Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 43 PageID #: 864
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 43 PagelD #: 864
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 43 PageID #: 865
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MAJID SARRAFZADEH IN SUPPORT OF
`SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 43 PageID #: 866
`
`
`
`I, Majid Sarrafzadeh, declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Majid Sarrafzadeh. I am a Professor of Computer Science and
`
`Electrical Engineering at the University of California at Los Angeles. I am over the age of
`
`eighteen, and I am a citizen of the United States.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) in connection with civil
`
`action Slyde Analytics LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP (E.D. Texas), to provide my opinions regarding technical
`
`background, level of ordinary skill in the art, and other subject matter relevant to interpretation of
`
`certain disputed claim terms in the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,588,033 (“the ’033
`
`Patent”) and 9,804,678 (“the ’678 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions on the following topics: (1) the
`
`technology relevant to the Asserted Patents; (2) the state of the art at the time the relevant patent
`
`applications were filed; (3) the level of ordinary skill in that field as of what I understand to be the
`
`priority dates of the Asserted Patents; (4) how those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understood statements made by the patentee during prosecution of the
`
`Asserted Patents; and (5) how those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have understood certain terms used in the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`4.
`
`My opinions expressed in this declaration rely on my own personal knowledge and
`
`experience. However, where I also considered specific documents or other information in
`
`formulating the opinions expressed in this declaration, such items are referred to in this declaration.
`
`This includes, but is not limited to, the Asserted Patents, their prosecution histories (including, if
`
`applicable, inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board), prior art
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 4 of 43 PageID #: 867
`
`
`
`references cited during prosecution, and certain dictionaries and other extrinsic evidence cited by
`
`Samsung and/or Slyde as part of their claim construction disclosures.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am a Distinguished Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at
`
`the University of California at Los Angeles (“UCLA”), the director of the UCLA Embedded and
`
`Reconfigurable Computing Laboratory (“ER Lab”), and a co-director of the UCLA Center for
`
`SMART Health.
`
`6.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and Ph.D. degrees from the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Electrical and Computer Engineering in 1982, 1984,
`
`and 1987, respectively. I became an Assistant Professor at Northwestern University in 1987,
`
`earned tenure in 1993, and became a Full Professor in 1997. In 2000, I joined the Computer
`
`Science Department at UCLA as a Full Professor. In 2008, I co-founded and became a director of
`
`the UCLA Wireless Health Institute. The UCLA Wireless Health Institute is an institute that
`
`addresses health care problems using technology. The institute investigates problems in
`
`collaboration with health care providers and takes ideas from inception to commercialization,
`
`including hardware and software design and development, clinical trials, and patent filings.
`
`7.
`
`I have substantial experience as a system designer, circuit designer, and software
`
`designer. This experience includes positions as a design engineer at IBM and Motorola and a test
`
`engineer at Central Data Corporation. I was the main architect of an Electronic Design Automation
`
`(“EDA”) software tool for Monterey Design Systems, Inc. (“Monterey”). Monterey was acquired
`
`by Synopsys in 2004. I co-founded and managed the technical team at Hierarchical Design, Inc.
`
`(“Hier Design”), an EDA company that specialized in reconfigurable FPGA systems. Hier Design
`
`was acquired by Xilinx in 2004. I co-founded MediSens Wireless, Bruin Biometrics, and
`
`WANDA Health. MediSens Wireless and WANDA Health were later acquired.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 5 of 43 PageID #: 868
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”)
`
`for my contributions to “Theory and Practice of VLSI Design.” The IEEE gives the title of Fellow
`
`for “extraordinary record or accomplishments” in the field of electrical engineering. IEEE limits
`
`the number of members that can become an IEEE Fellow in any year to 0.1 percent of the
`
`membership at the end of the previous year.
`
`9.
`
`I have served on the technical program committees of numerous conferences in the
`
`area of system design. I co-founded the International Conference on Wireless Health and have
`
`served in various committees of this conference. I am a fellow of the National Academy of
`
`Inventors.
`
`10.
