GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
`
`‰‘’“”•”–—˜™—ddded—fgh“““ij˜kl’mn“op“““qrs’t“–du–”u”–“““vw’“–“jx“yy“vw’zi“{•““”–”o
`         
`       
`  
`!"#$%&"$"'()010!234&$)"&#5
`11'567(%48"9@"A9'"'0751$@7BCD
`'4#")07HIH 'APQR&!
`S1"4@TUVWXY
`(%48"9@"A9'"%#459)'7
`EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
`!"#$%&"$"'()010!234&$)"&#5
`11'567#4F#%)!"1"'$&0)9'#'0751$@7
`BCD #4F#%)! "1"'$&0)9'#
`4F"&9'459)'7
`   
`
`cdefgdhid'fpghqrhid0sdCqCt'uBqv'fCrhgpwhqfCcgqdex@yh7)f7€PequdD‚ƒ3uBqChqee
`!drhpgd$dwiCfuftƒ3BghCdgr511'x„3uBqChqee…fg„!$3…74urf‚defgdhid'fpghqrhid
`&drsfCrq6d'uBqv'fCrhgpwhqfCcgqdex@yh7)f7†QequdD‚ƒ@dedCDBChr(pB‡dq@d6qwd'f75
`1hD75(pB‡dq@d6qwd%#459Cw7xwfuudwhq6duƒ5„(pB‡dq…5#BvrpCt"udwhgfCqwr'f751hD75BCD
`#BvrpCt"udwhgfCqwr4vdgqwB59Cw7xwfuudwhq6duƒ5„#BvrpCt…xBuu5wfuudwhq6duƒ5„@dedCDBChr…Br
`‡duuBr3uBqChqeeˆrgdsuƒx@yh7)f7†H7
`$id'fpghiduDBidBgqCtfC#dshdv‚dgH 5HQH 7
`
`'4#")07HIH 'AP R&!
`S`X`aXbTUVWXY
`
` 
`
`|}~€‚€€ƒ
`„…}†‡ˆ†€€†}‰Š‹†
`
`

`

`ghipqrsrtuvwuxxxyxu€‚qqqƒ„v…†p‡ˆq‰qqq‘’“p”qtx•tr•rtqqq–h—pqrq„˜q™™q–h—pdƒqesqqrtx
`  
` !"#$%&'(
`)0!)1"%1)023(
`!"00&40"526(
`7&21$40&40"526(
`89@A BCBDE FCD DGHHBFFDEDGD BADI9999999999999999999998P(
`9@CAHFBAQDRDDGRFDE BSTDEDGDAEGBAD
`D BADCCBDEHDDBAUA DGVCI99999999999999999999999999999999999999998W(
`X9@GDHS FCDQRDCRDCBGI99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999X(
`Y9@DEACDGQDRDGGUDCI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999W(
``9@A BBADDED BADI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999a(
`W9@DERFBC BDFADDEDGVCI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999X(
`b9@QRBDDGAUADGDXGDADI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999X`(
`c9@QRBDDGD BADDDGDXGDADI99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999Xb(
`a9@CB HDCSDEIG@CB HDCDEI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999Xc(
`8P9@BDGUDQI99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999Y8(
`889@BDGUDQFBI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999YY(
`89@BDGUDQVCRBRRFBI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999Yb(
`8X9@QRBDREFBDHB BAGSHBRBRRFB RRGRG
`GUDCI99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999Yc(
`8Y9@CAHFBQDRDRRFDE999QRBDRCAHFBDGHGHB BA
`CB FCD RRGRGGUDCG R DBCABFHF
`GRCGCABFHFI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999`8(
`8`9@EFBI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999`Y(
`8W9@GHGI99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999`b(
`8b9@DERFBCGHGGDBCDFADDRBFERQBdUFAURDER
`FBCeI@DERFBCGHGDFADRFAGSHBQDRDQBdUFA
`EBSURDERFBCeIG@DERFBCD DfGBDBDUR
`CABGGHGGDBCDFADDRBFERRQBdUFAI9999999999999999999999999999999W8(
`8c9@HBCBGHGGBADREFBHB BAGDRQBdUFAG
`DFADGSRDERFBCGRCABFHFI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999WY(
`8a9@RB GDADHDDI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999WW(
`P9@QBdUFAURDERFBCeI@QBdUFAEBSURDER
`FBCeIG@QBdUFAURCABI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999Wc(
`89@ BQBG CDEHBDI9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999b8(
`9@ BQBG CDEDERFBCI99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999bX(
`X9@RGCGEFBDDGD DGSRHBCDEFDHB BAHFBDS
`EFBI999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999bY(
` 
`fghijikljjmik
`nogpqrpijjkpgstupi
`
`
`
`

