C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 052'24119 PagelD.2528 Page 1 of 83
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`CA. No. 3:18—cv-1783-CAB—BLM
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L.
`Major
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`CA. No. 3: 18—CV—1784—CAB—BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`
`(SHENZHEN) CO, LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`CA. No. 3: 18—CV—1785—CAB—BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC-,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIEF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`1
`
`LG 1018
`
`1
`
`LG 1018
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.2529 Pagez of83
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`CA. NO. 3: 18—cv—1786—CAB—BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`
`ZTE (USA) INC,
`ZTE (TX) INC,
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.2530 PageS of83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`The scope of a patent is defined by the plain import of its claims. ____________________ 2
`
`B. A claim term is
`iven_its full ordinary and customary meanin unless the
`1plallltentee: (1) clearly ot erw1se defined the term, or (11) unequivocal y dlsclalmed the
`l scope of the term. .................................................................................................. 2
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING THE GORIS PATENTS ..................... 3
`
`A. Background of the Inventions ............................................................................. 3
`
`“a signal indicative of proximifi; of an external object” and “a signal indicative
`B.
`of the ex1stence of a first conditlon,
`e first condltlon bemg that an external object
`is prox1mate” ................................................................................................................ 4
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842 .......... 1 l
`
`A. Background of the Invention ............................................................................. 1 l
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 13
`
`C.
`
`“Inverse Fourier transformer” ........................................................................... 13
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,416,862 ............ 21
`
`A. Background of the Invention ............................................................................. 21
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 22
`
`“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`B.
`produce the transmitter beamformlng mformation” .................................................. 22
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT N0. 7,957,450 .......... 27
`
`A. Background of the Invention ............................................................................. 27
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 29
`
`C. _ “channel estimate matrices” / “matrix based on the plurality of channel
`estlmates” ................................................................................................................... 29
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`i
`
`3
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 0524.119 PagelD.2531 Page4of83
`
`l
`
`“coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix decomposition
`D.
`(SVD)” _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 34
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 6,941,156 _________ 37
`
`A. Background of the Invention _____________________________________________________________________________ 37
`
`B.
`
`“simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone” __________ 37
`
`_“a module to establish simultaneous communication aths fiom_ said
`C.
`multlmode cell phone usmg both sa1d cell phone functlona 1ty and sa1d RF
`communlcatlon functlonallty” ___________________________________________________________________________________ 44
`
`The “module to establish simultaneous communications” term is not
`1.
`governed by § 112, 1[ 6 ........................................................................................... 45
`
`If the Court determines that the presumption has been rebutted, and § 112,11
`2.
`6 applles, Defendants’ disclosed structure 1s nnproperly narrow.......................... 8
`
`_“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell phone
`D.
`functlonallty and sa1d RF communicatlon functionality, operable to sw1tch a
`communication ath established on one of said cell phone functionality and_ said RF
`communlcatlon
`ctlonallty, w1th another communicatlon path later establlshed on
`the other of said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionalitygl.)
`
`l.
`
`The “automatic switch over module” term is not governed by § 112, 11 6. ...51
`
`If the Court determines that the presumption has been rebutted, and § 112,11
`2.
`6 applles, Defendants’ disclosed structure 1s nnproperly narrow.......................... 5
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 ....... 61
`
`A. Background of the Invention ............................................................................. 61
`
`A.