`
`I have published approximately 590 papers and have received a number of best
`
`paper and distinguished paper awards. I am a co-author of the book Synthesis Techniques and
`
`Optimizations for Reconfigurable Systems (Springer 2003), a co-author of the book An
`
`Introduction to VLSI Physical Design (McGraw Hill 1996), and a co-editor of Algorithmic
`
`Aspects of VLSI Layout (World Scientific Publishing 1993).
`
`11.
`
`I have particular expertise and experience in the field of healthcare systems,
`
`tracking, and motion sensors. For example, I was involved in the design of embedded systems and
`
`foundational work related to applications in healthcare, including classification of skin-related
`
`ulcers and laboratory automation systems. Since 2000, I have worked on Remote Health
`
`Monitoring Systems such as Smart Assistive Devices, smart shoes containing accelerometers and
`
`other sensors, and Personal Activity Monitors (PAM).
`
`12.
`
`I am a named inventor on approximately 30 issued U.S. patents. Time Magazine
`
`named one of my inventions as the best invention in medical technology in 2020.
`
`13.
`
`In terms of product development, my colleagues at UCLA and I have developed a
`
`compact perfusion scanner and method of characterizing tissue health status that incorporates
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 6 of 43 PageID #: 869
`
`
`
`pressure-sensing components in conjunction with optical sensors to monitor the level of applied
`
`pressure on target tissue for precise skin/tissue blood perfusion measurements and oximetry. The
`
`systems and methods allow perfusion imaging and perfusion mapping (geometric and temporal),
`
`signal processing, pattern recognition, noise cancelling and data fusion of perfusion data, scanner
`
`position, and pressure readings.
`
`14.
`
`One of the products we have developed and commercialized is a subepidermal
`
`moisture scanner called the Provizio SEM Scanner. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
`
`approved the device in 2019. The wound-assessment scanner is first of its kind and analyzes
`
`moisture levels under the skin in order to detect bedsores before they start. Higher moisture levels
`
`indicate that bedsores, also known as pressure ulcers, are forming under the skin. The data allow
`
`nurses to detect signs of the bedsores formation up to five days earlier than they could with visual
`
`inspection, allowing crucial time needed to stop the sores from advancing. Time Magazine
`
`included the Provizio SEM Scanner on its annual list of “game-changing innovations.” For
`
`inclusion, inventions were evaluated on their “originality, creativity, effectiveness, ambition and
`
`impact.”
`
`15.
`
`Another technology that I developed called MediSens is a wearable sensor platform
`
`designed to facilitate real-time detection of actionable events. This platform comprises accurate
`
`built-in sensors, stable data infrastructure, breathable patient mattress overlay, wheelchair seat
`
`overlay, and homecare monitoring, enabling caregivers to monitor patients and get actionable
`
`insights in real-time from a remote area. MediSens won the prestigious public prize for innovation
`
`at Health Valley Event. The company has also won an award for “Nursing homes of the future”
`
`in Europe.
`
`16.
`
`I led a team to develop a commercial end-to-end remote monitoring system for
`
`congestive heart failure patients. The system has been deployed in several clinical trials and, in
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 7 of 43 PageID #: 870
`
`
`
`some, has been shown to achieve greater than 93% compliance by patients. This work has a
`
`fundamental impact on the healthcare system by keeping individuals with chronic conditions out
`
`of the hospital and servicing them remotely based on their risk level.
`
`17.
`
`The Los Angeles Pediatric Research Integrating Sensor Monitoring Systems (LA
`
`PRISMS) Center develops mobile health (mHealth) technologies for the scientific understanding
`
`and self-management of pediatric asthma. I led a collaborative effort focused on the creation of
`
`an innovative end-to-end infrastructure for pediatric sensor-based health monitoring. The
`
`Biomedical REAL-Time Health Evaluation for pediatric asthma (BREATHE) platform was
`
`developed to answer the question “what if you could predict for a specific asthma patient the
`
`potential of an asthma attack, and thus mitigate if not prevent the event from occurring?” This
`
`system provides an extensible software infrastructure to communicate with a growing array of
`
`physiological and environmental sensors and places the data into context to understand the
`
`patient’s state.
`
`18.
