throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 7050
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 7050
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 7051
`
`
`
`GEORGE A. RILEY (S.B. #118304) griley@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (S.B. #203526) lsimmons@omm.com
`MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN (S.B. #278786) mdrummondhansen@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone:
`(415) 984-8700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 984-8701
`
`RYAN K. YAGURA (S.B. #197619) ryagura@omm.com
`XIN-YI ZHOU (S.B. #251969) vzhou@omm.com
`BRIAN M. COOK (S.B. #266181) bcook@omm.com
`KEVIN MURRAY (S.B. #275186) kmurray2@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`Telephone:
`(213) 430-6000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 430-6407
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE
`
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision, SA, and Nagra
`France S.A.S.,
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`APPLE INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Honorable Edward J. Davila
`Judge:
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 7052
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 1
`THE ’736 PATENT ............................................................................................................ 1
`A.
`“automatic and direct access” (Claims 1, 8, 9) ....................................................... 2
`B.
`“indicating” (Claims 1, 8, 9) ................................................................................... 5
`C.
`“means for extracting ...” (Claim 9) ........................................................................ 6
`1.
`Insufficient Structure Disclosed for “Extracting an Address…” ................ 7
`2.
`Insufficient Structure Disclosed for “Automatically Establishing...” ......... 9
`3.
`An “Access Controller” Also Is Insufficient Structure ............................. 10
`THE ’169 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`“directive” (Claims 1, 2, 22, 23) ........................................................................... 11
`B.
`“prerequisite directive” (Claims 1, 2, 22, 23) ....................................................... 12
`C.
`“subset of said set of resources” (Claims 1, 22, 23) ............................................. 15
`D.
`“wherein said prohibiting …” (Claim 12) ............................................................. 16
`E.
`“a processing unit configured to …” (Claim 22) .................................................. 19
`F.
`The Preamble of Claim 22 Is Limiting (Claim 22) ............................................... 22
`THE ’740 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 23
`A.
`“imprint of data” (Claim 1) ................................................................................... 23
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 7053
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 20
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir . 2014) ................................................................................................. 7
`Bicon v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 22
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 7, 8, 10
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 10
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 8
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 8, 9, 22
`Ex parte Erol,
`Appeal 2011-001143, 2013 WL 1341107 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013) ...................................... 20
`Ex parte Lakkala,
`Appeal 2011-001526, 2013 WL 1341108 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013) ...................................... 20
`Ex parte Smith,
`Appeal 2012-007631, 2013 WL 1341109 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013) ...................................... 20
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 22
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 1, 19, 22
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 1, 12
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Canon Inc.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38910 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2015) ........................................................... 20
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 22
`LG Elecs. U.S.A. In,. v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`2011 WL 1560592 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2011) .............................................................................. 20
`Mems Tech. Berhad v. ITC,
`447 F. App’x 142 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 23
`Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ......................................................................................................... 1, 13
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 7054
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 21
`OpenTV v. Netflix, Inc.,
`Case No. 14-cv-01525-RS, Dkt. No. 55 .................................................................................. 12
`Pers. Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2011 WL 1175716 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................ 22
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC,
`2013 WL 1729574 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2013) ..................................................................... 18
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 1
`Simpleair, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB,
`No. 2015-1251 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) .................................................................................. 24
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 24
`Symantec Corp. v. Acronis, Inc.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27070 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013) ........................................................ 24
`Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd.,
`2016 WL 54688 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016) ................................................................................. 20
`Virtual Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`925 F. Supp. 2d 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ...................................................................................... 18
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................................................................................. 12
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ............................................................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 ....................................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................... 1, 7, 20, 21, 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 7055
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`“’169 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169.
`
`“’736 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736.
`
`“’740 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,725,740.
`
`“Apple” refers to Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`“Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision, SA, and Nagra France S.A.S.
`
`“USPTO” refers to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 7056
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple’s proposed constructions accurately reflect the scope of the claimed inventions and
`
`are fully supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and controlling law. Plaintiffs, by
`
`contrast, attempt to broaden the scope of certain claims to manufacture infringement, arbitrarily
`
`narrow other claims to avoid invalidating prior art, and ignore the requirements for means-plus-
`
`function claiming. Plaintiffs’ constructions contradict established principles of claim construction
`
`and are unsupported by the evidence. The Court should adopt Apple’s proposed constructions.
