Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00210-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 1 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`Samsung Correctly Recites Proxense’s Proposed Construction and
`Positions as Disclosed in Proxense’s Disclosures Required Under the
`Rules ........................................................................................................................1
`
`B.
`
`The ’730 patent family .............................................................................................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“persistently storing . . . a tamper proof format written to a storage
`element on the integrated device that is unable to be subsequently
`altered” (730:1, 15) / “a tamper proof format written to the
`memory that is unable to be subsequently altered” (730:8) .........................3
`
`“device ID code” (730:1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 15) / “ID code” (905:1-3, 8-
`11, 13-14) (989:1-2, 4-8) .............................................................................5
`
`“receiving an access message from the agent allowing the user
`access to an application” (730:1, 8, 15) / “receiving an access
`message from the agent” (730:12) / “an access message from the
`third-party trusted authority-indicating that the third- party trusted
`authority successfully authenticated the ID code” / (905:1, 9, 13) /
`“a transaction being completed responsive to the third-party trusted
`authority successfully authenticating the ID code” (989:1, 5) / “a
`transaction is completed responsive to successful authentication of
`the ID code” (989:7) ....................................................................................6
`
`4.
`
`“wherein the biometric data and the scan data are both based on a
`fingerprint scan by the user” (730:5) ...........................................................8
`
`C.
`
`The ’188/’700 patent family ....................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`“hybrid device” (188:1-12, 15, 20) (700:1-13, 16) ......................................9
`
`“personal digital key” (188:1, 10) (700:1, 11) ...........................................10
`
`“biometric information” (188:1, 4, 10, 13)(700:4, 14) ..............................11
`
`“financial information” (188:5-6, 14, 17) (700:1, 5-6, 11, 15, 18) ............12
`
`“receiver-decoder circuit” (188:1, 10)(700:1, 11) .....................................12
`
`“inheritance information” (188:9, 18)(700:9, 19) ......................................14
`
`“enablement signal” (188:10-12, 17)(700:11-13, 18) ................................15
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`i
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 2 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`3M Innovative Props. v. Tredegar Corp.
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................15
`
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C.,
`482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................3
`
`Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`275 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ...............................................................................3
`
`Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Grp. Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00586-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 8110069 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2019) .................3
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................6
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:08-CV-359-JRG, 2012 WL 5195942 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2012) ...............................2
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 USC § 112 .................................................................................................................................. 8
`
`ii
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 3 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On the merits, Samsung’s constructions are based on the intrinsic record – from the
`
`specification and the file history. In their responsive brief, Proxense seeks to pick and choose
`
`portions of the intrinsic record where it helps them, leaving behind the portions that contradict its
`
`constructions. Nowhere is this more evident than Proxense’s argument that the term “hybrid
`
`device” is not indefinite. As Samsung’s expert and opening brief explained, the patent and intrinsic
`
`record does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art how this term should be understood. In
`
`response, Proxense – through attorney argument – merely picks part of the patent and summarily
`
`ignores the rest of the disclosure.
`
`Avoiding the merits, Proxense manufactures disputes where there are none and asks for the
`
`extreme sanction that Samsung’s opening brief be stricken and Samsung’s claim construction
`
`arguments be “waived.” But Samsung did not misrepresent any proposed construction set forth
`
`by Proxense – and wholly relied on Proxense’s disclosures required under the Court’s rules.
`
`Proxense, on the other hand, apparently changed its constructions at a date not permitted under the
`
`rules and failed to adequately meet and confer and even failed to adequately communicate these
`
`changes to Samsung. Notwithstanding the fact that Samsung actually did address even Proxense’s
`
`new constructions (as explained below), Proxense’s failure to adequately comply with the Court’s
`
`rules and repeated shifts in its constructions are not bases to find waiver for Samsung.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Samsung Correctly Recites Proxense’s Proposed Construction and Positions
`as Disclosed in Proxense’s Disclosures Required Under the Rules
`
`Samsung did not misrepresent any of Proxense’s claim constructions. In actuality,
`
`Proxense is arguing that Samsung should be briefing terms according to Proxense’s arbitrary
`
`segmentation and according to their untimely changing proposed constructions.