`

`‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‡‰‘’“““”“•–—†††˜™‘de…fg†hi†††jkl…m†‰“n‰‡n‡‰†††oƒp…†i†™q†rr†oƒp…s˜†tˆ††‡‰i‰
`          !  !" #$$%
` & '(# " ('  " )( ((!
`    0#    '(  1  2 
`' ( 3  !2     ((0  '
`2    ' (  !2     !  !" #0
`#   ' (   2' ( 22 0 #   2'
`( 22 (  '2  2' 2 2)$4%
` 5 '(6 %
` $ '( " )(     '2 0#  
`  '(  1  ' ( 3  !2   
` !  !" #3 ((!    0
`   ' (   3)  #2' ( !(
`(3 7( )( 2' (' '2 0#     ' ( 
` ! 3)  '(!2()!' ( 6%
` 6    65%
`89@@ABCADEFGBC9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999@HI%
`
`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
`G9@@PQARSTBECU@
` V!! ' !' 2 !W X V Y$040`a b`V c0
`60`404 a b4 V c060&&0d$4a bd$4V c0 606$6044a b44V c
`a " )0    (    caefY50ghipecV!!
`(32qr i  V  '  )   "('23 "
`2 (  #  " 0! h2 ( '03(2 0
`(f' " 0f' ('" 0 " ' !(aef
`Y50`c
` s b`V 0 t2 u X 'v   0w3 0x2'0y 
`e " 0( i 50 d``0 3   )  !€()60`444s
`i3! b`V  1
`w   (   3  s2  2( 
`3  '2)0( '03(2 0
` 
`uvwxyxz{yy|xz
`}~v€xyyzv‚ƒ„…
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 88 PagelD #: 2132
`
`handheld devices, cars, and video games. Several unique forms of social video
`gamesare disclosed.
`
`The 7924 Patent resulted from a continuation of the ’431 Patent.
`
`The ’079 Patent, titled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications,” issued
`
`on October 8, 2013, and bears an earliest priority date of November9, 1998. The Abstract of the
`
`°079 Patentstates:
`
`A method for determining a gesture illuminated by a light source utilizes the light
`source to provide illumination through a work volume abovethe light source. A
`camera is positioned to observe and determine the gesture performed in the work
`volume.
`
`The
`
`’949 Patent,
`
`titled “Camera Based Interaction and Instruction,” issued on
`
`November4, 2014, and bears an earliest priority date of May 11, 1999. The Abstract of the ’949
`
`Patent states:
`
`ghijklmlnopqorrrsrotuvkkkwxpyzj{|k}~kkk€j‚knrƒnlƒlnkkk„h…jkskx†k‡‡k„h…jˆwk‰mkkln~l
`      ! "" 
`
`# $%&'(( ("( ("( $)0'((
` # $12%'((((345" 44 6("788(9 
`@(AB&10)A(8(C("D A%0%%B# 7A(("( 
`$12%'((((E
`7( "((  (AC (  (F(  (
` (8  ((   GH  A (  ( 7
`8((A (( ( 8"( GH
`  
`
` # $%%'((((3IP6((6( (9 
`D A&10A(8(C("4C000%%%# 7A(("( $%%
`'((((EQ( 88( "( (8 8 (
`A8R(( (@ A(
`"( ( (( 8(8(6(CFAC
`8 (((( (("8(( 
`( (# (("(8 (8G  8( 
`((HG ((( C8    (
`((( ((C8C((CG CF( (
`8"#  (8"AC G(  A((C" F
`8C  8S(8C8 (H( "(
`8C(8(( ("( ( (6(( 
`88((8((((
`
`TTUVVWXY`WVabTcdTaWXeV
` 6( (( (3fg8((8 ( (A "(  (
`G  ( 8(("( 8(((h ( "H ( 
`8(( (9ipqrstuvwxyu€yuiqpwuvw‚sƒyu„…€…w†u‡…‚ˆtuvwxy0B)‰)0))0)1‰
`I0%%%‘I( ( "G"(  ((’“qr”“wu€yu•sˆ–€…s—u
`vwˆ–qp”sw–ˆtuvwxy˜&‰)%™2%21d20‰I0%%˜‘A‘“eef‚˜025)210%%™‘
` 
`
`Š‹ŒŽŽŽ‘
`’“‹”•–”ŽŽ”‹—˜™”š
`
`Disclosed are methods and apparatus for instructing persons using computer
`based programs and/or remote instructors. One or more video cameras obtain
`images of the student or other participant.
`In addition images are analyzed by a
`computer to determine the locations or motions of one or more points on the
`student. This location data is fed to computer program which compares the
`motions to known desired movements, or alternatively provides such movement
`data to an instructor, typically located remotely, who can aid in analyzing student
`performance. The invention preferably is used with a substantially life-size
`display, such as a projection display can provide, in order to make the information
`displayed a realistic partner or instructor for the student.
`In addition, other
`applications are disclosed to sports training, dance, and remote dating.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and boundsof the right
`
`which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the
`
`protected invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). Claim construction is an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`IPR2021-00921
`
`GTP EX 2001 Page 4
`
`