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings to one of skill in the
`
`art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v.
`
`Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When a patentee “acts as his own
`
`lexicographer,” a claim term must be construed to reflect the actual scope of the claimed
`
`invention. Id. A claim term is indefinite, and thus not susceptible to construction, if it fails to
`
`“inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). A patent claim may not
`
`“cover any and all means” for performing a function. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`
`514 F.3d 1244, 1256 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Congress enacted 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), now § 112(f), to
`
`“preclude the overbreadth inherent in open-ended functional claims” by limiting the scope of such
`
`claims to “structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents.” Id. at 1256 n.7; see also
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014); 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112(6). “And if no structure is disclosed, the claim is indefinite.” Halliburton, 514 F.3d at
`
`1256 n.7.
`III. THE ’736 PATENT
`The ’736 Patent relates to providing “direct automated access to an online information
`
`services provider through an address embedded in a video or audio program.” Ex. 1 Abstract; see
`also id. 1:6-12.1 After “indicating” to the user that an address or link is available and in response
`to a “user initiated command,” the claimed system and methods establish a direct communication
`
`1 Exhibits refer to those attached to the accompanying declaration of Melody Drummond Hansen.
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`1
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 7057
`Case
`:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 7057
`
`auto
`
`\OOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`link with the online information source or electronically accessing the online information in the
`
`link provided in a video. See id. claims 1, 8, 9. During prosecution, the applicant added the
`
`“automatic and direct” limitation to the claims to overcome a prior art reference, Throckmorton.
`
`Ex. 4 at 1—6. The applicant argued Throckmorton did not disclose “automatic and direct access”
`
`to online information because Throckmorton described a menu of links that was provided with a
`
`video. The applicant argued this required the user to “leave the screen” where a video is shown to
`
`access the online information. Id. at 5. Even though the claims have no requirement that
`
`prohibits “leaving the screen” to access online information, the examiner allowed the claims. A
`
`different examiner and the PTAB subsequently recognized there is no such requirement in the
`
`claims or specification. See Ex. 10, J1me 22, 2005 Final Rejection at 2—3; Ex. 11 at 9.
`
`A.
`
`“automatic and direct access” (Claims 1, 8, 9)
`
`Claim Term
`
`A le’s Pro a osal
`
`Plaintiffs’ Pro u osal
`
`
`
`
`“automatic and direct access”
`
`Indefimte
`
`“automatically and directly
`electronically accessing”
`
`Indefinite
`
`“access without the user performing
`additional steps which is direct from
`the user’s o ers ective”
`
`“electronically accessing without the
`user performing additional steps which
`is direct from the user’s . ers ective”
`
`It is telling that neither party proposes plain and ordinary meaning for these terms. While
`
`the words “automatic” and “direct” would otherwise be well understood, the terms “automatic
`
`and direct access” and “automatically and directly electronically accessing” are indefinite because
`
`(1) when the terms were added to the claims to avoid prior art, they failed to add a limitation
`
`beyond what was already the operation of at least one of the claims before amendment, and
`
`(2) the explanation provided by the applicant is inconsistent with the claims as amended. After
`
`the claims were allowed, a different examiner and the PTAB have recognized the claims are not
`
`limited in the way suggested by the applicant in prosecution. Plaintiffs’ proposal apparently
`
`attempts to avoid the prior art using the same flawed arguments while also introducing a vague
`
`concept of “direct from the user’s perspective” that conflicts with the specification.
`
`“Automatic and direct access” appears in the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 9
`
`(which the parties agree are limiting), and variations of “automatic” and “direct” appear in the
`
`claim limitations such as “automatically and directly electronically accessing” online information
`
`2
`
`APPLE‘S RESP. CLAHVI CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 7058
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`in claim 8. See, e.g., Ex. 1 Claims 1, 8, 9. Based on a plain reading of the claims, “automatic and
`
`direct access” is established after a user issues a command to initiate the connection. For example,
`
`Claims 1 and 9 both include “automatically establishing, in response to a user initiated command,
`
`a direct communication link … so that the user has direct access to the online information,” and
`
`Claim 8 includes “automatically and directly electronically accessing said online information
`
`associated with said link in response to a user initiated command so that the user has direct access
`
`to the online information.” Id.
