Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 6
`Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG-RSP Document 124 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 4719Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`GOOGLE LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT
`CORP.,
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF RFCYBER CORP.’S
`REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00335-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG-RSP Document 124 Filed 10/07/21 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 4726Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`applet is a software component, and that it is configured to perform tasks; the dispute is to whether
`
`it can perform multiple tasks.
`
`C.
`
`“e-purse/electronic purse” (’218 Patent: all claims, ’855 Patent: all
`claims, ’787 Patent: all claims, ’009 Patent: claims 3-5)
`
`The term is readily understandable as an electronic purse and can be applied without
`
`construction; the Court should therefore give this term its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`An e-purse is not limited to storing money. While there is no dispute that an e-purse, like
`
`any purse, can store money, Samsung seizes on embodiments directed to storing money and asks
`
`the Court to limit the claims to those embodiments. (Resp. at 6-12.) However, an e-purse, just
`
`like a physical purse, is not limited to only storing money (or being a stored-value card) and can
`
`store credit card numbers and other financial-related materials. Absent a clear disclaimer, the
`
`Court should not limit the claims.
`
`Samsung misinterprets the prosecution history, which does not limit an e-purse to an
`
`“application that stores electronic money locally.” The applicant distinguished an “e-wallet” based
`
`on the e-wallet’s use of an e-card as an “identity card”; i.e., the “e-wallet” prior art was a server-
`
`side only implementation. (Ex. E, ’218 File History, 12/31/2010 Resp, at 7.) Nothing in the
`
`prosecution history or in the specification amounts to a clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim
`
`scopes that would limit the claims to a local-only implementation, or to an “application that stores
`
`electronic money locally.” Samsung incorrectly argues that the applicants stated that an e-wallet
`
`“stores credit cards or e-cards.” Resp. at 7. Samsung is wrong: first, the prior art e-card “is used
`
`as an identity card for logging in to the system” and is not a credit card. (Ex. E at 9.) And second,
`
`an e-wallet stores “credit-card and personal info at the backend,” that is, on another server. (Id.
`
`(emphasis added).) When shopping, the user uses the e-card to log into the system and submit the
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG-RSP Document 124 Filed 10/07/21 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 4727Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`backend-stored information to make purchase. (Id.)1 This is different from the claimed invention,
`
`where the information to make purchases may be available locally, and not exclusively on the
`
`backend. (Ex. E at 9 (“[A]n e-purse in the instant application describes about electronic money in
`
`a local portable device.”) Indeed, the electronic money applicants discussed is not limited to a
`
`stored value; instead, “electronic money” is a “generic name for the exchange of money through
`
`the internet.” (Ex. M at 191.) Accordingly, there has been no clear and unmistakable disclaimer
`
`that would limit e-purse to “stor[ing] electronic money locally.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`
`561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A disclaimer must be ‘clear and unmistakable,’ and unclear
`
`prosecution history cannot be used to limit claims.”).
`
`As RFCyber noted in its opening brief, (Open. at 11) some dependent claims require the
`
`payment server to communicate with a financial institution to authorize a transaction, a step not
`
`required if the money is only locally stored, but that is required to conduct credit card transactions.
`
`Samsung does not substantively address these limitations, other than to argue that they are related
`
`to funding or financing an e-purse, which Samsung does not define or construe. (Resp. at 11-12.)
`
`Samsung resorts to the prosecution history of a different patent with a different
`
`specification, the ’046 Patent. (Id. at 11.) But the ’046 Patent’s claims require a specific e-purse
`
`“maintained locally in the mobile device” that has its own balance and does not send a payment
`
`request to a payment gateway. (’218 Patent, at cl. 1.) If all of these elements were common to
`
`every e-purse, as Samsung suggests, there would have been no need for the ’046 Patent to
`
`specifically recite them as limitations.