`

`“In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background
`
`science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 8. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where
`
`those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about
`
`that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we
`
`discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on
`
`appeal.” Jd. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 88 PagelD #: 2133
`
`ˆ‰‘’“”“•–—˜–™™™d™–efg’’’hi—jk‘lm’no’’’pqr‘s’•™t•“t“•’’’u‰v‘’w’ix’yy’u‰v‘zh’{”’’“•oo
`       !! !"# $ % &
`    ! '      ( '%!  #") 
`    )(   !  )  !  % 0123456
`7859@A6BCDE6FGHA64A6C5GIPQE6FGHARST0U0VSRVWRXY`RaX a0   
`  #$( %   !! "  #$( !()# 
` '   0b    c  $  %)&(! 
`  d59e@5G #$(() #    (!  
`%% !01FIAX)Rfg0T0Sf`a0
` b   )(! !" %$  h !
`% ( %  $0d59e@5GYi0Spfp0b % ( 
`  %(   #!  ($"!! "
`    0FIAq% &! #   ( % ((
` $ %0FIAi! % %   %$(
`$ '%!  $ (     !0FIA r
`% % ( ') % (   ( %  !  % (
` !01s5ttu64A6vw6CxuAE6FGHAYSYi0SVffVVYXi 0U0Y```a0
` y  !  ( ( ! % ( ( !(
` %  & 0r     !#  (!0C€F6FGt‚64A6d5tuƒu8„t56
`
`…‚3HA6†P9‡Affi0YRR`fRRYRXi 0U0RpVaX #a0b %  ( # 
`! ')% # $% ! ()  # ! !$ (
`% (0FGt3‚‚„H5‚‚E6FGHA64A678PGP@3t9„HuE6FGHApYi0YRSVWRSVVXi 0U0RppYa0
`q! ) % ($   #  % (  % !
` # %% ) % (!!#   !  !
` 
`
`|}~€‚€€ƒ
`„…}†‡ˆ†€€†}‰Š‹†Œ
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Jd. A patent’s claims mustbe read in view ofthe specification, of which
`
`they are a part.
`
`Jd. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims.
`
`Jd.
`
`“One
`
`purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of
`
`the claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification.
`
`Jntellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`IPR2021-00921
`
`GTP EX 2001 Page 5
`
`

