Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1203

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT APPLE'S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF filed by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

v.

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

APPLE’S REBUTTAL
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company.,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

Hearing:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

July 18, 2012
2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Honorable Lucy H. Koh

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................................II 

4

I.
II.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

III.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1 
A.
Disputed Term from Claim 19 of the ’381 Patent: “electronic document” ............ 1 
1.
Samsung’s construction is overbroad ......................................................... 2 
2.
The Court has already resolved the ’381 construction dispute ................... 3 
3.
Samsung’s construction has no intrinsic support ........................................ 4 
4.
Samsung’s extrinsic evidence is contradictory, unconvincing, and
contrary to the specification ........................................................................ 4 
5.
The ALJ in Apple v. HTC Confirmed Apple’s Position ............................. 6 
6.
The Court should find that “electronic document” has its plain and
ordinary meaning, or in the alternative, adopt Apple’s construction.......... 7 
B.
Disputed Term from Claim 50 of the ’163 Patent: “structured electronic
document” ............................................................................................................... 7 
1.
Samsung’s construction is groundless ........................................................ 8 
2.
Samsung’s construction has no intrinsic support ........................................ 8 
3.
Samsung’s extrinsic evidence is unconvincing and contrary to the
specification ................................................................................................ 9 
4.
The Court should find that “structured electronic document” has its
plain and ordinary meaning, or in the alternative, adopt Apple’s
construction............................................................................................... 10 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10 

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

i

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page(s)

3

CASES

4

Phillips v. AWH Corp,
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 10

5
6

Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 7, 10

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

sf- 3167780

ii

1

I.

INTRODUCTION
Disassociating itself from its own counsel’s recent representation to the Court that the

2
3

term “electronic document” is “fairly straightforward” and that Samsung could live with a claim

4

construction order explaining that “web pages and digital images are examples of electronic

5

documents,” Samsung instead proposes an ambiguous “definition” that would encompass

6

arbitrary groupings of multiple documents as well as arbitrary subsets of content that its own

7

expert has testified would not constitute an “electronic document.” Samsung’s latest

8

permutations of its mercurial claim constructions depart markedly from the intrinsic record.

9

Given that Samsung has offered no explanation for why construction is even necessary for these

10

terms in light of the Court’s previous Markman order, the Court should reject Samsung’s

11

constructions and conclude that the terms “electronic document” and “structured electronic

12

document” have their plain and ordinary meanings. In the case of “electronic document,” that is

13

exactly what the Administrative Law Judge ordered last week in the Apple v. HTC ITC

14

investigation. In the alternative, the Court should instruct the jury as Apple suggested in its

15

opening brief, providing examples of “electronic document” and “structured electronic

16

document” drawn directly from the patent specifications.

17

II.

18
19

ARGUMENT
A.

Disputed Term from Claim 19 of the ’381 Patent: “electronic document”

Apple’s Proposed Construction

20

No construction necessary.

21

Alternatively, Apple proposes: “a document stored
in a digital format,” with the clarification that “an
‘electronic document’ could be, for example, a web
page, a digital image, a word processing, spreadsheet
or presentation document, or a list of items in a
digital format.”

22
23
24
25

Samsung’s Proposed Construction(s)
“content having a defined set of
boundaries that can be visually
represented on a screen”

Only three weeks ago, counsel for Samsung represented to the Court that “the actual term

26

‘electronic document’ . . . is fairly straightforward and refers to web pages and digital images,”

27

and that Samsung “could live with the portion of the claim construction order which basically

28

says . . . ‘under the express language of the claims, web pages and digital images are examples of
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

1

1

electronic documents.’” (Declaration of Deok Keun Matthew Ahn in Support of Apple’s

2

Rebuttal Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (“Ahn Rebuttal Decl.”), filed herewith, Ex. 1 at

3

73-74, 78.) In an about face, Samsung now submits to the Court a construction that contains none

4

of the examples from the specification, and instead attempts to revive the ambiguous language of

5

“content” and “boundaries” the Court previously found unhelpful, and which Samsung’s expert,

6

Andries Van Dam, admitted fails to satisfy his understanding of what constituted an “electronic

7

document.”

8
9

1.

Samsung’s construction is overbroad

The problems with Samsung’s construction become apparent when applied to real life

10

examples. Below, the dotted red line highlights “boundaries” around “content.” This illogical

11

grouping of a separate digital image and a word processing document is an “electronic document

12

under Samsung’s construction because it constitutes “content having a defined set of

13

boundaries…” Samsung’s expert Dr. Van Dam would appear to endorse this example, as in

14

discussing the prior art, he claimed that “[a]ny set of contiguous tiles could be considered an

15

electronic document” even though such a claim cannot be squared with the examples of an

16

“electronic document” from the specification. (Ahn Rebuttal Decl. Ex. 2 at 4.)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Similarly, there is nothing in Samsung’s construction that would exclude a grouping of multiple

27

documents, each with its own set of “boundaries,” into a single “electronic document.” Below,

28

the set of boxes inside the dotted green line is also an “electronic document” according to
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

2

1

Samsung, since it is “content having a defined set of boundaries that can be visually represented

2

on a screen.”