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 4 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`Samsung’s “Subsequently Altered…1” Phrases: Samsung has simply chosen to argue
`
`the terms “persistently storing” and “tamper proof” in the same section as the larger term
`
`containing those terms instead of duplicating arguments. Samsung explained and showed in FN
`
`1 that Proxense proposed the smaller terms and corresponding constructions. Samsung has made
`
`no misrepresentation. In fact, Samsung explicitly indicated in its disclosures that it construed the
`
`terms in the same way, so there is no surprise to Proxense that this is how Samsung briefed the
`
`terms. See Resp. Ex. A. To require each term be briefed separately would waste space and time,
`
`when all the issues can be resolved through construction of the larger term. See, e.g., SIPCO,
`
`LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-359-JRG, 2012 WL 5195942, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19,
`
`2012) (“Construing the larger term is more natural and will be more helpful to the finder of
`
`fact.”).
`
`Samsung’s “Receiving Authentication…” Phrase: Proxense makes the same erroneous
`
`complaint regarding their self-termed “receiving authentication…” phrase. Proxense’s term
`
`“access message” is subsumed entirely within the “receiving authentication…” term that
`
`Samsung briefed, and Samsung addresses “access message” in that briefing. See Br. at 8, FN3.
`
`Proxense also argues (incorrectly) that Samsung “misrepresents Proxense’s proposed
`
`construction for ‘access message.’” Proxense’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Resp.”)
`
`at 3. Samsung relied on the construction Proxense disclosed in its claim construction
`
`disclosures. Resp. Ex. B. Proxense did not propose its new phrase during formal exchange of
`
`proposed constructions and did not clearly communicate an intent to change its construction2.
`
`1 Samsung adopts Proxense’s term here only for the purpose of referencing Proxense’s arguments.
`2 Proxense clearly changed its construction after (on November 1) Samsung’s opening brief was filed (on October
`28), by merely attaching a list of terms without notifying Samsung of any changes. This is not effective notice, nor
`is it proper under the disclosure rules. Resp. Ex. F.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 5 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`Resp. Ex. B; Ex. D. Indeed, although Proxense indicated during the Parties’ only meet and
`
`confer that it would propose some compromises, it never did so. See Resp. Ex. F at 1-2.
`
`Waiver is not remotely appropriate here. The sole case cited by Proxense, nearly two
`
`decades old and out of circuit, is entirely inapposite3. There, Microsoft proposed but did not
`
`even argue 13 terms. Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 275 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1048–50
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2003), as amended (July 7, 2003). Here, Samsung fully argued its position and
`
`effectively addressed the material differences between the parties’ constructions, including
`
`whether a notification is an “access message” under both of Proxense’s constructions. Unlike
`
`Proxense, whose new construction prejudices Samsung as the filer of the opening brief, Samsung
`
`has not prejudiced Proxense at all and certainly not to the level to justify waiver.
`
`B.
`
`The ’730 patent family
`
`1.
`
`“persistently storing . . . a tamper proof format written to a storage
`element on the integrated device that is unable to be subsequently
`altered” (730:1, 15) / “a tamper proof format written to the memory
`that is unable to be subsequently altered” (730:8)4
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“permanently storing in a form that
`prevents subsequent writing to store new
`data or modifications to existing data”
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary or possible, plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`A format for storing data that cannot be
`changed unless it is deleted and replaced. 5
`
`3 Cases cited by Proxense for waiver of the “persistently storing” and “tamper proof” terms are likewise inapposite.
`Both cases related to the failure to raise arguments until after the conclusion of claim construction which is ongoing
`in this case. See Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C., 482 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007); Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Grp. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00586-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 8110069, at *3
`(E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2019).
`4 Proxense has also proposed subset terms “persistently storing” (730:1,15) (905:1)(989:1) / “persistently stores”
`(905:9,13)(989:7) / “persistent storage” (989:5). Samsung’s proposed construction is the same. While Proxense
`aggressively asserts these terms should not be construed as part of the larger term, they have never justified why.
`
`5 While Proxense originally proposed “tamper proof” (730:8) be construed separately, Proxense has since
`withdrawn this position and no longer seeks to have “tamper proof” be construed separately. Resp. at 6, FN2.