`
`“position to a communications tower” .............................................................. 63
`
`IX. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 71
`
`PLAINTJFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`4
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05t24I19 PagelD.2532 PageS of83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 20
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) _________________________________________________________________________________ 52
`
`Aventis Pharma SA. v. Hospira, Inc,
`
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 18
`
`Ba! Seal Eng ’g Co. v. Qiang Huang, N0. 100v819-CAB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`84516 (SD. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) ........................................................................... 48, 55
`
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.,
`
`No. C 07—1359, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14842 (ND- Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) ............... 20
`
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. CR. Bard, Inc.,
`
`922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................................... 18
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`
`No. lS—CV—700 JLS (NLS), 2017 U-S. Dist. LEXIS 16549
`
`(SD. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`CR. Bard, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp,
`
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 65, 67
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp,
`
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir- 2002) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp. ofAm., Inc,
`
`674 Fed. Appx. 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 1]
`
`Com”! Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp,
`
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 64, 67, 70
`
`Curtiss- Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc,
`
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir- 2006) ................................................................................. 34
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`iii
`
`5
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05724719 PagelD.2533 Pagefi 0f83
`
`CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP,
`
`112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir- 1997) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Dayco Prods. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`
`258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 17
`
`Digitai Biometrics v. Identix, Inc.,
`
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir- 1998) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Digital— Vending Servs., Int’l, LLC v. Univ. ofPhoenix, Inc,
`
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir- 2012) _________________________________________________________________________________ 43
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp,
`
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir- 2009) _________________________________________________________________________________ 18
`
`l 2
`
`Julius Zorn, Inc. v. Medi Mfg,
`
`No. 3:15—CV—02734—GPC-RBB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35826
`
`(SD. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) .......................................................................................... 26
`
`W Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 56
`
`K—2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................... 3
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 33
`
`LB. Plastics, Inc. v. Amerimax Home Prods,
`
`499 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................. 17
`
`Liebel—Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 9, 34
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc,
`
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Media Rights Techs, Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp,
`
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 46, 52
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`iv
`
`6
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 0524.119 PagelD.2534 Page? of83
`
`Micro Chem, Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir- 1999) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Nazomi Communs., Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,
`
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 9, 11
`
`Phillips v. A W Corp,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir- 2005) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa ’ per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) _____________________________________________________________________________ 2, 36
`
`Retractable Techs, Inc. v. Becton,
`
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) _________________________________________________________________________________ 32
`
`Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. RA. Jones & Co.,
`
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 17
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-0n Inc,
`
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 46, 52
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N. V,
`
`365 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Scn'pps Research Inst. V. Illumina, Inc,
`
`No. 16—cv—661 JLS (BGS), 2018 US. Dist. LEXIS 60928
`
`(SD. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) ..................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Serrano v. Telular Corp,
`
`111 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................... 48, 49, 55, 60
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.,
`
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 16
`
`TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l,
`
`920 F.3d 777 Ged. Cir. Mar. 29, 2019) ................................................... 46, 48, 52, 55
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm ’t Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 2, 3
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`v
`
`7
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 0524119 PagelD.2535 PageB of83
`
`l
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`TurboCare Div. ofDemag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Ca,
`
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 20
`
`Viironics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ......................................................................... 3, 24, 31
`
`5 White v. Dunbar,
`
`6
`
`119 U.S. 47 (1886) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`7 Williamson v. Citrix Unline, LLC,
`
`8
`
`9
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ___________________________________________________________________________ 46, 52
`
`Statutes
`
`10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(2) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`vi
`
`8
`
`

`

`C se 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05724719 PagelD.2536 PageQ 0183
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,319,889 to Goris, et al., issued January 15,
`2008
`Excerpts of the Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,3 19,889.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,204,554 to Goris, et al., issued June 19, 2012
`Excerpts of the Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`8,204,554.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,990,842 to Trachewsky, et al., issued August
`2, 2011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 to Aldana, et al., issued April 3, 2013
`U.S. Patent No. 7,957,450 to Hansen, et al., issued June 7, 2011
`U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 to Mooney, issued September 6, 2005
`
`6,941,156
`
`J
`
`K
`
`2006
`
`
`
`_13
`14 - Excerpts ofthe Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,03 9,435
`15
`L
`Amended Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti In Support of
`16
`Plaintiff’s Claim Constructions dated May 2, 2019 (“Madisetti
`Op. Decl.”)
