Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 1122
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 1 of 47 PagelD#: 1122
`
`
`EXHIBIT E
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 1123
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
` LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 1124
`
`I, Benedict Occhiogrosso, do hereby make the following declaration:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Williams, Simons, & Landis, PLLC (hereinafter “WSL”),
`
`to provide various opinions regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”); 8,194,924
`
`(the “’924 Patent”); 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”); and 8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”) (the
`
`“Asserted Patents”). I understand that my declaration is being submitted in connection with
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “GTP”) Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief. Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge
`
`and, if called to testify with regards to this declaration, I could and would do so competently and
`
`truthfully.
`
`2.
`
`My analysis and basis for my opinions are set forth below. I reserve the right to
`
`supplement or amend my analysis, conclusions, and any opinions I make this declaration in
`
`response to claim construction positions and opinions expressed by Defendants Huawei Device
`
`Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) witnesses, or in light of any additional evidence,
`
`testimony, discovery, or other information that may be provided to me after the date of this
`
`declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I make this declaration pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3(b). But I note that
`
`Defendants have not provided sufficient notice of the reasoning behind their proposed
`
`constructions, including why certain claim terms are allegedly indefinite or lack antecedent basis.
`
`Therefore, I reserve my right to supplement my opinions in response to Defendants’ positions
`
`when they are provided.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by WSL as a technical expert in the field of
`
`electrical communications engineering and human-computer interaction. I am being compensated
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 1125
`
`for my work in this matter at my usual and customary rate. I am also being reimbursed for all
`
`reasonable expenses that I incur during the course of this work. My compensation does not depend
`
`upon the results of my analysis or the substance of my testimony. Nor does my compensation
`
`depend on the outcome of this litigation or any related proceeding, and it is not based on the result
`
`of any issue in this litigation. I have no personal interest in the outcome of this litigation.
`
`II.
`
`5.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`Provided below is a summary of my educational background, career history, and
`
`publications. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A to this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering as well as a Master
`
`of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, both from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (now
`
`part of New York University).
`
`7.
`
`I have authored or co-authored nearly three dozen articles in peer-reviewed
`
`journals, conference proceedings, texts, industry trade publications, and monographs. These
`
`publications span a range of topics including Integrated Voice–Data Communications/Switching,
`
`Integrated Packet-Circuit Switching, Voice Digitization, Packet Voice, Indoor Wireless
`
`distribution, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, Data Center Engineering, Switching
`
`Processor Architecture, Telephone and Voice Mail Systems, PBX & LAN switching premises-
`
`based systems and related technologies and Internet of Things (IoT).
`
`8.
`
`I have more than 40 years of telecommunications and information technology
`
`experience. I am the co-founder and President of DVI Communications Inc., a telecommunications
`
`and information technology and business consulting firm. Since the establishment of DVI in 1979,
`
`I have planned, designed, implemented, and managed large-scale projects involving wired and
`
`wireless communications systems, which included transmission of voice and data. Prior to
`
`founding DVI and for several years thereafter, I held a Department of Defense security clearance
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 1126
`
`and worked on several classified programs within the defense industry, where I supported the
`
`development of several pioneering technologies that have served as the prototypes for many
`
`telecommunications and IT systems later utilized in commercial practice.
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive expertise in voice-data-video switching, and transmission systems
`
`deployed in networks, including both circuit switching and packet switching using wireline and
`
`wireless distribution methods (including Land Mobile radio, Satellite, microwave, cellular and Wi-
`
`Fi). In addition, I have developed various applications systems including voicemail, e-mail, unified
`
`messaging, and audio/video recording for a variety of facility types including call-contact centers,
`
`data centers, trading floors, and mission-critical communications centers. At present, my primary
`
`responsibilities encompass strategic planning and systems design of client IT Infrastructures and
`
`program management for major projects undertaken by DVI.
`
`10. With respect to wireless communications, I am knowledgeable in transceiver
`
`architecture and design (including RF and baseband systems), operating over various channels
`
`subject to different types of performance degradation (including noise, multipath , rainfall, etc.).