`
`Before amendment, independent claim 8 included the limitation that electronic access was
`
`achieved in response to a user command; the amendment added “automatic and direct” phrases
`
`and “so that the user has direct access to the online information,” as shown below:
`
`Claim 8 (before amendment):
`A method of providing to a user of online
`information services access to online
`information through a link provided in a video
`program, comprising:
`indicating to the user that a link to online
`information services is available for receiving
`the online information; and
`electronically accessing said online information
`associated with said link in response to a user
`initiated command.
`
`Claim 8 (after amendment):
`A method of providing to a user of online
`information services automatic and direct
`access to online information through a link
`provided in a video program, comprising:
`indicating to the user that a link to online
`information services is available for receiving
`the online information; and
`automatically and directly electronically
`accessing said online information associated
`with said link in response to a user initiated
`command so that the user has direct access to
`the online information.
`
`The addition of “automatic and direct,” however, did not add limitations beyond what one of
`
`ordinary skill already understood to exist in Claim 8. One of ordinary skill in the art reading the
`
`original Claim 8 would have understood that when a user clicked on a link, the user’s computer
`
`would have “automatically” made a “direct” connection to the online information associated with
`
`that link and would have required nothing more from the user. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 20-23.
`
`The applicant’s explanation, moreover, created a false distinction and an alleged limitation
`
`that does not exist in the claims. Specifically, the applicant hoped to avoid a prior art reference,
`
`Throckmorton, that disclosed that links could be provided with a video and presented to a user in
`
`a menu. See Ex. 12 9:1-14. When a user clicked on links from Throckmorton’s menu, the user
`
`was directly connected to online information. See id. To distinguish Throckmorton, the applicant
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 7059
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`argued that the “automatic and direct” limitations related to being connected “directly” from the
`
`video program to the online source without “leav[ing] the screen”:
`
`In Applicant’s amended claims, the choice for the user is from the video or audio
`program directly to the additional content, without the need of intermediate steps.
`In Applicant’s invention, the user need not have to select amongst several different
`links. Therefore, in Applicant’s invention, the user never has to leave the screen to
`access additional content because access is “direct” from the user to the content.
`Ex. 4 at 4-5 (emphasis added). Applicant argued that “Throckmorton does not teach ‘direct’ and
`‘automatic’ access to the online information from the primary video or audio program.” Id.2
`This argument was inconsistent with the claims: Claim 1 does not require a link “in” a
`
`video and instead recites providing an address “with” a video. And while Claims 8 and 9 require
`
`that a link is provided “in” a video or electronic signal, that link may be “in” a vertical blanking
`
`interval, rather than in the display of the video to the user. Ex. 1 3:36-40; 5:53-56. In considering
`
`similar claims in a continuation application, the PTO recognized that nothing in the specification
`
`or claims requires that a connection be established without the user having to “leave the screen,”
`
`as the applicant argued. The examiner explained that “the claims are silent regarding the
`
`navigation of menus or leaving the screen.” See Ex. 10, June 22, 2005 Final Rejection at 2-3; id.,
`
`April 7, 2004, Amendment at 2-5. Similarly, in an inter partes review, the PTAB noted “[w]e are
`
`not directed to anything [that] requires the system to display the online information to the user
`
`without the user leaving the screen to access the information.” See Ex. 11 at 9. Based on the file
`
`history, therefore, one of ordinary skill would not have an understanding of how “automatic and
`
`direct access” limits the claims, because the explanation offered by the applicant conflicted with
`
`the claims and specification, and has since been rejected. See, e.g., Ex. 5 ¶¶ 24-36.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed construction apparently again attempts to suggest a limitation that
`
`might avoid prior art by proposing that “automatic and direct access” is “access without the user
`
`performing additional steps which is direct from the user’s perspective.” But the claims require
`only that the system established “automatic and direct access” after a user’s initiated command,
`
`such as clicking on a link. Plaintiffs make the same, flawed argument advanced before the PTO
`
`
`2 Apple notes that contrary to the applicant’s characterization, Throckmorton does, in fact,
`disclose a menu presented on the same screen as the video.
