Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 95 PageID #: 7839
`
`Technology Background
`’438 Patent
`Describes an “electronic notice board system” that communicates with nearby mobile
`terminals via short-distance communication channel
`
`’438 Patent at 1:5-12, Fig. 2 (annotations added).
`
`100
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`’438 Patent
`Describes an “electronic notice board system” that communicates with nearby mobile
`terminals via short-distance communication channel
`
`’438 Patent at 1:5-12, Fig. 2 (annotations added).
`
`100
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 95 PageID #: 7840
`
`Disputed Terms
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed on said display apparatus”
`
`“display apparatus”
`
`“adding a comment to contributed data”
`
`101
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 95 PageID #: 7841
`
`Disputed Terms
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed on said display apparatus”
`
`“display apparatus”
`
`“adding a comment to contributed data”
`
`102
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 95 PageID #: 7842
`
`Claim 1
`’438 Patent
`
`‘438 Patent at claim 1.
`
`103
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 95 PageID #: 7843
`
`Dispute: Whether The Claim Term Is Means-Plus-Function
`
`“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by
`persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite
`meaning as the name for structure.”
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`104
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 95 PageID #: 7844
`
`“An Input Unit for Receiving An Input Entered By A User”
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an
`input entered by a user”
`(Claim 1)
`
`Function: to receive input entered by
`a user
`Structure: a keyboard; or equivalents
`thereof
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Apple: ∎ “Unit for” is a recognized non-structural “nonce” term
`Maxell: ∎ Undisclosed meaning and scope – covers all structures capable of receiving
`
`user input
`
`105
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 7 of 95 PageID #: 7845
`
`“Unit for” Is A Recognized Non-Structural Generic Placeholder
`
`“‘Unit for’ is a nonce phrase that is often used as a ‘non-structural generic placeholder.’”
`Lochner Techs., LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., No. 2:10-CV-430-JRG, 2015 WL 293625, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2015)
`
`“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke
`Section 112(f): ‘mechanism for,’ ‘module for,’ ‘device for,’ ‘unit for,’ ‘component for,’
`‘element for,’ ‘member for,’ ‘apparatus for,’ ‘machine for,’ or ‘system for.’ These
`words are often referred to as ‘nonce’ words that can operate as a substitute for
`‘means’ in the context of Section 112(f)—i.e., ‘simply ... generic description[s] for
`software or hardware that performs a specified function.’”
`CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-477, 2017 WL 6549933, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017)
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`106
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 8 of 95 PageID #: 7846
`
`“Input Unit” Is Not The Name of A Known Structure
`Apple’s Expert:
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`Ex. A (Menasce Decl.) at ¶ 79.
`
`107
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 9 of 95 PageID #: 7847
`
`The Dictionary Evidence Confirms That The Term Is Purely Functional
`“Device” is another generic placeholder – no structure
`
`Defined by its function
`
`Exhibit 7, IBM Dictionary of Computing at p. 343.
`
`“Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other
`nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be
`used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word
`‘means’ because they typically do not connote sufficiently definite
`structure” and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`108
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 10 of 95 PageID #: 7848
`
`Maxell Uses “Plain and Ordinary Meaning” To Claim Pure Function
`
`Testimony of Maxell’s Expert:
`
`Q: So, then the plain and ordinary meaning under your opinion of the input unit is any
`component as long as the component is capable of receiving an input?
`
`A: At the highest level, in general, yes.
`
`Ex. G (Williams Dep. Tr.) at 39:3-8.
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`109
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 11 of 95 PageID #: 7849
`
`A Claim Limitation Cannot Claim Only Function
`
`“If we accepted [patent owner’s] argument that we should not apply
`section 112, ¶ 6, a ‘moving element’ could be any device that can
`cause the lever to move. [The claim term], however, cannot be
`construed so broadly to cover every conceivable way or means to
`perform the function of moving a lever, and there is no structure
`recited in the limitation that would save it from application of
`section 112, ¶ 6.”
`Mas-Hamilton Grp. v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`110
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 12 of 95 PageID #: 7850
`
`The Specification Disclosures One Structure –“ten-key board”
`
`“input unit”
`
`’438 patent at 3:61-67.
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent at Fig. 2.
