Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 1208
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 1209
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`’431 PATENT .................................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`“means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said
`information” (Claim 7) .......................................................................................... 2
`“computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to
`determine information concerning a position or movement of said object”
`(Claim 7) ................................................................................................................ 5
`“display function which is controlled” (Claim 9) .................................................. 8
`“sensing means associated with said device” (Claim 1) ........................................ 8
`“means for transmitting information” (Claim 11) ................................................. 9
`“a light source for illuminating said object” (Claim 12) ...................................... 10
`“wherein said movement is sensed in 3 dimensions” (Claim 4) / “wherein
`said information is obtained in 3 dimensions” (Claim 19) .................................. 10
`“electro-optically sensing” (Claim 1) / “electro-optical sensing” (Claim 2) ....... 11
`H.
`’924 PATENT .................................................................................................................. 11
`A.
`“oriented to view” (Claim 1) ................................................................................ 11
`B.
`“oriented to view a user” (Claim 1) / “oriented to view an object other than
`the user” (Claim 1) ............................................................................................... 13
`“wherein the gesture is performed by a person other than the user of the
`handheld device” (Claim 9) ................................................................................. 16
`“a computer within the housing . . . adapted to perform a control function
`of the handheld device based on at least one of the first camera output and
`the second camera output” (Claim 1) ................................................................... 17
`“gesture” (Claims 6, 9) ........................................................................................ 19
`E.
`“adapted to” (Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 12, 14) ......................................................... 20
`F.
`’079 PATENT .................................................................................................................. 21
`A.
`“gesture” (Claims 1, 4–5, 11, 18–21, 24–25) ...................................................... 21
`B.
`“light source adapted to direct illumination through a work volume above
`the light source” / “light source adapted to illuminate a human body part
`within a work volume generally above the light source” / “light source in
`fixed relation relative to the camera and adapted to direct illumination
`through the work volume” (Claims 1–3, 9–11, 14–15, 21–23, 30) ..................... 21
`“a processor adapted to determine the gesture performed in the work
`volume and illuminated by the light source based on the camera output”
`(Claim 11) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`C.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 1210
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`C.
`
`“the first and second cameras” (Claim 26) .......................................................... 24
`“adapted to” (Claims 1, 11, 21) ........................................................................... 24
`“three-dimensional position” (Claims 8, 28) ....................................................... 24
`“work volume above the light source” / “work volume generally above the
`light source” / “work volume above the camera” (Claims 1, 6–7, 11–12,
`21) ........................................................................................................................ 24
`’949 PATENT .................................................................................................................. 25
`A.
`“gesture” (Claims 1–3, 8–10, 13–15) .................................................................. 25
`B.
`“forward facing portion” (Claims 1, 8, 13) / “forward facing light source”
`(Claims 5, 16)....................................................................................................... 27
`“the detected gesture is identified by the processing unit apart from a
`plurality of gestures” (Claim 13) ......................................................................... 27
`“the electro-optical sensor” / “the electro-optical sensor field of view”
`(Claim 13) ............................................................................................................ 28
`“processing unit” terms (Claims 1, 8, and 13) ..................................................... 29
`“adapted to” (Claims 1, 13) ................................................................................. 30
`“electro-optical sensor” (Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11–13) .............................................. 30
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 1211
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................17, 23, 29
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7
`
`Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................20, 24, 30
`
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................5
`
`Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, L.P. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:18-CV-28-JRG, 2019 WL 497902 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2019) ............................20, 24, 30
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................22
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................10, 22
`
`Brown v. Baylor Healthcare Sys.,
`No. H-08-0372, 2009 WL 1011186 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2009) .................................................7
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`813 F. App’x 522 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................24
`
`Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc.,
`No. CV 05–4820, 2007 WL 3308101 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2007) ..............................................7
`
`Custom Media Techs. LLC v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC,
`Nos. 13-1421, 13-1424, 2015 WL 4743671 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2015) .......................................7
`
`In re Giannelli,
`739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................20, 24, 30
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost Commc’ns Ltd.,
`No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT, 2016 WL 212676 (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2016), aff’d
`on other grounds, 685 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................18
`
`H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................13
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 1212
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................4, 7
`
`Huawei Technologies Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00056-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79836 (E.D. Tex. May
`24, 2017) ..................................................................................................................................29
