Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 55 PageID #: 5724
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 55 PageID #: 5724
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 55 PageID #: 5725
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF MAXELL’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 3 of 55 PageID #: 5726
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 1
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................... 6
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................................................................................. 7
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’493 PATENT ............................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the ’493 Patent ............................................................................... 7
`
`Problems with Conventional Electric Cameras in the Late 1990s and Early 2000s9
`
`VI. INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM LANGUAGE ............................................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“culling” / “culled” (’493 Patent, claims 1, 5, 10) ................................................ 10
`
`“effective scanning lines M of a display screen” (’493 Patent, claim 1) .............. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 4 of 55 PageID #: 5727
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Vijay Madisetti. I have been asked by the Plaintiff and patent holder
`
`in this case (Maxell, Ltd.) to provide my opinions as to the meaning of certain claim terms in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 (the “’493 Patent”). I have also been asked to provide my
`
`understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art related to this patent, as well as to explain
`
`the relevant technical background related to this patent.
`
`2.
`
`Although I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $500 per hour
`
`for my time reviewing materials and preparing this declaration, my opinions expressed here are
`
`my own. My compensation is in no way dependent on the outcome of this case or upon the Court
`
`accepting my opinions, and I have no other financial interest in this matter or the parties thereto.
`
`3.
`
`Depending on new information learned during discovery, positions taken
`
`throughout the case by Defendant Apple Inc. or its experts, I may edit, add to, or otherwise refine
`
`the topics and expected testimony described here. I reserve the right to supplement my opinions
`
`based on new information.
`
`4.
`
`If called upon to do so, I am prepared to testify before the Court regarding my
`
`opinions expressed here. In such a situation, I may rely on demonstratives, exhibits, or other
`
`visual aids to assist in presenting my testimony.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`My qualifications to testify about the ’493 Patent and the relevant technology are
`
`set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which I have attached hee as an Appendix. I will briefly
`
`summarize my qualifications in the following paragraphs.
`
`6.
`
`I have thirty years of experience as an electrical and computer engineer in
`
`industry, education, and consulting. Currently, I am a Professor in Electrical and Computer
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 5 of 55 PageID #: 5728
`
`Engineering at Georgia Tech. I have worked extensively in the field of digital communications
`
`and have studied telecommunications and systems engineering since 1981.
`
`7.
`
`I also have over 20 years of industry experience in computer engineering, signal
`
`processing, and telecommunications, including wireless communications and signal processing.
`
`Throughout this time, I have designed, implemented, and tested various products in the fields of
`
`electronics and communications.
`
`8.
`
`In 1984, I received a Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Electrical
`
`Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). In 1989, I received
`
`my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (EECS) from the University of
`
`California, Berkeley. That year, I also received the Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate
`
`Student Award from the University of California, Berkeley, and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay
`
`Memorial Paper Prize.
`
`9.
`
`In 1989, I joined the faculty of Georgia Tech. I began working at Georgia Tech as
`
`an assistant professor, became an associate professor in 1995, and have held my current position
`
`as Professor since 1998. As a member of the faculty at Georgia Tech, I have been active in,
`
`among other technologies, image and video processing, computer engineering, embedded
`
`systems, chip design, software systems, wireless networks, and cellular communications.
`
`10.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of digital signal
`
`processing since the late 1980s, and I am the Editor-m-Chief the IEEE Press/CRC Press’s three-
`
`volume Digital Signal Processing Handbook (Editions 1 & 2) (1998, 2010).
`
`11.
`
`Over the past three decades, I studied, used, and designed image and video
`
`processing and wireless networking circuits for several applications, including digital and video
`
`cameras, mobile phones, and networking products for leading commercial firms.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 6 of 55 PageID #: 5729
`
`12.
