UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, DC
`
`The Honorable Dee Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES AND LAPTOP COMPUTERS
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1215
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S
`INITIAL MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`David O. Lloyd, Supervisory Attorney
`Lisa A. Murray, Investigative Attorney
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20436
`202-205-2734
`202-205-2158 (facsimile)
`
`January 5, 2020
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`Legal Standards ....................................................................................................................1
`Technology Overview ..........................................................................................................7
`A.
`Technology at Issue .................................................................................................7
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................8
`U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517..................................................................................................10
`U.S. Patent No. 8,982,086..................................................................................................11
`A.
`Patent Overview .....................................................................................................11
`B.
`Disputed Constructions ..........................................................................................13
`1. “first information necessary for an identification of the user” . . .
`“second information relating to the identification of the user, which is
`stored in advance” (claim 1) ............................................................................13
`a) The Reissue Proceeding .............................................................................16
`
`b) No Clear Disavowal ...................................................................................18
`
`2. “first controller configured to control the information processing
`apparatus to operate into two operating modes: at least an
`identification mode and a registering mode, as the operating mode
`thereof . . . second controller configured to execute a specified process
`when said first information and said second information are coincident
`within said identification mode” (claim 1) ......................................................20
`Agreed Construction ..............................................................................................23
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,821..................................................................................................24
`A.
`Patent Overview .....................................................................................................24
`B.
`Disputed Constructions ..........................................................................................26
`1. “white balance control means for detecting an achromatic portion of an
`image of an object . . .” (claims 1, 6) ...............................................................28
`2. “a white balance control means for controlling white balance of image
`picked up from the image pick up device . . .” (claim 7) .................................30
`3. “a means for obtaining control information for the white balance”
`(claim 7) ...........................................................................................................33
`4. “object distance detecting means . . .” (claims 1, 6, 7) ....................................34
`5. “zoom value detecting means . . .” (claims 1, 6, 7) .........................................35
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- i -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`6. “white balance control amount adjustment value forming means for
`forming a white balance control amount adjustment value . . .”
`(claim 1) ...........................................................................................................37
`Agreed Constructions.............................................................................................40
`C.
`VII. U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590................................................................................................42
`A.
`Patent Overview .....................................................................................................42
`B.
`Agreed Construction ..............................................................................................43
`VIII. U.S. Patent No. 10,176,848................................................................................................43
`A.
`Patent Overview .....................................................................................................43
`B.
`Disputed Constructions ..........................................................................................45
`1. “register a person in the image information as a specific person”
`(claims 8, 13, 18) .............................................................................................45
`2. “[when the first setting mode is set,] a person with a face is obtained
`by newly photographing the person in a photographing mode and
`thereafter registered as the specific person” (claims 8, 13, 18) .......................47
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................48
`
`IX.
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- ii -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................. 2, 46
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................ 7
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............. 35
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................... 21, 22
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................. 3, 4
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................... 7
`
`Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................ 27, 30
`
`Capital Mach. Co. v. Miller Veneers, Inc., 524 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................... 14, 19
`
`Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) ......................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................. 21, 22
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................. 7, 30
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................. 4
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................... 15
`
`Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................... 15, 16
`
`Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................ 15
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................ 6
`
`In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 28
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir.
`2004)) ........................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................... 4
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., 297 F. Supp.3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018) .......................... 23
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- iii -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................... 15
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................... 9
`
`Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ....................................................... 6, 7, 30
`
`Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................. 6
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................... 27
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005). ....................................... 5
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) ......................................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................. 15, 16, 19
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................ 2
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. International Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................... passim
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 5
`
`Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................... 2, 39
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................... 4
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................... 2, 39
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., 326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................ 4
`
`Rhodia Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................. 4
`
`S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................ 23
`
`Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211 (1940) ............................................ 15
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 16
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................. 3, 15
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................. 23, 30, 35, 37
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................. 22
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ...................................................... 2
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- iv -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................. 27
`
`Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................... 4
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................... 3, 5
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) ........................................................... 21, 22
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .............. 5, 21, 22, 27
`
`ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 884 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................. 4
`
`Statutes
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337 ............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 para. 2 (pre-AIA) ............................................................................................ 6, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 para. 6 (pre-AIA) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) .................................................................................................................... 6, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ........................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 251 ....................................................................................................................... 16, 18
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 § 4, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011).............. 27
`
`Administrative Determinations
`
`Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv.