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................1, 13, 15, 16
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................7, 13, 17
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Asustek Comput. Inc.,
`No. 15-1125-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106501 (D. Del. July 11, 2017) ...........................9
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................2
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................13
`
`Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed Cir. 1999)...................................................................................................3
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................27
`
`Nevro Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................20, 24, 30
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................1, 19
`
`Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Kyocera Corp.,
`No. 2:16-cv-0059-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 541298 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2017) ..............................23
`
`Parity Networks, LLC v. ZyXEL Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. SACV 20-697JVS(KESx), 2020 WL 8569299 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020),
`reconsideration denied sub nom. Parity Networks, LLC v. ZyXEL Commc’ns,
`Inc., No. SACV 20-697JVS(KESx), 2021 WL 545282 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26,
`2021) ........................................................................................................................................18
`
`Pers. Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 9:09CV111, 2011 WL 11757163 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2011) ............................................18
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 1213
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distrib. Software, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................2
`
`Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................3
`
`Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
`No. 16-CV-9278 (JPO), 2017 WL 3447989 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017) .................................18
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp.,
`948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................30
`
`St. Isidore Research, LLC v. Comerica Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1390-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4988246 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2016) .......17, 18, 23, 29
`
`Syneron Med. Ltd. v. Invasix, Inc.,
`No. 8:16-cv-00143-DOC-KES, 2018 WL 4696971 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) .......................18
`
`T-Netix, Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp.,
`No. 2:01-CV-189, 2003 WL 25782759 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2003) ..........................................6
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................5
`
`Triton Tech of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................4
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................10
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00235-MHS-JDL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117421 (E.D. Tex.
`Aug. 20, 2013) ...........................................................................................................................3
`
`Ultimate Pointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co.,
`No. 6:11-cv-496-LED, 2013 WL 2325118 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2013) .............................15, 16
`
`Velocity Pat. LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`No. 13-CV-8413, 2016 WL 5234110 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2016) .............................................18
`
`Verizon Cal., Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P.,
`326 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .....................................................................................7
`
`White v. Dunbar,
`119 U.S. 47 (1886) .....................................................................................................................2
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 1214
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 USC § 112, para. 6 ............................................................................................................ passim
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 1215
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431
`
`Exhibit A1
`
`Exhibit B
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`Exhibit C
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079
`
`Exhibit D
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`Exhibit E
`
`Exhibit F
`
`Exhibit G
`
`Exhibit H
`
`Exhibit I
`
`Exhibit J
`
`Exhibit K
`
`Exhibit L
`
`Exhibit M
`
`Expert Declaration of Benedict Occhiogrosso in Support of Plaintiff’s Opening
`Claim Construction Brief
`
`Declaration of Defendants’ Expert Robert Louis Stevenson, Ph.D on Claim
`Construction
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Defendants’ Expert Robert Louis Stevenson,
`Ph.D on Claim Construction
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 10/893,534 Prosecution History, Apr. 24, 2008, Notice
`of Appeal
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 10/893,534 Prosecution History, Jan. 24, 2008, Final
`Rejection
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 10/893,534 Prosecution History, Oct. 29, 2007, Claims
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (Sixth
`Edition, 1997)
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (Fifth Edition,
`1994)
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 13/714,755
`
`Exhibit N
`
`The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Ninth Edition, 1995)
`
`Exhibit O
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition, 1995)
`
`Exhibit P
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,405,604
`
`Exhibit Q
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 11/349,350 Prosecution History, May 12, 2010 Pre-
`Appeal Brief Request for Review
`
`
`1 Exhibits A–E refer to the exhibits filed with GTP’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 64).
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 1216
`
`
`
`Exhibit R
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,545,670
`
`Exhibit S
`
`’949 Patent Prosecution History, May 14, 2014 Final Rejection
`
`Exhibit T
`
`IPR2021-00917, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 1217
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Despite advocating that no construction is necessary for most of the disputed claim terms,
`
`GTP attempts to stretch these terms well beyond their plain and ordinary meaning in an effort to
`
`establish infringement. For example, GTP contends that scanning the iris of an eye somehow
`
`involves detecting a “gesture” within the meaning of the claims. Such examples permeate GTP’s
`
`infringement contentions. Construction of these terms is needed to resolve the parties’ disputes as
`
`to their scope. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361–62 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (“When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term,
`
`it is the court’s duty to resolve it.”).