`
`Attached as Exhibit A is my CV, or curriculum vitae.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney or legal expert, and I offer no opinions on the law. I understand
`
`that claim construction is a matter of law. However, I have been informed by counsel of the legal
`
`standards that apply to claim construction, and I have applied them in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that the words of a claim are generally given the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning that the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention (“POSITA”) in light of the specification. I understand that there are exceptions
`
`to this general rule if: (1) the patentee, in the specification or prosecution history, defined a claim
`
`term to have a meaning different from its ordinary meaning, or (2) the patentee disclaimed or
`
`disavowed patent scope in the specification or prosecution history.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 8 of 43 PageID #: 871
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that to determine how a POSITA would understand a claim
`
`term, courts may consider both “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” evidence. I understand that courts look
`
`first to the intrinsic evidence of record, which includes the patent itself (including the claims,
`
`specification, and drawings) and its prosecution history. I also understand that courts may consider
`
`extrinsic evidence, such as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a POSITA is deemed to read the claim term not only in
`
`the context of the particular claim in which it appears but also in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification, drawings, and prosecution history.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a term must be interpreted with a full understanding of
`
`what the inventors actually invented and intended to include within the scope of the claim as set
`
`forth in the patent itself. Thus, claim terms should not be broadly construed to encompass subject
`
`matter that is technically within the broadest reading of the term but is not supported when the
`
`claims are viewed in light of the invention described in the specification. I have also been informed
`
`that when a patent specification repeatedly and consistently characterizes the claimed invention in
`
`a particular way, it is proper to construe the relevant claim terms in accordance with that
`
`characterization.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that the prosecution file history of the patent provides
`
`additional evidence of how both the Patent Office and the inventors understood the terms of the
`
`patent, particularly in light of what was known in the prior art. I understand that arguments and
`
`amendments made during prosecution may further require a narrow interpretation of a claim term,
`
`even if that term is used more broadly in the specification.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of
`
`what is claimed and apprise the public of what subject matter is still open to them in a manner that
`
`avoids uncertainty. I understand that a claim term is indefinite if, when the term is viewed in light
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 9 of 43 PageID #: 872
`
`
`
`of the specification and prosecution history, it fails to inform a POSITA about the scope of the
`
`invention with reasonable certainty. The definiteness requirement must take into account the
`
`inherent limitations of language; reasonable certainty in light of the subject matter, and not
`
`absolute precision, is required.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that one example of words or phrases whose meaning is unclear may
`
`arise where a claim refers to a particular element using “said” or “the” but where the claim contains
`
`no earlier recitation or limitation of that particular element and where it would be unclear as to
`
`what element the limitation was making reference. Similarly, if two of a particular element are
`
`recited earlier in the claim, the later recitation of that element using “said” or “the” in the same or
`
`subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two previously recited
`
`elements was intended. However, I further understand that the failure to provide explicit
`
`antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would
`
`be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a claim element may be expressed as a means or step for
`
`performing a specified function without recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof,
`
`and that such a claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof. I have been informed that if a claim element
`
`contains the word “means” and recites a function, that element is presumed to be a means-plus-
`
`function limitation. Further, I also understand that when a claim element fails to describe
`
`sufficiently definite structure or recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing
`
`that function, that claim element should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. I have
`
`also been informed that a coined term that is simply an abstraction that describes the function being
`
`performed is not sufficient structure to avoid the means-plus-function treatment.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 10 of 43 PageID #: 873
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that the proper construction of a means-plus-function claim
`
`limitation is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, which 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.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that when a claim term does not recite the structure associated
`
`with a given function, the term is limited to the corresponding structure provided in the
`
`specification. I have been informed that when a means-plus-function claim limitation involves a
`
`computer-implemented function, the corresponding structure is the processing element
`
`programmed to execute the algorithm disclosed in the specification for performing that function.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that in order for the specification to describe an algorithm
`
`sufficient to provide structure, the specification must provide a step-by-step procedure for
`
`accomplishing a given result. If the specification provides only functional language and does not
`
`contain any step-by-step process or other indication of structure—in other words, if the patent
`
`offers the ends but not the means—I understand it is not sufficient structure and that the claim
`
`would therefore be indefinite.
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that the factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`ordinary level of skill in the art include: (1) the types of problems encountered in the art, (2) the
`
`prior art solutions to those problems, (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made, (4) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`32.