`
`111
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 13 of 95 PageID #: 7851
`
`Apple’s Construction Properly Defines “Input Unit For …”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an input entered by a
`user”
`(Claim 1)
`
`Function: to receive input entered by a user
`Structure: a keyboard; or equivalents thereof
`
`Apple’s construction identifies the only structure disclosed in the
`specification for the claimed function.
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`112
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 14 of 95 PageID #: 7852
`
`Maxell’s Arguments Against MPF Construction
`
`1. The specification states that the “input unit” is “not limited to” the disclosed
`structure
`
`2. A different court construed “input device” recited by a different patent as
`structural
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`113
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 15 of 95 PageID #: 7853
`
`MPF Term Limited To Disclosure of The Specification And Equivalents
`
`“The ’966 specification discloses use of a generic gradient wave form. Although
`it states that other wave forms may be used, it fails to specifically identify
`those wave forms. Thus, under section 112, ¶ 6, claim 12 is limited to use of
`a generic gradient wave form and its equivalents.”
`FonarCorp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1551–52 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6: “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
`as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed
`to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.”
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`114
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 16 of 95 PageID #: 7854
`
`Maxell’s Arguments
`
`1. The specification states that an “input unit” is “not limited to” the disclosed
`structure
`
`2. Another court construed “input device” recited by a different patent as
`structural
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`115
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 17 of 95 PageID #: 7855
`
`Maxell Cannot Rewrite The Claim Term To Rely On Cypress Lake
`
` Cypress Lakeaddressed four “code configured to” terms, one of which
`included “code configured to … utilize the at least one input device …” –
`no functional language recited for the “input device”
` The “input unit” term in this case is explicitly recited in terms of it function
`– “for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`* * * *
`
`’438 Patent at claim 1.
`
`116
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 18 of 95 PageID #: 7856
`
`Maxell’s Arguments
`
`1. The specification states that an “input unit” is “not limited to” the disclosed
`structure
`
`2. Another court construed “input device” recited by a different patent as
`structural
`
`“Input Unit” (‘438)
`
`117
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 19 of 95 PageID #: 7857
`
`Disputed Terms
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed on said display apparatus”
`
`“display apparatus”
`
`“adding a comment to contributed data”
`
`118
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 20 of 95 PageID #: 7858
`
`“Means For Selecting An Object Displayed On Said Display Apparatus”
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“means for selecting an object
`displayed on said display apparatus”
`(Claim 3)
`
`Agreed Function: selecting an object displayed on said display apparatus
`
`Structure: input/output unit 103,
`including a liquid crystal display
`device and a keyboard, and
`associated software; or equivalents
`thereof
`
`Structure: input/output unit 103
`and associated software that allows
`for the claimed selection function.
`
`Apple: ∎ Defines the actual structure of the functionally-written input/output unit 103
`Maxell: ∎ Replaces one black box (“means for selecting“) that performs the recited function with
`
`another black box (“input/output unit 103”)
`
`119
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 21 of 95 PageID #: 7859
`
`MPF Term Limited To Disclosure of The Specification and Equivalents
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent at Fig. 2.
`
`’438 Patent at 3:61-67.
`
`120
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 22 of 95 PageID #: 7860
`
`MPF Term Limited To Disclosure of The Specification and Equivalents
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Structure: input/output unit 103, including
`a liquid crystal display device and a
`keyboard, and associated software; or
`equivalents thereof
`
`’438 Patent at 3:61-67.
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed” (‘438)
`
`121
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 23 of 95 PageID #: 7861
`
`Disputed Terms
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed on said display apparatus”
`
`“display apparatus”
`
`“adding a comment to contributed data”
`
`122
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 24 of 95 PageID #: 7862
`
`“Display Apparatus”
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“display apparatus”
`(Claims 1-7)
`
`“an electronic notice board”
`
`“a display device comprising a first
`short-distance communication
`apparatus for carrying out a short-
`distance communication with an
`information-processing terminal and
`a second communication apparatus
`for carrying out a communication
`with the information-processing
`terminal through a network”
`
`Apple: ∎ Term should be construed according to the specification’s description of the “present invention”
`Maxell: ∎ Defines term by importing specification’s paraphrasing of claim, turning 2 words into 36
`
`123
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 25 of 95 PageID #: 7863
`
`The Specification Repeatedly Describes The “Present Invention” As
`An “Electronic Notice Board”
`
`’438 Patent at 1:44-50.
`
`’438 Patent at 1:5-12.
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent at 9:65-10:8.