`
`Further, GTP attempts to avoid the strict quid pro quo of means-plus-function claiming by
`
`rewriting the claim language, ignoring key intrinsic evidence, and rewriting the specification to
`
`create links between structure and function that do not otherwise exist. For example, GTP attempts
`
`to read out the antecedent basis for the claimed function of the “means for controlling” limitation—
`
`rewriting “said apparatus” and “said information” as “any apparatus” and “any information”—to
`
`broaden the function in an effort to find corresponding structure. GTP’s wholesale changes during
`
`claim construction to its proposed corresponding structure for multiple terms, including “means
`
`for controlling,” reveal GTP’s difficulty attempting to find such structure. GTP’s efforts fall short
`
`because no such structure is disclosed in the patents for many means-plus-function terms.
`
`Moreover, GTP asks the Court to ignore multiple defects in the claims that render them
`
`indefinite. For example, GTP asserts apparatus claims that explicitly require that the device’s
`
`camera be oriented to view a user, which necessarily requires a user to be using the device so that
`
`the camera can face her. Such “mixed mode” claims are indefinite under IPXL. Further, GTP’s
`
`contention that both sides of the accused products are the “forward facing portion,” a term not
`
`mentioned outside the claims, only highlights the term’s indefiniteness. GTP’s efforts to twist the
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 1218
`
`
`
`claims like a “nose of wax,” White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51 (1886), should be rejected in favor
`
`of Defendants’ proposals founded on the intrinsic and relevant extrinsic evidence.
`
`II.
`
`’431 PATENT
`A.
`
`“means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`(Claim 7)
`
`Disputes: (1) Should the function be interpreted as per Federal Circuit law on antecedent
`
`basis; and (2) does the specification clearly link structure to the function as properly construed?
`
`The parties agree that the “means for controlling” is a means-plus-function limitation, but
`
`disagree as to the function and the structure.
`
`“The first step in construing such a limitation is a determination of the function of the
`
`means-plus-function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d
`
`1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Defendants’ proposed function clarifies the antecedent basis for “said
`
`apparatus” (“handheld computer apparatus” in the preamble) and “said information” (“information
`
`concerning a position or movement of said object positioned by a user operating said object” in
`
`the “computer means” limitation, where “said object” in turn refers to “an object positioned by a
`
`user operating said object” in the “camera means” limitation). GTP contends that this imports
`
`“extraneous limitations not recited in the claim,” despite these limitations being expressly recited.
`
`In essence, GTP’s position is that the antecedent basis should be ignored such that the function is
`
`“controlling a function of [any] apparatus using [any] information.”2 The law, however, holds
`
`that anaphoric phrases using “said” refer back to the initial antecedent phrase. See Predicate Logic,
`
`Inc. v. Distrib. Software, Inc., 544 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The ‘said instantiated
`
`indexes’ must be instantiated indexes with an antecedent basis elsewhere in the claim—namely,
`
`the indexes that are instantiated during the ‘instantiating’ step.” (emphasis in original)). GTP itself
`
`
`2 All emphasis in this brief is added unless otherwise stated.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 1219
`
`
`
`applied this rule in trying to avoid invalidity in response to a third party’s IPR Petition, arguing
`
`the preamble of Claim 7 is limiting because “[t]he [“means for controlling”] limitation of claim 7
`
`refers back to the same handheld computer apparatus for antecedent basis.” Ex. T (IPR2021-
`
`00917, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response) at 6. GTP only ignores the rule here because it
`
`undermines GTP’s arguments.
`
`Defendants’ proposed function is consistent with Federal Circuit precedent, in which the
`
`function recited in a means-plus-function limitation has been construed as incorporating the initial
`
`antecedent phrase. For example, in Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`989 F.3d 1002, 1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit agreed with the parties that the
`
`function of “a user identification module configured to control access of said one or more software
`
`application packages” was “to control access to one or more software application packages to
`
`which the user has a subscription,” incorporating the antecedent phrase from a preceding
`
`limitation: “accepting, through a web store, a subscription of one or more software application
`
`packages from a user.” Application of the rule is even more straightforward here.
