Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 88 PageID #: 2129
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`___________________________________
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and
`SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` CASE NO. 2:21-CV-40-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
` CASE NO. 2:21-CV-41-JRG
` (MEMBER CASE)
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 64) filed by Plaintiff
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “GTP”). Also before the Court is the
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 70) filed by Defendants Huawei Device Co.,
`
`Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) (all, collectively, “Defendants”) as
`
`well as Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 72).
`
`The Court held a hearing on September 21, 2021.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 88 PageID #: 2130
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`III. AGREED TERMS................................................................................................................. 9
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 9
`1. “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” ..................... 10
`2. “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine
`information concerning a position or movement of said object” ........................................ 16
`3. “display function which is controlled” ................................................................................ 23
`4. “sensing means associated with said device” ...................................................................... 26
`5. “means for transmitting information” .................................................................................. 29
`6. “a light source for illuminating said object” ........................................................................ 32
`7. “wherein said movement is sensed in 3 dimensions” .......................................................... 35
`8. “wherein said information is obtained in 3 dimensions” ..................................................... 37
`9. “electro-optically sensing” and “electro-optical sensing” ................................................... 38
`10. “oriented to view” .............................................................................................................. 41
`11. “oriented to view a user” ................................................................................................... 44
`12. “oriented to view an object other than the user” ................................................................ 47
`13. “wherein the gesture is performed by a person other than the user of the handheld
`device” ................................................................................................................................ 48
`14. “a computer within the housing . . . wherein the computer is 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” ........................................................................................... 51
`15. “gesture” ............................................................................................................................ 54
`16. “adapted to” ....................................................................................................................... 57
`17. “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,” and “light source in fixed relation relative to the
`camera and adapted to direct illumination through the work volume” ............................... 61
`18. “a processor adapted to determine the gesture performed in the work volume and
`illuminated by the light source based on the camera output” ............................................. 64
`19. “three-dimensional position” ............................................................................................. 66
`20. “work volume above the light source,” “work volume generally above the light
`source,” and “work volume above the camera” .................................................................. 68
`21. “forward facing portion” .................................................................................................... 71
`22. “forward facing light source” ............................................................................................ 73
`23. “the detected gesture is identified by the processing unit apart from a plurality of
`gestures” .............................................................................................................................. 74
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 88 PageID #: 2131
`
`24. “the electro-optical sensor” and “the electro-optical sensor field of view” ....................... 77
`25. “a processing unit within the device housing and operatively coupled to an output of
`the electro-optical sensor, wherein the processing unit is adapted to: determine a
`gesture has been performed in the electro-optical sensor output, and control the digital
`camera in response to the gesture performed in the electro-optical sensor field of view,
`wherein the gesture corresponds to an image capture command, and wherein the image
`capture command causes the digital camera to store an image to memory” ...................... 79
`26. “processing unit” ................................................................................................................ 82
`27. “processing unit operatively coupled to the sensor and to the digital camera, wherein
`the processing unit is adapted to: detect a gesture has been performed in the electro-
`optical sensor field of view based on an output of the electro-optical sensor, and
`correlate the gesture detected by the sensor with an image capture function and
`subsequently capture an image using the digital camera, wherein the detected gesture is
`identified by the processing unit apart from a plurality of gestures” .................................. 84
`28. “electro-optical sensor” ...................................................................................................... 86
`V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 87
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”),
`
`8,194,924 (the “’924 Patent”), 8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”), and 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the patents-in-suit” or “the asserted patents”). (Dkt. No. 64, Exs. A–D.) Plaintiff
`
`submits that “[t]he Asserted Patents are generally directed to innovations in using mobile-device
`
`cameras to assist a user to interact with their device, for example including, but not limited to,
`
`unlocking the device, taking and using photos or videos, and providing other functions.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 64, at 1.)