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Each of these examples runs counter to the explicit disclosure of types of “electronic documents”

12

in the ’381 patent and makes little sense as a representation of an “electronic document.”

13

2.

The Court has already resolved the ’381 construction dispute

14

When the Court held that the term “edge of the electronic document” in Apple’s ’381

15

patent had its plain and ordinary meaning, Samsung implicitly acknowledged that the words

16

“electronic document” did not require construction. (See Dkt. No. 849 at 18, 23 (Samsung

17

proposed “[a] boundary of the electronic document” as the construction for “an edge of the

18

electronic document”) (emphases added).) The Court also resolved the parties’ dispute regarding

19

whether the word “edge” meant only an “external edge.” (Id.) In doing so, the Court declined to

20

substitute the term “boundary” for the term “edge” because this proposed replacement “d[id] not

21

clarify the term in a way that justifies deviation from the plain language of the claims.” (Dkt. 849

22

at 20.)

23

Samsung’s latest construction attempts to relitigate the construction of “edge of the

24

electronic document” by reintroducing the previously rejected “boundary” language. Because the

25

word “boundary” is susceptible to an interpretation that could embrace any line or demarcation in

26

a document, Samsung is attempting to take advantage of that ambiguity to create invalidity

27

arguments through its alleged prior art. Then, as now, permitting an “electronic document” to be

28

any content demarcated by “boundaries” instead of a complete document with “edges” would
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

3

1

depart from the clear claim language and resurrect a dispute that has long since been resolved.1

2

The Court should not permit Samsung to rehash this argument.

3
4

3.

Samsung’s construction has no intrinsic support

Samsung also fails to identify any intrinsic evidence to support its construction. The

5

“Intrinsic Evidence” portion of Samsung’s brief is limited to citing portions of the specification

6

that identify exemplary types of electronic documents such as a “web page,” a “digital image,” or

7

a “word processing document.” (See Dkt. No. 1183-3 at 2-3.) How these sections of the

8

specification support Samsung’s construction—when that construction fails to quote them or to

9

provide any of the examples that Samsung acknowledged would assist the jury in understanding

10

the claim language—is a mystery. Rather, the examples from the specification Samsung cites

11

directly support Apple’s proposed construction. In sum, there is no intrinsic evidence that

12

supports Samsung’s substitution of the ambiguous concept “content with boundaries” for the term

13

“electronic document.”

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4.

Samsung’s extrinsic evidence is contradictory, unconvincing, and
contrary to the specification

In its Markman order, the Court discounted the construction of “edge of the electronic
document” offered by Samsung’s expert Dr. Van Dam because “expert opinions are less reliable
than intrinsic evidence, and the Court gives the testimony little weight.” (Dkt. No. 849 at 23
(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).) The Court also noted in
its order denying Samsung’s summary judgment motion that the submitted “extrinsic sources
[we]re not persuasive in construing the disputed term” and “less significant than the intrinsic
record,” and that the Court would “rel[y] on the intrinsic evidence in construing the disputed
claim term.” (Dkt. No. 1158 at 20.)
Despite the Court’s directive to the parties to set forth reliable intrinsic support for their
constructions, Samsung again falls back on extrinsic evidence and trots out the same incomplete

1

By including the examples of a “web page” and a “digital image,” Apple’s alternative
construction is consistent with the Court’s finding that an “electronic document” such as a digital
image can be embedded in another electronic document such as a webpage.
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

4

1

excerpts from Dr. Balakrishnan’s deposition testimony that the Court already considered in

2

construing “edge of the electronic document.” First, Samsung neglects to cite a key portion of

3

Dr. Balakrishnan’s testimony, which in no way supports its construction:

4

Q. What’s your definition of electronic document as it’s used in the
’381 patent today?
...
A. I believe the term is understood in this case to be the plain and
ordinary meaning of electronic document.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(Ahn Rebuttal Decl. Ex. 3 at 186:18-25.)
Second, Dr. Balakrishnan made clear that what constituted an “electronic document” in a
given example was context specific, and that it was the computer code that should make the
determination of what was the “electronic document,” and not an end user simply labeling an
arbitrary grouping of lines. He did not agree that any haphazard grouping of lines in a grid could
constitute an “electronic document.” 2
The reason for Samsung’s insistence that any lines or “boundaries” can delineate an
“electronic document” is clear. Its prior art, including the “LaunchTile” and “Lira” references,
has lines that Samsung would like to classify as demarcating an “electronic document.” Yet even
Dr. Van Dam recognized that there should be limits on what could qualify as an electronic
document. When asked if a paragraph within a Microsoft Word document could be an electronic
document, he answered: “If you are talking about I have a typesetting program and it produces
paragraphs, then those paragraphs don’t really have a separate identity, and I would find it not
very useful to consider them an electronic document, but there is no hard-and-fast rule.” (Ahn
Rebuttal Decl. Ex. 5 at 58:25-59:16) (emphasis added.)