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti In Support of
`Plaintiff’s Claim Constructions dated May 8, 2019 (“Madisetti
`Rebuttal Decl.”
`19
`Sur—Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti In Support of
`20
`Plaintiff’s Claim Constructions dated May 16, 2019 (“Madisetti
`21
`Sur—Rebuttal Decl.”
`22 - ardin_ Claim Construction “Min 0 -. Decl.”
`Excerpts from the May 1, 2019 Declaration of Paul 1V1in, Ph.D.
`23 — Excerpts from the May 19, 2019 Deposition ofPaul Min, Ph.D-
`“Min De 1
`24_
`25 — Excerpts from Rebuttal Declaration ofDr. Jonathan Wells,
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`17
`18
`
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`M
`
`N
`
`S
`
`Ph.D- dated Ma 8, 2019 “Wells Rebuttal Decl.”
`Excerpts from William Yee, Mobile Communications
`Engineering — Theory and Applications, McGraW Hill (2d ed.
`1 997)
`
`PLAINTJFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`9
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.2537 Page 10 of 83
`
`
`Description
`
` 5
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`T
`
`V
`
`US. 6,498,924 “V0 e1”
`Ronald N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform and its
`A t lications 3rd ed., 2000
`Discrete Fourier Transform based Multimedia Colour Image
`Authentication for Wireless Communication (DFTMCIAWC)
`S o atial Channel and S stem Characterization
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`viii
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05l24119 PagelD.2538 Page 11 of 83
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`l
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order of October 15, 2018, Plaintiff
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC’s (“ NR”) hereby submits its Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief in the following cases, consolidated for pretrial purposes: Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. Coolpad Technologies, Inc, et al., No. 3:18-cv—l783; Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. Huowei Device USA, Inc., et al., No. 3:18—cv—l784', Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. Kyocera Corporation, et al., No. 3: 18-cv-1785; and Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. ZTE Corporation, et al., No. 3:18—cv—17'86.1
`
`The consolidated cases involve eight patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,319,889 (“the
`
`’889 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,204,554 (“the ’554 Patent”); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,990,842 (“the “842 Patent”); U.S. Patent No- 8,416,862 (“the ”862 Patent”); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,957,450 (“the ’450 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 (“the ”156
`
`Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,792,432 (“the ’432 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`(“the ’435 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`BNR’s proposed constructions adhere to the well-known principles of claim
`
`construction and are based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms at issue,
`
`taking into account the specification’s teachings. Defendants’ proposed constructions,
`
`on the other hand, generally seek to import extraneous limitations or ignore key
`
`disclosures in an attempt to manufacture non—infringement and invalidity positions.
`
`Because BNR’s constructions are consistent with the canons of patent law and
`
`properly balance granting the full scope of applicants’ invention while ensuring that
`
`the public has proper notice of the scope of the invention, BNR respectfully requests
`
`that the Court adopt its proposed constructions for the disputed terms described below.
`
`1 BNR’s expert’s opinions cited herein are offered against the Huawei, Coolpad, and
`Kyocera Defendant Groups.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05i24119 PagelD.2539 Page 12 of 83
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction is the process by which “the meaning and scope of the patent
`
`claims asserted to be infringed” is determined. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir- 1995) (en banc), afl'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). This is a task
`
`for the Court. Id. at 979.
`
`A. The scope of a patent is defined by the plain import of its claims.
`
`It is fundamental patent law that a patent’s claims define the patent’s scope.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Thus, “the
`
`claim construction inquiry .
`
`.
`
`. begins and ends .
`
`.
`
`. with the actual words of the claim."
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. NV, 365 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa ’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)); Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc, No. 15-CV—700 ILS (NLS),
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549, at *3 (SD. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017). Given the express
`
`statutory purpose of the patent claim—“to particularly point[] out and distinctly
`
`claim[]” the inventioniit is "unjust to the public, as well as an evasion of law, to
`
`construe it in a manner different from the plain import of its terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312 (quoting White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52 (1886)); 35 U.S.C. § 112(2).
