` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 42 PageID 7624
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-2353-N
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`This Order addresses the construction of numerous disputed claim terms of ten United
`
`States Patents pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Having reviewed the relevant intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence in the record, the Court construes the disputed terms and phrases as
`
`provided below.
`
`I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
`
`Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 391.
`
`In construing the claims of a patent, the words comprising the claims “are generally given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly,
`
`courts must determine the meaning of claim terms in light of the resources that a person with
`
`such skill would review to understand the patented technology. See id. at 1313 (quoting
`
`ORDER – PAGE 1
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 2 of 42 PageID 7625
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). First,
`
`“the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term . . . in the context of
`
`the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. If the specification “reveal[s] a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would
`
`otherwise possess . . . . , the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. Likewise, if “the
`
`specification . . . reveal[s] an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the
`
`inventor . . . .[,] the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as
`
`dispositive.” Id. (citations omitted).
`
`In addition to the specification, courts must examine the patent’s prosecution history
`
`– that is, the “complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includ[ing] the prior
`
`art cited during the examination of the patent.” Id. at 1317 (citations omitted). “Like the
`
`specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`understood the patent.” Id. (citations omitted). In particular, courts must look to the
`
`prosecution history to determine “whether the inventor limited the invention in the course
`
`of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id. (citations
`
`omitted). “[W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain
`
`his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning
`
`of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`
`334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Finally, in addition to evidence intrinsic to the patent at issue and its prosecution
`
`history, courts may look to “extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists of all evidence external to
`
`ORDER – PAGE 2
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 3 of 42 PageID 7626
`
`the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`learned treatises.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). In
`
`general, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
`
`determining how to read claim terms.” Id. at 1318.
`
`II. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,349,012
`
`A. Resolution Converter (Claims 1, 4)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`first resolution converter for decreasing a resolution of image data generated by the imaging
`unit
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`an element able to perform decimation and/or interpolation of image data input thereto in
`both horizontal and vertical directions across the image area so as to preserve the content of
`the image data
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a circuit, separate from the second resolution converter, dedicated to decreasing the
`resolution of image data in both horizontal and vertical directions across the image area so
`as to preserve the content of the image data
`
`Claim Term:
`
`second resolution converter for increasing a resolution of image data that is to be outputted
`to the display via the output unit
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`an element able to perform interpolation of image data input thereto in both horizontal and
`vertical directions across the image area so as to preserve the content of the image data
`
`ORDER – PAGE 3
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 4 of 42 PageID 7627
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a circuit, separate from the first resolution converter, dedicated to increasing the resolution
`of image data in both horizontal and vertical directions across the image area so as to
`preserve the content of the image data
`
`The primary point of disagreement between MobileMedia and RIM is whether these
`
`terms require two separate physical embodiments, or whether a single element can perform
`
`both functions. MobileMedia argues that in an embodiment in the specification, a single
`
`resolution conversion circuit (28) performs both increasing and decreasing resolution. RIM
`
`correctly responds that while circuit 28 is a general purpose resolution converter, that is not
`
`the element that performs the functions described in the claim; those functions, rather, are
`
`performed by elements 21d and 23a. By calling out a first and second resolution converter,
`
`the claim language facially contemplates two elements. The Court construes the two claim
`
`terms as follows:
`
`first resolution converter:
`
`an element able to decrease the resolution of image data in both horizontal and vertical
`directions across the image area so as to preserve the content of the image data
`
`second resolution converter:
`
`an element, separate from the first resolution converter, able to increase the resolution of
`image data in both horizontal and vertical directions across the image area so as to preserve
`the content of the image data
`
`B. Outputting Image Data (Claim 3)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`outputting to outside the image data compressed by the compression unit
`
`ORDER – PAGE 4
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 5 of 42 PageID 7628
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`outputting the compressed image data to be remote from the imaging apparatus, i.e., no
`longer subject to processing by the imaging apparatus
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`plain meaning
`
`The Court agrees with RIM that no construction is needed. MobileMedia’s
`
`construction adds two additional limitations not found in the claim: “remote from the
`
`imaging apparatus” and “no longer subject to processing by the imaging apparatus.”
