Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 7
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 1855Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00186-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SAMSUNG’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 1856Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Applicable Legal Principles .................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ordinary meaning generally controls. ...............................................................1
`
`Claims must provide reasonably certain scope. .......................................................2
`
`Level of Skill of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................3
`
`Undisputed Terms ................................................................................................................3
`
`Disputed Terms ....................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`“a signal processor coupled with the first and second microphone signals
`and operative . . . to apply a varying linear transfer function between the
`first and second microphone signals”/“a processing component . . .
`applying a varying linear transfer function between the acoustic signals” ..............3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The dispute between the parties cannot be resolved by resorting to
`the “plain and ordinary meaning.” ...............................................................4
`
`The intrinsic evidence and the understanding of a POSITA
`supports Samsung’s proposed construction. ................................................5
`
`Jawbone’s arguments do not resolve the dispute or counsel against
`adopting Samsung’s proposed construction.................................................7
`
`“response to [speech/noise]”/“linear response to [speech/noise]” ...........................9
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application coupled to . . . and generating” ...............13
`
`“an adaptive noise removal application … generating denoised output
`signals by forming a plurality of combinations … by filtering and
`summing the plurality of combinations … and by a varying linear transfer
`function between the plurality of combinations” ...................................................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“microphone” .........................................................................................................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The dispute between the parties cannot be resolved by resorting to
`“plain and ordinary meaning.” ...................................................................18
`
`The intrinsic evidence and the understanding of a POSITA
`supports Samsung’s proposed construction. ..............................................19
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 1857Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`3.
`
`The extrinsic evidence also supports Samsung’s proposed
`construction. ...............................................................................................22
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“the one receiver”/“the two receivers” ..................................................................24
`
`“acoustic noise” .....................................................................................................28
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 07/07/22 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 1863Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`Term
`“a signal processor coupled
`with the first and second
`microphone signals and
`operative . . . to apply a
`varying linear transfer
`function between the first
`and second microphone
`signals” (’357 claim 1)
`
`“a processing component . . .
`applying a varying linear
`transfer function between the
`acoustic signals” (’080 claim
`14)3
`
`Samsung’s Position
`“a signal processor coupled with the
`first and second microphone signals
`and operative . . . to apply a varying
`linear transfer function to the first
`microphone signal and to apply the
`varying linear
`transfer function to the second
`microphone signal.”
`
`Otherwise indefinite
`“a processing component . . .
`applying a varying linear transfer
`function to the acoustic signals
`received from the first virtual
`microphone and applying the
`varying linear transfer function to
`the acoustic signals received from
`the second virtual microphone.”
`
`Otherwise indefinite
`
`Jawbone’s Position
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning except for
`“transfer function.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning except for
`“transfer function.”
`
`1.
`
`The dispute between the parties cannot be resolved by resorting to the
`“plain and ordinary meaning.”
`
`The issue for the Court to decide is what it means to “apply a varying linear transfer
`
`function between [two signals].” In the context of these patent claims, these terms have no plain
`
`and ordinary meaning and require construction to aid the jury. Kiaei Decl. at ¶57. Samsung’s
`
`proposed constructions are supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Jawbone, on the
`
`other hand, proposes to send this dispute to the jury with no guidance at all. Indeed, despite four
`
`pages of briefing and three pages of expert declaration, Jawbone never explains what it alleges
`
`the purported plain and ordinary meaning of these terms to be. Asked at his deposition what he
`
`would tell the Court if asked to explain the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms,
`
`Jawbone’s expert for claim construction, Dr. Brown, could do no better than answer that he
`
`
`3 Jawbone omitted this term and Samsung’s proposed construction from the table in its Opening
`Brief.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 07/07/22 Page 35 of 37 PageID #: 1889Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`analysis.” Pl. Br. at 21. But here, patentee acted as their own lexicographer, and that controls.16
`
`Kyocera, 22 F.4th at 1379.
`
`The lexicography in the ’091 patent is unmistakable, and Jawbone’s attempts to
`
`improperly limit “acoustic noise” should be rejected. The Court should therefore construe the
`
`“acoustic noise” term in the ’091 patent to mean “ any acoustic signal that is not desired.”
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed
`
`constructions.
`
`Dated: July 5, 2022
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Ali R. Sharifahmadian
`Jin-Suk Park
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Ali R. Sharifahmadian
`ali.sharifahmadian@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 942-5555
`
`Ryan M. Nishimoto
`ryan.nishimoto@arnoldporter.com
`Daniel S. Shimell
`daniel.shimell@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 243-4000
`Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
`
`
`
`16 Notably, in other co-pending cases, with respect to the ’072 patent (which Jawbone is no
`longer asserting in this case), Jawbone argues that “acoustic noise” should be construed as
`“unwanted environmental acoustic noise.” Ex. H (Jawbone’s Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, 6-21-cv-00985 (W.D. Tex.), DI 54 at 19);
`Ex. I (Jawbone’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple,
`Inc., 6-21-cv-00984 (W.D. Tex.), DI 65 at 19). “Unwanted” is no less complex or subjective than
`“not desired.”
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 07/07/22 Page 36 of 37 PageID #: 1890Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 73-2 Filed 07/13/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`-and-
`
`Melissa Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`