`
`Conversely, GTP’s cited cases are inapposite. In Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains
`
`Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed Cir. 1999), the district court’s error limiting the
`
`“weighing means” function to “cumulative weighing” had nothing to do with antecedent basis.
`
`Similarly, in U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., No. 6:12-cv-00235-MHS-
`
`JDL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117421, at *27 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2013), defendants’ attempt to
`
`import “automatically changing the threshold value” had nothing to do with antecedent basis.
`
`The motive for GTP’s attempt to improperly broaden the function seems clear: There is no
`
`corresponding structure disclosed for controlling a handheld device using position or movement
`
`information of an object positioned by a user. “In exchange for using [means-plus-function]
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 1220
`
`
`
`claiming, the patent specification must disclose with sufficient particularity the corresponding
`
`structure for performing the claimed function and clearly link that structure to the function.”
`
`Triton Tech of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further,
`
`“[a] computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure
`
`disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the
`
`algorithm.” Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, the
`
`claimed function is indisputably computer-implemented since “said apparatus” is referring to the
`
`handheld computer apparatus. Indeed, GTP originally proposed that the structure was “a computer
`
`with at least one microprocessor specially programmed for controlling said apparatus using said
`
`information,” but was unable to identify any algorithm. D.I. 55-1 at 1 n.1. This is because the
`
`specification of the ’431 Patent does not clearly link any structure, let alone an algorithm, for
`
`performing the claimed function. Ex. F (Stevenson Decl.), ¶ 44.
`
`The claimed function requires controlling a function of a handheld computer apparatus,
`
`and the patent discloses using a handheld device only in the Figure 8 embodiment. See Ex. A at
`
`FIGS. 8A, 8B, 11:53–13:44; Ex. F, ¶ 45; see also Ex. T at 7 (“Claim 7 purposely recites a ‘handheld
`
`device’ to claim the handheld-device embodiments disclosed in the specification.”). But the patent
`
`does not describe controlling the handheld device using position or movement information, let
`
`alone using position or movement of an object positioned by a user, as the claim requires (wherein
`
`the object is a finger for dependent Claim 8). Ex. F, ¶¶ 46–51, 56–57. And, neither GTP nor its
`
`expert cite this embodiment as providing corresponding structure. Ex. E, ¶¶ 53–55.
`
`Instead, GTP proposes that the structure is “a control system associated with a camera.”
`
`The patent, however, does not clearly link GTP’s proposed structure to the claimed function. The
`
`patent refers to a “control system” in only two ways: (1) generically when disclosing that the
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 1221
`
`
`
`potential for target acquisition in a millisecond or two using pixel addressable CMOS cameras
`
`“has major ramifications for the robustness of control systems built on such camera based
`
`acquisition, be they for controlling displays, or machines or whatever,” and (2) in the Figure 17B
`
`embodiment that discloses using a control system to position a robot for 3D acoustic imaging. Ex.
`
`A at 5:50–60, 25:5–35. Neither instance discloses using a control system to control a function of
`
`a handheld device using position or movement information of an object positioned by a user.
`
`Ex. G (Stevenson Supp. Decl.), ¶ 6; see B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1425
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Although Fig. 3 of the patent shows a valve seat, neither the specification nor
`
`the prosecution history contains any indication that the valve seat structure corresponds to the
`
`recited function, i.e., that it holds the flexible disc against the triangular member so as to restrain
`
`sideways movement.”). Moreover, GTP’s proposal is not limited to a particular algorithm as
`
`required for computer-implemented functions, and the patent does not disclose any algorithm for
`
`performing the claimed function. See Ex. G, ¶ 7.
`
`Thus, because the ’431 Patent does not disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed
`
`function, the “means for controlling” limitation is indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`“computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine
`information concerning a position or movement of said object” (Claim 7)
`
`Disputes: (1) Is the “computer means” term that uses the word “means” governed by § 112,
`
`¶ 6; and (2) is the structure for analyzing an image to determine position and movement of an
`
`object merely a general purpose computer, or must it be limited to disclosed algorithm(s)?