`
`124
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 26 of 95 PageID #: 7864
`
`The Claim Term Should Be Construed Based On The Specification’s
`Description Of The “Present Invention”
`
`“When a patent [] describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a
`whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.”
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`125
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 27 of 95 PageID #: 7865
`
`Apple’s Construction Properly Defines “Display Apparatus”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“display apparatus”
`(Claims 1-7)
`
`“an electronic notice board”
`
`Apple proposes a construction that reflects the specification’s
`description of the alleged invention.
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`126
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 28 of 95 PageID #: 7866
`
`Maxell’s Arguments
`
`1. Claim differentiation based on dependent claims
`
`2. The term should be construed based on the inventor’s lexicography
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`127
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 29 of 95 PageID #: 7867
`
`Claim Differentiation Is A Presumption That Cannot Overcome
`The Specification’s Description Of The Alleged Invention
`
`“Claim differentiation is ‘not a hard and fast rule,’ but rather a
`presumption that will be overcome when the specification or
`prosecution history dictates a contrary construction. … Because the
`specification and the prosecution history so consistently describe
`‘nodes’ as ‘pagers,’” the Court construed “node” as a “pager.”
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`128
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 30 of 95 PageID #: 7868
`
`Maxell’s Arguments
`
`1. Claim differentiation based on dependent claims
`
`2. The term should be construed based on the inventor’s lexicography
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`129
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 31 of 95 PageID #: 7869
`
`Maxell’s Construction Renders Claim Elements Superfluous
`
`‘438, Claim 4
`
`Maxell’s Construction of
`Maxell’s Construction of
`“Display Apparatus”
`“Display Apparatus”
`
`“a display device comprising a first
`short-distance communication
`apparatus for carrying out a short-
`distance communication with an
`information-processing terminal and
`a second communication apparatus
`for carrying out a communication
`with the information-processing
`terminal through a network”
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent Claim 4.
`
`130
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 32 of 95 PageID #: 7870
`
`Maxell’s Arguments
`
`1. Claim differentiation based on dependent claims
`
`2. The term should be construed based on the inventor’s lexicography
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`131
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 33 of 95 PageID #: 7871
`
`Disputed Terms
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“an input unit for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed on said display apparatus”
`
`“display apparatus”
`
`“adding a comment to contributed data”
`
`132
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 34 of 95 PageID #: 7872
`
`“Adding A Comment To Contributed Data”
`’438 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“adding a comment to contributed
`data”
`(Claim 2)
`
`“written content responsive to the
`contributed data”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Apple: ∎ Term should be construed in view of specification
`Maxell: ∎ Does not disclose its interpretation of claim term
`
`133
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 35 of 95 PageID #: 7873
`
`The Specification Describes “Comment” As Written Content
`Responsive To The Contributed Data
`
`“Adding a comment to contributed data” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent at 8:64-9:6.
`
`134
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 36 of 95 PageID #: 7874
`
`The Patent Figures Confirm “Comment” Is Written Content
`Responsive To The Contributed Data
`
`“Adding a comment to contributed data” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent at Figs. 10, 11.
`
`’438 Patent at Fig. 13.
`
`135
`
`’
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 37 of 95 PageID #: 7875
`
`The ’438 Patent Uses Different Modules For Contributing Pictures
`And Written Comments
`
`“Adding a comment to contributed data” (‘438)
`
`’438 Patent at Fig. 2.
`
`’438 Patent at 5:39-44.
`
`136
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 38 of 95 PageID #: 7876
`
`The Parties Dispute Whether A Comment Must Be Written
`Or May Be A Picture
`
`The ’438 Patent
`
`Maxell’s Infringement Contentions
`
`Written Comments
`
`“Adding a comment to contributed data” (‘438)
`
`“Expressions” Are Pictures, Not
`Comments
`
`137
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 39 of 95 PageID #: 7877
`
`Electric Camera
`’493 Patent
`Walking Navigation
`
`’498 Patent
`
`’317 Patent
`
`’999 Patent
`
`Power Management
`
`’794 Patent
`
`’193 Patent
`
`Notification
`
`’306 Patent
`
`’991 Patent
`
`Communication / Authentication
`
`’438 Patent
`
`’586 Patent
`
`Camera
`
`’493 Patent
`
`138
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 40 of 95 PageID #: 7878
`
`Electric Camera
`’493 Patent
`
`* * * *
`
`* * * *
`
`139
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 41 of 95 PageID #: 7879
`
`Technology Background
`’493 Patent
`
`’493 Patent at 2:63-67.
