOON,” which match the input unresolved overloaded keys
`
`“866,” are highlighted. This highlighting facilitates identification by the user of the item of
`
`interest from the group of items displayed. ’011 Patent at 6:23-30. Figures 7A and 7B show a
`
`similar search and the results for a two-word search having the unresolved overloaded keys “866
`
`2.” ’011 Patent at 7:58-8:11.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’011 patent is a representative claim for claim construction purposes and it
`
`is reproduced below with the terms at issue italicized and underlined for emphasis (and the
`
`agreed term in bold):
`
`9. A system for processing unresolved keystroke entries by a user from a keypad
`with overloaded keys in which a given key is in fixed association with a number
`and at least one alphabetic character, said unresolved keystroke entries being
`directed at identifying an item from a set of items, each of said items being
`associated with information describing the item comprising one or more words,
`said system comprising a computer-readable medium comprising instructions for
`causing a computer system to:
`
`index said items by associating subsets of said items with corresponding strings of
`one or more unresolved keystrokes for overloaded keys so that the subsets of
`items are directly mapped to the corresponding strings of unresolved keystrokes
`for various s