`
`C. Resolution Standard (Claim 4)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`resolution standard
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`the resolution of the display
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a protocol, such as NTSC or PAL, defining the resolution of a display
`
`The specification states “the resolution will be increased at an output stage to the
`
`extent that is necessary for display.” A74, 13:1-3. The specification nowhere refers to a
`
`“protocol,” although it does refer extensively to NTSC and PAL. Limiting the resolution of
`
`the display to an industry standard, such as NTSC or PAL, would unduly limit the claim
`
`language. In context, MobileMedia’s construction appears more in keeping with the
`
`specification. The Court, therefore, adopts the construction, “the resolution of the display.”
`
`ORDER – PAGE 5
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 6 of 42 PageID 7629
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,446,080
`
`A. Custom Playlist
`
`Claim Term:
`
`custom playlist
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`a list of audio/visual tracks in the order in which the user chooses they be played, regardless
`of the location or order in which they are physically stored
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`computer-readable data representing a sequence of audio/video tracks to be played in the
`order in which the user would like to hear/see them played regardless of the order in which
`they are stored
`
`The dispute over this term is whether the playlist must be “computer-readable.”
`
`MobileMedia argues that “computer-readable” is nowhere in the specification. RIM argues
`
`that absent some limiting language like “computer-readable,” the term custom playlist could
`
`include something written on a piece of paper or a list in a person’s mind. While the Court
`
`is skeptical of whether a list in a person’s mind could be transferred from one device to
`
`another using existing technology, the Court will adopt MobileMedia’s alternative proposal
`
`of: “a digital list of audio/visual tracks in the order in which the user chooses they be played,
`
`regardless of the location or order in which they are physically stored.”
`
`B. Digital Audio/Visual Actuator Storage Device
`
`Claim Term:
`
`digital audio/visual actuator storage device
`
`ORDER – PAGE 6
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 7 of 42 PageID 7630
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`a device capable of reproducing audio/visual information in audible or visible form, such as
`a CD player, digital audio tape player, cassette recorder, digital visual disc/mini disc player,
`and other audio visual equipment
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`device that is capable of playing audio/video tracks by mechanical movement in the device,
`and that lacks a graphical user interface for creating or editing custom playlists
`
`The two points of disagreement are whether the device requires mechanical movement
`
`and whether the device may have a graphical user interface. RIM argues that the device must
`
`require mechanical movement because (1) “actuator” necessarily implies mechanical
`
`movement, and (2) all of the examples in the specification use mechanical movement.
`
`MobileMedia responds that other dictionary definitions of “actuator” do not require
`
`mechanical movement, and that the examples in the specification should not limit the claim
`
`language. The Court agrees with MobileMedia. Nothing in the claim language or
`
`prosecution history limits the device to mechanical movement.
`
`RIM further argues that the device must not have a graphical user interface because
`
`MobileMedia disclaimed devices with a graphical user interface in prosecution, when it
`
`argued that “the inclusion of a graphical user interface into a consumer A/V device . . .
`
`teaches away from the present invention.” RIM App’x 517. This is not a clear and
`
`unmistakable disclaimer. See Sorensen v. ITC, 427 F.3d 1375, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`In context, the patentees were arguing that a graphical user interface on the device is not
`
`required as the invention provides that interface on an external device. “Is not required” is
`
`different from “is prohibited.”
`
`ORDER – PAGE 7
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 8 of 42 PageID 7631
`
`The Court, therefore, construes the term as: “device that is capable of playing
`
`audio/visual tracks.”