`
`I have been asked to provide an opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`for the Asserted Patents.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 11 of 43 PageID #: 874
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Based on my review of the ’033 Patent and its prosecution history, and based on
`
`my years of experience in hardware and software design and development, my opinion is that a
`
`POSITA at the priority date of the ’033 Patent would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field and 2-3 years of
`
`experience in the research, design, development, or testing of touchscreen applications and
`
`graphical user interfaces for mobile devices, with additional education substituting for experience
`
`and vice versa. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa.
`
`34.
`
`Based on my review of the ’678 Patent and its prosecution history, and based on
`
`my years of experience in motion sensors on mobile devices and human-computer interaction, my
`
`opinion is that a POSITA at the priority date of the ’678 Patent would have had a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field
`
`and 2-3 years of experience in the research, design, development, or testing of user interfaces,
`
`inertial sensors, touchscreens, and human-computer interaction in mobile devices. Additional
`
`education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa.
`
`35.
`
`At the priority date of the Asserted Patents, I would have qualified as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art under the definitions I provided above. As discussed in Section II above,
`
`by 1987, I had received a Ph.D., Masters, and Bachelor of Science degree in electrical and
`
`computer engineering. Moreover, as set forth in Section II, by the priority dates for the Asserted
`
`Patents, I had spent many years working, researching, and teaching in areas related to human-
`
`computer interaction, user interface design, and motion sensors in mobile devices. The opinions
`
`expressed in this declaration would not change if the level of experience varied by a few years.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’033 PATENT
`
`36.
`
`The ’033 Patent, titled “Wristwatch with Electronic Display,” is directed to
`
`simulating a mechanical watch movement on the electronic display of a wristwatch.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 12 of 43 PageID #: 875
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In the background entitled “State of the Art,” the ’033 Patent states that watches
`
`can be divided into two main families: (1) electronic watches and (2) mechanical watches. ’033
`
`Patent at 1:21-63. The patent states that electronic watches often use a quartz crystal (which
`
`elsewhere is referred to as a quartz oscillator) to regulate or track time. Id. at 1:22-24. The patent
`
`states that electronic watches can display the time using digital numbers on a display or clock
`
`hands with a stepping motor whose running is regulated by the quartz crystal. Id. at 1:25-34.
`
`38.
`
`In contrast to electronic watches, mechanical watches do not use an electric power
`
`source or a quartz crystal but, instead, operate by mechanical means. This requires what the ’033
`
`Patent describes as mechanical movements of internal mechanical parts, such as gear trains. Id. at
`
`1:35-58. The patent recognizes that, in general, people enjoy the appearance of a mechanical
`
`watch movement and that people are fascinated by the inner workings of a mechanical watch. Id.
`
`at 1:35-46. Thus, the ’033 Patent proposes a watch with a microcontroller and a high-resolution
`
`digital display that can show and simulate the internal parts of a mechanical watch. Id. at 2:12-45.
`
`39.
`
`Figure 4, which is reproduced on the cover of the patent, shows an example of a
`
`display.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 13 of 43 PageID #: 876
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Claims 1-19 all require an electronic display simulating a mechanical watch
`
`movement that indicates the time.
`
`41.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 16 require reproducing on an “electronic display a
`
`simulation of a mechanical watch movement” that “indicate[s] the time.” Independent Claim 17
`
`is similar. It requires “displaying on an electronic display of [sic] a simulated mechanical watch
`
`movement” with “time indicators.”
`
`42.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 16, and 17 also require that the simulated mechanical watch
`
`movement include a “gear train.”
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 14 of 43 PageID #: 877
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’678 PATENT
`
`
`
`43.
`
`The title of the ’678 Patent is “Method and Circuit for Switching a Wristwatch
`
`From a First Power Mode to a Second Power Mode.” The face of the ’678 Patent indicates that it
`
`was filed on October 12, 2012 and claims priority to a Swiss application filed on October 18, 2011.
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to apply October 18, 2011 as the priority date
`
`for the ’678 Patent. The patent relates generally to switching the power mode of a wristwatch
`
`based on inputs to the inertial sensor by, for example, a user interacting with the cover glass or
`
`rotating their wrist. ’678 Patent at Abstract.
