Case 2:18-cv-00134-RWS Document 85 Filed 12/20/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1108
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
` Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-134-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. – Ex. 1039, cover p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00134-RWS Document 85 Filed 12/20/18 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 1124
`
`specifications in which the detection system “captures the signal with the light source on and with
`
`the light source off.”
`
`(Ex. F, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999), p. 365; see also, Ex. H, Microsoft Press
`
`Computer Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1997), pp. 389-90.)
`
`The American Heritage Science Dictionary from 2011 (just before Omni MedSci filed its
`
`patents) defines “modulating” as “to vary the amplitude, frequency, or some other characteristic
`
`of a signal or power source.” (Ex. I, American Heritage Science Dictionary 2011, emphasis added.)
`
`Likewise, the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (cited by Apple) defines “modulate” as “to vary the
`
`amplitude, frequency, or phase of (a carrier wave or a light wave) for the transmission of
`
`information (as by radio).” (Ex. G, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th Ed. (2003) at
`
`APL-OMNI_00075927, emphasis added.)
`
`Two common types of modulation that radio listeners know of are AM and FM—
`
`“amplitude modulation” and “frequency modulation.” In an AM radio signal, the intensity of the
`
`carrier signal changes based on the modulation, whereas in an FM radio signal, the frequency of
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. – Ex. 1039, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00134-RWS Document 85 Filed 12/20/18 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 1125
`
`the carrier signal changes based on the modulation. (See, e.g., Ex. J, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary
`
`26th Ed. (2011) at APL-OMNI_00075937, defining “frequency modulation.”) Consistent with the
`
`asserted patent claims and specifications, it is common to modulate by amplitude or frequency.
`
`This extrinsic evidence further supports what is clear from the claims and the specification
`
`of the asserted patents: the term “modulating” is not limited to varying only the “frequency” of
`
`light; it includes varying the amplitude or pulse width of the light (“pulsing the light”) consistent
`
`with Omni’s proposed construction. There is no basis in the claims or the specification for
`
`excluding amplitude modulation as Apple effectively proposes. Accordingly, the Court should
`
`construe “modulating [of] at least one of the LEDs” to mean “pulsing the light, or varying the
`
`frequency of the light, produced by at least one of the LEDs.”
`
`4.
`
`“lock-in technique”
`
`Term
`
`Patent: Claims Omni’s Construction Apple’s Construction
`
`wherein the receiver is
`configured to use a lock-
`in technique that detects
`the modulation frequency
`
` ‘698: 1
`
`The receiver is
`configured to detect the
`modulation frequency of
`the optical beam and
`lessen noise outside the
`modulation frequency.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. The receiver
`is configured to
`analyze the optical
`beam to identify and
`then lock onto the
`modulation frequency.
`
`Omni’s proposed construction is consistent with ‘698 claim 1 and the description of “lock-
`
`in technique” in the ‘698 patent specification. Apple’s construction, in contrast, adds limitations
`
`not required by the claim or specification, specifically, analysis of the optical beam instead of
`
`simply detection of the modulation frequency. The ‘698 Patent describes “lock-in technique” as
`
`follows:
`
`•
`
`“one way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio would be to use modulation and lock-in
`
`techniques. . .In a particular embodiment, the techniques from lock-in detection may be
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. – Ex. 1039, p. 15
`
`