`
`I have designed and deployed numerous wireless communications systems over the course of my
`
`career operating at UHF, microwave and millimeter wave frequencies supporting several
`
`applications including voice / data/ video telecommunications, Automatic Vehicle Location(
`
`AVL) , SCADA and telemetry in both outdoor and indoor settings. I am knowledgeable in
`
`modulation techniques, error correction /error detection coding and related signal processing used
`
`in transmission and reception supporting Land Mobile Radio, Cellular (from AMPS through 5G)
`
`and Wi-Fi (different vintages) . as well as satellite and microwave. Among the clients I have
`
`supported over the years included DARPA Packet Radio network (PRNET) technology for
`
`survivable networks, Xerox’s pioneering XTEN Network (Microwave bypass (10.5 GHz) used
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 1127
`
`as an alternative to Telco local loops), United Nations (multi-location C-band earth stations in a
`
`voice – data – fax network), TVRO applications for Bertelsmann BMG, Citicorp’s Ku- band
`
`CitiSATCOM network for data and video distribution, a major Financial Exchange’s low latency
`
`network for high frequency trading using cascaded microwave links, and NYC Transit’s 700/800
`
`MHZ regional Bus radio System comprising 36 base stations supporting a fleet of 6000 + revenue
`
`producing vehicles for CAD/AVL, Fleet management
`
` and Dispatch- to-
`
` Operator
`
`communications.. I have served as both a consulting and/or testifying expert in several cases
`
`enumerated in my CV. I have extensive experience in cellular voice/ data communications
`
`technology and have supported multiple sides of the industry including Service Providers such as
`
`Sprint/Nextel Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Vonage, Rebtel.; Equipment Manufacturers including
`
`Kyocera, Apple, Ademco, Nokia, M/A-com, Partech and Licensing. entities such as ASCAP (in
`
`their critical review of cellular technology).
`
`11. With respect to video, I have supported several clients in video distribution – (for
`
`broadcast industry clients - BMG, Gannett, WNET 13), video surveillance (for clients -NYC SCA,
`
`MTA PD, NYC DoT), and video compression / encoding in the context of Audio – Video
`
`Distribution and Video conferencing (for clients war rooms/ board rooms :Nassau Count Govt.
`
`operations, MTA, NFL , AIG)\. I am very familiar with the underlying technology of these systems
`
`including camera technology, video recording, digital video compression / signal processing
`
`(codecs supporting various algorithms), selected image processing and video analytics
`
`applications as well as the full gamut of network distribution methods (ranging from traditional
`
`matrix switching to video over IP).
`
`III.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`12.
`
`I understand the parties have proposed a number of claim terms and phrases for
`
`construction by the Court, and that the parties have offered competing proposed constructions for
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 1128
`
`these claim terms and phrases. In the sections that follow, I offer my opinions as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art on the construction of certain of these claim terms and phrases.
`
`13.
`
`For the purposes of this report, I have been informed about certain aspects of
`
`the law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions. I have applied these legal principles
`
`in rendering my opinions below.
`
`A.
`
`14.
`
`Ordinary and Customary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`I understand that 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 understand the time of the invention to be sometime between 1998 at the earliest
`
`and 1999. I understand that in the absence of an express intent on the part of the inventor to give a
`
`special meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary
`
`meanings attributed to them by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the basis for a term’s ordinary and customary meaning may be
`
`derived from a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of
`
`the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific
`
`principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art at the time of the invention.
`
`16.
`
`I have been instructed that dictionary definitions or definitions from technical
`
`references can be used to inform or confirm the ordinary and customary meaning of words found
`
`in a claim, but that in construing claim terms, the general meanings gleaned from reference sources,
`
`such as dictionaries, must always be compared against the use of the terms in the context of the
`
`claim itself.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer
`
`(in other words, provide his or her own meaning to a word or phrase) and may rebut the
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 1129
`
`presumption that claim terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. To do so, the
`
`applicant must clearly set forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning. Where the applicant provides an explicit definition for a term, that definition
`
`will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim in which it appears. I understand
`
`that the specification can also be relied on for more than just explicit lexicography to determine
`
`the meaning of a claim term. For example, I understand that the meaning of a particular claim term
`
`may also be determined by implication, that is, according to the usage of the term in the context
`
`of the specification.
