UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1045
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DOCUMENT CAMERAS AND
`SOFTWARE FOR USE THEREWITH
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`INITIAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 1 of 39
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................. 2
`A.
`Intrinsic Evidence ................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Extrinsic Evidence .................................................................................................. 4
`TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 4
`C.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘751 PATENT .................................................................... 4
`D.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................... 5
`E.
`DISPUTED TERMS OF THE ‘751 PATENT ....................................................... 5
`1.
`“reference resolution” (Claims 1, 3, 8, and 18) .......................................... 5
`2.
`“slave digital image sensing unit” (Claims 1 and 3) .................................. 6
`3.
`“master personal processor” (Claims 1 and 3) ........................................... 8
`4.
`“(displaying and/or storing …) without changing resolution of the
`manipulated series of frame images (Claims 1 and 3) ............................... 8
`“zooming in or out without changing resolution of the frame images”
`(Claim 1); “zoom in or out (in real time) while maintaining a resolution of
`a series of (real time) images” (Claim 18) ................................................. 9
`“optics having an infinite focal length” (Claim 18) ................................. 11
`“in one instantaneous snapshot of” (Claim 8) .......................................... 12
`“miniaturized” (Claim 18) ........................................................................ 13
`“external” (Claim 4, 8, 9, 18, and 20) ...................................................... 15
`“the output frame images” (Claims 7, 10, and 12-14) ............................. 16
`
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`10.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 2 of 39
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 1
`Certain Opaque Polymers, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-883,
`Order No. 13 (Jan. 13, 2014), 2014 WL 31478 at *10 .................................................... 13-16
`Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 4
`02 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 2
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................... 3, 12
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................... 1
`Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001).............................................................................. 14-16
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244, 1249-59 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 13-16
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................... 1
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................... 1
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 2
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995)........................................................................................... 1
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................................... 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................. 1-3, 6, 11, 15
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................... 2
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1073, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................... 2
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................... 2
`
`ii
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 3 of 39
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d.)
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... 14-16
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 4 of 39
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pathway Innovations and Technologies, Inc. (“Pathway”) has petitioned the Commission
`to stop Aver Information, Inc. (“Aver”); Ipevo, Inc. (“Ipevo”); and Lumens Integration, Inc.
`(“Lumens”) (collectively, “Respondents”) from importing document cameras and video software
`(for use with document cameras) that infringe Pathway’s United States Patent No. 8,508,751 (the
`‘751 patent). The ‘751 patent relates to capturing real-time video with digital zoom capability.
`Digital zoom refers to the processing of zooming functions via software, which eliminates the need
`for an optical zoom lens assembly in the camera, which can be relatively expensive, large, and
`heavy. See, e.g., ‘751 patent at col. 7: 56-59.
`Pathway (d.b.a., HoverCam) is a leading developer of document cameras and video
`software, and focuses primarily on the educational market. A document camera, also known as a
`visual presenter, is an image/video capture device for displaying an object to a large audience. In
`essence, a document camera includes a high-resolution camera mounted on an arm to facilitate
`placement over an object on a surface. This allows, for example, a teacher to write on a sheet of
`paper or to display a two or three-dimensional object while a class watches. Pathway’s HoverCam
`document cameras and “Flex” software empower teachers to use technology to better engage their
`students and help student become active participants in the classroom. HoverCam document
`cameras and Flex software are used in more than 200,000 classrooms. Pathway invests in research
`and development to bring these products to market and distributes its products at issue in this case
`from its headquarters located in San Diego, California.
`Respondents also sell and distribute document cameras and software, but rather than
`innovating Respondents have chosen to copy Pathway’s innovative and patented document camera
`and software features. This suit addresses Respondents’ infringement of the ‘751 patent.
`The claim construction disputes in this case all stem from Respondents’ attempts to avoid
`the plain meaning of the claims, arguing that four different claim terms, all common, non-technical
`words, are indefinite. The claims are written in ordinary English with mostly non-technical terms
`that describe video processing steps or elements of the patented invention. Pathway’s constructions
`
`1
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 5 of 39
`
`