`
`140
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 42 of 95 PageID #: 7880
`
`Technology Background
`’493 Patent
`
`’493 Patent at 3:8-15.
`
`141
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 43 of 95 PageID #: 7881
`
`Disputed Terms
`’493 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“effective scanning lines … of a display screen”
`
`The “mixing” and “culling” terms
`
`142
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 44 of 95 PageID #: 7882
`
`Disputed Terms
`’493 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“effective scanning lines … of a display screen”
`
`The “mixing” and “culling” terms
`
`143
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 45 of 95 PageID #: 7883
`
`Claim 1
`’493 Patent
`
`493 Patent at claim 1.
`
`144
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 46 of 95 PageID #: 7884
`
`“Effective Scanning Lines … Of A Display Screen”
`’493 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“effective scanning lines … of a
`display screen”
`(Claim 1)
`
`“the lines displayed in a single field
`of an interlaced scanning display”
`
`“lines on a display screen
`corresponding to an actually
`displayed image”
`
`Apple: ∎ Proposes a construction that accurately reflects POSITA’s understanding of term in view
`Maxell: ∎ Proposes a construction that encompasses technologies not disclosed in the specification
`
`of the patent specification
`
`145
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 47 of 95 PageID #: 7885
`
`The Specification Uses “Effective Scanning Lines” To Describe
`An Interlaced Scanning Field
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`146
`
`‘493 Patent at 1:37-43.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 48 of 95 PageID #: 7886
`
`Interlaced Scanning Displays An Image In Two Fields
`
`Example from Maxell’s expert declaration:
`
`The time gap between two consecutive fields of an
`interlaced display is called a “vertical blanking period”
`
`Ex. 8 (Madisetti Decl.) at ¶ 73.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`147
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 49 of 95 PageID #: 7887
`
`The Specification Defines “Effective Scanning Lines” As Part of
`A Scanning Field
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“the lines displayed in a single field
`of an interlaced scanning display”
`
`‘493 Patent at 1:37-43.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`148
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 50 of 95 PageID #: 7888
`
`The Specification Consistently Uses “Effective Scanning Lines”
`To Describe Lines Displayed In A Scanning Field
`
`* * * *
`
`‘493 Patent at 4:64-5:6.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`‘493 Patent at 10:3-9, 10:22-32.
`
`149
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 51 of 95 PageID #: 7889
`
`The Court Previously Equated “Effective Scanning Lines” With
`The Number Of Scanning Lines In A Field
`This Court’s Huawei Order:
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`150
`
`Maxell LTD., v. Huawei Device USA Inc., Case No. 5:16-CV-00178-RWS,
`Claim Construction Order, Jan. 31, 2018, at pp. 74-75 ('493 Patent at 1:37-43).
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 52 of 95 PageID #: 7890
`
`Apple’s Construction Reflects The Specification’s Disclosure
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“effective scanning lines … of a
`display screen”
`(Claim 1)
`
`“the lines displayed in a single field
`of an interlaced scanning display”
`
`“lines on a display screen
`corresponding to an actually
`displayed image”
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`Ex. 8, Madisetti Declaration, at para. 73.
`
`151
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 53 of 95 PageID #: 7891
`
`Maxell’s Construction Covers The Entire Frame (Two Fields)
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“effective scanning lines … of a
`display screen”
`(Claim 1)
`
`“the lines displayed in a single field
`of an interlaced scanning display”
`
`“lines on a display screen
`corresponding to an actually
`displayed image”
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`Ex. 8, Madisetti Declaration, at para. 73.
`
`152
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 54 of 95 PageID #: 7892
`
`Maxell’s Construction Is Incorrect
`
`1. Maxell’s construction is not supported by the intrinsic evidence
`
`2. Maxell’s construction excludes the disclosed embodiments
`
`3. Maxell’s construction alters the claim term to allow it to cover only a part
`of the display screen
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`153
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 55 of 95 PageID #: 7893
`
`Maxell Relies On Out-of-Context Citations To The Specification
`
`Maxell’s Opening Brief:
`
`Cited specification passage describes scanning
`lines displayed in each field:
`
`Maxell’s Op. Br. (D.I. 136) at 21.