`
`
`
`The ’431 Patent, titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other
`
`Devices,” issued on April 26, 2011, and bears an earliest priority date of July 8, 1999. The
`
`Abstract of the ’431 Patent states:
`
`Method and apparatus are disclosed to enable rapid TV camera and computer
`based sensing in many practical applications, including, but not limited to,
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 88 PageID #: 2132
`
`handheld devices, cars, and video games. Several unique forms of social video
`games are disclosed.
`
`The ’924 Patent resulted from a continuation of the ’431 Patent.
`
`
`
`The ’079 Patent, titled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications,” issued
`
`on October 8, 2013, and bears an earliest priority date of November 9, 1998. The Abstract of the
`
`’079 Patent states:
`
`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. A
`camera is positioned to observe and determine the gesture performed in the work
`volume.
`
`The ’949 Patent, titled “Camera Based Interaction and Instruction,” issued on
`
`
`
`November 4, 2014, and bears an earliest priority date of May 11, 1999. The Abstract of the ’949
`
`Patent states:
`
`Disclosed are methods and apparatus for instructing persons using computer
`based programs and/or remote instructors. One or more video cameras obtain
`images of the student or other participant. In addition images are analyzed by a
`computer to determine the locations or motions of one or more points on the
`student. This location data is fed to computer program which compares the
`motions to known desired movements, or alternatively provides such movement
`data to an instructor, typically located remotely, who can aid in analyzing student
`performance. The invention preferably is used with a substantially life-size
`display, such as a projection display can provide, in order to make the information
`displayed a realistic partner or instructor for the student. In addition, other
`applications are disclosed to sports training, dance, and remote dating.
`
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right
`
`which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the
`
`protected invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). Claim construction is an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 88 PageID #: 2133
`
`
`
`“In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background
`
`science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where
`
`those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about
`
`that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we
`
`discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on
`
`appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent’s claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. “One
`
`purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of
`
`the claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 6 of 88 PageID #: 2134
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips,
`
`the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims. In
`
`particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the
`
`patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
`
`Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To that end, the words used
`
`in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law flows naturally from the
`
`recognition that inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the field of the invention and
`
`that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled in the particular art. Id.
`
`
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as
`
`being the primary basis for construing the claims. Id. at 1314–17. As the Supreme Court stated
`
`long ago, “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive
`
`portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 7 of 88 PageID #: 2135
`
`meaning of the language employed in the claims.” Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38 (1878). In
`
`addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier
`
`observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998):
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Consequently, Phillips emphasized the important role the
`
`specification plays in the claim construction process.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because
`
`the file history, however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`
`applicant,” it may lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim
`
`construction proceedings. Id. Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is
`
`relevant to the determination of how the inventor understood the invention and whether the
`
`inventor limited the invention during prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that
`
`“a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are
`
`relevant to claim interpretation”).
`
`
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 8 of 88 PageID #: 2136
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319–24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Id. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The
`
`court did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers
`
`disputed claim language. Id. at 1323–25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the
`
`appropriate weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction,
`
`bearing in mind the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent grant.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim
`
`indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the
`
`construer of patent claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by
`
`Nautilus, 572 U.S. 898. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 9 of 88 PageID #: 2137
`
`III. AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`In their July 16, 2021 P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt.