`

`are consistent with the claim language, the intrinsic record, and Federal Circuit precedent, which
`prohibits the importation of limitations from examples in the specification into the claims. Pathway
`thus respectfully requests that the Commission adopt its proposed claim constructions.
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`II.
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and
`scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly
`construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (internal citations omitted), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Id. at 970-71. “The construction
`of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand
`and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claim.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp., 216
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`Intrinsic Evidence
`A.
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit
`in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these components to determine the “ordinary
`and customary meaning of a claim term” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in art at the
`time of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313. “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of
`the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law 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 (quoting
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`2004)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.” Id. at 1314;
`see also Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`2
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 6 of 39
`
`

`

`(“In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the
`claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to particularly point [] out
`and distinctly claim [] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.”). The context
`in which a term is used in an asserted claim can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`Surrounding claim language can be an important aid to determining the meaning of a disputed
`claim term. See, e.g., SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 769 F.3d 1073, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Additionally, other claims in the same patent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide guidance
`as to the meaning of a claim term. Id.
`
`The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from
`the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id.
`at 1316. “In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of
`claim scope by the inventor.” Id. As a general rule, however, the particular examples or
`embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Id. at
`1323. In the end, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns
`with the patent’s description of the invention will be ... the correct construction.” Id. at 1316
`(quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be examined,
`if in evidence. Phillips, 415 F3d at 1317; see also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can “often inform the meaning of the claim
`language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would
`otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to
`exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”).
`
`3
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 7 of 39
`
`

`

`Extrinsic Evidence
`B.
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence (i.e., all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, including
`dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered.
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent
`itself and its prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. Id. at 1317. “The court
`may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology,
`but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds
`with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192
`F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`If, after a review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a claim term remains ambiguous,
`the claim should be construed so as to maintain its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327.
`III. TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`C. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘751 PATENT
`The ‘751 patent is directed to capturing high-resolution video from a video camera, e.g.,
`
`document camera. ‘751 patent at abstract. Referring to Fig. 3a (shown below), in one embodiment,
`a document camera (device on right side) is
`coupled to a personal computer (PC) 301 via a
`high-speed connection 304, such as USB 2.0.
`See also, e.g., id. at col. 6:11-16. The document
`camera includes a digital imaging sensing unit
`(DISU) 302 capable of capturing real-time
`video at thirty (30) frames per second with high
`definition resolution. Id. at col. 5:35-43. The
`DISU 302 is controlled via software 303
`executing on a processor in the PC 302.
`Because of the high-speed connection between
`
`4
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 8 of 39
`
`

`

`the document camera and the PC, the DISU 302 can be set at its maximum resolution and the
`respective video stream is sent to the PC for processing and display. Id. at col. 7:6-15. Video
`processing, such as zooming, is offloaded to the PC. Id. at col. 8:13-17. Accordingly, zooming
`and other processing functions are implemented at the PC without ever changing resolution of the
`DISU. The innovation of the ‘751 patent (among others) is the ability of capturing and delivering
`the full range of the document camera’s resolution—not just images at the resolution that a user’s
`computer could display—via USB to a user’s computer and allowing the user to manipulate, e.g.,
`zoom in or out without changing resolution, via the computer.
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`D.
`Here, the claims should be construed from the perspective of a person having at least a
`
`bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, mathematics, or physics with computer
`science coursework, or equivalent experience, and at least one year of direct technical experience
`in capturing real-time video with zooming capability via a portable document camera.
`DISPUTED TERMS OF THE ‘751 PATENT
`E.
`“reference resolution” (Claims 1, 3, 8, and 18)
`1.
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`Resolution at which a frame image will be
`Resolution of the display
`maintained or output
`In the context of the ‘751 patent, “reference resolution” is properly construed as “resolution
`
`at which a frame image will be maintained or output.” The term “reference resolution” appears in
`all independent claims 1, 3, 8, and 18.
`
`Pathway’s proposed construction of “reference resolution” is expressly supported by the
`‘751 patent specification in two separate locations. First, it is described as “receiving a series of
`frame images from the video camera, using a processor to manipulate the series of frame images,
`which includes determining a reference resolution for providing output frame images, and
`displaying and/or storing the manipulated series of frame images ….” ‘751 patent at col. 3:45-50
`(emphasis added).
`
`Second, it is described as “determining a reference resolution at which each frame image
`
`5
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 9 of 39
`
`