`
`4
`
`APPLE’S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 7060
`Case 5'19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 7060
`
`1
`
`auto
`
`5
`
`\ooouax
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`that “automatic and direct access” means users may not “perform additional steps, such as
`
`navigating through a directory or into a menu.” See ECF 81 at 3. Notably, Dr. Ahneroth’s
`
`declaration on the “automatic” term does not discuss whether a user navigates a directory or menu,
`
`but only whether a user has to input an address into a separate computer system (see ECF 81—15
`
`1H] 33—34)—an entirely different point that is not addressed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ argument,
`
`already rejected by the PTO, should also be rejected by this Court.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposal of “direct from the user’s perspective” is also vague. While Plaintiffs
`
`argue the proposed language is related to using the “public Internet, implicating standard Internet
`
`routing principles” (see ECF 81 at 4), Plaintiffs’ proposal would not clearly exclude access
`
`through a cable or broadcast provider, which the specification characterizes as “direct” but
`
`distinguishes from the claims:
`
`Thus, systems exist which are capable of providing interactive user access through
`a broadcast or cable television signal. However, such systems are limited in the
`access theyprovide to information sources directlz available through the unitary
`cable or broadcastprovider. By contrast, the present invention facilitates direct
`automated user access to an unlimited number of online information providers
`through provider addresses which are embedded in the electronic signal which
`carries an [sic] video or audio program.
`
`Ex. 1 2:59-67. The cable access would be “direct from a user’s perspective” as it would go
`
`“directly” through a cable or broadcast provider, but this is not the claimed invention.
`
`The “automatic and direct access” terms failed to add a limitation beyond those already
`
`understood to one of ordinary skill for claim 8, and the applicant’s explanation purported to add
`
`20
`
`limitations that do not exist in the amended claims. The terms thus fail to inform about the scope
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of the invention with reasonable certainty, and the Court should find them indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`“indicating” (Claims 1, 8, 9)
`
`A .le’s Pro I osal
`
`Plaintifi's’ Pro I osal
`
`or tactile indication”
`
`“indicating”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“providing an automatic visual,
`auditory, or tactile indication”
`
`In the alternative: “providing a visual,
`audito
`
`26
`
`The term “indicating” needs no construction because it is readily understood by a jury.
`
`27
`
`See Ex. 5 11 47; see also Ex. 6 at 492 (defining “indicate” as “to direct attention to, to point out,
`
`28
`
`show” and defining “indicator” as “something which points out or gives information”). The ’736
`
`5
`
`APPLE‘S RESP. CLAHVI CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 7061
`Case 5'19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 7061
`
`Patent uses the term “indicating” consistent with its well-understood meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1
`
`3:58-4:4, 6: 13-15. To the extent the Court decides to construe the term, Apple’s proposed
`
`alternative construction should be adopted, because neither the claims nor specification limit
`
`indicating to being “automatic.”
`
`Where the applicant intended to use the term “automatic,” it did so. For example, the
`
`word “automatic” is used twice in each of the asserted claims to refer to “automatic” access and
`
`“automatically” accessing or establishing a direct communication link to online information. See
`
`Ex. 1 Claims 1, 8, 9. Applicant did not use the term for “indicating.”
`
`Plaintiffs’ assertion that the specification “consistently” refers to indications as being
`
`“automatic” (see ECF 81 at 5) is false. The specification uses the word “automatic” to describe
`
`“indicating” in only one embodiment. See Ex. 1 9: 19-29. That embodiment is directed to a
`
`system that does not require an “indicator signal generator” because the indicator is
`
`“automatically displayed” “dining portions of the program when an online information provider
`
`address is present in the underlying electronic program signal.” Id. 9: 16-19. The remainder of
`
`the specification does not refer to indicating as being “automatic” and instead broadly refers to
`
`indicating that “may take the form of a message,
`
`a light, a sound or a wireless tactile indicator”
`
`(id. 3:60—64) and that “signals the user that more information
`
`is available” (id. 6:9-13). Other
`
`embodiments, moreover, include an “indicator signal generator.” See id. 6:8—26, 9: 16-19.
`
`Plaintiffs argue Apple’s construction “would require the user to do something to trigger the
`
`indication.” ECF 81 at 5. To the contrary, Apple’s construction, like the claims and specification,
`
`is merely broad enough to include indicating using any means, including the “indicator signal
`
`generator.”
`
`“Indicating” therefore should not be limited to “automatic” indicating.
`
`C.
`
`“means for extracting ...” (Claim 9)
`
`.