`
`The word “means” in the “computer means” limitation “creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). That presumption can be overcome only if “the claim recites sufficient structure for
`
`performing the described functions in their entirety.” TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 1222
`
`
`
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The claim here does not recite any structure for performing the function
`
`apart from the “computer” prefix. But a computer by itself, without additional software, is not
`
`sufficient structure for analyzing an image to determine information concerning a position or
`
`movement of an object positioned by a user. Ex. F, ¶¶ 59–63; see also T-Netix, Inc. v. Glob.
`
`Tel*Link Corp., No. 2:01-CV-189, 2003 WL 25782759, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2003) (“In order
`
`to perform the functions described, the computer must have software to become a functioning
`
`computer means.”). Even GTP’s initial alternative construction acknowledged that certain special
`
`programming is required.3 Moreover, in arguing over prior art during prosecution of a parent
`
`application, the applicant argued at length that a “computer means” term was means-plus-function
`
`and called it “absurd” for the examiner to fail to treat it as such:
`
`By making this last statement, the examiner has in effect refused to
`give any patentable weight to the ‘function’ part of the computer
`‘means.’ Such is contrary to 35 USC § 112, 6th ¶, as well as various
`sections of the MPEP and long established case law. As well
`appreciated, § 112, 6th ¶ specifically authorizes the use of ‘means or
`step plus function’ limitations in a claim. And when such limitations
`are used, it would be absurd to then ignore the ‘function’ portion as
`‘only representing intended use’ as the examiner has done with the
`present claims.
`
`Ex. H (App. No. 10/893,534 Apr. 24, 2008, Notice of Appeal) at 2; see also Ex. I (App. No.
`
`10/893,534 Jan. 24, 2008, Final Rejection) at 2. As in the ’431 Patent, the “computer means” in
`
`the parent application included functions for analyzing an image obtained by a camera to determine
`
`position and movement information. Ex. J (App. No. 10/893,534, Oct. 29, 2007 Args.), Claim 9.
`
`GTP does not dispute that a computer without special programming is insufficient structure
`
`for analyzing an image to determine position or movement of an object. Rather, GTP now alleges
`
`
`3 GTP originally proposed that if “computer means” is found to be means-plus-function, then the
`corresponding structure is “a computer with at least one microprocessor specially programmed
`programed [sic] to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object.”
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/02/21 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 1223
`
`
`
`that “[t]he claimed function is ‘analyzing to determine,’” and argues that a computer can “analyze
`
`to determine.” The function, however, is expressly recited as “analyzing an image to determine
`
`information concerning a position or movement of said object.” As noted, GTP’s initial proposal
`
`acknowledged that special programming is required for this function. Thus, the presumption is
`
`not rebutted and the “computer means” term is means-plus-function. See Catch Curve, Inc. v.
`
`Venali, Inc., No. CV 05–4820, 2007 WL 3308101, at *10 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2007) (finding
`
`“computer means” to be means-plus-function); Verizon Cal., Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech.
`
`Licensing, L.P., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1101–02 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (same); Brown v. Baylor
`
`Healthcare Sys., No. H-08-0372, 2009 WL 1011186, at *5–8 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2009) (finding
`
`“portable computer means” to be means-plus-function); Custom Media Techs. LLC v. Comcast
`
`Cable Commc’ns LLC, Nos. 13-1421, 13-1424, 2015 WL 4743671, at *7–8 (D. Del. Aug. 11,
`
`2015) (finding “user computer means” to be means-plus-function).
`
`Because the “computer means” recites a computer-implemented function, the structure is
`
`limited to the algorithms disclosed and clearly linked to the function in the specification. Harris,
`
`417 F.3d at 1253. The Katz exception does not apply because analyzing an image to determine a
`
`position or movement of an object positioned by a user cannot be performed by a general purpose
`
`computer without special programming, as GTP’s initial proposal acknowledged. Ex. F, ¶¶ 59–
`
`63; In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(algorithm not required only where computer can perform claimed functions “without special
`
`programming”). Although GTP changed its tune in its opening brief to avoid limiting the claim to
`
`the disclosed algorithms, GTP’s inconsistent positions undermine its reliance on the Katz
`
`exception. GTP’s original alternative construction was also insufficient, as it parroted a
`
`constructio