`
`No. 55) and their September 13, 2021 Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to Rule 4-5(d)
`
`(Dkt. No. 73, Ex. A, at 3–4), the parties submit the following agreement:
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`“a camera means associated with said housing
`for obtaining an image using reflected light of
`at least one object positioned by a user
`operating said object”
`
`(’431 Patent, Claim 7)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`Not means-plus-function
`
`“a camera associated with said housing for
`obtaining an image using reflected light of at
`least one object positioned by a user operating
`said object”
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties organize the disputed terms slightly differently in their briefing. Rather than
`
`attempt to divine an ideal arrangement of the disputed terms, the Court adopts the numbering and
`
`arrangement set forth in Plaintiff’s opening brief.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 10 of 88 PageID #: 2138
`
`1. “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`
`
`
`“means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`(’431 Patent, Claim 7)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function:
`“controlling a function of said apparatus
`using said information”
`
`Structure:
`“a control system associated with a
`camera”
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Means-plus-function
`
`Function:
`“controlling a function of said [handheld
`computer] apparatus using said information
`[concerning a position or movement of said
`object positioned by a user operating said
`object]”
`
`The dependent claims currently asserted by
`Plaintiff further add to the function, including:
`(1) wherein said object is a finger (Claim 8)
`
`
`Structure:
`Indefinite
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 55, App’x 1, at 1 (footnote omitted); Dkt. No. 73, Ex. A, at 6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`The parties agree that this is a means-plus-function term subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,
`
`but the parties disagree as to the recited function and corresponding structure.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that “Defendants improperly seek to interject extraneous limitations into
`
`the recited function to render the term indefinite.” (Dkt. No. 64, at 4.) Plaintiff also argues that
`
`disclosure in the specification regarding a “control system” is corresponding structure because it
`
`“mirrors the language and recited function in claim 7.” (Id., at 5.)
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that “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
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 11 of 88 PageID #: 2139
`
`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).” (Dkt. No. 70,
`
`at 2.) Defendants argue that “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.” (Id., at 3.) As for corresponding structure,
`
`Defendants argue that “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).” (Id., at 4
`
`(citations omitted).) Further, Defendants argue that the specification “does not clearly link
`
`GTP’s proposed structure to the claimed function.” (Id.) Finally, Defendants argue that “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.” (Id., at 5
`
`(citation omitted).)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “Defendants incorrectly claim that the Federal Circuit’s ‘rule’
`
`requires incorporation of antecedent phrases,” and “Defendants have also failed to meet their
`
`burden of showing indefiniteness due to lack of corresponding structure.” (Dkt. No. 72, at 1
`
`(citation omitted).) Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ arguments are based on their improper
`
`construction of the recited function,” and “the ’431 Patent expressly states that the handheld
`
`embodiment includes the inventions recited in the patent.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`At the September 21, 2021 hearing, Plaintiff emphasized that Defendants bear the burden
`
`on the issue of indefiniteness. Plaintiff also reiterated its arguments that the specification
`
`discloses corresponding structure, including an algorithm set forth in prose, which Plaintiff urged
`
`is permissible. Defendants responded that the disclosures in the specification cited by Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 12 of 88 PageID #: 2140
`
`refer to generic control systems, disclose no particular structure, and contain no linkage to the
`
`claimed function.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Title 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (formerly § 112, ¶ 6) provides: “An element in a claim for a
`
`combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
`
`cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`
`thereof.” “In exchange for using this form of 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 7 of the ’431 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`7. Handheld computer apparatus comprising:
`
`a housing;
`
`a camera means associated with said housing for obtaining an image using
`reflected light of at least one object positioned by a user operating said object;
`
`computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to
`determine information concerning a position or movement of said object; and
`
`means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.
`
`At first blush, Defendants’ proposal of referring to the antecedent basis for “said
`
`apparatus” appears confusing because in their briefing Defendants did not expressly argue that
`
`the preamble is limiting. At the September 21, 2021 hearing, Defendants clarified that by
`
`proposing referring to the antecedent basis for “said apparatus,” Defendants are indeed proposing
`
`that the recital of “[h]andheld computer apparatus” in the preamble is limiting. At the hearing,
`
`Plaintiff replied as to other arguments presented by Defendants but did not challenge
`
`Defendants’ assertion that the preamble is limiting.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 13 of 88 PageID #: 2141
`
`
`
`Relevant authorities support Defendants’ contention that the preamble is limiting. See,
`
`e.g., Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When
`
`limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble,
`
`then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”); Zumbiel Co. v.