`
`B.
`
`18.
`
`35 U.S.C. Section 112, Paragraph 6
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim may be expressed using functional
`
`language. I have further been informed that Section 112, Paragraph 6, provides that a structure
`
`may be claimed as a “means . . . for performing a specified function.” There is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that Section 112, Paragraph 6 applies when the claim language includes “means” or
`
`“step for” terms, and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. The presumption stands
`
`or falls according to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the
`
`functional language—when read in the context of the specification and figures—to denote
`
`sufficiently definite structure for performing the function. However, I also have been informed
`
`that when reading and understanding claim language, one should not import limitations from the
`
`specification into the claim language.
`
`19.
`
`I have also been informed that construing a claim limitation under Section 112,
`
`Paragraph 6 is a multi-step process. After it has been determined whether or not Section 112,
`
`Paragraph 6 applies, first, a determination is made as to what the function of the claim term is, and
`
`second a determination as to what structure in the specification performs that function, and what
`
`any equivalents of that structure may be.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 1130
`
`C.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`
`1.
`
`The ’431 Patent and the ’924 Patent
`
`20.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion about the experience and background a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’431 Patent and the ’924 Patent would have had as
`
`of July 8, 1999.
`
`21. With respect to the ’431 Patent and the ’924 Patent, a POSITA in the art related to
`
`the technology of the ’431 Patent and the ’924 Patent as of July 8, 1999 would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, and at
`
`least two years of experience working in the field of human-computer interaction. This POSITA
`
`would have had knowledge of design considerations known in the industry, would have been
`
`familiar with then-existing products and solutions, and would have understood how to search
`
`available literature for relevant publications. Additional experience in the industry or academia
`
`may have taken the place of education and vice-versa.
`
`22.
`
`I believe that based on my experiences outlined above, I can opine today about what
`
`those of skill in the art would have known and understood as of July 8, 1999.
`
`2.
`
`The ’949 Patent
`
`23.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion about the experience and background a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’949 Patent would have had as of May 11, 1999.
`
`24. With respect to the ’924 Patent, a POSITA in the art related to the technology of
`
`the ’924 Patent as of May 11, 1999would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, and at least two years of experience working in the
`
`field of human-computer interaction. This POSITA would have had knowledge of design
`
`considerations known in the industry, would have been familiar with then-existing products and
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 1131
`
`solutions, and would have understood how to search available literature for relevant publications.
`
`Additional experience in the industry or academia may have taken the place of education and vice-
`
`versa.
`
`25.
`
`I believe that based on my experiences outlined above, I can opine today about what
`
`those of skill in the art would have known and understood as of May 11, 1999.
`
`3.
`
`The ’079 Patent
`
`26.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion about the experience and background a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’079 Patent would have had as of November 9, 1998.
`
`27. With respect to the ’079 Patent, a POSITA in the art related to the technology of
`
`the ’079 Patent as of November 9, 1998 would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, and at least two years of experience
`
`working in the field of human-computer interaction. This POSITA would have had knowledge of
`
`design considerations known in the industry, would have been familiar with then-existing products
`
`and solutions, and would have understood how to search available literature for relevant
`
`publications. Additional experience in the industry or academia may have taken the place of
`
`education and vice-versa.
`
`28.
`
`I believe that based on my experiences outlined above, I can opine today about what
`
`those of skill in the art would have known and understood as of November 9, 1998.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 1132
`
`IV.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431 and 8,194,924
`
`1.
`
`The ’431 Patent
`
`29.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”) is entitled “Camera Based Sensing
`
`In Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, Or Other Devices.” I have been informed by counsel that this patent
`
`has a priority date of July 8, 1999.
`
`30.
`
`The ’431 Patent is directed towards methods and apparatuses “to enable rapid TV
`
`camera and computer-based sensing in many practical applications, including, but not limited to,
`
`handheld devices, cars, and video games.” ’431 Patent, Abstract. The claims of the ’431 Patent
`
`relate in general to “input devices for computers, particularly, but not necessarily, intended for use
`
`with 3-D graphically intensive activities, and operating by optically sensing a human input to a
`
`display screen or other object and/or the sensing of human positions or orientations.” ’431 Patent,
`
`2:7-11.
