`Case No. 6:21-cv-955-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-1101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-1104-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 39
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSOLIDATED OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 39
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................. ii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`II. 
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,174,360 (THE ’360 PATENT) ........................................................ 1 
`A. 
`Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 
`B. 
`Agreed constructions .............................................................................................. 1 
`C. 
`Disputed terms for construction .............................................................................. 2 
`“a measuring device for monitoring a property of the transmission
`1. 
`oscillator which outputs a control signal when ascertaining a
`change of the monitored property, the monitored property of the
`transmission oscillator includes the frequency or impedance of the
`transmission oscillator in resonance” (claim 1) .......................................... 2 
`“a control signal” (claims 1, 11, and 15) .................................................... 7 
`2. 
`“bandwidth” (claim 2) ................................................................................. 9 
`3. 
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,205,249 (THE ’249 PATENT) ...................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Overview ............................................................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Disputed terms for construction ............................................................................ 13 
`“an inherently relatively lower quality and an inherently relatively
`1. 
`higher quality from a security perspective” (claims 1 and 10) ................. 13 
`“a security-establishing operation ... comprising the steps of”
`(claim 1) .................................................................................................... 19 
`“the portable data carrier is arranged to perform a user
`authentication . . . to confirm the authentication to a terminal,
`and . . . to create quality information about said user authentication
`method used and to attach such quality information to the result of
`the security establishing operation” (claim 10) ........................................ 24 
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706 (The ’706 Patent) ................................................................... 27 
`A. 
`Overview ............................................................................................................... 27 
`B. 
`Disputed term for construction ............................................................................. 28 
`1. 
`“security module” (claim 18) .................................................................... 28 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`III. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 39
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Shorthand
`’360 patent
`’249 patent
`’706 patent
`Caloyannides Decl.
`’360 Pros. Hist.
`Finkenzeller
`
`Black Decl.
`’249 Pros. Hist.
`Russo
`Anderson
`O’Gorman
`
`Bolle
`
`Hurford
`Vitto
`’883 patent
`’738 patent
`Amer. Heritage
`Oxford
`Webster’s
`Huchinson & Welz
`
`Ganger
`
`Al-Muhtadi
`
`Ex. No. Description
`1
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360
`2
`U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249
`3
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`4
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Caloyannides
`5
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (Excerpted)
`6
`Finkenzeller, RFID Handbook: Radio-Frequency
`Identification Fundamentals and Applications (1999)
`Declaration of Dr. John Black
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249 (Excerpted)
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20030101348 to Russo et al.
`Ross Anderson, Security Engineering (1st ed. 2001)
`Lawrence O'Gorman, Securing Business’s Front Door –
`Password, Token, and Biometric Authentication (2002)
`Ruud M. Bolle et al., Biometric perils and patches, 35 Pattern
`Recognition 2727 (Oct. 2001)
`Hurford, Grammar: A Student’s Guide (1994)
`13
`Vitto, Grammar by Diagram (2003)
`14
`U.S. Patent No. 8,695,883
`15
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,738
`16
`American Heritage Dict. of the Eng. Lang. (3d ed. 1992)
`17
`Oxford English Dictionary (1961)
`18
`19 Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (2002)
`20
`Andrew Hutchinson & Marc Welz, Incremental Security in
`Open, Untrusted Networks, Future Trends in Distributed
`Computer Systems 151–154 (Nov. 1999)
`Gregory R. Ganger, Authentication Confidences (Apr. 28,
`2001)
`Jalal Al-Muhtadi et al., A Flexible, Privacy-Preserving
`Authentication Framework for Ubiquitous Computing
`Environments, Proceedings 22nd International Conference on
`Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (July 2002)
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 39
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................9
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d at 1318 ........................................................................................................................6
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.,
`663 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................................17
`
`Grecia v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`780 F. App’x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................3
`
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`865 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................20
`
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-522, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) ...............................................14
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00382-JRG, 2021 WL 3200993 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2021) ...................................4
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................3
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................8, 19
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................29
`
`Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................25
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...........................................................................................................13, 19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 5 of 39
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................25, 26
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................8, 9, 19
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................ passim
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pac. Keystone Techs., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................23
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................3
`
`Rovi Guides v. Comcast Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-9278, 2017 WL 3447989 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017) ..............................................14
`
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................8, 21
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................27
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................14
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................29
`
`Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................9
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................26
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................2, 3, 5, 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2181 ...................................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 6 of 39
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Samsung”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and Google LLC (“Google”) (collectively “Defendants”)
`
`respectfully submit this Opening Claim Construction and ask the Court to adopt their
`
`constructions for the reasons set forth below.
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,174,360 (THE ’360 PATENT)
`A.
`
`Overview
`
`The ’360 patent (Ex. 1) is directed to a communication component for automatically
`
`setting up a data connection between two devices (e.g., a reader terminal and a mobile device)
`
`using minimal energy consumption. Ex. 1, Abstract, 2:6-9. The patent explains that Near Field
`
`Communication (“NFC”) was known technology for automatically setting up a data connection
`
`between devices “as simpl[y] as possible,” id., 1:11-17, but contends that the standard practice of
`
`cyclically emitting search signals to detect another device within range “causes a relatively high
`
`constant power consumption,” id., 1:28-36. The ’360 patent purports to address that power
`
`consumption problem by emitting search signals in a communication mode only “when a
`
`property change in a transmission oscillator . . . has been detected by a means of a measuring
`
`device.” Id., 2:11-15. In particular, the ’360 patent recites a switching element for connecting
`
`and disconnecting the communication element from an energy source in response to a control
`
`signal from the measuring device. E.g., id., cl. 1.
`
`B.
`
`Agreed constructions
`
`The parties agree to the following constructions for the ’360 patent:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 7 of 39
`
`Term
`“a switching apparatus …which switches on
`the communication element…by connecting
`the communication element to an energy
`source” (claim 1);
`“switching on the communication element by
`a switching apparatus…by connecting the
`communication element to an energy source”
`(claim 15)
`
`Agreed Construction
`“a switch which physically connects and
`disconnects the energy source from the
`communication element”
`
`“switching on the communication element
`using a switch which physically connects and
`disconnects the energy source from the
`communication element”
`
`C.
`
`Disputed terms for construction
`1.
`
`“a measuring device for monitoring a property of the transmission
`oscillator which outputs a control signal when ascertaining a change
`of the monitored property, the monitored property of the
`transmission oscillator includes the frequency or impedance of the
`transmission oscillator in resonance” (claim 1)
`
`
`
`Aire’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`Apple’s and Google’s Proposed Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Function: monitoring a property of the transmission
`oscillator, and outputting a control signal when ascertaining
`a change of the monitored property, wherein the monitored
`property of the transmission oscillator includes the
`frequency or impedance of the transmission oscillator in
`resonance
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`
`The Apple and Google Defendants contend that the “measuring device” limitation of
`
`claim 1 (and all claims depending therefrom), is indefinite because (a) the limitation is governed
`
`by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6 (means-plus-function), and (b) the specification fails to disclose adequate
`
`corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions.
`
`A “measuring device for” performing a recited function should be interpreted
`
`pursuant to § 112 ¶ 6. In determining whether Section 112 ¶ 6 applies, “[t]he 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 8 of 39
`
`F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Although there is a rebuttable presumption
`
`that a claim element that does not use the word “means” does not invoke § 112 ¶ 6, that
`
`“presumption can be overcome . . . [if] the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that
`
`function.’” Id. at 1348-49 (citation omitted).
`
`In the ’360 patent, the “measuring device” is claimed in functional terms as a “device
`
`for” performing a recited function: “monitoring a property of the transmission oscillator . . . .”
`
`The question therefore becomes whether a “measuring device” recites sufficiently definite
`
`structure. Id. For the reasons explained below, it does not.
`
`First, as the Federal Circuit has repeatedly recognized, the word “device” is a non-
`
`structural “nonce” word, akin to the term “means.” Id. at 1350 (“Generic terms such as . . .
`
`‘device,’ . . . that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner
`
`that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’”); Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d
`
`1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]this court has found the word ‘device’ to be a non-structural,
`
`‘nonce’ word.”); MPEP § 2181 (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders
`
`that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): . . . ‘device for,’ . . . .”).
`
`Second, “the prefix [‘measuring’] does not impart structure into the term.” Williamson,
`
`792 F.3d at 1351 (holding that “distributed learning control module” is governed by § 112 ¶ 6).
`
`Rather, the prefix “measuring” references the function of the claim—measuring a change in
`
`frequency or impedance. See, e.g., Grecia v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 780 F. App’x 912, 915
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Nor does the prefix ‘customization’ impart structure, because it at best
`
`describes the module’s intended functionality.”); Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin.
`
`Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We have never found that the term
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 9 of 39
`
`‘mechanism’—without more—connotes an identifiable structure; certainly, merely adding the
`
`modifier ‘compliance’ to that term would not do so either.”); Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Peloton
`
`Interactive, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00382-JRG, 2021 WL 3200993, at *19 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2021)
`
`(holding that the term “mechanism that measures the rider’s cadence” did not recite sufficiently
`
`definite structure).1 Dr. Caloyannides confirmed in his declaration (Ex. 4) that, at the time of
`
`the alleged invention (and even today), a “measuring device” was not a known structure or class
`
`of structures, let alone a term of art with a commonly understood meaning. Ex. 4, ¶ 43.
`
`Third, the ’360 patent’s specification does not impart structural significance to the words
`
`“measuring device.” Ex. 4, Caloyannides Decl., ¶ 46-53. To the contrary, “measuring device” is
`
`described as being any hardware or software, rather than a specific structure: “Like the switching
`
`apparatus 15, 25, the components of the measuring device 14, 24 can be realized discretely, as
`
`circuits or in the form of software programs.” Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 4:66-5:1.
`
`Finally, the language following “device for”—“monitoring a property of the transmission
`
`oscillator which outputs a control signal when ascertaining a change of the monitored property,
`
`the monitored property of the transmission oscillator includes the frequency or impedance of the
`
`transmission oscillator in resonance”—is entirely functional and does not impart sufficient
`
`structural character to the claim term. The context of this subsequent claim language supports
`
`interpreting the clause “measuring device for” pursuant to § 112 ¶ 6. See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted
`
`claim can be highly instructive.”).
`
`
`1 The holding in Mad Dogg is particularly apropos here because a rider’s cadence (the number of
`revolutions over a particular time period) is akin to frequency (the rate at which something
`occurs over a particular time period)—and monitoring the frequency of an oscillator is part of the
`function of the “measuring device” of claim 1. See infra.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 10 of 39
`
`The claimed “measuring device” is indefinite because the specification fails to
`
`disclose adequate corresponding structure for implementing the claimed function.
`
`Construing a term governed by § 112 ¶ 6 is a two-step process. First, the Court must identify
`
`the claimed function. Second, the Court must identify what structure, if any, disclosed in the
`
`specification corresponds to that claimed function. “If the patentee fails to disclose adequate
`
`corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 352. To be “adequate
`
`corresponding structure,” the specification must “clearly link[] or associate[] that structure to be
`
`the function recited in the claim.” Id. (citation omitted). Whether the specification clearly links
`
`structure to the claimed function is determined from the viewpoint of a POSITA. Id.
`
`The claimed function in claim 1 of the ’360 patent is “monitoring a property of the
`
`transmission oscillator, and outputting a control signal when ascertaining a change of the
`
`monitored property, wherein the monitored property of the transmission oscillator includes the
`
`frequency or impedance of the transmission oscillator in resonance.” Because the specification
`
`does not adequately disclose structure for implementing this claimed function, as explained
`
`below, claim 1 and its dependent claims are indefinite.
`
`First, to the extent that Aire asserts that the elements labeled in box 14, 24 of Figure 2 set
`
`forth the structure of a “measuring device,” such structure is inadequate for achieving the
`
`claimed functions of monitoring frequency or impedance, ascertaining a change in them, and
`
`outputting a control signal.2 All that box 14, 24 shows is a transmission oscillator 12, 23 and
`
`
`2 Figure 1 also depicts the “measuring device” as elements 14, 24, which are shown only as the
`proverbial “black box.” Accordingly, Figure 1 also fails to disclose adequate structure as a
`matter of law. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`(“The [proposed structure] is essentially a black box that performs a recited function. But how it
`does so is left undisclosed.”). In fact, the specification states that the “measuring device” may be
`any circuit or software, without disclosing any particular circuit or software. Ex. 1, 4:66-5:1.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 11 of 39
`
`certain electrical components, such as switch 47 and capacitor 48 (which do none of the recited
`
`monitoring, ascertaining, or outputting) and a black box “measuring unit” 46 (which is not a
`
`name of known structure and is described generically and broadly as being “equipped with a
`
`certain [unspecified] intelligence and designed to execute [unspecified] software program
`
`routines.”). Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 5:1-3; Ex. 4, Caloyannides Decl., ¶ 49, 51-53. Critically, there is
`
`no disclosure of an algorithm by which that “measuring unit” 46 is programmed. Id., ¶ 52;
`
`Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318 (holding term indefinite where “beyond the program’s
`
`function . . . no algorithm is disclosed”). Moreover, the specification states that “[t]he measuring
`
`unit 46 then performs a measurement of the monitored oscillating circuit property and stores the
`
`measuring value.” Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 7:39-41. This disclosure simply restates the measuring
`
`device’s function as opposed to identifying any corresponding structure. This renders the claim
`
`indefinite. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 352; Ex. 4, ¶ 57, 59.
`
`Second, neither Figures 5 nor 7 disclose structure corresponding to the “measuring
`
`device” of claim 1 of the ’360 patent. Rather, Figures 5 and 7 depict an embodiment of the
`
`“measuring unit,” not the claimed “measuring device.” See Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 3:9-14. The
`
`specification makes clear that the “measuring unit” is not synonymous with the “measuring
`
`device”; those terms are used separately throughout the patent.3 See id., 4:57-59; Ex. 4,
`
`Caloyannides Decl. ¶ 57. In addition, Figures 5 and 7 depict a PLL, or phase locked loop,
`
`circuit. Ex. 1, 8:11-14; Ex. 4, ¶ 58. A POSITA would have understood, and the specification
`
`explains, that a phased lock loop circuit as depicted in Figures 5 and 7 monitors the phase of a
`
`
`3 The ’360 patent’s specification states that the measuring unit is a discrete component of the
`measuring device. Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 4:57-59 (“The essential element of the measuring device
`14, 24 is a measuring unit 46 which is switchable on and off by means of the switch 44 of the
`switching apparatus 15, 25.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 12 of 39
`
`signal to ascertain a change in phase. Ex. 1, 9:17-21; Ex. 4, ¶ 58-59. In contrast, the function of
`
`claim 1 requires monitoring and ascertaining a change in the frequency or impedance of the
`
`transmission oscillator. Phase is not the same as frequency or impedance. Id., ¶ 59.
`
`Because the specification does not disclose adequate corresponding structure clearly
`
`linked to the claimed function, claim 1 and its dependent claims are indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`“a control signal” (claims 1, 11, and 15)
`
`Aire’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`The ’360 patent’s independent claims recite outputting (claim 1) and producing (claim
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a signal that is or contains a command.”
`
`15) a “control signal.” According to the claims, a switching apparatus receives the “control
`
`signal” and switches on a communication element in response to the “control signal.” The
`
`“control signal” thus causes the switching apparatus to turn on a communication element.
`
`The usage of the term “control signal” in the intrinsic record dictates that its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to a POSITA would have been “a signal that is or contains a command.” For
`
`example, the specification explains that “[i]f a change in the oscillating circuit property occurs at
`
`any frequency within the frequency domain swept, the measuring unit 46 transmits a control
`
`signal to the actuator 43 for executing the steps ff.” Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 7:8-11 (emphasis
`
`added). While the specification does not describe the contents or structure of the control signal,
`
`in each instance the control signal is described as causing the performance of a function. See
`
`also id., 6:63-66 (“When the measuring unit 46 has detected a change in the observed oscillating
`
`circuit property, it transmits a corresponding control signal to the actuator 43, whereupon the
`
`actuator 43 executes the steps 102 ff.”), 7:67-8:3 (“The measuring unit 46 then transmits a
`
`corresponding control signal to the actuator 43, whereupon the actuator 43 puts the
`
`communication apparatus 1, 2, 3 in the search mode.”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 13 of 39
`
`Defendants’ plain-meaning interpretation is also consistent with applicants’ statements in
`
`prosecution. During prosecution, a patent examiner rejected the claims as obvious over various
`
`prior art, including a prior art reference called Charrat, on the basis that Charrat discloses, among
`
`other things, “a switching apparatus which is connected to the measuring device and the
`
`communication element and which switches on the communication element when it has received
`
`a control signal from the measuring device.” Ex. 5, ’360 Pros. Hist., AIRE-SAMS-00000275-
`
`276 (emphasis added). In response, to overcome that prior art rejection, applicants argued that
`
`while Charrat “describes the microprocessor as having various ports,” “none of these ports . . .
`
`are shown or described as being used to issue a circuit power down command or to power down
`
`a circuit.” Id., AIRE-SAMS-00000410 (emphasis added). Accordingly, a POSITA would
`
`understand that a “control signal” is or contains a command. See Springs Window Fashions LP
`
`v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The public notice function of a patent
`
`and its prosecution history requires that a patentee be held to what he declares during the
`
`prosecution of his patent.”).
`
`Aire’s position that no construction is needed because the term should be given its plain
`
`meaning, while at the same time opposing Defendants’ explanation of this term’s plain meaning,
`
`demonstrates that there is a dispute that must be resolved. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Where the parties raise an actual
`
`dispute regarding the scope of the[] claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that dispute.”).
`
`While Aire has yet to disclose what its understanding of plain meaning is, to the extent that
`
`understanding implies that a control signal could be any signal, that would improperly read the
`
`word “control” out of the claims altogether, and should be rejected. See Merck & Co., Inc. v.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 14 of 39
`
`meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not so so.”); see also Bicon,
`
`Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laims are interpreted with an eye
`
`toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”); Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental
`
`Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“It is highly disfavored to construe
`
`terms in a way that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.”). Only Defendants’
`
`interpretation includes the notion of “control” while Aire’s interpretation seems to disregard it.
`
`3.
`
`“bandwidth” (claim 2)
`
`Aire’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`The term “bandwidth” had an established meaning in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“range of frequencies used to communicate”
`
`invention and has that same meaning today: “a range of frequencies used to communicate.”
`
`Aire, however, refuses to acknowledge this understood definition, making claim construction
`
`necessary. O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362 (“When the parties present a fundamental dispute
`
`regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.”). “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.” Id. at 1361.
`
`The claim language itself supports Defendants’ construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314
`
`(“Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims themselves
`
`provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms. . . . To begin with, the
`
`context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.”). In relevant
`
`part, claim 1 requires a “transmission oscillator for carrying out a contactless data exchange . . .
`
`the monitored property of the transmission oscillator includes the frequency[.]” Ex. 1, ’360
`
`patent, cl. 1. Claim 2 adds, “an assembly that is switchable to the transmission oscillator via a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05/19/22 Page 15 of 39
`
`switch, said assembly causing an increase in the bandwidth of the oscillating circuit.” Id., cl. 2.
`
`The claim clearly shows that a property of the transmission oscillator includes the “frequency.”
`
`And that is precisely what the well-known term “bandwidth” in claim 2 is referring to.
`
`Moreover, it is clear from the claim language that this range of frequencies is “used to
`
`communicate” because the claim states that the transmission oscillator carries out a “data
`
`exchange” (i.e., communicates).
`
`This well-known meaning is confirmed by the inventor of the patent (Dr. Klaus
`
`Finkenzeller). Specifically, the patent describes a “worsening of the quality factor Q of the
`
`transmission oscillator 50, but at the same time causes an increase in the bandwidth B available
`
`for a data transmission in the transmission oscillator 50, since it applies to the relation between
`
`quality factor Q and bandwidth B that Bl/Q.” Ex. 1, ’360 patent, 5:44-49; see also id., 2:34-35
`
`(explaining that there is an “increase [in] the bandwidth of the transmission oscillator while
`
`reducing the quality factor.”); see also id., 5:19-21 (describing “an increase in the bandwidth
`
`while simultaneously reducing the oscillating circuit quality factor.”). In his book RFID
`
`Handbook: Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals and Applications (1999), Dr.
`
`Finkenzeller describes this exact same concept, stating:
`
`
`
`Ex. 6, Finkenzeller, DEF-AIRE-EXTRINSIC00000207. Dr. Finkenzeller then explains that
`
`“[t]he bandwidth B determines a frequency range[.]” Id. This confirms that the plain meaning
`
`of “bandwidth” is a range of frequencies. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“Ultimately, the
`
`interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding
`
`of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim” (citation
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 31 Filed 05