`

`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 6 of 88 PagelD #: 2134
`
`†‡ˆ‰‘’‘“”•–”———˜—”™defg•hi‰jklmnop‰q“—r“‘r‘“s‡t‰ugvwws‡t‰xfy’‘“m˜
`    !"#$%&'!()&012)3&0)4)&5)&6%%7!$&89@!&0"9!A"!23&BA")C
`DEFDGHEICGHPEQFR GSSET
` U RVW  WW  X    X XF R W V
`W   Y`9 972&5)&4ab&6%$7%$c#9%ACEGPFDGDHDQFR dHHPTQWTeY`9 972C
`Wfg  hW f iiW W  e
`h W CW pW  fhf  g i W
`h    qW rB()GDGdQs BAA%5ctYu$!&ac#!$3&BA")&5)&0c@c$9&
`ac#!$&v9 #$c#9%A&012)3&BA")CDIGFDGGGGCGGGPQFR dHHETTUCi
` W   X g  XWX B()U X
`WX fW  p  i ghf
` Xw  s  f g C CfffW gf 
`fhhh W rB()GDGDU h W h fh if i Xf
`W   g Xhiw  f  f g 
`hC XCw  h W B()
` xh  hWfW  CY`9 972W phf X
`w  W   X Wqfh W W   
`i W hhhC Wqf hC W  
`hW f W rB()y W   gXhg  W f
`h W Chfpf X i  rB()GDGP
`Qs 'c$€cACPdFDS‚ITUCY`9 972Wh ƒhW f W 
` h X fW W  B()GDGE„G‚y…hR
` Cp Wf  X  hh  WfWwW h g
`h fhW f W    g  W   
` 
`
`z{|}~}€~~}
`‚ƒ{„…†„}~~„{‡ˆ‰„Š
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`In Phillips,
`
`the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims.
`
`In
`
`particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the
`
`patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Jd. at 1312 (quoting Jnnova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
`
`Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To that end, the words used
`
`in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`Jd. The ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,i.e., as of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application.” Jd. at 1313. This principle of patent law flows naturally from the
`
`recognition that inventors are usually persons whoare skilled in the field of the invention and
`
`that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled in the particular art. Jd.
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but
`
`in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the
`
`specification.” Jd. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Jd. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as
`
`being the primary basis for construing the claims. Jd. at 1314-17. As the Supreme Court stated
`
`long ago, “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive
`
`portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and
`
`IPR2021-00921
`
`GTP EX 2001 Page 6
`
`

`

`—˜™defgfhijkilllmlinopeeeqrjstduvewxeeeyz{d|ehl}hf}fheee~˜de€ere‚‚e~˜dƒqe„geefhx…
`      !"#$%&'()'01%2345 6 782749844@ A
`BB   2CDEFFEG& BH IB PBB
` QBP B R%SE&D#T'CU0'()'V#WG1&&'X1YE%$#`'G%W'abE1SE28c4d 78ef728ecg9d hB
`8334@i5 2BB  QPB  QB 
` B IB IP BP
` P I p B B 
` BIqB  P 
`IQ22 BB B 
`
`CDEFFEG&2f8cd 7878r h H2CDEFFEG& s  BB 
`   B B 
` pB   B     BB  BB 
`tu 2B   B  B IP B
`56vpB Buw9xvpw!@B  y€)878 
` B2 IPB2xBB    QIvpw
`2! uB  Q
` B B  y€)‚PB2B   BBP
`BP B    IP BB P IB
`P B P BB  QBB I    y€)ƒ&%%'
`VEYW1&1„$'01WG)'()'V…F$E†‡%YD'Xˆ&)‰'ySY)27cd 787fg287cg9d hB eggf@9 
`xq BB  2IBB Q B B 2B
`BP  BB !@
` CDEFFEG&B‘  B B BBB B
`P B BP2 B  BB  p%S'’#SY B
`    Q‡%“#&'”E•E$#F'Xˆ&$%–&‰'ySY)'()'‡%F%•%SE“‰'ySY)27g4d 78837
` 
`
`†‡ˆ‰Š‰‹ŒŠŠ‰‹
`Ž‡‘’‰ŠŠ‹‡“”•–
`
`

