Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 152 PageID #: 5500
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
` CASE NO. 5:11-CV-53-JRG
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., and
`GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORP.,
` Plaintiffs
`,
`
`
`v.
`
`TIVO, INC.,
` Defendant
`.
`
`___________________________________
`
`TIVO, INC.,
` Counterclaim
`
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORP., TIME
`WARNER CABLE INC., and TIME
`WARNER CABLE LLC.,
` Counterclaim
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instruments
`
`
`
`Corporation’s (collectively, “Motorola’s”) Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 173).
`
`Also before the Court are Defendant TiVo, Inc.’s (“TiVo’s”) response (Dkt. No. 182) and
`
`Motorola’s reply (Dkt. No. 189).
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Counterclaim Plaintiff TiVo’s P.R. 4-5(a) Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 177). Also before the Court is the response of Counterclaim
`
`Defendants Time Warner Cable Inc. and Time Warner Cable LLC (collectively, “TWC”) and
`
`Motorola (Dkt. No. 183). Further before the Court is TiVo’s reply (Dkt. No. 190).
`
`The Court held a claim construction hearing on November 27, 2012.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 152
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG 1014
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 2 of 152 PageID #: 5501
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4 
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4 
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS ........................................................................ 9 
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “MOTOROLA” PATENTS .... 10 
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,304,714 ................................................................................................. 10 
`(1) “trick modes” (Claim 2) ............................................................................................................... 12 
`(2) “high-capacity archival medium” and “high-access storage device” (Claims 1-4, 9 & 10) ........ 14 
`(3) “maintaining the level of fullness of the input and output buffers to prevent said input and
`output buffers from underflowing or overflowing” (Claims 1-3 & 9) ............................................... 18 
`(4) “. . . appear simultaneous” (Claims 1-4, 9 & 10) ......................................................................... 21 
`(5) “means for selecting . . .” (Claim 10) .......................................................................................... 24 
`(6) “means for transferring . . .” (Claim 10) ...................................................................................... 37 
`(7) “means for maintaining the level of fullness of the input and output buffers to prevent said
`input and output buffers from underflowing or overflowing” (Claim 10) ......................................... 41 
`(8) “means for interleaving . . .” (Claim 10) ..................................................................................... 44 
`(9) “means for receiving the first program data and storing the received first program data into
`the input buffer” and “means for reading the second program data from the output buffer”
`(Claim 10) .......................................................................................................................................... 47 
`B. U.S. Patents No. 5,949,948 and 6,356,708 ........................................................................ 50 
`(1) “A system for decoding and displaying compressed video data on a display device” (‘948
`Patent, Claim 1) and “A system for providing compressed video data in a controlled sequence,
`the system receiving the compressed video data from a compressed program source” (‘948
`Patent, Claim 16) ................................................................................................................................ 51 
`(2) “a storage device for storing the compressed video data” and “the storage and playback
`controller coupled to communicate with the storage device” (’948 Patent, Claims 1, 6, 16 &
`20)....................................................................................................................................................... 52 
`(3) “the compressed video data not being specially [specifically] formatted to facilitate a high
`speed playback mode” (’948 Patent, Claims 1, 6, 16 & 20)............................................................... 56 
`(4) “a transition interval between a current playback mode and a desired playback mode”
`(‘948 Patent, Claims 1 & 6) and “detecting a playback transition instruction (‘708 Patent,
`Claims 1, 9 & 11) ............................................................................................................................... 60 
`(5) “discarding the compressed video data until receipt of a next independent picture data”
`(’948 Patent, Claims 1 & 6) and “inhibiting forwarding the encoded data until receipt of data
`corresponding to a frame of the first frame type” (‘708 Patent, Claim 1) .......................................... 65 
`(6) “table maintenance means . . .” (’948 Patent, Claims 6, 16 & 20) .............................................. 72 
`(7) Order of Steps (‘708 Patent, Claims 1, 9 & 11) ........................................................................... 79 
`(8) “stepping through the encoded data on a frame-by-frame basis” (’708 Patent, Claims 1, 9
`& 11) .................................................................................................................................................. 79 
`(9) “granting forwarding permission for the frames of the second frame type upon determining
`from the transition instruction that the frames of the second frame type are to be provided for
`decoding” (’708 Patent, Claim 11) ..................................................................................................... 80 
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “TIVO” PATENTS ................... 80 
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 ................................................................................................. 81 
`(1) “A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data” (Claim 31) and
`“An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data” (Claim 61)............. 82 
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 152 PageID #: 5502
`
`(2) “parses,” “parses video and audio data from said broadcast data,” “physical data source . . .
`parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and
`audio data” (Claims 31 & 61) ............................................................................................................. 82 
`(3) “input device” (Claims 31 & 61) ................................................................................................. 89 
`(4) “object,” “source object,” “sink object,” and “control object” (Claims 31 & 61) ....................... 91 
`(5) “wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source”
`and “said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said
`streams” (Claims 31 & 61) ................................................................................................................. 98 
`(6) “transform object,” “wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said
`transform object,” “wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform
`object,” and “automatically flow controlled” (Claims 31 & 61) ...................................................... 101 
`(7) “obtains a buffer” and “obtains data stream buffers” (Claims 31 & 61) ................................... 107 
`(8) “control the flow of the broadcast data through the system,” “physical data source,” and
`“accepts broadcast data” (Claims 31 & 61) ...................................................................................... 109 
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,529,465 ................................................................................................ 111 
`(1) “video segment” and “video segment identifying information” (Claims 1 & 10) ..................... 112 
`(2) “frame step” (Claims 1 & 10) .................................................................................................... 114 
`(3) “to cause delivery of selected video segments to an output subsystem,” “output
`subsystem,” and “module” (Claims 1, 10 & 17) .............................................................................. 118 
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,792,195 ............................................................................................... 119 
`(1) “cache access means for selecting a portion of the linear cache for streaming access to
`information stored therein” (Claim 58) ............................................................................................ 120 
`(2) “cache control means for controlling a rate of said streaming access to said linear cache”
`and “wherein said cache control means controls a rate and direction of said streaming access”
`(Claim 58) ........................................................................................................................................ 125 
`(3) “synchronization means for synchronizing streamed information from said linear cache for
`delivery to said cache access means” (Claim 58) ............................................................................. 130 
`(4) “said linear cache maintains a window that represents a time span into a past history of
`said data stream that includes a most recently stored portion of said data stream” (Claim 58) ....... 136 
`(5) “discards” (Claim 58) ................................................................................................................ 138 
`(6) “stream capture means for capturing information for a particular data stream and encoding
`said information before storing said information in said linear cache” (Claim 60) ......................... 142 
`(7) “presentation means for presenting the streaming access from said cache access means to a
`storage device” (Claim 64) ............................................................................................................... 145 
`(8) “current block indicator” (Claims 73 & 75) .............................................................................. 149 
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 151 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 4 of 152 PageID #: 5503
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Motorola brings suit alleging infringement of the following United States Patents
`
`(collectively, “the Motorola Patents”):
`
`5,949,948 (“the ‘948 Patent”)
`6,304,714 (“the ‘714 Patent”)
`6,356,708 (“the ‘708 Patent”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 86, 4/30/2012 Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 1 & 27-53.)
`
`
`
`TiVo has counterclaimed, alleging infringement by Motorola of the following United
`
`States Patents (collectively, “the TiVo Patents”):
`
`6,233,389 (“the ‘389 Patent”)
`7,529,465 (“the ‘465 Patent”)
`6,792,195 (“the ‘195 Patent”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 73, 3/26/2012 Amended Counterclaims, at ¶¶ 88-90 & 111-149.) TiVo’s Amended
`
`Counterclaims also accuse TWC of distributing infringing set-top digital video recorder
`
`(“DVR”) boxes made by Motorola. (See generally Dkt. No. 129, 7/18/2012 Memorandum
`
`Opinion and Order (denying motion to sever and stay TiVo’s counterclaims against TWC).)
`
`
`
`The patents-in-suit relate to digital video recording and playback and frequently refer to
`
`the widely-used “MPEG” (Moving Pictures Experts Group) standard for compressed digital
`
`video and audio.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right
`
`which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the
`
`protected invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 5 of 152 PageID #: 5504
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996).
`
`
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent’s claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. “One
`
`purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of
`
`the claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips,
`
`the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims. In
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 6 of 152 PageID #: 5505
`
`particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the
`
`patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (emphasis added) (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “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, i.e., as
`
`of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law
`
`flows naturally from the recognition that inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the
`
`field of the invention and that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled
`
`in the particular art. Id.
`
`
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the 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.” Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as
`
`being the primary basis for construing the claims. Id. at 1314-17. As the Supreme Court stated
`
`long ago, “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive
`
`portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and
`
`meaning of the language employed in the claims.” Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38 (1878). In
`
`addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 7 of 152 PageID #: 5506
`
`observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998):
`
`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. The construction that stays true to the claim
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Consequently, Phillips emphasized the important role the
`
`specification plays in the claim construction process.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because the file
`
`history, however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant,” it may
`
`lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim construction proceedings. Id.
`
`Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is relevant to the determination of
`
`how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention during
`
`prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`
`Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during
`
`prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”).
`
`
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 8 of 152 PageID #: 5507
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Id. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The
`
`court did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers
`
`disputed claim language. Id. at 1323-25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the
`
`appropriate weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction,
`
`bearing in mind the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent grant.