`
`‘493 Patent at 1:37-43.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`154
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 56 of 95 PageID #: 7894
`
`Maxell Relies On Out-of-Context Citations To The Specification
`
`Maxell’s Opening Brief:
`
`Cited specification passage describes scanning
`operations within a single field:
`
`Maxell’s Op. Br. (D.I. 136) at 20.
`
`* * * *
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`‘493 Patent at 5:33-44, 5:66-6:5.
`
`155
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 57 of 95 PageID #: 7895
`
`Maxell Cites No Support For “Progressive Scanning”
`
`Maxell’s Opening Brief:
`
`Parulski describes image sensor, not display, and
`does not use “effective scanning lines”:
`
`Maxell’s Op. Br. (D.I. 136) at 19.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`Maxell’s Op. Br., Ex. 9 at 5:31-44.
`
`156
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 58 of 95 PageID #: 7896
`
`Maxell’s Construction Is Incorrect
`
`1. Maxell’s construction is not supported by the intrinsic evidence
`
`2. Maxell’s construction excludes the disclosed embodiments
`
`3. Maxell’s construction alters the claim term to allow it to cover only a part
`of the display screen
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`157
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 59 of 95 PageID #: 7897
`
`Maxell’s Construction Excludes The Disclosed Embodiments
` Claim 1 requires a 3-to-1 minimum ratio between image sensor pixel lines and the
`“effective scanning line of a display screen”
` The specification lacks written description if the “effective scanning lines” refer to all lines
`of a television display (e.g., 480 lines for NTSC)
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`‘493 Patent at claim 1.
`
`158
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 60 of 95 PageID #: 7898
`
`The Claimed Ratio Is Supported Only If “Effective Scanning Lines”
`Refer To A Scanning Field
`
`‘493 Patent at 4:64-5:6.
`‘493 Patent at 10:3-12.
`The specification does not describe any image sensor having 3 times or
`more lines compared to all lines on a television used to display an
`image (e.g., 3 x 480 lines would require a 1,440-line sensor)
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`159
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 61 of 95 PageID #: 7899
`
`Maxell’s Construction Is Incorrect
`
`1. Maxell’s construction is not supported by the intrinsic evidence
`
`2. Maxell’s construction excludes the disclosed embodiments
`
`3. Maxell’s construction alters the claim term to allow it to cover only a
`part of the display screen
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`160
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 62 of 95 PageID #: 7900
`
`Maxell Ties “Effective Scanning Lines” To How An Image Is Displayed
`
`According to Maxell, the number of “effective scanning lines . . . of a display
`screen” changes depending on what image is displayed
`
`Testimony by Maxell’s Expert:
`
`Q: So, the number of effective scanning lines of a screen can change from display to
`display, depending on how the user interface is configured. Is that right? It's not a fixed
`number associated with a particular screen.
`. . . [T]he number of lines on a display screen that correspond to an actually
`displayed image means that that's the actually displayed image. So, in that sense,
`the invention, or the inventive aspects are pretty valuable, because they apply each
`and every time the image is displayed.
`
`A:
`
`Ex. H, Madisetti Dep. Tr. at 149:12-150:4.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`161
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 63 of 95 PageID #: 7901
`
`Maxell’s Construction Limits “Effective Scanning Lines”
`To “An Actually Displayed Image”
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`162
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 64 of 95 PageID #: 7902
`
`Maxell’s Construction Is Inconsistent With The Claim Language
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“lines on a display screen corresponding
`to an actually displayed image”
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`‘493 Patent at claim 1.
`
`163
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 65 of 95 PageID #: 7903
`
`Maxell’s Construction Is Incorrect
`
`1. Maxell’s construction is not supported by the intrinsic evidence
`
`2. Maxell’s construction excludes the disclosed embodiments
`
`3. Maxell’s construction alters the claim term to allow it to cover only a part
`of the display screen
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`164
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 66 of 95 PageID #: 7904
`
`Disputed Terms
`’493 Patent Claim Construction
`
`“effective scanning lines … of a display screen”
`
`The “mixing” and “culling” terms
`
`165
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 67 of 95 PageID #: 7905
`
`Claim 1
`’493 Patent
`
`493 Patent at claim 1.