`
`Around the timeframe of the filing the Japanese priority application to the ’493
`
`Patent in January 2000, some of my significant work in the area of digital image processing,
`
`video processing, networking technologies, and software engineering includes the following:
`
`o M. Romdhane, V. Madisetti, “All Digital Oversampled Front-End Sensors,” IEEE
`
`Signal Processing Letters, Vol 3, Issue 2, 1996;
`
`o A. Hezar, V. Madisetti, “Efficient Implementation of Two-Band PR-QMF
`
`Filterbanks,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol 5, Issue 4, 1998; and
`
`o R. Tummala, V. Madisetti, “System on Chip or System on Package,” IEEE
`
`Design & Test of Computers, Vol 16, Issue 2, 1999.
`
`13.
`
`I have also designed code and compilation tools for chipsets used for advanced
`
`imaging and document cameras used in photocopying and other applications, such as the Intel
`
`MXP 5800 family of image processing chipsets that have been widely used in commercial
`
`document imaging and video products since the late 1990s.
`
`14.
`
`I also have significant experience in designing and implementing electronic
`
`equipment using various source code languages, including C, assembly code, VHDL, and
`
`Verilog. In 2000, I published a book entitled “VHDL: Electronics Systems Design
`
`Methodologies.”
`
`15.
`
`In 1997, I was awarded the VHDL International Best PhD Dissertation Advisor
`
`for my contributions in the area of rapid prototyping.
`
`16.
`
`Since 1995,1 have authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the areas of
`
`communications, signal processing, chip design, and software engineering, including VLSI
`
`Digital Signal Processors (1995), Quick-Turnaround ASIC Design in VHDL (1996), The Digital
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 7 of 55 PageID #: 5730
`
`Signal Processing Handbook (1997 & 2010), Cloud Computing: A Hands-On Approach (2013),
`
`Internet of Things: A Hands-On Approach (2014), and Big Data Science & Analytics (2016).
`
`17.
`
`I have authored over 100 articles, reports, and other publications pertaining to
`
`electrical engineering, and in the areas of computer engineering, communications signal
`
`processing, and communications. All of my publications, including the ones identified here, are
`
`set forth in my attached CV.
`
`18.
`
`I have implemented several electronic devices, including codecs, echo cancellers,
`
`equalizers, and multimedia audio/video compression applications and modules for a leading
`
`commercial mobile phone manufacturer. I have also designed tools for porting mobile
`
`applications from one platform to another for a leading mobile phone manufacturer. I have also
`
`developed hardware and software designs for a leading set-top box manufacturer. I am familiar
`
`with the design, testing, and implementation of embedded systems, such as image and video
`
`processing systems, security systems, barrier control systems, and associated software and
`
`hardware architectures.
`
`19.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) in recognition of my contributions to embedded computing systems. The
`
`IEEE is a worldwide professional body consisting of more than 300,000 electrical and electronic
`
`engineers. Fellow is the highest grade of membership of the IEEE, with only one-tenth of one
`
`percent of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each year.
`
`20.
`
`In 2006, I was awarded the Frederick Emmons Terman Medal from the American
`
`Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) and HP Corporation for my contribution to electrical
`
`engineering while under the age of 45.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 8 of 55 PageID #: 5731
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`21.
`
`I am not a lawyer, but I have been informed by Maxell’s counsel of the legal
`
`principles necessary to my analysis. I set forth my understanding of these legal principles as they
`
`have been explained to me here.
`
`A.
`
`22.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims: independent claims
`
`and dependent claims. An independent claim stands alone and includes only the limitations it
`
`recites. A dependent claim can depend from an independent claim or another dependent claim
`
`and includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to all of the limitations recited in the
`
`claim or claims from which it depends.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the claim construction exercise begins with the language of the
`
`claims themselves, and that the general rule is that claim terms are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the specification of the patent, at the
`
`time of the invention. I also understand that the intrinsic evidence (i.e., the claims, written
`
`description, and prosecution history) are the primary sources used in interpreting claim language.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that if disputed claim language is clear on its face, the intrinsic
`
`evidence should be consulted to determine whether some deviation from the ordinary meaning of
`
`the claim language is warranted. I understand that if the intrinsic evidence fails to clearly
`
`disclose the meaning of a claim term, the court may look to extrinsic evidence outside the patent
`
`and prosecution history, such as expert testimony, treatises, and dictionaries.