`
`31.
`
`The ’431 Patent describes the use of computer devices and one or more cameras
`
`that “optically sens[e] human input” with applications in a “variety of fields such as computing,
`
`gaming, medicine, and education.” ’431 Patent, 2:7– 17. In general, the ’431 Patent discloses
`
`numerous applications in which a user or an object held by a user control a computer with one or
`
`more cameras as depicted in Fig. 1A below:
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 1133
`
`’431 Patent, Fig. 1A. In this embodiment, there are multiple cameras (100, 101, 144) located on
`
`around a monitor (102) with a screen facing a user (103) and connected to a computer (106).
`
`’431 Patent, 3:23-52.
`
`32.
`
`The ’431 Patent also discloses a handheld device, such as a cell phone, that
`
`processes imaging from a person or object to control functions on the handheld device. ’431
`
`Patent, 11:62:-67. The ’431 Patent describes that the handheld device can “perform a control
`
`function by determining [] position, orientation, pointing direction or other variable with respect
`
`to one or more external objects, using an optical sensing apparatus . . . or with a camera located in
`
`the handheld device, to sense datums or other information external for example to the device.”
`
`’431 Patent, 12:1-9. The ’431 Patent describes that the device is able to “acquire features of an
`
`object and use it to determine something” such as object recognition. ’431 Patent, 13:5-21.
`
`2.
`
`The ’924 Patent
`
`33.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 (the “’924 Patent”) is entitled “Camera Based Sensing
`
`in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices.” I have been informed by counsel that this patent
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 1134
`
`has a priority date of July 8, 1999. I have also been told by counsel that the ’924 Patent is a
`
`continuation of ’431 Patent. The patents share substantially the same specification.
`
`B.
`
`34.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”) is entitled “Camera Based Interaction
`
`and Instructions.” I have been informed by counsel that this patent has a priority date of May 11,
`
`1999.
`
`35.
`
`The ’949 Patent is generally directed to using gestures in conjunction with digital
`
`imaging. ’949 Patent, Abstract. The ’949 Patent describes methods and apparatuses “to enhance
`
`the quality and usefulness of picture taking for pleasure, commercial, or other business purposes.”
`
`’949 Patent, 1:4-6. The claims of the ’949 Patent relate in general to “detect[ing] a gesture” and
`
`performing functions in response to the detected gestures. ’949 Patent, Claims 1, 8, 13.
`
`36.
`
`The’949 Patent describes improving the process of capturing images by analyzing
`
`a field of view and capturing an image when objects or gestures are detected. ’949 Patent, 1:50-
`
`2:8. Fig. 1 of the ’949 Patent illustrates a user engaging the invention to have their picture taken:
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 1135
`
`The ’949 Patent, Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, a pair of cameras (101 and 102) detect data on a point of the
`
`user (51). The ’949 Patent, 3:10-38. The ’949 Patent describes numerous scenarios that cause
`
`an image to be captured when detected: (1) when a “[s]ubject in a certain pose,” (2) a “[s]ubject
`
`in a sequence of poses,” (3) a “[p]ortion of [s]ubject in a sequence of poses (e.g., gestures),” (4) a
`
`“[s]ubject or portion(s) in a specific location or orientation,” (5) a “[s]ubject in position relative
`
`to another object or person” such as a “bride and groom kissing in a wedding,” and (6) “a subject
`
`undertak[ing] a particular signal comprising a position or gesture” such as “raising one’s right
`
`hand.” ’949 Patent, 5:30-49.
`
`C.
`
`37.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”) is entitled “More Useful Man
`
`Machine Interfaces and Applications.” I have been informed by counsel that this patent has a
`
`priority date of November 9, 1998.
`
`38.