22
23
24

Though Dr. Van Dam did not believe that a paragraph in a word processing document
should be considered an “electronic document,” Samsung disagrees. Depicted below is a

25
26
27
28

2

Although Samsung contends that Dr. Balakrishnan’s testimony and the grid on page 4 of
its brief support its construction, all he acknowledged was that it was theoretically possible to
create and display an electronic document smaller than the screen, or with an irregular shape,
depending on the specific context. (See Ahn Rebuttal Decl. Ex. 4 at 151:25-158:20.)
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

5

1

paragraph within a Microsoft Word document that is bounded by tables above and below, and by

2

formatting lines to the left and to the right. Because this paragraph is “content having a defined

3

set of boundaries that can be visually represented on a screen,” it would be classified as an

4

“electronic document” under Samsung’s construction. This conflicts with Dr. Van Dam’s

5

testimony, as well as common sense.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The inconsistencies between Samsung’s construction and its own expert’s understanding of the

14

term and the incompatibility between this extrinsic evidence and the plain language of the claim

15

demonstrate that Samsung’s proposed construction is erroneous.

16
17

5.

The ALJ in Apple v. HTC Confirmed Apple’s Position

Finally, Samsung resorts to its habitual tactic of selectively citing material from other

18

lawsuits in which its counsel is counsel of record. Samsung not only fails to provide any factual

19

context for its reliance on a single image from an infringement contention against a third party

20

product not at issue in this case. More importantly, Samsung fails to disclose that the ALJ

21

recently issued a claim construction order in the very same ITC investigation from which

22

Samsung’s exhibit is taken. There, both the ITC staff and the ALJ rejected essentially the same

23

arguments that Samsung repeats here and found that “electronic document” should be accorded

24

its plain and ordinary meaning. (Ahn Rebuttal Decl. Ex. 6.) In so doing, the ALJ noted the

25

irreconcilable ambiguity in how the “boundaries” discussed by HTC (and in Samsung's

26

construction) were to be determined, and that the terms “electronic” and “document” were not

27

used in any unusual or special way and were readily understood by laypersons and persons of

28

ordinary skill. (Id.)
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

6

1

6.

2

The Court should find that “electronic document” has its plain
and ordinary meaning, or in the alternative, adopt Apple’s
construction

3

As noted in Apple’s opening brief, the plain and ordinary meaning of “electronic

4

document” should control because there is no suggestion that this term was used in an unusual or

5

atypical manner. See Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

6

(“Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the plain meaning of the claim controls”). Even Samsung

7

admits that the specification supports Apple’s alternative construction: “The specification

8

provides several examples of electronic documents including: web pages, digital images, and

9

word processing, spreadsheet, email and presentation documents.” (Dkt. No. 1183-3 at 3; see

10

also ’381 patent col. 27:7-12; col. 30:21-26; col. 31:40-45; claims 6 – 9.) In contrast to

11

Samsung’s unfounded definition, Apple’s construction draws directly from the specification.

12

And to remove all doubt, Apple’s extrinsic evidence from its opening brief makes clear that

13

Apple’s construction is correct. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1186-6 (document: “in word processing, text

14

that can be named and stored as a separate entity”) (emphasis added).)

15

Because Samsung’s attempt to change the plain meaning of the term “electronic

16

document” to encompass arbitrary groupings demarcated by lines or other “boundaries” as well as

17

multiple files with separate identities having no connection with one another has no foundation in

18

either the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, the Court should either conclude that this term has its

19

plain and ordinary meaning or adopt Apple’s construction.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

B.

Disputed Term from Claim 50 of the ’163 Patent: “structured electronic
document”

Apple’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary.
Alternatively, Apple proposes: “an ‘electronic document,’
as previously defined, that is formatted to differentiate
particular blocks or boxes of content in the document
from one another,” with the clarification that “a
‘structured electronic document’ could be, for example, a
web page, an HTML or XML document, or a document in
which the blocks or boxes of content are defined by a
style sheet language.”

Samsung’s Proposed Construction
“an electronic document that includes
at least one visual structural element”

28
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

7

1

Though Samsung claims that its new construction of “structured electronic document” is

2

substantively the same as its previous construction of “any type of two-dimensional information

3

space containing embedded coding that provides some meaning or ‘structure’ to the document,”

4

even a cursory examination of these two definitions reveals that both cannot reflect the

5

understanding of those skilled in the art. Given Mr. Gray’s assertion that Samsung’s previous

6

construction was the correct one (see Dkt. No. 931 ¶ 60), and given the conspicuous absence of a

7

declaration from Mr. Gray in support of Samsung’s current construction, it should be clear that

8

“an electronic document that includes at least one visual structural element” does not reflect how

9

this unambiguous claim language would have been understood by those in the art.