`
`25. When the disputed claim language is not clear on its face, I understand that the
`
`intrinsic evidence should be used to resolve, if possible, the lack of clarity. I also understand that
`
`the specification is the best evidence of what the patentee intended the term to mean when there
`
`is no clear meaning of a claim term, and that the prosecution history may also shed light on the
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 9 of 55 PageID #: 5732
`
`meaning of ambiguous terms. However, I understand that it is improper to import limitations
`
`from the specification into a patent claim through claim construction.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that sometimes the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay persons. I
`
`understand that claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the
`
`widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that patentees may act as their own lexicographers by giving
`
`a definition for a particular claim term. I understand that, in order for this principle to apply, the
`
`patentee must clearly set forth a definition and clearly express an intent to define that term.
`
`Simply disclosing a single embodiment is not sufficient.
`
`B.
`
`28.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that claims are to be interpreted from the viewpoint of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art. To determine the level of skill that would be “ordinary,” I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill must generally have the capability of understanding the
`
`general principles that are applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`In the case of the ’493 Patent, these general principles include the concepts of
`
`digital image and video processing for electric cameras and devices that function as electric
`
`cameras, such as modern smartphones and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art should be
`
`familiar with these principles.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, “a person of ordinary skill in the art” in the field of the ’493 Patent
`
`would be a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical/Computer Engineering,
`
`Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, and at least two years of experience working in the
`
`field of image/video processing. This is based on my review of the ’493 Patent and my
`
`knowledge of those who were working in the field at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 10 of 55 PageID #: 5733
`
`31.
`
`I at least met this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the inventions of the ’493 Patent (no later than January 11, 2000). Also, as a professor at Georgia
`
`Tech who was teaching graduate students at this time, I have personal insight into the
`
`understanding and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art in the January 2000 time
`
`period—I was teaching and working with students who met this definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill at that time.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`32.
`
`In forming my opinions in this matter, I considered a number of documents and
`
`other materials, including the following:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the ’493 Patent;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’493 Patent;
`
`• Apple Inc.’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence Pursuant to
`Patent Rule 4-2 (served September 25, 2019);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,828,406 to Parulski, et al.; and
`
`• Markman Order in Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., Case 5:16-cv-178 (E.D.
`Tex.) (Dkt. No. 175).
`
`33.
`
`In addition to the above materials, I also relied upon my decades of experience
`
`and expertise in electrical engineering.
`
`34.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have also taken into account the knowledge and
`
`background principles that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with, as well as
`
`my decades of experience in the field of image and video processing.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’493 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`35.
`
`Background of the ’493 Patent
`
`Before discussing my opinions on the claim terms I have been asked to consider, I
`
`will first review the ’493 Patent’s disclosures as they would have been viewed by a person of
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 11 of 55 PageID #: 5734
`
`ordinary skill in the art. My discussion describes only certain examples of the inventions
`
`discussed in the ’493 Patent, and my description here is in no way meant to suggest that the
`
`claimed inventions are limited to these examples. The inventions are limited only by the claims.
`
`36.
`
`The ’493 Patent is titled “Electric Camera” and issued to inventors Takahiro
`
`Nakano, Ryuji Nishimura, and Toshiro Kinugasa on December 25, 2012. This patent is a
`
`continuation of a patent application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,059,177, which is itself a
`
`divisional of a patent application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616. The ’493 Patent
`
`claims priority to a Japanese patent application filed on January 11, 2000. The priority date of
`
`this patent is no later than this date.
`
`37.
`
`The ’493 Patent relates to electric cameras and other devices used to capture
`
`images. ’493 Patent at 1:18-22. Electric (or, digital) cameras operate using devices sometimes
`
`called “image sensors.” ’493 Patent at 1:20-31. An exemplary image sensor disclosed in the ’493
`
`Patent contains an array of picture elements (or, pixels) arranged in a two-dimensional grid. ’493
`
`Patent at 4:30-40. An example pixel array of 1200 by 1600 pixels is shown in Figure 5 of the
`
`patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 12 of 55 PageID #: 5735
`
`38.