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 6 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`Addressing first Proxense’s procedural arguments, Proxense argues that Samsung has
`
`waived construction of “persistently storing” and “tamper proof format,” and that Samsung
`
`misrepresented its proposed construction. Both are incorrect. First, Proxense reads far too much
`
`into the heading Samsung used in presenting these terms. Samsung has argued how these terms,
`
`as used across all families should be construed to disallow any subsequent changes. In particular,
`
`Samsung demonstrated that even outside of the ’730 patent, the only patent Proxense addresses,
`
`“persistently” was used as a synonym for permanently and this reading was required to succeed in
`
`prosecution. Br. at 3-5 (citing all three patents regarding “persistently storing”). Proxense’s second
`
`procedural argument regarding “tamper proof format” is equally divorced from the facts at hand.
`
`Samsung made no misrepresentation regarding Proxense’s proposed construction of “tamper proof
`
`format.” Samsung’s brief clearly addressed Proxense’s construction as to the term “tamper proof
`
`format” and does not impute it to the larger phrase. Instead, Samsung’s use of the additional claim
`
`language was simply to demonstrate that Proxense’s construction was nonsensical in context. This
`
`is using intrinsic evidence to dispute a clearly erroneous construction, not an act of bad faith.
`
`Proxense’s only substantive argument concedes Samsung’s position on this term. Resp. at
`
`4 (Samsung’s proposed construction “rephrases the plain and ordinary meaning of the [] claim
`
`term “that is unable to be subsequently altered.”).6 Proxense further argues that “persistently
`
`storing” cannot be construed to require no subsequent changes or permanently storing because this
`
`is described as just “one embodiment” of the invention. Resp. at 5. However, this ignores the
`
`prosecution history. The applicant clearly argued that this “one embodiment” is their claimed
`
`invention. Br. Ex. 4 (arguing prior art did not disclose “persistently storing biometric data of the
`
`6 To reduce disputes, Samsung is willing to accept a construction of the ’730 term of: “plain and ordinary meaning,
`where information is permanently stored in a form that prevents subsequent writing to store new data or
`modifications to existing data.”
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 7 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`user . . . written to a storage element on the integrated device that is unable to be subsequently
`
`altered” because the prior art allowed for “subsequent alteration”). The applicant specifically used
`
`“persistently storing” in this instance when it did not do so elsewhere in distinguishing other prior
`
`art. Br. Ex. 4. The patentee clearly disclaimed any embodiment other than “permanently storing”
`
`when it used “persistently storing.” This holds true across all three patents.
`
`Further, the specification defines Tamper Proofing to support Samsung’s construction as
`
`opposed to Proxense’s. Using the defining language “i.e.,” both Tamper Proofing (“i.e., allows
`
`reads of stored data, but not writes to store new data or modify existing data”), see ’905 Patent at
`
`5:31-37; ’989 Patent at 5:45-55, and “persistently (or permanently) stores,” ’730 at 1:60 accord
`
`’730 Patent at Abstract, ’905 Patent at 2:33-34; ’989 Patent at 2:48-49, further aligns with
`
`Samsung’s construction. SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“i.e.” denotes patentee was acting as lexicographer). Allowing “deletion of stored data,” i.e.,
`
`modifying existing data, or “replacement,” i.e., writing to store new data, are both explicitly
`
`considered by the patents and excluded. Id.
`
`2.
`
`“device ID code” (730:1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 15) / “ID code” (905:1-3, 8-11, 13-
`14) (989:1-2, 4-8)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“the device-specific code that identifies the
`device”
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`A unique code identifying a device.
`
`Proxense’s argument that no construction is necessary7 is fatally undercut by the need for
`
`such clarification during prosecution. Samsung’s construction does not read out any embodiments
`
`and correctly characterizes the file history.
`
`7 Proxense continues its approach of changing its proposed constructions, this time alleging no construction is
`necessary. Because Proxense did not previously raise this position, Samsung can only now address it.
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 8 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`First, it is unclear how Proxense believes Samsung’s construction would read out any
`
`embodiments. It does not. Each embodiment Proxense identifies appears to describe a code that
`
`is specific to the device as opposed to the user. During manufacturing, no user is expected to be
`
`present, and any number of applications could assign new device-specific codes.