`

`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Jd. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. /d.
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record.
`
`In doingso, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The
`
`court did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow whenit considers
`
`disputed claim language.
`
`Jd. at 1323-25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the
`
`appropriate weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction,
`
`bearing in mindthe general rule that the claims measure the scope ofthe patent grant.
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 8 of 88 PagelD #: 2136
`
`“”•–—˜™˜defgehhhihejkl———mnfop–qr—st———uvw–x—dhyd˜y˜d———z”{–—|—n}—||—z”{–~m—™——˜dt€
`   ! " !# #$%# #&'" %%!  &
`  # !( !)'! #&!0 '  #' #" % 0 0!!
`12344356789@8@8AB7C #&12344356" ##  #$' #  #!
`D0#!'!0 '  #'''E' !F #&G #H $#)!%# #&'
`(!##%# #&'" %%!(  ##D'0#IPQR8@8
`12344356%0! S0#!$!% !)!#00!  #" %!T#"$
` #T#! )U%PQR
` 12344356!#0" "" !!'  # ! #" %#!  #0 #&!
`V#! !! &#  # !"! ) # # #! V# #&!
` %0! S" %#!  # !! !#!"T)$#$%& '% "W
`  # %0!#$0  "!H #'!0!' '""((# #! !
` !0 " %"#& &PQR8@@B9X12344356" % !
`000 ( & # #! ! !'' #! 00'00!" %#!  #
`) #& #% #&#" "" %!%! !0'0#&#
` WY 0% '`# Y!!EF@9`YGa88bH 
`0#c!" %!T ( #" &'!0 '  ##0!  # !$ #'%!!d ""
` #) !0' #T# #( !#)" #$Iefgh34g6ipPqrRpsRpt3u63vp
`Pq6hwgxyqh6ipPqrR9€`YAA88@7Y88A 87EC% # #'" %
` #' # #!! !"&"#" ! # !(#'% c!0'%#' ! $!
`#! '0#" %!Ifhfx3‚yipƒƒ„psRp14gxhwyyp…u†h‡fwyipPqrR78€@8@78@7€
`  9   #!# ##"H  #%d!% fˆwuvfhyQpuqpuh2ywpvwugqQ6pˆ‰p
`efgh34g69€`YAEV#' # #!!% !)0T#)$"##T # #&T #I
`…uq3p‘yr2Rp„uRpsRp1gˆ4’q6pPqh’4ipƒhQR77@8@€8@€€  8€
` 
`
`‚ƒ„…„†‡……ˆ„†
`‰Š‚‹Œ‹„……†‹‚Ž‹‘
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, | 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim
`
`indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performanceof its duty as the
`
`construer of patent claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by
`
`Nautilus, 572 U.S. 898.
`
`“Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int'l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`IPR2021-00921
`
`GTP EX 2001 Page 8&
`
`