`
`Each pixel in the image sensor array will generate a digital signal in response to
`
`light incident on a photodiode within the pixel. ’493 Patent at 4:40-65. These signals are
`
`collected by specialized circuitry and output as a digital image. ’493 Patent at 4:40-65.
`
`39.
`
`The claims of the ’493 Patent recite an improved electric camera (and methods for
`
`operating an electric camera) that includes an image sensing device, a signal processing unit, and
`
`a display unit, each of which is configured to perform certain operations.
`
`B.
`
`40.
`
`Problems with Conventional Electric Cameras in the Late 1990s and Early
`2000s
`
`Prior to the inventions disclosed in the ’493 Patent on January 11, 2000,
`
`conventional electric cameras could not effectively capture both still and moving images. For
`
`example, when taking still pictures with a camera designed for taking moving images, the
`
`number of pixels was insufficient for a high-quality image. Conversely, when taking moving
`
`images with a camera designed for taking still images, the dynamic image quality of the moving
`
`image would deteriorate, and the required circuitry would increase. The patent explains this
`
`problem as follows:
`
`The conventional electric cameras, as described above, have
`drawbacks that when taking a still picture by using a video camera,
`the number of pixels is not sufficient and that when taking a
`moving image with a still camera, the associated circuit inevitably
`increases and the dynamic image quality deteriorates.
`
`’493 Patent at 2:62-66.
`
`41.
`
`As the patent itself observes, “[t]aking both moving and static images of
`
`satisfactory quality with a single camera is difficult to achieve.” ’493 Patent at 2:67-3:2. So it
`
`was that conventional devices before the invention of the ’493 Patent could not take high-
`
`resolution still images and high-quality moving videos using the same device.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 13 of 55 PageID #: 5736
`
`42.
`
`But the inventors of the ’493 Patent solved these problems. For example, the
`
`claims of the ’493 Patent recite an electric camera and other devices that allow signal charges
`
`from differing numbers of pixels in an image sensor’s pixel array to be used based on whether
`
`the device is operating in still image recording mode, monitoring mode, or moving video
`
`recording mode.
`
`43.
`
`The inventors arrived at these solutions no later than January 11, 2000. This was
`
`well before the massive popularity of smart phones and over seven years before the release of the
`
`first iPhone by Apple in June 2007.
`
`VI.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF CLAIM LANGUAGE
`
`44.
`
`this case.
`
`A.
`
`45.
`
`Here I provide my opinions concerning certain of the claim terms in dispute in
`
`“culling” / “culled” (’493 Patent, claims 1, 5, 10)
`
`The parties have proposed the following competing interpretations for the terms
`
`“culling” and “culled”:
`
`Maxell’s Proposed Construction
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“selecting pixels for output by skipping pixels
`
`
`46.
`
`The words “culling” and “culled” appear in each of the three independent claims
`
`at predetermined intervals”
`
`of the ’493 Patent (claims 1, 5, and 10).
`
`47.
`
`For the reasons I will explain here, I agree with Maxell that no construction is
`
`necessary for these words, and any attempt to further define these words would only
`
`unnecessarily limit or inaccurately state their meaning. Thus, “culling” and “culled” should
`
`simply be given their plain and ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 14 of 55 PageID #: 5737
`
`48.
`
`I understand from reviewing Apple’s Preliminary Claim Constructions Pursuant
`
`to Patent Rule 4-2 that Apple has proposed construing the terms “mixing or culling signal
`
`charges accumulated in the N number of vertically arranged pixel lines” and “mixed or culled
`
`from the N number of vertically arranged pixel lines.” However, Apple has only proposed
`
`definitions for “mixing” / “mixed”1 and “culling” / “culled.” Therefore, I will focus my analysis
`
`on the words “culling” and “culled” as they are used in the identified limitations specifically and
`
`the specification generally, as opposed to the entire limitation, which it appears that Apple is not
`
`attempting to construe.
`
`49.
`
`The words “culling” and “culled” in the context of the ’493 Patent’s claims would
`
`be well understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In my view, there is no need to limit
`
`these plain words by attempting to define them further, and no construction is necessary for
`
`“culling” and “culled.”