`
`Second, the prosecution history clearly and specifically distinguishes “mere[] user-specific
`
`data such as names, public keys and CRCs” from “device-specific data.” Br. Ex. 4 (’730 Patent
`
`History, Applicant Argument/Remarks Made in Amendment (2011-01-03) at 10). The prior art
`
`did not “merely sen[d] a scrambled representation of the biometric data,” Resp. at 8, rather the
`
`prior art included “public keys and CRCs.” Br. Ex. 4 at 26. The examiner explained that within
`
`the CRC was an encryption code unique to the device verified by the code when the CRC was
`
`sent, and argued this disclosed the Device ID Code. Ex. 6 (’730 Patent History, Final Rejection
`
`(2010-11-22) at 4). However, the applicant responded that because the CRC contained biometric
`
`data, the CRC could not constitute a Device ID Code because it was user-specific, not device
`
`specific. Br. Ex. 4 at 10. The applicant could not have merely “resolved the fact that the prior art
`
`did not disclose the combination of user specific biometric data and unique device identifying
`
`code” because the prior art in fact did disclose this very combination under the examiner’s
`
`understanding of this vague term.
`
`If the examiner, a technically educated and skilled person, cannot readily ascertain the
`
`meaning of this term, it is entirely inappropriate for a jury to interpret this term without the aid of
`
`a construction. See O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (noting “disputed meanings and technical scope” need to be resolved by the court and
`
`not left to the jury).
`
`3.
`
`“receiving an access message from the agent allowing the user access
`to an application” (730:1, 8, 15) / “receiving an access message from
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 9 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`the agent” (730:12) / “an access message from the third-party trusted
`authority-indicating that the third- party trusted authority
`successfully authenticated the ID code” / (905:1, 9, 13) / “a transaction
`being completed responsive to the third-party trusted authority
`successfully authenticating the ID code” (989:1, 5) / “a transaction is
`completed responsive to successful authentication of the ID code”
`(989:7)8
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“receiving a signal from the agent
`permitting a user to access an application” /
`“receiving a signal from the agent
`permitting a user to access”
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary or possible, plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`A signal or notification permitting or
`announcing access9
`Here, Proxense’s arguments ignore logic and attempt to read “a notification” or
`
`“announcing access” onto the intrinsic evidence. No such support exists; Proxense instead tries to
`
`group related instances together as a single instance.
`
`Proxense first argues that “allowing” means not just allowing but also includes announcing.
`
`Resp. at 9. Proxense offers no support or explanation for this remarkable leap other than that it
`
`would support its construction. Id.
`
`Proxense next argues that the “specification discloses several examples of “access
`
`message” having an effect other than permitting access.” Id. at 9-10. However, this merely
`
`demonstrates the existence of notification messages, and none of the cited sections refers to the
`
`“access message.” See ’730 at 3:33-35; 6:28-31; 5:23-26; 5:34-36; 7:18-21.
`
`Finally, Proxense argues the claim language10 supports its construction, but none of the
`
`language cited supports the optional “or” in Proxense’s construction. At best, the language of the
`
`’905 claims (“an access message . . . indicat[es] that the third-party trusted authority successfully
`
`8 Proxense has also proposed sub-terms “access message” (all claims) and “a signal permitting a user to access.”
`Samsung’s proposed term is the same.
`
`9 While Proxense did not formally propose this construction, Samsung will address it here.
`10 ’905 Patent claims 1, 9 and 13, claim 4 of the ’989 patent and claim 12 of the ’730 patent.
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 10 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`authenticated the ID code, allowing the user to complete a financial transaction”) supports both
`
`permitting access and notifying the same. This is however not the construction Proxense proposes.
`
`4.
`
`“wherein the biometric data and the scan data are both based on a
`fingerprint scan by the user” (730:5)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`Invalid under §112 ¶4
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary or possible, plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`Proxense’s only arguments to support validity of this claim ignore logic and long held
`
`cannons of construction. First, Proxense argues that a finger is part of a palm (even though even
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art knows that it is not), and therefore, there is no inconsistency.
`
`Second, Proxense asks the court to ignore the use of a closed Markush group. Neither are availing.
`
`Proxense is apparently confused why claim 5 is invalid. As Samsung explained, and
`
`Proxense does not contest, Claim 1 uses a closed Markush group which claim 5 references. Br. at
`
`10-11. This Markush group references specific types of biometric data: palm print, a retinal scan,
`
`an iris scan, a hand geometry, a facial recognition, a signature recognition and a voice recognition.
