Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
` 3090
`
`Exhibit D: Summary of Expected Testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth Including Preliminary
`Identification of Expert Testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth Regarding Defendants’
`Indefiniteness Challenge(s)
`
`
`Claim Construction Issues
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs anticipate calling Dr. Kevin Almeroth to testify either live and/or by declaration
`
`regarding the following subject matters relating to claim construction:
`
`1.
`
`a.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,516, 8,000,314, 8,233,471, and 8,625,496
`
`The level of knowledge and skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at
`
`the time of the inventions of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents, which would have
`
`included the prior art and the various approaches to wireless network routing employed in
`
`the relevant prior art, the type of problems encountered, the solutions to those problems,
`
`the problems encountered by the inventor, and the rapidity with which innovations were
`
`made, the sophistication of the technology involved and the educational background and
`
`experience of those actively working in the relevant field at the time of the invention.
`
`b.
`
`His own knowledge and experience in the mid-to-late 1990s, including the technology
`
`available at that time and the engineers and other professionals with whom he worked or
`
`who he taught in the relevant industries, and their levels of education, activities, and
`
`sophistication.
`
`c.
`
`The scope and content of the prior art to the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents, including
`
`the teachings of prior art references asserted by Defendants as understood by a POSA at
`
`the time of the inventions of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents.
`
`d.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents,
`
`including the descriptions of the preferred embodiments and best modes for carrying out
`
`the inventions therein, including the patents’ teachings regarding the relationships
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
` 3091
`
`between clients and a server, clients and other clients, maps or trees of client links
`
`maintained by a server, distribution of portions of client maps or links within wireless
`
`networks, updating or optimizing links from clients to a server, and authentication of
`
`clients.
`
`e.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents,
`
`including support for the claims within the descriptions of the preferred embodiments and
`
`best modes of carrying out the inventions therein, and in the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`f.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the following disputed claim terms in light of the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents, and
`
`prosecution histories thereof: gateway, server, client, process, controller, node, link,
`
`transmission path, initiating and selecting, hop-by-hop, viable network path, changing a
`
`transmission path, upgrade a transmission path, optimization of a transmission path,
`
`housekeeping functions, authentication, and data buffer, and whether and/or what
`
`structures are conveyed by those terms to a POSA.
`
`g.
`
`2.
`
`
`a.
`
`Rebuttal to testimony offered by any experts testifying on behalf of Defendants as to any
`
`issue regarding claim construction, including those set forth above.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,437,692, 6,914,893, 7,468,661, 7,697,492, 8,013,732, 8,754,780,
`and 8,908,842
`
`The level of knowledge and skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at
`
`the time of the inventions of the ‘692, ‘893, ‘661, ‘492, ‘732, ‘780, and ‘842 patents,
`
`which would have included the prior art and the various approaches to wireless network
`
`routing employed in the relevant prior art, the type of problems encountered, the
`
`solutions to those problems, the problems encountered by the inventor, and the rapidity
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
` 3092
`
`with which innovations were made, the sophistication of the technology involved and the
`
`educational background and experience of those actively working in the relevant field at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`b.
`
`His own knowledge and experience in the mid-to-late 1990s, including the technology
`
`available at that time and the engineers and other professionals with whom he worked or
`
`who he taught in the relevant industries, and their levels of education, activities, and
`
`sophistication.
`
`c.
`
`The scope and content of the prior art to the ‘692, ‘893, ‘661, ‘492, ‘732, ‘780, and ‘842
`
`patents, including the teachings of prior art references asserted by Defendants as
`
`understood by a POSA at the time of the inventions of the ‘692, ‘893, ‘661, ‘492, ‘732,
`
`‘780, and ‘842 patents.
`
`d.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692, ‘893, ‘661, ‘492, ‘732, ‘780,
`
`and ‘842 patents, including the descriptions of the preferred embodiments, including the
`
`patents’ teachings regarding self-healing networks of wireless transceivers coupled to
`
`remote devices such as sensors and actuators in communication with remote computers
`
`via wireless gateways connected to wide area networks via wired connections. Dr.