`
`50.
`
`A person of ordinary skill—such as an individual with a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical or Computer Engineering and two years of relevant experience in the field of digital
`
`image and video processing—at the time of the invention (no later than January 11, 2000) would
`
`have readily understood what is meant by “culling” in the context of the ’493 Patent’s claims.
`
`The ordinarily skilled artisan’s education and experience would make such an individual familiar
`
`with this term in the context of image processing. Indeed, in my decades of experience as an
`
`educator of engineering students, I know firsthand that individuals with a degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering would have been familiar with this concept, particularly if those individuals had
`
`work experience in the field of image processing.
`
`
`1 I have not been asked to consider the parties’ proposed constructions for “mixing” and “mixed,” and I have formed
`no opinions about the meaning of these terms in the context of the ’493 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 15 of 55 PageID #: 5738
`
`51.
`
`In addition, the ’493 Patent’s specification provides descriptions of “culling”
`
`signal charges from pixels in a manner that would be familiar to a person of ordinary skill. For
`
`example, in one embodiment, the ’493 Patent explains that “[t]he number of lines of output
`
`signals can also be reduced by a so-called culling operation, by which only one line of signal
`
`charges of pixels is read out for every predetermined number of lines.” ’493 Patent at 10:9-12.
`
`52.
`
`The patent also describes throughout the need to reduce the number of signal
`
`charges output from the pixel array in order to achieve a variety of resolutions for monitoring
`
`mode and video recording mode. Some examples of the patent’s description of these operations
`
`are as follows:
`
`During the monitoring in the static mode, the signals are mixed
`together inside the image sensing device to reduce the number of
`signals and thereby generate television signals.
`
`’493 Patent at 8:52-55.
`
`In this embodiment the vertically adjoining pixels are mixed
`together to reduce the number of output lines from the image
`sensing device during the vertical effective scanning period. The
`number of lines of output signals can also be reduced by a so-
`called culling operation, by which only one line of signal charges
`of pixels is read out for every predetermined number of lines.
`
`’493 Patent at 10:6-12.
`
`53.
`
`In one specific embodiment of the patent’s static image monitoring mode, the
`
`patent provides a detailed example of this concept of reducing the number of signal charges:
`
`Next, the operation during the monitoring in the static image mode
`will be explained. It is assumed that the still image photographing
`is done by using all effective pixels of the image sensing device, as
`in the previous embodiment. The image sensing device of this
`embodiment has 864 vertically arranged pixels and, when 3-pixel
`mixing is done as in the moving video taking, the number of output
`lines is 288 (=864/3), which means that these signal lines cannot
`be read out in a manner conforming to the television system.
`Hence, during the monitoring in the static image mode, vertical 6-
`pixel mixing is performed. The 6-pixel mixing can be achieved by
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 16 of 55 PageID #: 5739
`
`transferring to the horizontal transfer unit 33 in each horizontal
`blanking period two output lines of signal charges each of which
`line has been generated by vertically mixing three pixels within the
`vertical transfer unit 32. The 6-pixel mixing can reduce the number
`of output lines from the image sensing device down to 144
`(=864/6) lines. The output signals of the image sensing device that
`were reduced to 144 output lines are interpolated by the vertical
`interpolation circuit 8 to transform the 144 output lines of signals
`into 240 lines of signals, which conform to the television system.
`To generate 240 lines of signals from the 144 lines requires
`interpolation processing that generates five lines from three lines
`(144/240=3/5).
`
`’493 Patent at 14:10-32.
`
`54.
`
`The ’493 Patent also teaches benefits to reducing the number of signal charges
`
`being output in certain modes:
`
`Further, the signal mixing and the vertical signal transfer during
`the vertical blanking period allow the signals from the image
`sensing device with a large number of pixels to be read out in a
`manner that conforms to the television system. This in turn can
`reduce image quality degradation and realize the moving image
`photographing with an
`image stabilizing function and
`the
`monitoring during still image photographing.
`
`’493 Patent at 9:30-36.
`
`55.