`
`Specifically, limiting the claims by the exemplary embodiments described in the patent
`
`document is “one of the cardinal sins of patent law.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320. This is
`
`true even if the patentee described only one embodiment in the patent. Id. at 1323.
`
`B. A claim term is given its full ordinary and customary meaning unless the
`
`patentee: (i) clearly otherwise defined the term, or (ii) unequivocally
`
`disclaimed the full scope of the term.
`
`“The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
`
`specification and prosecution history.” Homer v. Sony Computer Entm ’1‘ Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313); accord CCS
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp, 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Generally
`
`speaking, we indulge a heavy presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`
`PLAINTJFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.254O Page 13 of 83
`
`customary meaning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “There are only two
`
`exceptions to this 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.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord K-2 Corp. v.
`
`Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362—63 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of a disputed claim term is presumed to be the correct one subject
`
`to .
`
`.
`
`. a different meaning clearly and deliberately set forth in the intrinsic material.”
`
`(citations omitted)). Ultimately, “[t]he patentee is free to choose a broad term and
`
`expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee
`
`explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING THE GORIS PATENTS
`
`A. Background of the Inventions
`
`The ’889 and ’554 Patents, the “Goris Patents,” belong to the same patent
`
`family; the ’554 Patent is a continuation of the ’889 Patent. Each patent is entitled
`
`“System and Method for Conserving Battery Power in a Mobile Station” and claims
`
`priority to an earlier application filed on June 17, 2003.
`
`The Goris Patents relate to inventions that help reduce cell phone consumption
`
`of battery power. The specification notes that “the stand-by time, as well as the talk-
`
`time, of a mobile station depend on the lifetime of a (rechargeable) battery inserted
`
`within the mobile station and hence, on the load and/or on the capacity of the battery-”
`
`(Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 1:2773 0; Ex. C; ’554 Patent at 128731.) The specification
`
`further notes the problems in the prior art stemming from increasing the capacity of the
`
`battery: “batteries having increased capacities are often larger, heavier or more
`
`expensive, none of which are desirable attributes for a portable, affordable mobile
`
`station.” (Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 1:31—35; Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 1:32—36.)
`
`Thus, the Goris Patents describe “a way to prolong the lifetime of a mobile
`
`station without having to use a battery with an increased capacity,” and they do so by
`
`PLAINTJFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`3
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.2541 Page 14 of 83
`
`focusing on the power supply to the display of the phone- (Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 1:35—
`
`37; Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 1:36—38.) The claims are drawn to systems and methods that
`
`include (among other things) use of a proximity sensor and processor “adapted to
`
`cause power consumption of the display to be reduced when the display is within a
`
`predetermined range of an external object,” such as a user’s ear. (Ex. A, ’889 Patent at
`
`1:44—46; Ex. C, ”554 Patent at 1:45—47; see also, e.g., Claim 1.) The specification
`
`explains that “by reducing the power consumption of the display of an activated
`
`telephone set in [the] case [that] the display is not needed, i.e., in particular during a
`
`telephone call, current is saved instead of needlessly consumed from the (recharge—
`
`able) battery. Accordingly, the spared available battery power may be significant,
`
`especially for color displays, resulting in an overall increasement of the stand-by
`
`and/or talk time of the telephone set.” (Ex. A,’889 Patent at 1:47—54; Ex. C, ’554
`
`Patent at 1:48—55 .)