`

`pqrstuvuwxy€x‚xƒ„…ttt†‡yˆ‰s‘t’“ttt”•–s—tw˜wu˜uwttt™qdst’t‡etfft™qdsg†thvttuw“i
`   
`  !"#$%&'()(%01213 4!56#78659 "@57A0 7 BC78DEF1
`G51HHI7A CP8Q %4'()(%!56#78659 "@567 0" 9"752"#3 HDAI
`DEF1G51R4'ST1U'74V3I'P7 99"Q8W5##5XB7B 8Y
`UB A659 "@5
`` 8
`a7@78 78797995@7AX97A5"9B
`G5879 P#"9 W"@5
`
`7#7955Qb@P595AQ$7"9 W5 5Q7B787B"9B W#@A#B5Wa7@78 77995@7AX97A5"9BW5
`
`5P 7B97A5Qb@c
`5Q7B787B"9B W#@A#B5W7
`#7955Qb@P595AQ$7"9 5P 7B
`Dd34%07'6#78RI
`97A5Qb@c
`
`
` e fg  
` `P7 95 B7hA9P"A 899#B#$AWW #$ Q WB127 7
`78P5Ai7A7#7 7B85WA9P"A 89'65" 7A5P9"8Q B7A
`7 7B89W5 0#7WWd95PBQ W1
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`jklmnmopnnqmo
`rsktuvtmnnotkwxytq
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 10 of 88 PagelD #: 2138
`
`1. “meansfor controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`
`Indefinite
`
`‰‘’“”•”–—˜™—ddded—fgh“““ij˜kl’mn“op“““qrs’t“–du–”u”–“““vw’“–d“jx“yy“vw’zi“{•““”–py
`  !"##!! "$
`
`  !"##!! "$
`%&'()012314560789@
`ABA# "C!
`D  "BA# "C!
`EF7G12H87GIPQ2H32RST(UVWXW5WY`ab
`r203G i6dG hd3e17P3
`
`cd3e17P3fgeP31HP6673I0hd3e17P3PhG07R0ii0H01dGcd3e17P3fgeP31HP6673I0hd3e17P3PhG07RsF03RF26R
`dG73IG07R73hPH8017P3p
`eP8id12Ht0ii0H01dGdG73IG07R73hPH8017P3
`
`X1Hde1dH2fg0eP31HP6GTG1280GGPe7012Rq71F0PSu2e1tp
`seP3e2H373I0iPG717P3PH8PQ28231PhG07R
`PSu2e1iPG717P32RST0dG2HPi2H0173IG07R
`EF2R2i23R231e6078GedHH2316T0GG2H12RST
`e082H0p
`)607317hhhdH1F2H0RR1P1F2hd3e17P3473e6dR73If
`%@qF2H273G07RPSu2e17G0h73I2H%56078v@
`X1Hde1dH2fw3R2h73712
`
`%xy1W€PWUU4ii&‚401%hPP13P12P87112R@ƒxy1W€PW9(4„‚W401bW@
` %@EF2)0H172G&)PG717P3G
` EF2i0H172G0IH221F011F7G7G08203G i6dG hd3e17P312H8GdSu2e11P(UVWXW5WY`4ab4
`Sd11F2i0H172GR7G0IH220G1P1F2H2e712Rhd3e17P303RePHH2GiP3R73IG1Hde1dH2W
` )607317hh0HId2G1F01gx2h23R031G78iHPi2H6TG22y1P7312Hu2e12‚1H032PdG67871017P3G731P
`1F2H2e712Rhd3e17P31PH23R2H1F212H873R2h73712Wp%xy1W€PWb'401'W@)607317hh06GP0HId2G1F01
`R7Ge6PGdH2731F2Gi2e7h7e017P3H2I0HR73I0geP31HP6GTG128p7GePHH2GiP3R73IG1Hde1dH2S2e0dG271
`g87HHPHG1F2603Id0I203RH2e712Rhd3e17P373e60789Wp%…†‡401UW@
` x2h23R031GH2GiP3R1F01gx2h23R031G&iHPiPG2Rhd3e17P3e60H7h72G1F20312e2R231S0G7GhPH
`ˆG07R0ii0H01dG&%ˆF03RF26ReP8id12H0ii0H01dG&731F2iH208S62@03RˆG07R73hPH8017P3&
`%ˆ73hPH8017P3eP3e2H373I0iPG717P3PH8PQ28231PhG07RPSu2e1iPG717P32RST0dG2HPi2H0173I
` 
`
`|}~€‚€€ƒ
`„…}†‡ˆ†€€†}‰Š‹†€
`
`“meansfor controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`(431 Patent, Claim 7)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 11296|Means-plus-function
`
`Function:
`“controlling a function of said apparatus
`using said information”
`
`Function:
`“controlling a function of said [handheld
`computer] apparatus using said information
`[concerning a position or movement of said
`object positioned by a user operating said
`Structure:
`“a system associated with a|object]”control
`
`
`camera”
`
`The dependent claims currently asserted by
`Plaintiff further add to the function, including:
`(1) wherein said object is a finger (Claim 8)
`
`Structure:
`
`(Dkt. No. 55, App’x 1, at 1 (fo