`

`of the series of frame images will be maintained and storing the reference resolution in a non-
`transitory medium. A video image comprising a series of frame images is captured and an external
`processor is used to compare a resolution of each frame image of the video image with the
`reference resolution and the resolution of each frame image is adjusted to correspond to the
`reference resolution.” Id. at col. 4:14-22 (emphasis added).
`
`As the above excerpts indicate, the reference resolution refers to the resolution for
`maintaining and storing, or output and display. Thus, under Pathway’s proper construction,
`“reference resolution” is not limited to the resolution of the display, but can be a different
`resolution, selected for maintaining and storing, or output and display. Respondents’ proposed
`construction is incorrect because it unnecessarily limits construction to only one of the described
`embodiments of the reference resolution. Particular examples or embodiments discussed in the
`specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Because
`Pathway’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence, there is no need to look at extrinsic
`evidence.
`
`For at least these reasons, Pathway’s proposed construction is correct and should be
`adopted.
`
` “slave digital image sensing unit” (Claims 1 and 3)
`2.
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`digital
`image sensing unit capable of
`A digital image sensing unit whose image
`implementing primary functions through the
`sensing
`functionality
`is controlled and
`commands of the master personal processor
`implemented by a separate master device
`In the context of the ‘751 patent, a “slave digital image sensing unit” is properly construed
`
`as a “digital image sensing unit capable of implementing primary functions through the commands
`of the master personal processor.” Slave digital image sensing unit appears in independent claims
`1 and 3.
`
`Pathway’s proposed construction—“digital image sensing unit capable of implementing
`primary functions through the commands of the master personal processor”—tracks the language
`of the ‘751 patent specification. Referring to col. 4:66 to col. 5:13, as well as Fig. 3a (shown
`
`6
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 10 of 39
`
`

`

`above) of the ‘751 patent, the Digital Image Sensing Unit (DISU) 302 and the Software
`Programming Unit (SPU) 303, executing on a processor (not shown) of the Personal Computer
`(PC) 301, have a slave/master relationship. As the master, the SPU 303 executed within the PC
`“controls and implements the primary functions of the [system] in software instruction code, while
`communicating with [the DISU].” Id. That is, the master personal processor of the PC “commands”
`the slave digital image sensing unit. “This ensures that functionality of the system can be made
`available to users in far more interactive and friendly ways comparing small control buttons on
`traditional electronic devices, while streamlining the configuration of the DISU 302 to an optimal
`level.” Id. at col. 5: 9-13. Because Pathway’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence,
`there is no need to look at extrinsic evidence.
`
`Respondents’ offered construction –“a digital image sensing unit whose image sensing
`functionality is controlled and implemented by a separate master device”—is improper because it
`introduces added limitations “sensing functionality” and “separate master device.” First, the
`sensing functionality limitation is ambiguous. Second, this added limitation is not supported.
`Nowhere in the ‘751 patent specification does it mention sensing functionality, or that the sensing
`functionality of the digital image sensing unit is controlled. To the contrary, the ‘751 patent teaches
`that the output resolution of the DISU is selected, i.e., fixed, for a captured video stream. See id.
`at col. 6: 62-65. No sensing functionality is controlled. Respondents are attempting to
`manufacturer a non-infringement and/or invalidity argument where none exists.
`
`Nor is there any requirement that the slave digital sensing unit be a “separate device.” The
`master/slave construct is based on a logic hierarchy, and does not necessarily require separate
`hardware devices. For example, a digital sensor can be controlled by a processor through software
`and a logic connection on the same hardware chip. Claim 1 expressly states the slave digital
`sensing unit is removably connected to the master personal processor via a master personal
`processor port. Id. at col. 8:63-64. A simple logic switch can turn a port on or off. Respondents’
`effort to add a “separate device” limitation improperly imports a limitation from one embodiment
`described in the specification.
`
`7
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 11 of 39
`
`