`
`The closed Markush group does not include a fingerprint. By claiming a type of biometric data
`
`outside of this group, dependent claim 5 fails to further limit claim 1, rendering it invalid under
`
`Section 112 ¶4. A proper further limitation of claim 1 would further limit this Markush group, for
`
`example by claiming only facial recognition.
`
`Beyond the ordinary notion that a finger is not a palm, a “fingerprint scan” is not a subpart
`
`of any term in the Markush group in claim 1. The specification includes “palm print” in a list of
`
`“other embodiments” separate from a fingerprint, thereby admitting a fingerprint is not subsumed
`
`in a palm print. See ’730 Patent at 3:4-11 (describing the use of “a fingerprint, [or] other
`
`embodiments . . . [f]or example, the biometric data can include a palm print, a retinal scan, an iris
`
`scan, hand geometry recognition, or voice recognition.”).
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 11 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`C.
`
`The ’188/’700 patent family
`
`1.
`
`“hybrid device” (188:1-12, 15, 20) (700:1-13, 16)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`A device comprising an integrated personal
`digital key (PDK) and an integrated receiver-
`decoder circuit.
`Proxense focuses its opposition on only one argument, namely that the hybrid device in the
`
`claims has both a RDC and PDK, and claims that alone is sufficient to defeat indefiniteness. But
`
`this overlooks the issues: claim 2 of the ’188 patent11 requires that the “one or more of the
`
`application, the function, and the service are enabled at least in part on the hybrid device,” while
`
`claim 3 requires the same be enabled “external to the hybrid device.” Therefore, the precise
`
`boundaries of what is “on the hybrid device” and what is “external to the hybrid device” becomes
`
`important to determining the scope of the claims.
`
`Proxense’s proposed construction simply refers to an integrated personal digital key (PDK)
`
`and a receiver-decoder circuit, both of which Proxense proposes defining in terms of their function
`
`(proposing PDK to be an “operably connected collection of elements” and RDC to be “a
`
`component or collection of components, capable of…”). Resp. at 14-17; id. at 19-21. Proxense
`
`argues that the PDK is not a “stand-alone, monolithic device” (Resp. at 14) and the RDC is “not a
`
`discrete entity like a single ‘device.’” (Resp. at 20).
`
`Proxense ignores the rest of the reasons Samsung presented in its opening brief why the
`
`uncertainty in the scope of the term “hybrid device” renders the claims of the ’188 and ’700 patents
`
`indefinite, including the uncertainty as to the functionality of the hybrid device. Br. at 11-14. For
`
`example, the claim does not make clear if the hybrid device needs to function in all of the described
`
`modes (RDC/PDK, RDC/RDC or PDK/PDK), or if not, which modes suffice for “mixed
`
`11 For convenience, citations are to the ’188 patent, but corresponding claims and excerpts exist for the ’700 patent.
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 12 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`operation.” Br. at 12-13. Given that Proxense proposes defining hybrid device in terms of PDK
`
`and RDC, which are in turn defined in terms of their function, this is fatal. Without a clear line as
`
`to what is included in the function of the hybrid device, there is no certainty as to what is “on the
`
`hybrid device” and what is “external to the hybrid device.”
`
`2.
`
`“personal digital key” (188:1, 10) (700:1, 11)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“a device that includes an antenna, a
`transceiver for communicating with the RDC
`and a controller and memory for storing
`information particular to a user”
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`An operably connected collection of elements
`including an antenna and a transceiver for
`communicating with a RDC and a controller
`and memory for storing information particular
`to a user.
`Proxense mischaracterizes Samsung’s position as requiring a standalone monolithic
`
`device; Samsung instead pointed to consistent depictions of the PDK in the intrinsic record as a
`
`separate or discrete entity.
`
`Proxense points to examples where the PDK functionality is allegedly integrated into a
`
`SIM card or a cell phone, but Proxense misunderstands these examples. For the example at ’188
`
`Patent 14:24-32, where the hybrid device has a form factor similar to a SIM card, the hybrid device
`
`is “provid[ing] RDC functionality,” (’188 patent at 14:32-34) not PDK functionality.