`
`44.
`
`The Abstract of the ’678 Patent describes the claimed invention: “An electronic
`
`wristwatch operable in two power modes. The wristwatch has an inertial sensor for detecting a
`
`gesture on a cover glass of the wristwatch. A touch panel is provided underneath the cover glass
`
`for detecting the gesture. Gesture detection by the inertial sensor is combined with gesture
`
`detection by the touch panel for triggering a switch from a first power mode to a second power
`
`mode.” The specification further explains: “It is therefore an aim of the invention to provide a
`
`better method for switching a device, such as a microelectronic device, into a different power
`
`mode” and to “provide a faster method of switching a device into a different power mode, without
`
`causing unwanted power mode switches” or “undesired change of mode.” ’678 Patent at 2:16-24.
`
`45.
`
`The ’678 Patent is directed at two primary embodiments. In the first, the patent
`
`discloses a “touch panel” and an “inertial sensor” for use in “switch[ing] from a first power mode,
`
`such as a power saving mode, to a second power mode, such as a time display mode.” Id. at 6:3-
`
`22. In particular, from a sleep state, an inertial sensor may detect a tap, which wakes up a
`
`touchscreen, and the touchscreen may then detect a gesture, which transitions the device to a higher
`
`power mode. Id. at 6:3-22, 7:40-49. For example, a switch between power modes may be triggered
`
`by “detecting a tap” “with the inertial sensor,” which is “powered on in the first low power mode,”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 15 of 43 PageID #: 878
`
`
`
`while other components, such as the touch controller are off. Id. In this embodiment, a “power
`
`on signal” generated by the inertial sensor “is used to wake up” the touch controller “after detection
`
`of a likely tap,” and, later, the touch controller “generates a second wake up signal” “to wake up
`
`the microcontroller” and the display when the touch controller “confirms the tap detection.” Id. at
`
`7:40-49, 7:65-8:3, 9:18-26.
`
`46.
`
`To further conserve power and extend battery life, the ’678 Patent also discloses
`
`“discriminat[ing] between changes in” the acceleration signal caused by “a tap” versus “any other
`
`acceleration caused when the wristwatch is displaced or manipulated in normal use.” Id. at 6:23-
`
`7:23. In particular, the patent describes discriminating between gesture and no gesture based on
`
`characteristics of the acceleration signal such as “frequency,” “duration of the pulse,” “amplitude
`
`of the pulse,” “direction of the acceleration,” and/or “slope of the acceleration.” Id.
`
`47.
`
`Figures 3-5 of the ’678 Patent (reproduced below) are chronograms that illustrate
`
`acceleration or force detected based on interactions with the cover glass, such as a tap gesture.
`
`’678 Patent at 3:29-35.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 16 of 43 PageID #: 879
`
`
`
`48.
`
`The two independent claims of the ’678 Patent (1 and 14) are directed towards this
`
`
`
`tap-detection embodiment.
`
`49.
`
`For example, Claim 1 of the ’678 patent is directed to a method for “combining
`
`gesture detection by an inertial sensor and gesture detection with a touch panel for switching a
`
`wristwatch from a first power mode to a second power mode” comprising: (a) using the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 17 of 43 PageID #: 880
`
`
`
`accelerometer of the inertial sensor for detecting a gesture on the cover glass while the touch
`
`controller and microcontroller are asleep; (b) using the processor of the inertial sensor for
`
`discriminating between gesture and no gesture based on a direction and on a slope or frequency of
`
`the acceleration signal; (c) waking the touch controller in response to a detection of a gesture by
`
`the inertial sensor; (d) using the touch controller for detecting a tap gesture on the cover glass;
`
`(e) waking up the microcontroller upon detection of a tap gesture by the touch controller; and
`
`(f) using the microcontroller for detecting the gesture and discriminating between gesture and no
`
`gesture. Claim 14 provides a similar set of limitations but is directed to an apparatus rather than a
`
`method.
`
`50.
`
`Claims 2-13 of the ’678 Patent depend on Claim 1, and Claim 15 depends on claim
`
`14, and, with the exception of Claims 12-13 (which specify an additional “wristturn”), those claims
`
`are also directed to this first embodiment.