`
`Almeroth may further testify regarding the patents’ teachings regarding the utility of the
`
`disclosed inventions to multiple fields of use, including in the fields of home and
`
`industrial automation, agriculture, and geolocation.
`
`e.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the asserted claims of the ‘692, ‘893, ‘661, ‘492, ‘732,
`
`‘780, and ‘842 patents, including support for the asserted claims within the descriptions
`
`of the preferred embodiments and the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
` 3093
`
`f.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the following disputed claim words and terms in light
`
`of the scope and content of the prior art and the teachings of the ‘692, ‘893, ‘661, ‘492,
`
`‘732, ‘780, and ‘842 patents and prosecution histories thereof: gateway, scalable address,
`
`scalable field, scalable byte segments, scalable message, actuator, wide area network
`
`preformatted [command/response/emergency] message, predetermined signal type, data
`
`packet, sensor, retransmitted signal, gateway, command, function code, concatenation,
`
`low-power, remote [remotely located] device, select information, transceiver, data
`
`controller, information signal, signal comprising instruction data, central location, nearby,
`
`adaptively configuring, appropriately respond, appropriate control signal, remote, and
`
`whether and/or what structures are conveyed by those terms to a POSA.
`
`g.
`
`Rebuttal to testimony offered by any experts testifying on behalf of Defendants as to any
`
`issue regarding claim construction, including those set forth above.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Preliminary Identification of Expert Testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth Regarding
`Defendants’ Indefiniteness Challenge(s)
`
`Plaintiffs’ current knowledge of Defendants’ indefiniteness challenges is currently
`
`limited to what is contained in Defendants’ invalidity contentions and P.R. 4-2 preliminary claim
`
`constructions. Plaintiffs’ preliminary identification of expert testimony regarding Defendants’
`
`indefiniteness challenges is likewise limited to those disclosures. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
`
`proffer additional and/or alternative testimony regarding Defendants’ indefiniteness challenges
`
`in light of additional information gathered during discovery. Subject to the above reservation,
`
`Plaintiffs expect Dr. Almeroth to testify regarding the following:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,516, 8,000,314, 8,233,471, and 8,625,496
`
`The understanding by a POSA of “initiating” and/or “selecting” a path from a client to a
`
`server at the time of the inventions of the ‘516, ‘314, 471, and ‘496 patents.
`
`
`1.
`
`a.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
` 3094
`
`b.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents
`
`with respect to “initiating” and/or “selecting” a path from a client to a server.
`
`c.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “direct/indirect” and “‘selecting/initiating’
`
`recitations” within the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to
`
`be indefinite by Defendants, including support for the asserted claims within the
`
`description of the preferred embodiments and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`d.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “direct/indirect” and “‘selecting/initiating’ recitations”
`
`within the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be
`
`indefinite by Defendants connote sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the
`
`scope of 35 U.S.C. §112(f), or whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient
`
`corresponding structure within the patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to
`
`apply.
`
`e.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of transmission paths at the time of the inventions of the
`
`‘516, ‘314, 471, and ‘496 patents, including methods for changing transmission paths
`
`between wireless nodes based on various criteria such as network optimization.
`
`f.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents
`
`with respect to the term “optimize,” the “‘changing’ recitations,” and Markush group
`
`elements alleged by Defendants to be indefinite.
`
`g.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of “optimize,” the “‘changing’ recitations” and Markush
`
`group elements within the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents
`
`alleged by Defendants to be indefinite, including support for the asserted terms within the
`
`descriptions of the preferred embodiments therein and within the prosecution histories
`
`thereof.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
` 3095
`
`h.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of prior art methods for tracking and maintaining network
`
`links within wireless networks at the time of the inventions of the ‘516, ‘314, 471, and
`
`‘496 patents, including maintaining linkage information in memory on one or more nodes
`
`within a network.
`
`i.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents
`
`with respect to the “maintaining/updating tree or map recitations” alleged by Defendants
`
`to be indefinite.