`
`The ’079 Patent is directed towards a method for “determining a gesture illuminated
`
`by a light source utilizes the light source to provide illumination through a work volume above the
`
`light source.” ’079 Patent, Abstract. The ’079 Patent generally describes computer input devices
`
`in combination with at least one camera and a light source to observe points on the human body
`
`and optically sense human positions and/or orientations. ’079 Patent, Abstract; 1:54-2:6. Fig. 1
`
`below illustrates one exemplary embodiment implemented in a laptop computer:
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 1136
`
`’079 Patent, Fig.1. Fig. 1 illustrates a laptop with two cameras (100 and 101) pointed towards a
`
`work volume (170) to “determine the pointing direction vector 160 of the user's finger (for example
`
`pointing at an object displayed on screen 107), or the position and orientation of an object held by
`
`the user.” ’079 Patent, 2:39-58. Alternatively, the embodiment may “determine gestures such as
`
`pinch or grip, and other examples of relative juxtaposition of objects with respect to each other[.]”
`
`’079 Patent, 2:58-60.
`
`V.
`
`OPINIONS REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`39.
`
`I understand the parties have proposed a number of claim terms and phrases for
`
`construction by the Court, and that the parties have offered competing proposed constructions for
`
`these claim terms and phrases. In the sections that follow, I offer my opinions as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art on the construction of certain of these claim terms and phrases.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 1137
`
`A.
`
`40.
`
`’431 Patent Claim Terms
`
`I have been asked by counsel to provide opinions regarding the following disputed
`
`claim terms of the ’431 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`“sensing means associated with said device”
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the parties have proposed the following constructions for the term
`
`“sensing means associated with said device.”
`
`GTP: No construction necessary. Alternatively, if the Court finds this term is subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6: Structure: “Electro-optical sensor.” Function: “electro-optically sensing light
`
`reflected from at least one finger.”
`
`Samsung/Huawei: Function: “electro-optically sensing light reflected from said at least one
`
`finger.” Structure: “a camera.”
`
`42.
`
`I have been asked to opine whether the term “sensing means associated with said
`
`device” recites sufficient structure to a POSITA for performing the recited function. The recited
`
`function is “electro-optically sensing light reflected from said at least one finger.” The recited
`
`function comes from the remainder of the claim limitation: “electro-optically sensing light
`
`reflected from said at least one finger using a sensing means associated with said device.” In my
`
`opinion, this term recites sufficient structure to a POSITA for performing the recited function.
`
`43.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA would understand that a “sensing means” is simply a
`
`sensor, which is a device that senses a stimuli. In this instance, the claim recites sufficient structure
`
`for performing the recited function because it simply requires a sensor, or sensing means, that can
`
`electro-optically sense light reflected from a finger. I base my opinions on my expertise and
`
`understanding of the knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the invention, the claim language itself
`
`and the teachings of the specification. Thus, in my opinion the claim language including the use
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 1138
`
`of the word “sensing” before the word means coupled with the functional language of the claim
`
`provides sufficiently definite structure for one of skill in the art to understand what is being claimed
`
`and the structure required to perform the recited function. My opinions and understanding are also
`
`supported by the teachings of the specification that provide examples of sensors for “electro-
`
`optically sensing light.” Such examples can be found at Abstract, 3:15-19; 3:44-52, 4:42-47, 8:14-
`
`24, 9:16-28, 11:54-58, 14:30-32, 14:52-59; 15:3-17, 17:4-16, 18:6-8, 18:20-24, 19:3-8, 20:23-25,
`
`20:45-49, 21:21-26, 22:9-12, 23-58-65, 25:22-35, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 5, 10, 11A, 11B, 13,
`
`17A, 17B, all of which I used in forming my opinions.
`
`44.
`
`I have also been asked to opine on the corresponding structure for this term if the
`
`Court determines that it should be construed according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. I
`
`understand that the recited function for this term is “electro-optically sensing light reflected from
`
`said at least one finger.”
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the corresponding structure for performing the recited function is
`
`structure disclosed in the intrinsic record that is clearly linked or associated with the recited
`
`function. The corresponding structure should not include structure that is unnecessary to perform
`
`the recited function.
`
`46.