`
`In the next example described at 15:40-52, the function of the external PDK 102b is
`
`provided by the integrated PDK 102a (’188 patent at 15:37-38), and the function of the external
`
`PDK is incorporated into a cell phone. This is not an example of a hybrid device with both PDK
`
`and RDC, as specified in the claims of the ’188 and ’700 patents, as noted in the next paragraph,
`
`which describes a “variation to the embodiment described above” where “the hybrid device 1102
`
`includes and uses both the RDC 304a and the PDK 102a.” (’188 patent at 15:53-55).
`
`With respect to the limitation “the integrated RDC coupled to the integrated PDK by a first
`
`signal line for communication,” Proxense argues that “[f]amily B does not teach that a physical
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 13 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`connection for the ‘signal line’ is required,” but without a physical signal line requirement, this
`
`simply means there is coupling of some kind, and gives the “signal line” requirement no meaning.
`
`Proxense argues that the block diagrams in the patents denote the functional relationships
`
`of elements of the system and are not intended to be indicative of specific physical structures
`
`(Resp. at 16). But this is just a general statement that doesn’t describe what is shown in the actual
`
`figures. For example, in Figure 13, there are PDK and RDC’s connected by lines 1104, 1302 and
`
`1304, where 1104 is described as a “signal line” that provides “direct coupling” (’188 patent at
`
`13:25-32) while 1302 and 1304 are described as “links.” (’188 patent at 16:6-21). The ’188 and
`
`’700 patent figures depict physical relationships.
`
`Lastly, regarding the ability of a PDK to be integrated into a cell phone in claim 7,
`
`Samsung’s construction does not prevent a PDK from being integrated into a cell phone, so long
`
`as it remains a separate and discrete entity within the cell phone.
`
`3.
`
`“biometric information” (188:1, 4, 10, 13)(700:4, 14)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“the fingerprint, palm print, retinal scan, iris
`scan, photograph, signature, voice sample, or
`DNA/RNA information that uniquely
`identifies an individual”
`Samsung’s construction follows the exact disclosure of “biometric information” from the
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary, plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`specification. In contrast, Proxense points to other portions of the specification describing other
`
`terms. For example, Proxense quotes ’188 Patent 6:42-45 but this is a description of a “biometric
`
`profile,” not a description of the “biometric information.” Proxense further points to the initial
`
`sentence referring to “biometric input 104” but again, this is a different term and does not specify
`
`the list of items that constitute “biometric information,” which is described in the subsequent
`
`sentence, which Samsung quoted in its opening brief. As can be seen by Proxense’s repeated
`
`references to other similar terms such as “biometric profile” and “biometric input,” there is a
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 14 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`danger that “biometric information” will be misunderstood or confused with other concepts or
`
`terms described in the patents. Most importantly, biometric information should not be broadened
`
`under the guise of plain and ordinary meaning to encompass other related or derived quantities,
`
`including quantities only taking biometric information as an input that further combine them with
`
`other quantities because the specification never contemplates such an expansive interpretation.
`
`4.
`
`“financial information” (188:5-6, 14, 17) (700:1, 5-6, 11, 15, 18)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“purchasing account numbers, such as the
`debit card, ATM card, or bank account
`numbers”
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary, plain and ordinary
`meaning. “Information about the transaction,
`utilized to verify, authorize, or complete a
`transaction”
`Proxense cites a number of passages as support for its more expansive interpretation of this
`
`term, but the passages describe broader concepts than just financial information. For example,
`
`’188 Patent 6:41-59 describes the types of information that can be stored in a PDK, including
`
`biometric information and identification information such as pictures of the PDK owner.
`
`In the passages at ’188 Patent 8:30-42 and 9:21-26, an authorization process is described,
`
`including sending PDK ID and access keys. These are specific to the authorization process and
`
`not tied to the financial information, such as the credit card account.
`
`Proxense’s modified proposed construction is more narrowly focused than just any
`
`“information about the transaction,” but still encompasses many aspects of the verification process,
`
`which is encryption-related rather than financial information. Samsung’s construction focuses on
`
`the financial aspect of a transaction.
`
`5.
`
`“receiver-decoder circuit” (188:1, 10)(700:1, 11)
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“a device that provides a wireless interface to
`the PDK”
`
`Proxense’s Proposed Construction
`A component or collection of components,
`capable of wirelessly receiving data in an
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010, Page 15 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00210-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/06/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`encrypted format and decoding the e