`
`j.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “maintaining/updating tree or map recitations”
`
`within the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants
`
`to be indefinite, including support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the
`
`preferred embodiments therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`k.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “maintaining/updating tree or map recitations” within
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by
`
`Defendants connote sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35
`
`U.S.C. §112(f) , or whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding
`
`structure within the patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`l.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of prior art methods for client/server functionality at the
`
`time of the inventions of the ‘516, ‘314, 471, and ‘496 patents, including maintaining and
`
`communicating linkage information between clients and servers within a network.
`
`m.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents
`
`with respect to the “functional recitations” alleged by Defendants to be indefinite.
`
`n.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “functional recitations” within the asserted claims
`
`of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants to be indefinite, including
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
` 3096
`
`support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the preferred embodiments
`
`therein, and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`o.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “maintaining/updating tree or map recitations” within
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by
`
`Defendants connote sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35
`
`U.S.C. §112(f), or whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding
`
`structure within the patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`p.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents
`
`with respect to “implementing a process requesting updated radio transmission path data
`
`from said server node” alleged by Defendants to be indefinite.
`
`q.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “implementing a process requesting updated radio
`
`transmission path data from said server node” element within the asserted claims of the
`
`‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants to be indefinite, including
`
`support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the preferred embodiments
`
`therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`r.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “implementing a process requesting updated radio
`
`transmission path data from said server node” element within the asserted claims of the
`
`‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants connote
`
`sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35 U.S.C. §112(f), or
`
`whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding structure within the
`
`patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`s.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “sending recitations” within the asserted claims of
`
`the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants to be indefinite, including
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
` 3097
`
`support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the preferred embodiments
`
`therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`t.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “sending recitations” within the asserted claims of the
`
`‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants connote
`
`sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35 U.S.C. §112(f), or
`
`whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding structure within the
`
`patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`u.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “[client/second node] link entries” element within
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants to be
`
`indefinite, including support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the
`
`preferred embodiments therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`v.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “[client/second node] link entries” element within the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by
`
`Defendants connote sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35
`
`U.S.C. §112(f), or whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding
`
`structure within the patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`w.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “housekeeping [function/step]” element within the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants to be
`
`indefinite, including support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the
`
`preferred embodiments therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`x.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “housekeeping [function/step]” element within the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by
`
`Defendants connote sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
` 3098
`
`U.S.C. §112(f), or whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding
`
`structure within the patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`y.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “[compares/compare/comparing] a selected link
`
`from said client to said server to a current client link entry in said client link tree”
`
`element within the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by
`
`Defendants to be indefinite, including support for the asserted terms within the
`
`descriptions of the preferred embodiments therein and within the prosecution histories
`
`thereof.
`
`z.
`
`Whether the claims containing the “[compares/compare/comparing] a selected link from
`
`said client to said server to a current client link entry in said client link tree” element
`
`within the asserted claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be
`
`indefinite by Defendants connote sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the
`
`scope of 35 U.S.C. §112(f), or whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient
`
`corresponding structure within the patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to
`
`apply.
`
`aa.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “[updates/update/updating] said client link tree
`
`when said comparison meets predetermined conditions” element within the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged by Defendants to be indefinite,
`
`including support for the asserted terms within the descriptions of the preferred
`
`embodiments therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`bb. Whether the claims containing the “[updates/update/updating] said client link tree when
`
`said comparison meets predetermined conditions” element within the asserted claims of
`
`the ‘516, ‘314, ‘471, and ‘496 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants connote
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
` 3099
`
`sufficient structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35 U.S.C. §112(f), or
`
`whether a POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding structure within the
`
`patent specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`cc.
`
`Rebuttal to testimony offered by any experts testifying on behalf of Defendants as to any
`
`issue regarding claim construction and/or indefiniteness, including those referred to
`
`above.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,437,692, 6,914,893, 7,468,661, 7,697,492, 8,013,732, 8,754,780,
`and 8,908,842
`
`The understanding by a POSA of “low-power” transmissions in the context of wireless
`
`networking at the time of the inventions of the ‘’692 and ‘842 patents.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692 and ‘842 patents with respect
`
`to “low-power” radio transmissions.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “low-power” terms within the asserted claims of the
`
`‘692 and ‘842 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including support for the
`
`asserted claims within the descriptions of the preferred embodiments the inventions
`
`therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`d.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘661, ‘692, ‘732, and ‘780 patents
`
`with respect to “select information.”