`
`B. “a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” and “a signal
`
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`
`that an external object is proximate”
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the
`
`“a signal that an external object is or
`
`within a redetermined ran e”
`
`extent the Court determines that a
`specific construction is warranted,
`
`BNR proposes:
`
`“a signal that an external object is
`
`is not within a predetermined range”
`
`These terms appear in the following claims in the Goris Patents, and there is a
`
`difference in language between the ”889 Patent term and the ’554 Patent terms:
`
`’889 Patent Claim 1
`
`’554 Patent Claim 1
`
`’554 Patent Claim 14
`
`comprising:
`
`A mobile station,
`
`A mobile station,
`
`A mobile station,
`
`comprising:
`
`comprising:
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.2542 Page 15 of 83
`
`’889 Patent Claim 1
`
`’554 Patent Claim 1
`
`’554 Patent Claim 14
`
`a display;
`
`a display;
`
`a display;
`
`a proximity sensor adapted a proximity sensor adapted a proximity sensor adapted
`to generate a signal
`to generate a signal
`to generate a signal
`
`indicative of proximity of
`an external object; and
`
`a microprocessor adapted
`to:
`
`(a) determine whether a
`telephone call is active;
`
`(b) receive the signal fi'om
`the proximity sensor, and
`
`(c) reduce power to the
`
`display if (i) the
`microprocessor
`
`indicative of the
`existence of a first
`condition the first
`condition being that an
`external object is
`proximate; and
`
`indicative of the
`existence of a first
`condition: the first
`condition being that an
`external object is
`proximate; and
`
`a microprocessor adapted
`to:
`
`a microprocessor adapted
`to:
`
`(a) determine, without
`using the proximity
`sensor, the existence of a
`
`(a) determine,
`independently of the
`determination whether the
`
`second condition
`independent and different
`
`external object is
`proximate, the existence of
`
`determines that a
`
`fiom the first condition,
`
`a second condition
`
`telephone call is active and the second condition being different from the first
`
`(ii) the signal indicates the
`proximity of the external
`object; wherein:
`
`the telephone call is a
`wireless telephone call;
`
`the microprocessor
`reduces power to the
`
`that a user of the mobile
`station has performed an
`action to initiate an
`outgoing call or to answer
`an incoming call;
`
`(b) in response to a
`
`determination in step (3)
`that the second condition
`
`display while the signal
`indicates the proximity of
`
`exists, activate the
`proximity sensor;
`
`condition, the second
`condition being that a user
`of the mobile station has
`performed an action to
`initiate an outgoing call or
`to answer an incoming
`call;
`
`(b) in response to a
`
`determination in step (a)
`that the second condition
`
`
`
`the external object only if
`the microprocessor
`determines that the
`wireless telephone call is
`active; and
`
`exists, activate the
`(c) receive the signal fiom proximity sensor;
`the activated proximity
`sensor; and
`
`(d) reduce power to the
`
`(c) receive the signal from
`the activated proximity
`sensor; and
`
`the proximity sensor
`
`display if the signal from
`
`be ins detectin_ whether
`
`the activated roximi
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`5
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.2543 Page 16 of 83
`
`’889 Patent Claim 1
`
`’554 Patent Claim 1
`
`’554 Patent Claim 14
`
`an external object is
`
`sensor indicates that the
`
`((1) reduce power to the
`
`an incomin; wireless call.
`
`proximate substantially
`concurrently with the
`mobile station initiating an
`outgoing wireless
`telephone call or receiving
`
`first condition exists.
`
`display if the signal from
`the activated proximity
`sensor indicates that the
`first condition exists.
`
`The only dispute regarding the definition of this claim term centers on
`
`Defendants’ insertion of the three words “or is not,” effectively requiring that the
`
`proximity sensor be adapted to generate a signal when an external object is not within
`
`a predetermined range. But Defendants cannot point to any support in the intrinsic
`
`record that requires the proximity sensor of these three claims to be adapted to
`
`generate a signal to show that something is not there. Nor do the Defendants cite any
`
`extrinsic evidence, including any expert testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would interpret the claim term to require a signal indicating the absence of an
`
`object within a predetermined range. On the contrary, the specification invariably
`
`refers to a determination that an external object is within a predetermined range. For
`
`instance, in the specification:
`
`0
`
`“The proximity sensor is coupled to the chassis and causes the power
`
`consumption to be reduced when the display is within a predetermined
`
`range of an external object.” (Ex. A, ’889 Patent at Abstract; Ex. C, ”554
`
`Patent at Abstract.)