`No. 337-TA-973, Order No. 16 (May 16, 2016) ...................................................................... 9
`
`Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`337-TA-800, USITC Pub. No. 4475, Initial Det. (June 2014) ..................................... 2, 24, 42
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2181 (Rev. 10-2019) ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- v -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Exhibits
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517 (“the ’517 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,982,086 (“the ’086 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,821 (“the ’821 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590 (“the ’590 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,176,848 (“the ’848 Patent”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`Excerpts, Prosecution History for U.S. Reissue Application
`No. 16/260,879
`
`Excerpt, McDaniel, George, IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`
`Excerpt, Oxford Quick Reference: A Dictionary of Computer Science
`(7th ed. 2016)
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`Exhibit 10
`
`Excerpt, Prosecution History for U.S. Application No. 12/430,185
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- vi -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 7
`
`

`

`-1-
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with the procedural schedule issued in Order No. 4 (Sept. 23, 2020) and
`
`with Ground Rule 5.2, Order No. 2 (Aug. 20, 2020), the Commission Investigative Staff
`
`(“Staff”) respectfully submits this initial claim construction brief setting forth and explaining its
`
`proposed construction of each disputed claim term in the patents asserted in this investigation.
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1215 was instituted on August 24, 2020, based on a complaint
`
`filed on July 16, 2020, by Complainant Maxell Ltd. (“Maxell”). Notice of Institution of
`
`Investigation, 85 Fed. Reg. 52,153 (Aug. 24, 2020). The sole Respondent is Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”). Id. The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`
`amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, based on the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic
`
`devices and laptop computers that allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517
`
`(“the ’517 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,982,086 (“the ’086 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,199,821
`
`(“the ’821 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590 (“the ’590 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,176,848 (“the ’848 Patent”). Id.; see Exh. 1 (’517 Patent); Exh. 2 (’086 Patent); Exh. 3 (’821
`
`Patent); Exh. 4 (’590 Patent); Exh. 5 (’848 Patent).
`
`In accordance with Ground Rule 5.1, the parties exchanged lists of claim terms to be
`
`construed on November 11-12, 2020. The parties subsequently exchanged proposed
`
`constructions for those terms and met and conferred in order to reduce the number of claim terms
`
`in dispute. At this time, there are ten disputed claim terms across the five patents at issue, in
`
`addition to seven agreed-upon constructions. See Exh. 6 (J. Claim Constr. Chart). A Markman
`
`hearing is scheduled for February 9, 2021. See Order No. 4.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The purpose of claim construction is to explain disputed and material claim language in a
`
`way that will be useful to the decision maker. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`- 1 -
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544
`
`F.3d 1341, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“claims are construed as an aid to the decision-maker, by
`
`restating the claims in non-technical terms”). “Only those claim terms that are in controversy
`
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Certain
`
`Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800, USITC
`
`Pub. No. 4475, Initial Det. at 19 n.7 (June 2014). “The construction that stays true to the claim
`
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the
`
`end, the correct construction.” Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380-
`
`81 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`Claim construction is generally treated as a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`However, claim construction may involve underlying factual determinations. See Teva Pharms.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837-38 (2015). Claims should generally be given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing
`
`the claim terms in the context of the entire patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-
`
`13 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331,
`
`1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language is readily
`
`apparent and claim construction will involve “little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. In other cases, claim terms
`
`have a specialized meaning and it is necessary to determine what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the disputed claim language to mean by analyzing “‘the words of the
`
`claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-2-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state
`
`of the art.’” Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d
`
`1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Every claim term is presumed to have meaning, and any
`
`construction that renders a claim term superfluous is discouraged. Innova, 381 F.3d at 1119.