`

`For at least these reasons, Pathway’s proposed construction is correct and should be
`
`adopted.
`
`“master personal processor” (Claims 1 and 3)
`3.
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`personal processor capable of executing
`No construction necessary
`software instruction code to control and
`implement
`primary
`functions while
`communicating with a digital image sensing
`unit
`
`In the event the Court deems necessary to construe the term “master personal processor,”
`
`its proper construction is a “personal processor capable of executing software instruction code to
`control and implement primary functions while communicating with a digital image sensing unit.”
`As noted above, this language tracks that of the ‘751 patent specification. Again, referring to col.
`4:66 to col. 5:13, as well as Fig. 3a (shown above) of the ‘751 patent, the Digital Image Sensing
`Unit (DISU) 302 and the Software Programming Unit (SPU) 303, executing on a processor (not
`shown) of the Personal Computer (PC) 301, have a slave/master relationship. As the master, the
`SPU 303 executed within the PC “controls and implements the primary functions of the [system]
`in software instruction code, while communicating with [the DISU].” Id. Accordingly, Pathway’s
`construction is fully supported by the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Respondents do not offer a construction for this term.
`
`For at least these reasons, Pathway’s proposed construction is correct and should be
`adopted.
`
`4.
`
`“(displaying and/or storing …) without changing resolution of the
`manipulated series of frame images (Claims 1 and 3)
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`without changing the resolution of series of
`The number of pixels in the displayed and/or
`frame images resulting from the manipulation
`stored frame images is the same as the number
`by the master personal processor1
`of pixels in the manipulated series of frame
`images
`
`
`
`
`1 Note, Respondents’ identification of claim terms to construe did not include (displaying and/or
`storing) and was only a parenthetical, and not a term to be construed.
`
`8
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 12 of 39
`
`

`

`In the context of the ‘751 patent, a “without changing resolution of the manipulated series
`
`of frame images” is properly construed as a “without changing the resolution of series of frame
`images resulting from the manipulation by the master personal process.” This construction is fully
`supported by the ‘751 patent specification, namely at col. 4:5-12: “When the processor manipulates
`the frame image, manipulation can be any one or more of re-sizing the image, panning the image
`in a selected direction, rotating the image in a selected direction, or annotating the image. … Any
`combination of manipulations will not change the resolution of the output image frames.”
`
`To the contrary, Respondents have chopped up the claim, leaving out the essential middle
`guts of the claim language. When the entire claim element is included, including the section they
`omit with an ellipsis, it is clear from surrounding claim language that Pathway’s construction is
`correct. The claim language Respondents omit, “the manipulated series of frame images as an
`output video image” makes clear that the step of displaying or storing is only referring to
`manipulated series of frame images. See, e.g., claim 1 (“displaying and/or storing the manipulated
`series of frame images as an output video image without changing resolution of the manipulated
`series of frame images,”) (emphasis added). The syntax here indicates that “the manipulated series
`of frame images” refers to the manipulated series of frame images previously set forth in the claim.
`Respondents proposed construction instead offers a construction that includes just “frame images,”
`which is rewriting the claim. “Frame images” are the input received from the DISU. See, e.g.,
`claim 1 (“receiving a series of frame images from the slave digital image sensing unit.”). This is
`different from manipulated frame images, which are the only type of frame images that this claim
`step is describing.
`
`For at least these reasons, Pathway’s proposed construction is correct and should be
`adopted.
`
`5.
`
`“zooming in or out without changing resolution of the frame images”
`(Claim 1); “zoom in or out (in real time) while maintaining a
`resolution of a series of (real time) images” (Claim 18)
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`Computing a manipulated series of frame The number of pixels in the frame image
`
`9
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 13 of 39
`
`