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,070,068
`
`A. Predetermined Key (Claims 1, 10, and 26)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`predetermined operation key
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`a single, predetermined key
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a key that must be pushed before call control options are displayed
`
`Claim Term:
`
`a predetermined selection operation
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`selecting a single, predetermined key
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a selection operation that must be made before call control options are displayed
`
`The dispute between the parties is over whether call control options can be displayed
`
`before the key is pressed. The significant language is not the claim term the parties ask the
`
`Court to construe, but rather the surrounding language: “control means controls said display
`
`means to display said processing items on said display means when a predetermined
`
`operation key of said input means is pushed by the user.” c. 17, ll. 1-5. MobileMedia argues
`
`ORDER – PAGE 8
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 9 of 42 PageID 7632
`
`that all the explicit claim language requires is that the processing items be displayed after the
`
`key is pushed, and that it places no limitation on whether the processing items may be
`
`displayed before the key is pushed. RIM points to prosecution history (during
`
`reexamination) where MobileMedia disclaims embodiments in which the processing items
`
`are displayed before the key is pressed and states that processing items are displayed in
`
`response to pushing the key.
`
`The Court agrees with MobileMedia that the specific claim language is too narrow to
`
`bear the freight that RIM attempts to load. The Court thus construes “predetermined
`
`operation key” as meaning a “predetermined key” and “predetermined selection operation”
`
`as meaning “selecting a predetermined key.” The Court notes, however, that it agrees with
`
`RIM that the claim as a whole means that the processing items are not displayed before the
`
`key is pushed.
`
`B. Processing Items Available to the User (Claims 1, 10, 26)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`processing items available to the user
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`call handling actions available to the user
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`all call control options that can be executed to control the connecting state of a present call
`and an incoming call
`
`The Court finds both parties’ proposed construction to suffer from the same
`
`shortcoming, in that they provide no content for the fact finder to determine which call
`
`ORDER – PAGE 9
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 10 of 42 PageID 7633
`
`handling options or call control options are available to the user. In its brief, MobileMedia
`
`disclaims any options other than the four disclosed in the specification. The Court therefore
`
`construes “processing items available to the user” to mean “the following options:
`
`disconnect, activate, hold, and multiparty.”
`
`C. Incoming Call (Claims 1, 10)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`incoming call
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`a ringing or newly received call
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a call that has been received but not yet connected
`
`The issue here is whether “incoming call” applies only to calls that are still ringing
`
`or to calls that have been connected and are no longer ringing. The briefing is somewhat
`
`unclear as to what state a call might be in that is connected and no longer ringing. Claim 1
`
`indicates that the user can use the control means to control “the incoming call into a
`
`respective connecting state corresponding to the processing item selected . . . .” c. 16, ll. 65-
`
`67. As discussed above, the processing item options are disconnect, activate, hold, and
`
`multiparty. This suggests that at the time of selection, the incoming call is not yet into any
`
`of those possible connecting states, i.e., neither active, on hold, disconnected, nor multiparty.
`
`Neither side suggests what connected state there could be that is not one of those four
`
`options. By process of elimination, then, an incoming call is one that is not yet connected.
`
`ORDER – PAGE 10
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 11 of 42 PageID 7634
`
`The Court thus concludes that “incoming call” means “a call that has been received but not
`
`yet connected.”
`
`Claim Term:
`
`D. Input Means for Selecting (Claims 1, 10)
`
`input means for selecting and determining a desired processing item out of said processing
`items displayed on said display means
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Function: choosing a desired processing item out of the processing items displayed on the
`display means
`
`Structure: numeral keys, jog dial, jog shuttle, track ball, joy stick, and their control circuitry,
`and equivalents thereof, for choosing one of the items displayed on the display means
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Function: selecting and determining a desired processing item out of said processing items
`displayed on said display means.
`
`Structure: a jog shuttle equipped with a clicking function in which an angle of rotation is
`restricted to a predetermined angle, a track ball with a clicking function, or a joy stick with
`a clicking function
`
`The disagreement with regard to the function is whether selecting and determining is
`
`one action or two. While the Court tends to think this is a combined action, it will adopt the
`
`claim language and construe the function as “selecting and determining a desired processing
`
`item out of the processing items displayed on the display means.”