`
`It is my opinion that an “electro-optical sensor” is the structure disclosed and clearly
`
`linked in the specification for performing the recited function. For example, the specification
`
`states that “the TV camera of the invention can be used to see either natural or artificial features
`
`of objects,” including fingers. ’431 Patent at 10:64-11:6. Similarly, the specification describes
`
`one or more “TV cameras (or other suitable electro-optical sensors)” used to for sensing objects,
`
`such as fingers. See id. at 11:54-61. This is consistent with the description of the invention, which
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 1139
`
`notes that it pertains to “TV cameras (or other suitable electro-optical sensors). . . .” See id. at
`
`3:15-22.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that Defendants contend that the corresponding structure for
`
`performing the recited function is a “camera.” I disagree because the specification specifically
`
`states that the recited function can be performed with a TV camera or “other suitable electro-optical
`
`sensors.” Moreover, the recited function recites “electro-optically sensing.” Sensors other than
`
`cameras can perform electro-optical sensing. Thus, any structure in my opinion must include at
`
`least the group of sensors that are electro-optical sensors, as the specification states repeatedly.
`
`2.
`
`“computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to
`determine information concerning a position or movement of said
`object”
`
`GTP: No construction necessary. Alternatively, if the Court finds this term is subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6: Structure: A computer. Function: “analyzing said image to determine
`
`information concerning a position or movement of an object”
`
`Samsung/Huawei: Means-plus-function Function: “analyzing said image to determine
`
`information concerning a position or movement of said object [positioned by a user operating
`
`said object]” The dependent claims currently asserted by Plaintiff further add to the function,
`
`including: (1) wherein said object is a finger (Claim 8) Structure: “A computer programmed to
`
`(1) scan the pixel elements in a matrix array on which said image is formed, and then calculate
`
`the centroid location “x,y” of a target on the object using the moment method disclosed in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,219,847 to Pinkney, as disclosed at 4:48-62; (2) add or subtract said image from
`
`prior images and identify movement blur, as disclosed at 6:64-7:14, 7:22-29; (3) obtain a time
`
`variant intensity change in said image from the detected output voltage from the signal
`
`conditioning of the camera means or by subtracting images and observing the difference due to
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 19 of 47 PageID #: 1140
`
`such variation, as disclosed at 8:25-38; or (4) detect a change in color reflected from a
`
`diffractive, refractive, or interference based element on said object that reflects different colors
`
`during movement, as disclosed at 8:60-9:14.”
`
`48.
`
`I have been asked to opine whether the term “computer means within said housing
`
`for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said
`
`object” recites sufficient structure to a POSITA for performing the recited function. The recited
`
`function is “analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of
`
`said object.” In my opinion, this term recites sufficient structure to a POSITA for performing the
`
`recited function. A POSITA would understand the term “computer means” to be a computer. A
`
`“computer” is a well-known term and denotes specific structure to a POSITA. I base my opinions
`
`on my expertise and understanding of the knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the invention, the
`
`claim language itself and the teachings of the specification. Moreover, the surrounding claim
`
`language recites functionality that a POSITA would associate with a computer, namely analyzing
`
`and determining. Thus, in my opinion the claim language including the use of the word
`
`“computer” before the word means coupled with the functional language of the claim provides
`
`sufficiently definite structure for one of skill in the art to understand what is being claimed and the
`
`structure required to perform the recited function. My opinions and understanding are also
`
`supported by the teachings of the specification that provide examples analyses and determination
`
`being performed by a computer. Such examples can be found at Abstract, 2:7-13, 2:20-23, 3:15-
`
`33, 4:56-62, 6:1-19, 6:27-32, 7: 22-29, 7:55-76, 12:42-64, 13:8-15, 14:45-51, 16:1-17, 17:34-50,
`
`19:16-34, 23:66-24:7, 24:35-50, FIGS. 1A.
`
`49.
`
`I have also been asked to opine on the corresponding structure for this term if the
`
`Court determines that it should be construed according to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. I
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64-5 Filed 08/15/21 Page 20 of 47 PageID #: 1141
`
`understand that the recited function for this term is analyzing said image to determine information
`
`concerning a position or movement of said object.”
`
`50.
`
`It is my opinion that “a computer” is the structure disclosed and clearly linked in
`
`the