`
`0
`
`. .a proximity sensor coupled to the chassis and adapted to cause a
`
`power consumption of the display to be reduced when the display is
`
`within a predetermined range of an external object-” (Ex. A, “889 Patent
`
`at 1:43—46; Ex. C, ”554 Patent at 1:44—47.)
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`6
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.2544 Page 17 of 83
`
`0 “If the proximity sensor 140 detects an external object (such as the user's
`
`ear) within the monitored range. (Ex. A, “889 Patent at 3:20—22; Ex. C,
`
`’554 Patent at 3:21—23.)
`
`0
`
`. detecting an attachment of the set, in particular of the display of said
`
`set near to an object, in particular to the ear. .
`
`(“889 Patent at 2:20—22;
`
`Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 2:21—23.)
`
`0
`
`“If the proximity sensor 140 detects an external object (such as the user's
`
`ear) within the monitored range. .
`
`(Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 3:20722; Ex.
`
`C, ”554 Patent at 3:21—23.)
`
`0
`
`0
`
`. .the proximity sensor 140 detects proximity to an external object. .
`
`(Ex. A, ”889 Patent at 3:36—37; Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 3:37—38.)
`
`. .the proximity sensor 140 again detects an object. .
`
`. ” (Ex. A, ’889
`
`Patent at 3:57—58; Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 3:57—58.)
`
`Similarly, the file histories for the Goris Patents evidence no requirement of a signal
`
`that an object is not there. (Ex. B; Ex. D.)
`
`Even in a scenario where the external object is moved away from the display or
`
`proximity sensor, which the patent specifically contemplates, there is no requirement
`
`that the proximity sensor must generate a “negative signal" (i.e., a signal that
`
`something is not within a predetermined range). For example, the specification states,
`
`“the means may be further adapted to switch-on the display in response to a detection
`
`that the set, preferably the display of the set, is moved away from any object, in
`
`particular fi'om the ear-” (Ex. A, ”889 Patent at 2:6—9; Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 2:7—10; see
`
`also Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 3:48—58; Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 3:48—58.) Nothing in the
`
`patent forecloses an embodiment where the absence of a signal that an external object
`
`is proximate would allow the display to switch back on. In fact, the specification
`
`describes an embodiment that is wholly consistent with the absence of a signal
`
`indicating proximity to an external object:
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`C e3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05f24119 PageID.2545 Page 18 of 83
`
`Moreover, ifthe proximity sensor 140 is directly activated by an incoming call
`or automatically activated, the display can be kept in a Switched—off condition as
`
`long as the mobile station 110 is, for example, within a pocket (not referenced)
`
`or the like and is only switched on when the user retrieves the mobile station
`110 fiom the pocket to enable the user to look on the display 150 for an
`
`information about the calling party. If the user then wants to accept the call and
`thence places the mobile station 110 proximate an external object, such as his
`ear, the proximity sensor 140 again detects an object, causing the display again
`to be switched off.
`
`(Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 3:48—68 (emphasis added); Ex. C, ’554 Patent at 3:48—58.)
`
`These disclosures, coupled with the fact that there is nothing in the claim language
`
`itself to indicate that a negative signal is required, supports BNR’s proposal. See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis- Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Moreover, focusing on the disputed language in Claim 1 and 14 of the ’554
`
`Patent yields further support to BNR’s interpretation that the generated signal need
`
`only indicate that an external object is within a predetermined range: “a signal
`
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being that an external
`
`object is proximate” (emphasis added). Here, the claim language makes it clear that the
`
`subject of the signal is “that an external object is proximate.”