Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-2 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 5641
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 136-2 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 5641
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-2 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 5642
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DANIEL A. MENASCE IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLE INC.’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-2 Filed 11/18/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 5643
`
`
`capacity of a fuel reservoir measured in gallons, and the capacity of a power station in an
`
`electrical grid measured in Mega Watts. The mechanisms to detect and measure the capacity of
`
`the systems mentioned above are significantly different.
`
`63.
`
`And even if the “capacity detector” is limited to those devices that perform the
`
`function of “detecting a remaining battery capacity of [a] battery,” this does not sufficiently
`
`describe a structure for such devices. This is because there can be many different classes of
`
`structures that could perform the function of “detecting a remaining capacity of [a] battery.” For
`
`example, this function could be performed by a software that implements an algorithm that
`
`determines the remaining capacity of a battery. This function could be performed by a
`
`specialized hardware component specifically built for the purposes of determining the remaining
`
`capacity of a battery. This function could be performed by an analog circuit designed to output a
`
`signal that corresponds to the remaining capacity of a battery. This function could also be
`
`performed by a digital circuit that turns on or off based on the remaining capacity of a battery.
`
`This function could be performed by any combination of the hardware or software devices that
`
`are listed above. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art around the filing of the ’794
`
`patent would not have known what structure is intended for a “capacity detector” recited in the
`
`’794 patent, claims 1 and 9.
`
`64.
`
`In my opinion, the specification also only describes the “capacity detector” in
`
`terms of its function. The specification links only one structure to the function recited in Claims
`
`1 or 9 that is performed by the “capacity detector.” The claimed function, i.e., “detecting [a]
`
`remaining capacity of [a] battery” is performed by “capacity detector 107.” I list the exemplary
`
`disclosure of the “capacity detector” in the ’794 patent specification below:
`
`• “In the present invention, a power supply circuitry includes a capacity detector
`detecting a remaining capacity of a battery….” (’794 patent at 1:55-57.)
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-2 Filed 11/18/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 5644
`
`
`78.
`
`I agree with Apple’s proposed construction because it reflects the understanding a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had of the patent specification as of the priority
`
`date of the ’438 patent - May 22, 2003.
`
`79.
`
`The term “input unit” is not a term of art used in the field relevant to the ’438
`
`patent. There is no commonly understood structure for an “input unit.” This is because many
`
`different classes of structure can act as an “input unit.” For example, “input unit” could refer to a
`
`wide variety of structures implemented by many possible hardware/software alternatives (e.g.,
`
`mouse, keyboard, touch screen, touch-pen, voice-activated inputs). Some of these input
`
`mechanisms are more appropriate for some applications as compared to others. For example,
`
`touch-pen is more appropriate for inputting hand-written text, drawings, and voice-activated
`
`inputs nay be more appropriate for people with some types of disabilities. Therefore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art around the filing of the ’438 patent would not have known what structure
`
`is intended for an “input unit for receiving an input entered by a user.”
`
`80.
`
`The claim term itself identifies that the function of the “input unit” is to
`
`“receive…input entered by a user.” However, because the term “input unit,” as used in the
`
`context of the claims does not connote any structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art, I have
`
`reviewed the specification for the relevant structure. The specification of the ’438 patent
`
`provides a single citation that describes the appropriate type of input unit for an electronic notice
`
`board system, such as the one claimed in the patent.
`
`“The input/output unit 103 typically includes a liquid crystal display
`device and a ten-keyboard. However, the input/output unit 103 is not
`limited to the liquid crystal display device and the ten-key board. That is to
`say, the input/output unit 103 can be any component as long as the
`component is capable of receiving an input entered by the user and
`displaying an output to the user.” ’438 patent at 3:61-67 (emphasis
`added).
`
`29
`
`