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