`
`For the corresponding structure, the parties pick and choose somewhat among the
`
`structures recited in the specification. RIM omits numeral keys; MobileMedia omits the
`
`clicking function that is apparently needed to select the chosen processing item; RIM chides
`
`ORDER – PAGE 11
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 12 of 42 PageID 7635
`
`MobileMedia for omitting the restricted angle of rotation for the jog shuttle, which appears
`
`to be unnecessary to the function. It appears to the Court that the corresponding structures
`
`recited are: “numeral keys, jog dial, jog shuttle with a clicking function, track ball with a
`
`clicking function, or joy stick with a clicking function.” It is unnecessary for the Court to
`
`include “or equivalents” as equivalents are part of the statute.
`
`E. Displaying Processing Items (Claims 1, 10)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`display means for displaying processing items available to the user relative to a call
`
`Agreed Function: displaying processing items available to the user relative to a call
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Structure: a liquid crystal display (including its driver circuit(s)) or equivalent
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Structure: liquid crystal display 5 in which pixels of thirty-two dots by ninety-seven dots are
`arrayed in a matrix
`
`RIM seeks to limit the recited structure to the precise pixel array disclosed in the
`
`specification. See c. 3, ll. 30-32. The Court notes that the actual text is somewhat
`
`incoherent, suggesting that the LCD is a matrix of pixels, where each pixel is composed of
`
`a grid of 32 x 97 “dots.” This is perhaps an opportune time to note that the text of the patent
`
`appears to be a marginal translation into English from a foreign language; this highlights the
`
`difficulty of attempting to extract undue meaning from subtle language cues. In any event,
`
`the precise resolution of the display appears to be unnecessary to the function. The Court
`
`ORDER – PAGE 12
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 13 of 42 PageID 7636
`
`therefore construes the recited structure as “a liquid crystal display, including its drivers
`
`circuit(s).”
`
`Claim Term:
`
`F. Controlling Displaying of Processing Items (Claims 1, 10)
`
`control means for controlling displaying of the processing items available to the user relative
`to a present call and to an incoming call on said display means and controlling the present
`call and the incoming call into a respective connecting state corresponding to the processing
`item selected and determined by the operation of said input means by a user
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Function: controlling the displaying of processing items available to the user relative to a
`present call and an incoming call on the display means; and, controlling the present call and
`the incoming call into a respective connecting state corresponding to the processing item
`chosen by the operation of said input means by a user.
`
`Structure: CPU and/or liquid crystal display driver or equivalent structure programmed as
`described in the patent to perform the claimed functions
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Function: controlling displaying of the processing items available to the user relative to a
`present call and to an incoming call on said display means and controlling the present call
`and the incoming call into a respective connecting state corresponding to the processing item
`selected and determined by the operation of said input means by a user.
`
`Structure: the CPU of Figure 2 running software that produces the graphical user interface
`of Figures 10 and 11
`
`The substantive difference between the parties’ function description is whether to use
`
`the patent phrase “selected and determined” or MobileMedia’s synthesis “chosen.” The
`
`Court again will track the patent usage of “selected and determined.”
`
`MobileMedia’s proposed structure is essentially completely generic and fails to
`
`describe any specific algorithm. RIM’s proposed structure also fails to specify any algorithm
`
`ORDER – PAGE 13
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 14 of 42 PageID 7637
`
`and unnecessarily limits the output to the examples given in Figures 10 and 11. The Court
`
`agrees with MobileMedia that the closest the patent reflects to an algorithm is that disclosed
`
`in Figure 7, though also somewhat generic. The Court thus construes the associated structure
`
`as: A CPU programmed as described in Figure 7.
`
`V. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,389,301
`
`A. Messages (Claims 1, 2)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`messages
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`information signal carried by a radio wave
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`correspondence readable by a user addressed to the portable radio information terminal
`apparatus
`
`MobileMedia objects to RIM’s proposed construction for two reasons. First, it argues
`
`that defining messages as addressed to the portable radio information terminal apparatus
`
`would render the remaining claim language “wherein the messages terminated at said
`
`portable radio information terminal apparatus are defined as messages that are addressed to
`
`said portable radio information terminal apparatus.” MobileMedia App’x 385, c.1, ll. 26-29.