`
`
`1 Samsung’s interpretation (Resp. at 8 n.7) of the prior art reference discussed in the office action
`is irrelevant. It is the patentee’s words that control the meaning of the claim terms. E.g., Omega
`Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]ur precedent requires that
`the alleged disavowing actions or statements made during prosecution be both clear and
`unmistakable.”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG-RSP Document 124 Filed 10/07/21 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 4730Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`GlobalPlatform specification. (Samsung Br. at 27.) But none of these embodiments require that
`
`the claims be construed to require non-volatile memory. Samsung’s extrinsic evidence does not
`
`compel a contrary conclusion. The Oxford Dictionary definition requires that installing software
`
`puts it into its “permanent location from where it will be executed.” (Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 15).)
`
`But a permanent location does not imply or require permanent storage. As the definition explains,
`
`installation often requires configuration, unpacking compressed files, and other processing; that
`
`is, to install is to “prepare for operation.” The other two cited references do not even mention the
`
`word “install.” (Samsung Br. at 29 (quoting Ex. 11 and Ex. 7).)
`
`Because “install” is easily understandable, and because Defendants’ construction is
`
`actually contrary to the plain meaning of the term, the Court should reject Defendants’ construction
`
`and apply the plain and ordinary meaning. However, if the Court feels that construction is
`
`necessary, it should construe install as “to set in place and prepare for operation.”
`
`E.
`
`“payment server” (’218 Patent: all claims, ’855 Patent: claim 7, ’787
`Patent: all claims)
`
`“Payment server” is easily understandable as a server used to enable a payment and requires
`
`no construction. Samsung seeks to change the inventors’ language to impose the limitation “server
`
`for settling a payment.” But the specifications of the Asserted Patents say nothing about “settling
`
`a payment;” indeed, the words “settle” or “settling” do not appear anywhere in the patents. Instead,
`
`Samsung’s limitation is imported (Samsung Br. at 41-43) from a different claim term (“payment
`
`gateway”) in the ’046 Patent, which is actually directed to settling payments. (Ex. 1, ’046 Patent
`
`at 1:16-20 (“[T]he present invention is related to a mobile device configured to settle
`
`payments…”).) The construction of a different term, in a different patent, with a different
`
`specification, does not govern this term.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG-RSP Document 124 Filed 10/07/21 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 4731Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA Document 43-4 Filed 04/19/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`The specification explicitly states that the payment server is used to enable and authenticate
`
`transactions. (RFCyber Br. at 15-16 (citing ’218 Patent at 5:18-22).) Moreover, the payment
`
`server is used in “funding the e-purse” which does not require settling a payment. (’218 Patent at
`
`7:10-8:6.)
`
`As discussed above, Samsung relies primarily on PTAB proceedings relating to the ’046
`
`Patent and the term “payment gateway.” (Samsung Br. at 42-43.) But the ’046 Patent has a
`
`different specification and claims than the Asserted Patents; indeed, the ’046 Patent is explicitly
`
`directed to “settling payments.” (Ex. 1, ’046 Patent at 1:16-20.) Samsung’s only argument linking
`
`the two patents and terms is that: i) the payment gateway of the ’046 Patent is “situated between
`
`the user’s personal device and a payment network which, in turn, authorizes payment requests and
`
`is behind the payment gateway” in Fig. 1A of the ’046 Patent; and ii) the “payment server” in Fig.
`
`2 of the ’218 Patent is “situated between the user’s personal device and a SAM,” and that a SAM
`
`enables and authenticates transactions. (Samsung Br. at 42.) Samsung’s argument is
`
`nonsensical—moreover, the two figures are at different levels and show different features.
`
`(Compare ’218 Patent at Fig. 2 with ’046 Patent at Fig. 1A.)
`
`Finally, Samsung’s extrinsic evidence says nothing about the meaning of payment server
`
`but describes components of a smart card payment system. (Samsung Br. at 43.) Tellingly, the
`
`words payment server does not appear in any of Samsung’s excerpts. (Id.)
`
`Accordingly, “payment server” should carry its plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent
`
`a construction is necessary, the Court should explicitly reject the importation of “settling” a
`
`payment. RFCyber proposes “a server for enabling a payment” which is consistent with the
`
`specification as set forth above.
`
`9
`
`