`
`VII. THE ’033 DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“simulation of a mechanical watch”/“simulated mechanical watch movement”
`limitations (’033 Patent, Claims 1, 16, 17)
`
`51.
`
`I am informed that the parties propose the following constructions:
`
`Slyde’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`A simulation of a mechanical watch
`with a gear train where the
`positions of the internal
`components and the resulting time
`are calculated and displayed
`according to the components’
`interactions.
`
`Claim Term
`“simulation of a
`mechanical watch
`movement
`comprising a gear
`train, said
`simulation being
`visible so as to
`indicate the time”
`(’033 Patent,
`Claim 1)
`
`“a simulation of a
`mechanical watch
`movement
`comprising a gear
`train visible so as
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 18 of 43 PageID #: 881
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`
`Slyde’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`An electronic display of a
`simulation of a mechanical watch
`with a gear train where the
`positions of the internal
`components and the resulting time
`are calculated and displayed
`according to the components’
`interactions.
`
`Claim Term
`to indicate the
`time” (’033
`Patent, Claim 16)
`
`“an electronic
`display of a
`simulated
`mechanical watch
`movement
`comprising a gear
`train and of time
`indicators so as to
`simulate a
`mechanical
`watch” (’033
`Patent, Claim 17)
`
`
`
`52.
`
`I agree with Samsung’s proposed constructions because they reflect the
`
`understanding a POSITA would have had as of the priority date of the ’033 Patent: March 30,
`
`2010.
`
`53.
`
`As shown below, the specification of the ’033 Patent describes two embodiments.
`
`The first embodiment is a simulation, and the second embodiment is a pure image (which is also
`
`referred to as an animation or video).
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 19 of 43 PageID #: 882
`
`
`
`In one advantageous embodiment, the movement represented is a
`real simulation of a mechanical movement. The represented
`simulated components thus have a virtual mass, and the simulated
`torques or forces are transmitted from one component to another, for
`example by means of the gear-train. In the same manner, some
`components, such as the springs, have a virtual rigidity. The
`microcontroller thus calculates and displays at any time a
`simulation of the position of each component according to the
`interactions with the other components, to the acceleration and to
`interactions of the user on the crown 42, the push-buttons or the
`crystal for example.
`
`The time displayed at any time thus results form [sic, from] this
`simulation and can for example be disturbed by accelerations of the
`simulated regulating organ or by imperfections of the movement.
`This time can thus differ from the generally more precise time
`calculated by the microcontroller 10 on the basis of the indications
`of the quartz oscillator 11. In one embodiment, the time displayed
`by the simulated and displayed mechanical movement is thus
`synchronized with the quartz time, either automatically at regular
`intervals or when the difference exceeds a threshold or manually by
`the user interacting on one of the push-buttons 41 or on the touch
`sensor.
`
`It is also possible, in a variant embodiment that is simpler to execute
`but less realistic, to display a pure image of a movement on the
`screen, with a position of each component and of the hands that is
`directly determined according to the time of the quartz 11.
`Furthermore, the same watch can provide both types of display, for
`example on two representation modes that can be selected by the
`user.
`
`First
`Embodiment –
`Simulation
`
`Second
`Embodiment –
`Pure Image
`
`’033 Patent at 8:28-56 (emphasis added).
`
`54.
`
`As shown above, the first two paragraphs use the words “simulation” and
`
`“simulated” seven times to describe the first embodiment, and the final paragraph never uses any
`
`form of the word “simulation” to describe the second embodiment. Thus, the claim language
`
`“simulation of a mechanical watch movement” in Claims 1 and 16 and “simulated mechanical
`
`watch movement” in Claim 17 are directed to the first embodiment (a simulation) as opposed to
`
`the second embodiment (a pure image).
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-6 Filed 07/12/24 Page 20 of 43 PageID #: 883
`
`
`
`55.
`
`The first embodiment is a simulation that models the movements, forces,
`
`interactions, and even any imperfections of a mechanical watch that uses gears and other
`
`mechanical parts to keep the time. The specification’s description of the simulation supports