`
`e.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “select information” terms within the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘661, ‘692, ‘732, and ‘780 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants,
`
`including support for the asserted claims within the description of the preferred
`
`embodiments and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
` 3100
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of “transceiver” in the context of wireless networking at
`
`the time of the inventions of the ‘661, ‘692, ‘732, ‘780, ‘842, ‘893 and ‘492 patents.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘661, ‘692, ‘732, ‘780, ‘842, ‘893
`
`and ‘492 patents with respect to the term “transceiver.”
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “transceiver” terms within the asserted claims of the
`
`‘661, ‘692, ‘732, ‘780, ‘842, ‘893 and ‘492 patents alleged to be indefinite by
`
`Defendants, including support for the asserted claims within the descriptions of the
`
`preferred embodiments the inventions therein and within the prosecution histories
`
`thereof.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of a “[data] controller” at the time of the inventions of the
`
`‘516, ‘314, 471, and ‘496 patents.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692, 732, 780, 842, 893, and 492
`
`patents with respect to term “[data] controller.”
`
`k.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “[data] controller” term within the asserted claims
`
`of the ‘692, 732, 780, 842, 893, and 492 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants,
`
`including support for the asserted claims within the descriptions of the preferred
`
`embodiments the inventions therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`l.
`
`Whether the asserted claims containing the “[data] controller” term of the ‘692, 732, 780,
`
`842, 893, and 492 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants connote sufficient
`
`structure to a POSA to remove them from the scope of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) , or whether a
`
`POSA would be able to identify sufficient corresponding structure within the patent
`
`specifications if 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is found to apply.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
` 3101
`
`m.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of “information signal” in the context of wireless
`
`networking at the time of the inventions of the ‘692 patent.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692 patent with respect to the term
`
`“information signal.”
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “information signal” term within the asserted claims
`
`of the ‘692 patent alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including support for the
`
`asserted claims within the description of the preferred embodiments the inventions
`
`therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘842 patent with respect to the term
`
`“signal comprising instruction data.”
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “signal comprising instruction data” term within the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘842 patent alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including
`
`support for the asserted claims within the description of the preferred embodiments the
`
`inventions therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘842 patent with respect to the term
`
`“central location.”
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “central location” term within the asserted claims of
`
`the ‘842 patent alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including support for the asserted
`
`claims within the description of the preferred embodiments the inventions therein and
`
`within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`t.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the plain and ordinary meaning of “nearby” in the
`
`context of wireless networking at the time of the inventions of the ‘692, ‘661, ‘732, and
`
`‘780 patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
` 3102
`
`u.
`
`v.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692, ‘661, ‘732, and ‘780 patents
`
`with respect to the term “nearby.”
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “nearby” term within the asserted claims of the
`
`‘692, ‘661, ‘732, and ‘780 patents alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including
`
`support for the asserted claims within the descriptions of the preferred embodiments the
`
`inventions therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`w.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692 patent with respect to the term
`
`“adaptively configuring.”
`
`x.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “adaptively configuring” term within the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘692 patent alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including support for the
`
`asserted claims within the description of the preferred embodiments the inventions
`
`y.
`
`z.
`
`therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692 patent with respect to the term
`
`“appropriately respond.”
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “appropriately respond” term within the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘692 patent alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including support for the
`
`asserted claims within the description of the preferred embodiments the inventions
`
`therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`aa.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the teachings of the ‘692 patent with respect to the term
`
`“appropriate control signal.”
`
`bb.
`
`The understanding by a POSA of the “appropriate control signal” term within the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘692 patent alleged to be indefinite by Defendants, including
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107-4 Filed 07/14/16 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
` 3103
`
`support for the asserted claims within the description of the preferred embodiments the
`
`inventions therein and within the prosecution histories thereof.
`
`cc.
`
`Rebuttal to testimony offered by any experts testifying on behalf of Defendants as to any
`
`issue regarding claim construction and/or indefiniteness, including those referred to
`
`above.
`
`
`
`
`
`