`

`before the zooming manipulation is the same
`as the number of pixels in the frame image
`after the zooming manipulation
`
`images such that each said manipulated frame
`image has higher or lower resolution than that
`of
`the corresponding portion of
`the
`corresponding acquired frame image, without
`changing resolution of the acquired frame
`images
`Pathway’s proposed construction matches the intrinsic evidence describing the zoom
`
`feature of the claimed invention. As described in the ‘751 patent at col. 7:6-19, and in the flow
`chart at Fig. 5, a live video bitmap stream is rendered on screen at step 512. This video bitmap
`reflects the resolution of the acquired frame images from the slave digital image sensing unit. The
`next step described in the system flow is the zooming in or out, referred to as a user interface
`scaling event, 514a. As the specification provides, “at decision step 514a the system determines
`whether the user has selected a scaling (resizing) event. If the user has selected a scaling event,
`each video frame is enlarged or reduced at operation step 516a by the requested amount.” ‘751
`patent at col. 7:15-19. This scaling event occurs after the acquired frame images (from the digital
`image sensing unit) forming the live bitmap stream is rendered on screen. Thus, the acquired frame
`images resolution is not changed, since the acquired frame images are displayed live.
`
`The manipulation step of zoom in or out expressly describes potentially reducing resolution
`to match a reference resolution, indicating that the Respondent’s proposed construction is
`incorrect. Respondents’ proposed construction is also erroneous because it improperly confuses
`frame images, with manipulated frame images. The claim language, as well as the flow chart at
`Fig. 5 and the ‘751 patent specification at col. 7:7-19, all describe zooming through computation
`of a manipulated series of frame images, while the resolution of the acquired frame images from
`the digital image sensor remain unchanged, and are instead streamed live to the display. See also
`id. at col. 4:29-33 (“The document imaging apparatus also includes a processor that is coupled to
`the digital imaging unit and that is configured to cause the digital imaging unit to zoom in or zoom
`out in real time while maintaining a resolution value of stored images constant.”).
`
`For at least these reasons, Pathway’s proposed construction is correct and should be
`adopted.
`
`10
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 14 of 39
`
`

`

`“optics having an infinite focal length” (Claim 18)
`6.
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`Focal length ensuring objects appearing under
`Lens with zero curvature
`the facing-down digital image sensing unit
`appear focused and sharp even when the
`digital image sensing unit is substantially far
`away
`
`In the context of the ‘751 patent, “optics having an infinite focal length” is properly
`
`construed as a “focal length ensuring objects appearing under the facing-down digital image
`sensing unit.” This term appears in independent claim 18.
`
`Pathway’s proposed construction—“focal length ensuring objects appearing under the
`facing-down digital image sensing unit appear focused and sharp even when the digital image
`sensing unit is substantially far away”—is supported by the ‘751 patent specification. Here, the
`patentee was acting as its own lexicographer and gave this term a definition that trumps the
`ordinary meaning it would be given in physics. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“In such cases, the
`inventor’s lexicography governs.”). In physics, an “infinite focal length” ordinary refers to a lens
`with zero curvature – that is, parallel light rays passing through an optical lens stay parallel and
`never cross. However, the ‘751 patent specification clearly shows that such a definition was not
`intended. Referring to col. 5:45-48, the ‘751 patent states: “The depth of field of the DISU 302
`lens however has a wide range of above 100 cm, ensuring objects appearing under the facing-down
`DISU 302 appear focused and sharp even when the DISU is substantially far away.” At col. 7:62,
`the ‘751 patent refers to an “infinite focal length digital camera.” In other words, the ‘751 patent
`is describing infinity focus as understood in the context of photography (not a pure physics
`context). Infinity focus refers to the ability to form a focused and sharp image even when the object
`is substantially, infinitely, far away from the DISU. Infinity focus is described in the ‘751 patent.
`
`Respondents’ offered construction –“lens with zero curvature”—is improper. There is zero
`support for this construction in the ‘751 patent specification. Respondents are simply relying on
`extrinsic evidence (outside the intrinsic record) to supplant the meaning supplied by the intrinsic
`record. “The court may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the
`
`11
`
`AVER EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 15 of 39
`
`

`

`relevant technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction
`that is clearly at odds with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay, 192 F.3d
`at 977. Here, Respondents’ construction is clearly at odds with the intrinsic evidence. Only
`Pathway’s construction is consistent with the teachings of the ‘751 patent.
`
`For at least these reasons, Pathway’s proposed construction is correct and should be
`adopted.
`
`“in one instantaneous snapshot of” (Claim 8)
`7.
`Pathway’s Proposed Construction
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction
`Such that each frame image captures
`Indefinite
`In the context of the ‘751 patent, “in one instantaneous snapshot of” is not indefinite and
`
`should be properly construed as “such that each frame image captures.” “One instantaneous
`snapshot of” appears in independent claim 8 through the step: “capturing a video image comprising
`the series of frame images in one instantaneous snapshot of a subject’s entire surface area ….” In
`other words, this step should be understood to