`
`Second, MobileMedia argues that RIM’s construction ignores language in the specification
`
`essentially defining a message, “a radio wave carrying an information signal (a message for
`
`example).” MobileMedia App’x 132, c.12, ll. 46-47. RIM, for its part, argues that
`
`MobileMedia’s construction is overinclusive, covering any kind of radio signal.
`
`ORDER – PAGE 14
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 15 of 42 PageID 7638
`
`The Court agrees that MobileMedia’s construction is overinclusive. It disagrees with
`
`MobileMedia’s second argument, as it simply states that every message is a radio wave
`
`carrying an information signal, not that every radio wave carrying an information signal is
`
`a message. The Court agrees with RIM that the specification otherwise indicates that a
`
`message is a particular type of radio signal that is directed to a particular device. The Court
`
`thus construes a “message” as a “radio signal carrying various information from a radio base
`
`station to a portable radio information terminal apparatus.” See c.1, ll. 33-34. This avoids
`
`the redundancy argument because it does not specify a message as terminated at “said”
`
`portable radio information terminal apparatus, but simply “a” radio information terminal
`
`apparatus.
`
`B. Multilayer Structure (Claims 1, 2)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`multilayer structure
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`a hierarchical information structure having at least three layers
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a pre-existing organization of three or more hierarchical layers
`
`The point of disagreement is whether the three layers in the portable radio information
`
`terminal apparatus are pre-existing or not. It is not entirely clear exactly what pre-existing
`
`means in this context, or indeed, what the absence of pre-existing would mean. This
`
`presumably relates to some infringement issue, where a device might not necessarily start
`
`ORDER – PAGE 15
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 16 of 42 PageID 7639
`
`with three layers, but might in operation grow to three layers. As is typical, the parties do
`
`not inform the Court of why this distinction matters, which has the side effect of making the
`
`distinction somewhat unclear. For example, the term “pre-existing” implies some reference
`
`point in time (existing before time X) that remains undefined.
`
`On balance, the Court is persuaded that the claim language, “a multilayer structure
`
`having a plurality of layers including a top layer, a middle layer, and a lower layer,”
`
`MobileMedia App’x 385, c.1, ll 23-24, requires that the apparatus have three layers at the
`
`beginning. MobileMedia’s argument that the lower layer may be further subdivided in
`
`operation does not address whether the apparatus starts off with three layers. The Court is
`
`persuaded that the apparatus starts with three layers and therefore adopts RIM’s construction.
`
`C. Layer on Which Messages Are Placed (Claims 1, 2)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`a top layer, a middle layer, and a lower layer on which a plurality of messages terminated at
`said portable radio information terminal apparatus are placed
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`The clause “on which a plurality of messages terminated at said portable radio information
`terminal apparatus are placed” only modifies the lower layer.
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`a repository in which messages are placed on a top layer, a middle layer and a lower layer
`
`The point of disagreement is whether the messages are placed only on the lower layer
`
`or on all three layers. Aside from the grammatical parsing relating to comma placement, the
`
`ORDER – PAGE 16
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 17 of 42 PageID 7640
`
`parties mostly debate the significance of the reexamination history. As best as the Court can
`
`discern, the history shows the following:
`
`1.
`
`MobileMedia argues that messages are placed only on lower layer
`
`Examiner’s Reasons for Patentability states that messages are placed on all three
`
`2.
`layers
`
`3.
`
`PTO issues Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate
`
`MobileMedia responds to Reasons for Patentability again explaining that messages
`4.
`are placed only on lower layer
`
`5.
`
`PTO issues Reexamination Certificate
`
`MobileMedia argues that because its clarification was filed before the reexamination
`
`certificate issued, it showed that the PTO in effect adopted MobileMedia’s position. RIM
`
`argues that the PTO’s substantive examination ended with the Notice of Intent, and because
`
`MobileMedia filed its clarification after the Notice, the PTO never considered it. Neither
`
`side cites to any definitive precedent in favor of its argument from the reexamination history.