`
`Indefiniteness is a “legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its
`
`duty as the construer of patent claims.” Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371,
`
`1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A finding of indefiniteness must overcome the
`
`statutory presumption of validity. See 35 U.S.C. § 282. That is, the “standard [for finding
`
`indefiniteness] is met where an accused infringer shows by clear and convincing evidence that a
`
`skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area.”
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249-50 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`In determining whether that standard is met, i.e., whether the claims at issue are
`sufficiently precise to permit a potential competitor to determine whether or not
`he is infringing, we have not held that a claim is indefinite merely because it
`poses a difficult issue of claim construction. We engage in claim construction
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 9 of 152 PageID #: 5508
`
`every day, and cases frequently present close questions of claim construction on
`which expert witnesses, trial courts, and even the judges of this court may
`disagree. Under a broad concept of indefiniteness, all but the clearest claim
`construction issues could be regarded as giving rise to invalidating indefiniteness
`in the claims at issue. But we have not adopted that approach to the law of
`indefiniteness. We have not insisted that claims be plain on their face in order to
`avoid condemnation for indefiniteness; rather, what we have asked is that the
`claims be amenable to construction, however difficult that task may be. If a claim
`is insolubly ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can properly be adopted,
`we have held the claim indefinite. If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even
`though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which
`reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to
`avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds. . . . By finding claims indefinite only if
`reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the
`statutory presumption of patent validity . . . and we protect the inventive
`contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less
`than ideal.
`
`Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1375 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties have not submitted any agreed-upon constructions for the TiVo Patents. The
`
`parties have submitted the following agreed-upon constructions for terms in the Motorola
`
`Patents, which the Court hereby adopts:
`
`Patent /
`Claims
`’389 Pat.;
`cls. 31, 61
`‘465 Pat.;
`cls. 1, 10
`‘465 Pat.;
`cls. 1, 10
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“memory where data can be temporarily stored
`for transfer”
`“a device capable of recording multimedia
`programs in digital form”
`“is capable of changing the playback rate and
`direction of each multimedia program such
`that each program can be independently and
`simultaneously controlled to execute any of
`the following modes: fast-forward, rewind,
`frame-step, pause and play”
`
`Term
`
`“buffer”
`
`“digital video recorder”
`
`“allows playback rate
`and direction of each
`multimedia program
`to be controlled
`individually and
`simultaneously to
`perform any of: fast
`forward, rewind,
`frame step, pause, and
`play functions”
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 10 of 152 PageID #: 5509
`
`‘465 Pat.;
`cl. 16
`
`‘195 Pat.;
`cl. 58
`
`“the input signal tuners may accept: 1) analog
`multimedia program signals, or 2) digital
`multimedia signals, or 3) both analog and
`digital multimedia signals”
`“a general device for buffering information
`contained in a stream of information”
`
`‘195 Pat.;
`cl. 75
`
`“the oldest block held by the linear cache”
`
`“said tuners accept
`analog and/or digital
`multimedia program
`signals”
`“linear cache for
`storing information
`from said data stream”
`“oldest block”
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 167, 10/17/2012 Joint P.R. 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.)
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “MOTOROLA” PATENTS
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,304,714
`
`
`
`The ‘714 Patent, titled “In-Home Digital Video Unit with Combine[d]1 Archival Storage
`
`and High-Access Storage,” issued on October 16, 2001, and bears a priority date of April 21,
`
`1995. In general, the ‘714 Patent discloses a home video recording and playback system that
`
`includes both an archival storage medium, such as a tape, as well as a rapid access storage
`
`medium, such as a hard disk drive. The Abstract of the ‘714 Patent states:
`
`A[] digital home video system providing recording and playback of compressed
`video programs using an archival storage medium; simultaneous recording and
`playback using the same archival medium; storage of multiple programs on a
`single videotape; a full array of trick mode functions; efficient management of the
`contents of a video tape or other archival storage medium; and real-time random
`access to video program content, enabling truly interactive playback. These
`capabilities are provided by combining the best features of an archival storage
`medium such as digital video tape: namely, potentially large storage capacity, but
`low tolerance for variable data rate, and essentially linear program access; with
`the complementary features of a relatively high-access storage device such as a
`fixed disk drive: namely, tolerance for a highly variable data rate, and random
`access capability, but relatively lower storage capacity.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘714 Patent recites:
`
`1 The patentee appears to have intended “combined” rather than “combine.” (See Dkt. No. 173,
`Ex. G, 2/24/1997 Amendment and Response, at 1 (title in caption uses “combined”); Dkt. No.
`173, Ex. H, 3/23/1998 Preliminary Amendment, at 1 (same).)