`
`Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (similar); Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discussing general principles of
`
`whether preamble is limiting). This is also consistent with an Inter Partes Review proceeding
`
`cited by Defendants in which the patentee recently stated that “the preamble of claim 7 should be
`
`construed as a limitation.” (Dkt. No. 70, Ex. T, IPR2021-00917, Aug. 26, 2021 Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review, at 6–7.)
`
`
`
`As to Defendants’ proposal of referring to “information concerning a position or
`
`movement of said object” and “at least one object positioned by a user operating said object,”
`
`this is the antecedent basis for “said information” (and, in turn, “said object) in the disputed term,
`
`and setting forth these antecedents in the construction is useful and appropriate.
`
`
`
`The Court therefore finds that the claimed function is “controlling a function of a
`
`handheld computer apparatus using information concerning a position or movement of at least
`
`one object positioned by a user operating said object.”
`
`
`
`As for whether the specification discloses sufficient corresponding structure, Plaintiff
`
`cites the following disclosure:
`
`Given the invention, the potential for target acquisition in a millisecond or two
`thus is achievable with simple pixel addressable CMOS cameras coming on
`stream now (today costing under $50), assuming the target points are easily
`identifiable from at least one of brightness (over a value), contrast (with respect to
`surroundings), color, color contrast, and more difficult, shape or pattern (e.g., a
`plaid, or herringbone portion of a shirt). This has major ramifications for the
`robustness of control systems built on such camera based acquisition, be they for
`controlling displays, or machines or whatever.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 14 of 88 PageID #: 2142
`
`
`’431 Patent at 5:50–60 (emphasis added). Plaintiff additionality cites the following disclosures
`
`(see Dkt. No. 72, at 1):
`
`FIG. 8A illustrates control of functions with the invention, using a handheld
`device which itself has functions (for example, a cell phone).
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`The basic idea here is that a device which one holds in ones hand for use in its
`own right, can also be used with the invention herein to perform a control
`function by determining its position, orientation, pointing direction or other
`variable with respect to one or more external objects, using an optical sensing
`apparatus such as a TV camera located externally to sense the handheld device, or
`with a camera located in the handheld device, to sense datums or other
`information external for example to the device.
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`As one illustrative example, to signal a fax unit 824 in the car to print data coming
`through on the phone, the user just points (as illustrated in position 2) the cell
`phone toward the fax, and the TV camera 815 scans the images of targets 805-807
`on the face toward the camera, and the computer 830 connected to the camera
`analyzes the target images (including successive images if motion in a direction
`for example is used as an indicator, rather than pointing angle for example),
`determines the cell phone position and/or orientation or motion and commands the
`fax to print if such is signaled by the cell phone position orientation or motion
`chosen.
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`One function is just to acquire an image for transmission via for example the cell
`phone[’]s own connection. This is illustrated in FIG. 8B, where an image of
`object 849 acquired by camera 850 of cell phone 851 held by user 852 is
`transmitted over mobile phone link 853 to a remote location and displayed, for
`example. While this image can be of the user, or someone or something of
`interest, for example a house, if a real estate agent is making the call, it is also
`possible to acquire features of an object and use it to determine something.
`
`Id. at 11:62–64, 12:1–9, 12:42–52 & 12:65–13:7 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`When the first above-reproduced disclosure is read in view of these additional disclosures
`
`cited by Plaintiff, the specification sets forth the “control system” with “sufficient particularity”
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 93 Filed 10/12/21 Page 15 of 88 PageID #: 2143
`
`and “clearly link[s]” this structure to the claimed function. Triton, 753 F.3d at 1378. Indeed, the
`
`claim language itself sets forth an algorithm when the disputed term is read in conjunction with
`
`the separately recited “computer means” for analyzing said image to determine information
`
`concerning a position or movement of said object. The claim expressly provides for using this
`
`information so as to control a function.
`
`
`
`The Court therefore hereby finds that “means for controlling a function of said
`
`apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is
`
`“controlling a function of a handheld computer apparatus using information concerni