`
`On balance, the Court is reluctant to charge MobileMedia with a statement made by
`
`the Examiner without prompting by MobileMedia. In other words, MobileMedia should not
`
`be estopped by the Examiner’s sua sponte statement, which would be the net effect of RIM’s
`
`argument. Given MobileMedia’s consistent position before the PTO that messages are
`
`placed only on the lower layer, as well as the fact that MobileMedia clarified its position
`
`after the Reasons for Patentability and before issuance of the Reexamination Certificate, the
`
`Court adopts MobileMedia’s construction that messages are placed only on the lower layer.
`
`ORDER – PAGE 17
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 18 of 42 PageID 7641
`
`D. Inputting Means for Executing a Command Inputting Operation (Claims 1, 2)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`inputting means for executing a command inputting operation
`
`Agreed function: executing a command inputting operation
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Structure: a switch that can be pressed or touched to generate an input signal; and equivalents
`thereof
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Structure: rotary data input device 9, push switch 8 and the input switch 16
`
`MobileMedia’s proposed structure appears to be detached from the specification. The
`
`Court therefore adopts RIM’s proposed construction.
`
`E. Software (Claim 2)
`
`Claim Term:
`
`command input processing means for determining whether an input signal supplied from said
`inputting means is generated by said command inputting operation
`
`Agreed Function: determining whether an input signal supplied from said inputting means
`is generated by said command inputting operation
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Structure: a CPU and its related program, as described in the patent, and/or an interrupt
`interface; and equivalents thereof
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Structure: CPU 5 / 81 running software program 29
`
`ORDER – PAGE 18
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 19 of 42 PageID 7642
`
`Claim Term:
`
`movement control means for measuring, based on a decision by said command input
`processing means, an activation time of said input signal
`
`Agreed Function: measuring, based on a decision by said command input processing means,
`an activation time of said input signal
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Structure: a CPU and its related program, as described in the patent, and/or a timer; and
`equivalents thereof.
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Structure: CPU 5 / 81 running software program 30
`
`Claim Term:
`
`upper-layer moving means for executing, based on a command issued by said movement
`control means, movement among said plurality of layers
`
`Agreed Function: executing, based on a command issued by said movement control means,
`movement among said plurality of layers
`
`MobileMedia Construction:
`
`Structure: a CPU and its related program, as described in the patent, and equivalents thereof.
`
`RIM Construction:
`
`Structure: CPU 5 / 81 running software program 31
`
`The parties treat these three claim terms together. RIM rightly notes that
`
`MobileMedia’s proposed structure provides essentially no help to the fact finder.
`
`MobileMedia responds that RIM’s proposed structure leaves out some of the description of
`
`the algorithms in the specification. But some of the additional structure cited by
`
`MobileMedia provides no assistance. See, e.g., MobileMedia App’x 123-24, Figs. 11, 12.
`
`ORDER – PAGE 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:11-cv-02353-N Document 361 Filed 02/27/13 Page 20 of 42 PageID 7643
`
`For additional description of interrupt interface, MobileMedia cites to Figure 11 “and its
`
`corresponding description.” MobileMedia Brief at 21. But the description of Figure 11
`
`provides no content for an interrupt interface. See MobileMedia App’x 134, c. 16, ll. 11-14
`
`(referring back to Figs. 1, 2, which likewise do not describe an interrupt interface). The
`
`Court will thus adopt the RIM’s proposed construction, together with the additional structure
`
`cited by MobileMedia, as follows:
`
`command input means structure: CPU 5 / 81 running software program 29
`
`movement control means structure: CPU 5 / 81 running software program 30 and/or
`
`algorithm disclosed at c. 17, ll. 42-51, c. 18, ll. 48-56, and/or a timer a shown in Fig. 11
`
`(element 22) running the algorithm described in Fig. 12 (steps S24 through S29)
`
`upper layer moving means structure: CPU 5 / 81 running software program 31
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,048
`
`A. Selectively Operable (Claim