`
`Analysis of the claim language is not done in a vacuum. Instead, the claims “must be
`
`read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting
`
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that the specification is
`
`“the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315; Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The specification plays a
`
`primary role because it functions as a sort of dictionary, explaining the invention and defining
`
`the terms used in the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[C]laims . . . do not stand alone.
`
`Rather, they are part of a ‘fully integrated written instrument,’ consisting principally of a
`
`specification that concludes with the claims.”) Nonetheless, while a patentee is free to act as his
`
`or her own lexicographer, any special definition given to a word must be clear from the
`
`specification. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. For that reason, claims “must be read in view of the
`
`specification, of which they are a part.” Id. (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979).
`
`Claims must also be read in view of the prosecution history to determine whether the
`
`inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning or with
`
`positions taken during prosecution. Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090,
`
`1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995). The prosecution history consists of the complete record of the patent examination
`
`proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including cited prior art. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1317. It may reveal “how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-3-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it
`
`would otherwise be.” Id.; see also Rhodia Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to
`
`‘exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.’”) (quoting ZMI Corp. v.
`
`Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “[W]hen the patentee
`
`unequivocally and unambiguously disavows a certain meaning to obtain a patent, the doctrine of
`
`prosecution history disclaimer narrows the meaning of the claim consistent with the scope of the
`
`claim surrendered.” Biogen, 713 F.3d at 1095. A disclaimer only occurs if there has been a clear
`
`and deliberate disavowal. See Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`Ultimately, however, it is the claims that delimit a patentee’s right to exclude. E.g.,
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 807 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (scope of
`
`a patent claim is defined by the claim language); Markman, 52 F.3d at 978. Thus, “[w]hile claim
`
`terms are understood in light of the specification, a claim construction must not import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims.” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d
`
`1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323); Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA
`
`Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For example, claims are not usually limited in
`
`scope simply to the preferred embodiment(s) disclosed in the patent specification. Linear Tech.
`
`Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (even if patentees
`
`have disclosed only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless patentees
`
`have demonstrated a clear intention to limit claim scope using words or expressions of manifest
`
`exclusion); RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003). Likewise, statements pertaining to a specific embodiment of the invention, rather than to
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-4-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`the invention as a whole, do not operate to limit the claims. Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d
`
`1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A party wishing to use a statement appearing in the specification to
`
`confine or otherwise affect a patent’s scope must, at the very least, point to a term (or terms) in
`
`the patent claim with which to draw in those statements. NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`
`418 F.3d 1282, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In other words, there must be a textual reference in the
`
`language of the patent claim with which to associate a proffered claim construction. Id. Absent
`
`that textual reference, the patent claim’s scope should not be so limited.
`
`An exception to these general principles is found in means-plus-function claiming.
`
`Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (now AIA § 112(f)) allows patentees to express an “element in a
`
`claim for a combination . . . as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 para. 6 (pre-AIA);
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Thus, patentees can “express a claim limitation by reciting the function to be
`
`performed rather than by reciting structure for performing that function.” Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). If Section 112 para. 6 is invoked,
`
`the claim element “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 para. 6 (pre-AIA);
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`
`In addition to the intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence may be considered if necessary to
`
`explain scientific principles, technical terms, and terms of art that appear in the patent and
`
`prosecution history and to determine how one skilled in the relevant art would understand terms
`
`in the claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Extrinsic evidence consists
`
`of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including “expert [and] inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and articles.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. Expert
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-5-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`testimony may be useful to “provide background on the technology at issue, to explain how an
`
`invention works, to ensure that the court’s understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is
`
`consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the
`
`patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.