`
`166
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 68 of 95 PageID #: 7906
`
`“Culling”/ “Culled”
`’493 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“mixing” and “culling”
`(Claims 1, 5, 10)
`
`“culling” / “culled” means
`“selecting/selected pixels for
`output by skipping pixels at
`predetermined intervals”
`
`“culling”/“culled”: plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“mixing” / “mixed” means
`“collecting/collected charges from
`multiple pixels for combined
`transfer”
`
`“mixing/mixed . . . signal charges”
`means “combining/combined
`signal charges from multiple pixels”
`
`Apple: ∎ Proposes construction based on specification’s teaching
`Maxell: ∎ Does not disclose its interpretation of the term even though its expert admitted
`
`that the term carries technical meaning
`
`167
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 69 of 95 PageID #: 7907
`
`Maxell’s Expert Was Asked Whether A Dictionary Definition Applies
`
`Madisetti Dep. Ex. 3, Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
`
`“Culling” (‘493)
`
`168
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 70 of 95 PageID #: 7908
`
`Maxell’s Expert Testified That The Dictionary Definition Is Inapplicable
`
`Testimony by Maxell’s Expert:
`
`Q: So the question I have is, does the word “cull” have a different meaning in the context of
`the 493 Patent, as compared to its ordinary dictionary definition?
`
`A: Again, as I said, this description here is, in some sense -- it is not applicable. It is not
`being applied to image processing, or to the field of endeavor that covers the type
`of art that 493 is involved with. So I do not have a specific opinion as to these terms
`here, with respect to cull, beyond acknowledging that this is a general English
`dictionary that is not connected to the ‘493 Patent.
`
`Ex. H, Madisetti Dep. Tr. 73:8-20.
`
`“Culling” (‘493)
`
`169
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 71 of 95 PageID #: 7909
`
`The “Culling” Term Requires Construction
`
`“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has
`the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a
`term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on
`a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`“Culling” (‘493)
`
`170
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 72 of 95 PageID #: 7910
`
`Apple’s Construction Is Based On The Specification’s Definition
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“culling” / “culled” means “selecting/selected
`pixels for output by skipping pixels at
`predetermined intervals
`
`“Culling” (‘493)
`
`‘493 Patent at 10:3-12.
`
`171
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 73 of 95 PageID #: 7911
`
`Apple’s Construction Is Supported By The Surrounding
`Claim Language
`
`“Culling” (‘493)
`
`‘493 Patent at claim 1.
`
`172
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 74 of 95 PageID #: 7912
`
`Apple’s Construction Properly Defines The “Culling” Terms
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“culling” / “culled”
`(Claims 1, 5, 10)
`
`“selecting/selected pixels for output by
`skipping pixels at predetermined intervals”
`
`Apple’s construction, supported by expert testimony, reflects the specification’s
`teachings, and is consistent with the surrounding claim language.
`
`“Effective scanning lines … of a display screen” (‘493)
`
`173
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 75 of 95 PageID #: 7913
`
`Maxell’s Arguments
`
`1. Apple’s construction is “redundant” with other limitations
`- Limitations reciting specific intervals support Apple’s construction by demonstrating
`that “culling” must be performed at predetermined intervals
`
`2. Apple’s construction uses words not found in the specification
`- There is no requirement for a construction to only use words from the specification
`
`3. The “culling” term is “easily understood by a person of ordinary skill”
`- The jurors are not expected to have engineering degree and two years of image
`processing experience
`- Maxell’s own expert admitted that the “culling” term has technical meaning with the
`context of the patent
`
`“display apparatus” (‘438)
`
`174
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 76 of 95 PageID #: 7914
`
`“Mixing”/”Mixed”
`’493 Patent Claim Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`Maxell’s Construction
`
`“mixing” and “culling”
`(Claims 1, 5, 10)
`
`“culling” / “culled” means
`“selecting/selected pixels for
`output by skipping pixels at
`predetermined intervals”
`
`“culling”/“culled”: plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“mixing” / “mixed” means
`“collecting/collected charges from
`multiple pixels for combined
`transfer”
`
`“mixing/mixed . . . signal charges”
`means “combining/combined
`signal charges from multiple pixels”
`
`Dispute: whether “combining” is performed as part of charge transfer process,
`or can encompass disparaged post-transfer processing
`
`175
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 177-3 Filed 01/10/20 Page 77 of 95 PageID #: 7915
`
`The Specification Describes “Mixing” As Collecting Charges
`From Multiple Pixels For Combined Transfer
`
`’493 Patent at 5:56-60.
`
`“Mixing” (‘493)
`
`’493 Patent at Fig. 2 (annotations added).
`
`176
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Documen
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