`
`To a person of ordinary skill in the art, these descriptions would teach that it is
`
`desirable in certain circumstances to reduce the number of signal charges read out from pixel
`
`array so that signal charges from fewer than all pixels in the array are output for recording or
`
`display. A person of ordinary skill in the art may wish to do this, for example, in order to reduce
`
`the processing time or circuitry required for processing all of the signal charges in a very large
`
`pixel array, or to ensure compatibility with a particular display screen that may have a different
`
`number of pixels from the pixel array in the image sensor.
`
`56.
`
`The patent repeatedly describes “culling” as one means of accomplishing this goal
`
`of reducing the number of signal charges. ’493 Patent at 3:16-31, 10:15-17 (“the image sensing
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 17 of 55 PageID #: 5740
`
`device may have any desired structure as long as it can realize the mixing or culling of
`
`pixels….”), 10:22-32, 12:37-48, 15:11-21. Even the Abstract of the ’493 Patent describes the
`
`operation of “mix[ing] or cull[ing] signal charges accumulated in individual pixels.” ’493 Patent
`
`at Abstract.
`
`57.
`
`These descriptions would comport with and confirm the ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan’s understanding of “culling” and “culled” in this context. To a person of ordinary skill,
`
`these words need no further definition.
`
`58.
`
`Apple’s proposed construction is incorrect and unduly narrow in a number of
`
`respects. For example, Apple’s construction requires “skipping pixels at predetermined
`
`intervals,” but this language is at least partially redundant with other limitations in the claims,
`
`such as “to provide pixel lines only at pixel intervals of K2 pixels” in claim 1 and “to only
`
`include pixel lines separated from one another by intervals of a first distance” in claim 5.
`
`59.
`
`There is therefore no need to include Apple’s proposed language of “skipping
`
`pixels at predetermined intervals,” which appears to rephrase concepts stated elsewhere in the
`
`claims. If the phrase “skipping pixels at predetermined intervals” has the same meaning as these
`
`other limitations already in the claim, Apple’s addition is redundant and unnecessary. If it means
`
`something different, it is an unwarranted narrowing of the claimed invention. In either case, the
`
`language is improper.
`
`60. Moreover, Apple’s proposal appears to be entirely untethered from the ’493
`
`Patent’s specification. For example, words like “selecting,”2 “skipping,” and “predetermined
`
`intervals” appear nowhere in the written description or figures of the ’493 Patent. Not only has
`
`
`2 I recognize that “selecting” appears in the language of claim 10, but this is in a different context. Claim 10 recites
`“selecting” between different operating modes of an electric camera, not “selecting pixels for output” as recited in
`Apple’s proposed construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
` DECLARATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 136-8 Filed 11/18/19 Page 18 of 55 PageID #: 5741
`
`Apple attempted to rewrite words that would be clearly understood by a person of ordinary skill,
`
`it has also elected to rewrite those words using language not found anywhere in the patent.
`
`61.
`
`The words the inventors chose to describe this concept—“culling” and “culled”—
`
`are plain and readily understandable; they need no further definition because the words the
`
`inventors chose suffice. It is therefore my opinion that Apple’s proposed construction does not
`
`reflect the plain and ordinary meaning these words would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention.
`
`B.
`
`62.
`
`“effective scanning lines M of a display screen” (’493 Patent, claim 1)
`
`The parties have proposed the following competing interpretations for the term
`
`“effective scanning lines M of a display screen”:
`
`Maxell’s Proposed Construction
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`
`“the number of lines on a display screen
`
`“the lines displayed in a single field of an
`
`corresponding to an actually displayed image”
`
`63.
`
`This term appears in claim 1 of the ’493 Patent, but not in claims 5 and 10.
`
`interlaced scanning display”
`
`64.
`
`For the reasons I will explain here, I agree with Maxell’s proposed construction:
`
`“the number of lines on a display screen corresponding to an actually displayed image.” This
`
`proposal best reflects the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “effective scanning lines M of a
`
`display screen,” as used in the ’493 Patent.
`
`65. Maxell’s proposed construction aligns with how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand the term