`
`Nevertheless, extrinsic evidence is less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history, and
`
`“is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the
`
`context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319. Expert testimony that is at odds with the intrinsic
`
`evidence must be disregarded. Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353,
`
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.
`
`Finally, as the claims delineate the patentee’s right to exclude, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`requires that the scope of a claim be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the
`
`invention. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (“The specification shall conclude with one or more
`
`claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a
`
`joint inventor regards as the invention.”); 35 U.S.C. § 112 para. 2 (pre-AIA); see also Nautilus,
`
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014); Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
`
`v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (addressing pre-AIA version of statute). A
`
`patent claim will be invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 if the claim language, “read
`
`in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail[s] to inform,
`
`with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2124. The definiteness requirement “mandates clarity, while recognizing that
`
`absolute precision is unattainable.” Id. at 2129. Recognizing that all claims suffer from “the
`
`inherent limitations of language,” a claim will not be found indefinite if it is “precise enough to
`
`afford clear notice of what is claimed.” Id. at 2128-29.
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-6-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`In the face of an allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of claim construction will
`
`apply. Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Cox
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Whether a
`
`patent claim is indefinite, and therefore invalid, is a question of law that may be subject to a
`
`determination of underlying facts. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334,
`
`1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard for claim indefiniteness
`
`turns on the claims as a whole and not on particular claim terms, “the common practice of
`
`training questions of indefiniteness on individual claim terms is a helpful tool” because “if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art cannot discern the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty, it
`
`may be because one or several claim terms cannot be reliably construed.” Cox Commc’ns, 838
`
`F.3d at 1232. The challenger bears the burden of establishing invalidity for claim indefiniteness
`
`by clear and convincing evidence. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124; Cox Commc’ns, 838 F.3d
`
`at 1228.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`A. Technology at Issue
`
`Each of the five asserted patents is directed to a different technology incorporated into
`
`mobile electronic devices (such as mobile phones, tablets, and watches) and into laptop
`
`computers. The ’517 and ’590 Patents are related to the science of establishing connections used
`
`for wireless communications. The ’821 and ’848 Patents claim aspects of image processing
`
`technology, while the ’086 Patent pertains to touch interfaces.
`
`The ’517 Patent addresses the problem of efficiently switching between multiple
`
`communication interfaces, such as cellular data and Wi-Fi, particularly as a mobile device travels
`
`from one location to another. See Compl. ¶ 23.
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-7-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’086 Patent discloses techniques for unlocking a device with a touchscreen by using
`
`either the tip or the pad of a finger to touch particular areas of the touchscreen. A user may
`
`associate different operations with a fingertip touch and a finger pad touch at the same location
`
`on the screen. See id. ¶¶ 28-30.
`
`The ’821 Patent is directed to capturing an image with the correct color effect by
`
`adjusting the white balance of the image according to the detected brightness of an object, the
`
`distance of the object from the lens, and the amount of zoom used to capture the image. See id.
`
`¶¶ 34-36.
`
`The ’590 Patent addresses the problem of establishing multiple radio connections in order
`
`to stream video information over one connection while simultaneously connecting to the internet
`
`or to a network via a second connection. The claimed invention allows a device to transfer video
`
`information over a digital connection while also continuing to perform additional functions such
`
`as accessing a website over the internet. See id. ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`The ’848 Patent describes a recording and reproducing device, such as a camera, that
`
`assists a user in sorting through large volumes of recorded content by executing a facial
`
`recognition process on images and enabling the user to register the identity of a particular person
`
`in the image. Once the image of a person’s face is registered, future pictures of that person are
`
`indexed together with previously identified images of the person. See id. ¶¶ 45-46.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The purpose of claim construction is to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the claims as understood by a “person of ordinary skill” in the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. The first step in the analysis is to determine the
`
`level of skill possessed by such a person. “Factors that may be considered in determining level
`
`of skill include: type of problems encountered in art; prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1215
`
`-8-
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1004 Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level
`
`of acti