`
`A l’ Pr
`
`(1
`
`.
`
`.
`
`,
`
`auto
`
`\ooouax
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`“means for extracting an
`address associated with an
`online information source from
`an information signal embedded
`in said electronic si u a1, and for
`
`Insufficient disclosure of
`structure; indefinite
`
`“access controller, provided with
`an address extractor including
`hardware and/or software, that
`detects, decodes, and/or stores an
`address si
`a1 sent with a video
`
`6
`
`APPLE‘S RESP. CLAHVI CONST. BR.
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 7062
`Case 5'19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 7062
`
`automatically establishing, in
`response to a user initiated
`command, a direct link with the
`online information source”
`
`Governed b 112 6
`
`signal and provided with a
`modem with hardware and/or
`sofiware to automaticall
`
`y
`establish a direct digital
`communication link, and
`e Invalents thereof”
`
`The parties agree this term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 11 6 and the claimed frmctions
`are “extracting an address associated with an online information source from an information
`signal embedded in an electronic signal, and automatically establishing, in response to a user
`initiated command, a direct link with the online information source.” This term is indefinite
`because the patent fails to disclose sufficient structure for performing the functions.
`1.
`Insufficient Structure Disclosed for “Extracting an Address...”
`The structure the specification links to the fimction of extracting an address is the “address
`extractor 42.” See Ex. 1 5:45-47, 6:1-13, 7:30-32, 8:45-54, 923-5, 9:29-34, Figs. 2 & 3; see also
`Ex. 5 1] 74. Plaintiffs apparently agree. See ECF 81 at 6-8. An “address extractor” is not a
`particular structure known to those ofordinary skill. See Ex. 5 1] 75. The “address extractor” is
`depicted as a black box, as shown by the excerpted portions ofFigures 2 and 3 below:
`
`
`
`i:
`
`_
`
`‘-
`
`—:
`
`7
`
`z
`
`Fig. 2 (Excerpted)
`
`Fig. 3 (Excerpted)
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`l 7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`“Simply disclosing a black box that performs the recited fimction is not a sufficient explanation
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`to render [a] means-plus-flmction term definite.” Augme Teclls., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d
`
`1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir . 2014); see also Blackboard, Inc. v. DesireZLeam, Inc, 574 F.3d 1371,
`
`1384 Ged. Cir. 2009) (finding “access control manager” insufficiently disclosed structure
`
`28
`
`because it was “simply an abstraction that describes the function
`
`essentially a black box”);
`
`7
`
`APPLE‘S RESP. CLAIM CONST. BR.
`5: 15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 164-1 Filed 12/16/19 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 7063
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The specification
`
`recites that the address extractor “includes hardware and/or software to detect, decode and store
`
`an address” (Ex. 1 5:45-47), which is nothing more than a statement that the address extractor has
`
`hardware and/or software to perform the claimed function.
`
`The specification never discloses to a person of ordinary skill what particular structure is
`
`contemplated. See Ex. 5 ¶ 75-78. Instead, the specification improperly disclaims any need to
`
`provide such a disclosure: “[t]he details of the construction of address extractor 42 are well
`
`known in the art and need not be described in further detail.” Ex. 1 6:5-7.
`
`Plaintiffs and their expert declaration improperly seek to rely on the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill. ECF 81 at 7; ECF 81-15 at ¶ 38. For example, plaintiffs argue that in analog
`
`systems, the structure of the address extractor is limited to that which can decode an address from
`
`the vertical blanking interval of a television system. ECF 81 at 7. But Plaintiffs point to no
`
`particular structure for performing that function, and the specification contemplates that this is
`
`one example “[a]mong the ways which exist to detect an address.” See Ex. 1 5:48-56. The
`
`specification similarly states “digitally, address extractor 42 may be constructed in any of several
`
`existing ways to detect an address signal” (id. 6:1-5) without disclosing a particular structure for
`
`doing so. Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Almeroth states in his declaration, “A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the ’736 patent would have understood that there are multiple ways of
`
`implementing an address extractor as claimed and described.” ECF 81-15 ¶ 38. Dr. Almeroth
`
`also proposes a web browser as “just one example” of how a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand the “hardware and software” disclosed by the specification for address extraction. Id.
`
`¶ 39. Dr. Almeroth’s failure to cite any reference to web browsers in the pat

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket