Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN 264717)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Rajeev Gupta (pro hac vice)
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`Cecilia Sanabria (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:
`(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile:
`(404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`OPENTV, INC., NAGRAVISION S.A., and
`NAGRA FRANCE S.A.S.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date: May 12, 2016
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Judge: Honorable Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .........................................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`THE ’736 PATENT .............................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“automatic and direct access” [Claims 1, 8, 9] ........................................................3
`
`“indicating” [Claims 1, 7-9] .....................................................................................5
`
`“means for extracting . . .” [Claim 9] .......................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The “Address Extractor” Stands as Sufficient Structure for “Means for
`Extracting” ...................................................................................................7
`
`The “Modem 54” Stands as Sufficient Structure for “Means for . . .
`Automatically Establishing” ........................................................................8
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’169 PATENT .............................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“directive . . .” [Claims 1, 2, 22, 23] ......................................................................10
`
`“prerequisite directive” [Claims 1, 2, 22, 23] ........................................................12
`
`“subset of said set of resources” [Claims 1, 22, 23] ..............................................13
`
`“wherein said prohibiting . . .” [Claim 12] ............................................................16
`
`“a processing unit . . .” [Claim 22] ........................................................................17
`
`Whether the preamble of claim 22 is limiting. [Claim 22] ....................................21
`
`V.
`
`THE ’740 PATENT ...........................................................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`“imprint of data” [Claim 1] ....................................................................................24
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................................22
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................21, 22
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................19
`
`CardioNet, Inc. v. Mednet Healthcare Techs., Inc.,
`No. CIV.A. 12-2517, 2013 WL 6047565 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2013) .............................................15
`
`CardioNet, Inc. v. ScottCare Corp,
`No. 2:12-CV-2516, 2014 WL 5090029 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2014) ...................................................15
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`No. 3:09-CV-620, 2010 WL 1779973 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2010) ..................................................15
`
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .....................................................................................................2, 4, 13, 17
`
`Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp.,
`No. C03-5665MHP, 2004 WL 5651036 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004) .............................................18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)........................................................................1, 2, 11, 12
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................................22
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................................18
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG.,
`318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................................2
`
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................................22
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................................22
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc.,
`827 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1987)........................................................................................................9
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................................25
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................16
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................................25
`
`Syncpoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-00247-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 55118 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) ...................................18
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................2
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .......................................................................................................................1
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................................1, 2
`
`In re Townshend Patent Litig.,
`No. C 02-04833 JF, 2004 WL 1920049 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2004) ..............................................15
`
`Verizon Cal. Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, P.A.,
`326 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .........................................................................................18
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..........................................................................................................2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................18
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Administrative Decisions
`
`InfoBionic, Inc. v. Braemar Mfg., LLC,
`IPR2015-01704, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2016) ..................................................................15
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00269, 2014 WL 2889586 (PTAB Jun. 24, 2014) ...........................................................4
`
`Travelers Lloyds of Tex. Ins. Co. v. Integrated Claims Sys., LLC,
`CBM2014-00187, 2015 WL 1519058 (PTAB Mar. 31, 2015) .....................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3 .......................................................................................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`American Heritage College Dictionary (1997) ...................................................................................13
`
`American Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 2000) .........................................................................13
`
`Compact Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1987) .............................................................................13
`
`IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000) ......................23, 24
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2001) ................................................................13
`
`Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. Unabridged 1987) ................................13
`
`Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2000)...................................................................13, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The parties identified ten terms for the Court to construe. Patent L.R. 4-3; Dkt. No. 74.
`
`OpenTV’s proposed constructions for these disputed terms follow the Federal Circuit’s framework
`
`for claim construction, stay true to the plain meaning of the claims and intrinsic evidence, and reflect
`
`the language the inventors used to describe their inventions. OpenTV respectfully requests the Court
`
`adopt its proposed constructions.
`
`Apple takes a different approach. For half the terms, Apple seeks to attack the validity of the
`
`claims, under the guise of claim construction, by asserting that the disputed terms are indefinite. For
`
`the other terms, Apple reads the claims out of context or proposes constructions that render other
`
`claim language superfluous. The phrasing used in the claims at issue, however, is clear and well
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art, and requires little, if any, further construction or
`
`rephrasing. Apple’s proposed constructions should accordingly be rejected.
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`While claim construction is a question of law, the words of the claims must be construed in
`
`view of their proper context and evidentiary underpinnings. See, e.g., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
`
`Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 838 (2015). Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” which “is the meaning that the term would have to 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) (internal citation omitted). There are only two exceptions to this general
`
`rule: (1) when a patentee acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee disclaims the full
`
`scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput.
`
`Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Both exceptions require a clear and explicit
`
`statement by the patentee. Id. at 1367-68. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly
`
`set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at
`
`1365. Likewise, any disclaimer must be clear and unmistakable. Id. at 1366-67.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art “is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context
`
`of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Proper claim construction requires an
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`analysis of the patent’s intrinsic evidence, i.e., the language of the claims, the specification, and the
`
`prosecution history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`For example, the patent’s specification “is always highly relevant” to claim-construction analysis, as
`
`it “necessarily informs the proper construction of the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315-16.
`
`“Usually, [the specification] is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. The specification also helps resolve ambiguous claim terms if “the
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit
`
`the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A court may also consider extrinsic evidence, but such
`
`evidence is less reliable and less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-18.
`
`It is improper, however, to read “unstated limitations” into the claim language, such as
`
`details that are disclosed in the specification but are not recited in the claims. See, e.g., Rambus Inc.
`
`v. Infineon Techs. AG., 318 F.3d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67. “We do
`
`not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent’s
`
`written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the invention
`
`or even describes only a single embodiment.” JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424
`
`F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Regarding the definiteness requirement, the Supreme Court has recently interpreted 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 “to require that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`
`certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while recognizing that
`
`absolute precision is unattainable.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129
`
`(2014).
`III. THE ’736 PATENT
`On February 8, 1996, inventor Thomas Wolzien filed an application that led to the issuance
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736. The ’736 Patent, titled “Media Online Service Access System and
`
`Method,” generally “relates to an electronic information access system and more specifically to a
`
`media online services access system which provides direct, automated access to an online
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`information provider through an address embedded in an electronic signal which carries a program
`
`segment (e.g., through television, radio, or a pre-recorded video or audio medium).” Ex. 1, ’736
`Patent, at 1:6-12.1
`Prior to the invention disclosed in the ’736 patent, the methods by which content providers
`
`could provide additional information to a user were more limited. In the prior art, “television and
`
`radio broadcasters [had] begun announcing an Internet address for viewer inquiries during the course
`
`of program transmission.” Id. at 1:25-28. But, as of the filing date “[n]o system yet exists which
`
`provides automated and direct user access to online information providers through an address
`
`embedded in a video or audio program signal.” Id. at 1:30-33. In contrast, the ’736 patent teaches a
`
`system allowing users to automatically access online information from within a video program,
`
`directly from the provider of the information, with minimal effort on the part of the user.
`A.
`
`“automatic and direct access” [Claims 1, 8, 9]
`
`OpenTV’s Proposal
`Claim Term
`“access without the user performing
`“automatic and direct
`additional steps which is direct from the
`access” /
`user’s perspective” / “electronically accessing
`“automatically and
`without the user performing additional steps
`directly electronically
`which is direct from the user’s perspective”
`accessing”
`OpenTV’s proposed constructions for the “automatic and direct access” terms are consistent
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`Indefinite
`
`with the specification and file history, and with the understanding of one of skill in the art. During
`
`prosecution, Applicant amended the pending claims after an examiner interview to expressly recite
`
`the “automatic” and “direct” limitations to overcome a rejection to U.S. Patent No. 5,818,441 to
`
`Throckmorton. Ex. 4, Response to Office Action at 1-2 (Dec. 5, 2000). Applicant stated: “it is
`
`important that the user not have to access links which are stored in a directory or access one of a
`
`series of links in a menu” as Throckmorton disclosed. Id. at 5. The “automatic and direct access”
`
`limitations, therefore, distinguish the claimed invention from systems like Throckmorton where the
`
`user has to perform additional steps, such as navigating through a directory or into a menu, to
`
`receive the access to online information.
`
`1 Exhibits refer to those attached to the accompanying Declaration of Rajeev Gupta.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`The ’736 patent’s specification is also consistent with OpenTV’s proposed construction. The
`
`Background section describes prior art systems where media broadcasters would merely “announc[e]
`
`an Internet address,” requiring users to turn to a different system and type in the address before
`
`receiving access to the online information. Ex. 1 at 1:15-30. The ’736 patent claims an improvement
`
`over this system, presenting the user with “automatic and direct access” to information without
`
`requiring additional steps to receive such access. Id. at 4:5-16, see also 3:9-15, 7:43-57, 8:60-65.
`
`The ’736 patent describes “direct” links from the user to an online information source. These
`
`links are direct from the user’s perspective and are described in the context of the “public Internet,”
`
`implicating standard Internet routing principles. Id. at 5:25-35. In addressing the claims at issue here,
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recognized that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that Internet routing involves various intermediaries inherent to Internet traffic
`
`routing.” Ex. 15, Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., IPR2014-00269, 2014 WL 2889586, at *8-9 (PTAB
`
`Jun. 24, 2014).
`
`Apple contends that the straightforward concept of “automatic and direct” access is
`
`indefinite. But there is no merit to Apple’s contention that a person of skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`would not have any “reasonable certainty” as to the meaning of these straightforward terms. See
`
`Nautilus, 134 S. Ct.at 2129. Indeed, the PTAB panel understood and discussed the “automatic” and
`
`“direct” phrases in the context of a prior inter partes review proceeding regarding the ’736 patent.
`
`See Ex. 15, IPR2014-00269, 2014 WL 2889586, at *7-10. Apple’s position that the terms are
`
`indefinite stands in direct conflict with the PTAB’s well-reasoned and competent discussion
`
`regarding the meaning of these terms. Just as the PTAB did, a POSA reading the claims and
`
`specification of the ’736 patent would recognize that the meaning of “automatic and direct” is
`
`consistent with OpenTV’s proposal. Ex. 14 at ¶¶ 31-36.
`
`Because the “automatic and direct” phrases have a clear meaning that would be understood
`
`by a POSA as construed by OpenTV, the Court should adopt OpenTV’s proposed construction.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“indicating” [Claims 1, 7-9]
`
`Claim Term
`“indicating”
`
`
`OpenTV’s Proposal
`“providing an automatic
`visual, auditory, or tactile
`indication”
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`In the alternative, “providing a visual,
`auditory, or tactile indication.”
`
`The claimed inventions include an “indicating” element, which informs a user that online
`
`information is available. The parties agree that “indicating” requires providing a visual, auditory, or
`
`tactile indication. The only dispute is whether this indication is “automatic.” The specification, the
`
`claims, and the prosecution history of the ’736 patent are all consistent with an automatic indication.
`
`First, the specification consistently refers to indications being provided to the user
`
`automatically. The specification expressly discloses “a visual or auditory indicator, . . . which is
`
`automatically displayed or sounded . . . .” See Ex. 1 at 9:16-29 (emphasis added). This express
`
`disclosure is consistent with the specification’s general discussion of the invention’s automatic
`
`delivery of the indicator. For instance, the specification states that the system “signals the user that
`
`more information relating to the program is available,” or that the indicator specifically is used to
`
`“signal the user that an address of an online provider has been stored and that additional information
`
`is available.” See id. at 6:8-25; see also 6:40-44, 7:54-57. The notion that an indicator would signal
`
`the user regarding available access is consistent with an automatic indication. By “signaling” a user
`
`that online access is available, it is clear that the user does not have to perform any action in order to
`
`receive the indication. Rather, the indication is automatic.
`
`Second, the preamble of each independent claim in which the “indicating” term appears
`
`requires “automatic and direct” access to online information. See id. at 9:49, 10:28, 10:44. Because
`
`“indicating” is the step or vehicle by which a user learns that access to online information is
`
`available, only an automatic indication would be consistent with the preamble. Apple’s
`
`construction—which would require the user to do something to trigger the indication—is
`
`inconsistent with the plain language of the claim.
`
`Third, an automatic indication is consistent with the prosecution history. Again, Applicant
`
`overcame the Throckmorton rejection by adding the “automatic and direct” language to the claims.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`Ex. 4 at 5. In Throckmorton, the indication of access to online information was not automatic—the
`
`user only received the indication by clicking through menus to find the link. Accordingly, Applicant
`
`made clear that the “indicating” phrase in the claims must be the automatic provision of a visual,
`
`auditory, or tactile indication. See, e.g., id. (the “‘indicating’ step provides a subtle function of
`
`alerting the user that more content is directly and automatically available to the user through a
`
`simple user command.”).
`
`Because OpenTV’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification, the claim
`
`language, and the prosecution history, the Court should adopt OpenTV’s proposed construction.
`C.
`
`“means for extracting . . .” [Claim 9]
`
`Claim Term
`“means for extracting an
`address associated with an
`online information source
`from an information signal
`embedded in said
`electronic signal, and for
`automatically establishing,
`in response to a user
`initiated command, a direct
`link with the online
`information source”
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`
`OpenTV’s Proposal
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`Function (agreed):
`“extracting an address associated with an online information source
`from an information signal embedded in an electronic signal, and
`automatically establishing, in response to a user initiated command,
`a direct link with the online information source”
`Structure:
`Structure:
`“access controller, provided with an
`Insufficient disclosure
`address extractor including hardware
`of structure;
`and/or software, that detects, decodes,
`indefinite
`and/or stores an address signal sent with a
`video signal and provided with a modem
`with hardware and/or software to
`automatically establish a direct digital
`communication link, and equivalents
`thereof”
`
`The parties agree this term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and agree on the claimed
`
`function. The parties dispute whether the patent discloses sufficient structure to satisfy the statutory
`
`requirements of § 112, ¶ 6. OpenTV submits that it does. This claim phrase includes two claimed
`
`functions: (1) “means for extracting. . .” and (2) “means for . . . automatically establishing . . . .” The
`
`specification discloses an “address extractor” that corresponds to the first function and a “modem
`
`54” that corresponds to the second function. The specification further discloses an access controller
`
`that includes both the address extractor and the modem. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at Fig. 2, 5:42-60, 6:59-65;
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Ex. 14 at ¶¶ 37-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The “Address Extractor” Stands as Sufficient Structure for “Means for
`Extracting”
`First, the specification discloses an “address extractor” as the structure corresponding to the
`
`claimed function of “means for extracting.” See, e.g., Ex. 1 at 5:42-6:7, 6:27-33, 7:21-53. The
`
`specification states that “[a]ddress extraction [sic] 42 is constructed to electronically store, e.g., via a
`
`register or memory device (not shown), the detected address for use in accessing the online services
`
`provider at the selection of the user.” Id. at 5:57-60. The ’736 patent describes the address extraction
`
`process for both analog and digital systems. In an analog system, the address extractor obtains the
`
`address from a specific part of a television signal called the vertical blanking interval. See, e.g., id. at
`
`2:23-30, 5:48-53. In such a system, the extractor will process the signal to physically discern the
`
`links or information from the analog signal. Id.
`
`In a digital system, the extraction is at once simpler and more complex. With the benefit of a
`
`digital computer system, the incoming digital signal code can be read directly by a program to
`
`extract the address and store it in a memory location. See, e.g. id. at 6:1-7, 7:21-32. The specification
`
`describes the address extractor as part of its improvement over the prior art. In the prior art,
`
`information could be encoded in a video signal and provided to a user. See, e.g., id. at 2:23-58. Such
`
`prior art systems, however, were limited to information sources directly available through the cable
`
`or broadcast provider. Part of the patented improvement to that system is the ability to connect a user
`
`directly to the online information provider by extracting an online address from a video program. Id.
`
`at 2:63-3:14.
`
`Figures 2 and 3 of the ’736 patent (shown below) describe the context of the structure
`
`performing the “means for extracting” in more detail. As would be understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, Figure 2 shows the “internal construction of access controller 10,” which
`
`contains an “address extractor 42.” Id. at 5:42-43; Ex. 14 at ¶ 38. An electronic signal 12 is shown
`
`incoming to address extractor block 42, and the address extractor block 42 provides the address
`
`(1) to modem 54 via signal line 52, (2) to the indicator signal generator 46 via signal line 44 if an
`
`indication is to be provided to the user, and (3) to the processor 58 via signal line 55. Ex. 1 at 7:13-
`
`16, 7:32-35. Similarly, Figure 3 discloses an alternative embodiment, where the access controller is
`
`used with a computer. Id. at 8:14-16. Similar to Figure 2, the address extractor 142 is shown
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 81 Filed 03/29/16 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`receiving a signal 12 and outputting an address to the indicator signal generator 146 or to the output
`
`interface 166 to the computer 164. Id. at 8:14-36.
`
`
`These figures, coupled with the description in the specification, disclose a particular structure
`
`for performing the claimed “means for extracting” functionality, as required by § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`2.
`
`The “Modem 54” Stands as Sufficient Structure for “Means for . . .
`Automatically Establishing”
`
`Turning next to “means for . . . automatically establishing . . .,” the specification discloses
`
`“modem 54” as structure corresponding to this claimed function. The ’736 patent describes that the
`
`system “provide[s] and receive[s] transmission of digital information signals through modem 54 to
`
`the online information provider, thereby enabling interactive user access. . . .” Ex. 1 at 6:53-56. The
`
`patent goes on to describe that “[i]f the user wants to access the online information provider . . .
`
`[u]nder appropriate software or hardware control, the address [of the online information provider] is
`
`transmitted via modem 54 over network 30 to an online information provider, e.g., 34c.” Ex. 1 at
`
`7:43