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 11 of 152 PageID #: 5510
`
`1. A method for simultaneously recording first digital program data onto a high-
`capacity archival medium partitioned into segments and playing back second
`digital program data from the same high-capacity archival medium, said method
`utilizing a high-access storage device partitioned into segments, an input buffer,
`and an output buffer, and comprising the following steps:
`
`writing the first program data into the input buffer;
`
`selecting a first current segment of the high-access storage device for
`writing the first program data;
`
`transferring the first program data from the input buffer to the first current
`segment of the high-access storage device;
`
`selecting a second current segment of the high-access storage device for
`reading the first program data;
`
`selecting a first current segment of the high-capacity archival medium for
`writing the first program data;
`
`transferring the first program data from the second current segment of the
`high-access storage device to the first current segment of the high-capacity
`archival medium;
`
`selecting a second current segment of the high-capacity archival medium
`for reading the second program data;
`
`selecting a third current segment of the high-access storage device for
`writing the second program data;
`
`transferring the second program data from the second current segment of
`the high-capacity archival medium to the third current segment of the high-access
`storage device;
`
`selecting a fourth current segment of the high-access storage device for
`reading the second program data;
`
`transferring the second program data from the fourth current segment of
`the high-access storage device to the output buffer;
`
`maintaining the level of fullness of the input and output buffers to prevent
`said input and output buffers from underflowing or overflowing;
`
`interleaving the transfer of the first program data from the input buffer to
`the first current segment of the high-access storage device, the transfer of the first
`program data from the second current segment of the high-access storage device
`to the first current segment of the high-capacity archival medium, the transfer of
`the second program data from the second current segment of the high-capacity
`archival medium to the third current segment of the high-access storage device,
`and the transfer of the second program data from the fourth current segment of the
`high-access storage device to the output buffer; and
`
`reading the second program data from the output buffer,
`
`wherein the transfer of the first program data from the input buffer to the
`first current segment of the high-access storage device, the transfer of the first
`program data from the second current segment of the high-access storage device
`to the first current segment of the high-capacity archival medium, the transfer of
`the second program data from the second current segment of the high-capacity
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 152
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 12 of 152 PageID #: 5511
`
`archival medium to the third current segment of the high-access storage device,
`and the transfer of the second program data from the fourth current segment of the
`high-access storage device to the output buffer appear simultaneous.
`
`(1) “trick modes” (Claim 2)
`
`Motorola’s Proposed Construction
`
`TiVo’s Proposed Construction
`
`“video display operations such as search, fast
`forward and the like”
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 173, at 4.)
`
`“non-normal playback functions such as slow
`motion, fast forward, fast reverse and/or slow
`reverse”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Motorola argues that TiVo’s proposal of “non-normal” “would only confuse the jury,
`
`because the jury would not consider common functions like reverse and fast-forward to be ‘non-
`
`normal.’” (Dkt. No. 173, at 5.)
`
`
`
`TiVo responds that Motorola’s list of operations is incomplete and that the proposed
`
`phrase “and the like” is indefinite. (Dkt. No. 182, at 3.) TiVo also submits that its proposal of
`
`“non-normal” “merely explains that trick modes are functions other than normal playback.” (Id.,
`
`at 4.)
`
`
`
`Motorola replies that “Motorola’s construction is taken directly from the ’714
`
`specification at column 5, lines 55-57” and that “[n]one of the specification passages that TiVo
`
`cites use or even suggest TiVo’s negative and ambiguous ‘non-normal’ limitation.” (Dkt. No.
`
`189, at 1.)
`
`
`
`(b) Analysis
`
`Claim 2 of the ‘714 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`2. The method of claim 1, wherein the segments of the high-access storage device
`are of lengths enabling the use of trick modes.
`
`Page 12 of 152
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:11-cv-00053-JRG Document 222 Filed 12/06/12 Page 13 of 152 PageID #: 5512
`
`
`The specification discloses (emphasis added):
`
`Present video playback systems are limited in several respects. Current systems
`offer relatively limited storage capacity, typically holding the equivalent of a
`single, feature-length movie on a single disc or tape. Digital video tape offers
`theoretically greater capacity, if aggressive data compression schemes are used.
`However, such compression has generally not been used with digital video tapes,
`because this greatly complicates the implementation of trick mode functions such
`as slow motion, fast forward, and fast and slow motion reverse.
`
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`[A] major limitation in the prior art is that it is impractical to store highly
`compressed video data on an archival medium such as video tape because
`playback devices for these media cannot easily adjust to the variable data rate
`required for VBR [(variable bit rate)] encoding or trick mode display functions
`such as slow motion, fast search, or reverse play. High-access media, while
`allowing variable-speed playback and recording of compressed data, have the
`limitation that they generally cannot hold the large quantity of information, in
`excess of one feature length film, that archival media can contain.
`
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates the general, high level architecture of the present invention. In
`the embodiment illustrated, the present invention is integrated into a single “set-
`top box,” 11 so-called because it is a physically separate box that is coupled to a
`viewer’s television 12 and VCR [(video cassette reco