10
11

1.

Samsung’s construction is groundless

As the Court noted in its order denying Samsung’s summary judgment motion, the dispute

12

between the parties revolves around whether a set of conceptually independent application tiles

13

arranged onto a grid for display meets the limitation of a “structured electronic document,” and

14

not how the claim language should be construed. (Dkt. No. 1158 at 27-28.) Samsung’s new

15

construction creates from whole cloth the ambiguous term “visual structural element.”

16

Samsung’s new construction is not tethered to anything in the claim language or the specification,

17

and it creates confusion, not clarity, as compared with the plain and ordinary meaning of

18

“structured electronic document.” Samsung’s alternative construction, which also incorporates its

19

definition of “electronic document” from the ’381 patent, is further flawed for the reasons

20

described above in the discussion of that term.

21
22

2.

Samsung’s construction has no intrinsic support

Samsung fails to provide any intrinsic evidence to support its construction of “structured

23

electronic document.” The “Intrinsic Evidence” portion of Samsung’s brief is limited to citing

24

portions of the specification that explain that a “structured electronic document” may include

25

“blocks” or “boxes of content,” and that identify exemplary types of “structured electronic

26

documents” such as a “web page” or a “HTML or XML document.” (See Dkt. No. 1183-3 at 6-

27

7.) These sections of the specification do not support Samsung’s construction. The specification

28

does not use the term “visual structural element,” and none of the language from the specification
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

8

1

concerning these defining features or the helpful examples such as a “web page” appears in

2

Samsung’s construction. Tellingly, Samsung devotes a significant portion of its argument to

3

trying to exclude from any construction the specific examples of a “structured electronic

4

document” identified in the specification. (Dkt. No. 1183-3 at 7.)3 In sum, there is no intrinsic

5

evidence that supports Samsung’s reimagining of the unambiguous term “structured electronic

6

document,” and in light of Samsung’s desire to omit any reference to the three specific examples

7

listed in the specification, it should be clear that Samsung’s construction runs counter to the

8

intrinsic evidence.

9

3.

10
11

Samsung’s extrinsic evidence is unconvincing and contrary to the
specification

As discussed above, the Court previously found that the extrinsic evidence submitted by

12

the parties in their claim construction disputes, including expert opinions, was not persuasive, and

13

that the Court would instead “rel[y] on the intrinsic evidence in construing the disputed claim

14

term.” (Dkt. No. 1158 at 20.) Nevertheless, Samsung again relies almost exclusively on extrinsic

15

evidence and cites to excerpts from various inventors’ deposition testimony as well as to

16

statements from both Dr. Singh (Apple’s expert) and Mr. Gray (Samsung’s expert). After

17

selectively citing to Dr. Singh’s opinions, however, Samsung objects to his discussion of his

18

understanding of “structured electronic document” in a more recent declaration. This is

19

particularly self-serving in light of Samsung’s entirely new construction for this term.

20

Apart from the lack of credibility in Samsung’s position based on its abandonment of the

21

construction that Mr. Gray swore was the understanding of those in the art, none of the cited

22

testimony actually supports Samsung’s construction. None of the quoted expert witnesses or

23

inventors endorsed the ambiguous language “visual structural element.” If anything, each of the

24

witnesses cited by Samsung appears to confirm that “structured electronic document” has its plain

25

and ordinary meaning. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1183-3 at 8 (citing witnesses who provided examples

26

of a “structured electronic document”).)

27
28

3

Apple’s alternative construction does not suggest that the list of examples of “structured
electronic documents” is exhaustive – they are expressly illustrative “examples” of the genus.
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

9

1

4.

2

The Court should find that “structured electronic document” has
its plain and ordinary meaning, or in the alternative, adopt
Apple’s construction

3

As noted in Apple’s opening brief, the plain and ordinary meaning of “structured

4

electronic document” should control because there is no suggestion that this term was used in an

5

unusual or atypical manner. See Toshiba Corp., 681 F.3d at 1369. Even Samsung admits that the

6

specification supports Apple’s alternative construction. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1183-3 at 6-7 (“The

7

specification describes a ‘structured document’ as being ‘made of blocks 3914 of text content and

8

other graphics”) (emphases added); see also ’163 patent col. 2:59-60; 18:44-45; 16:27-28.) The

9

specification also provides unambiguous examples of what is meant by “structured electronic

10

document”: “web pages” and “an HTML or XML document.” (See ’163 patent at col. 1:47-48;

11

2:12-13; 18:48-52; claims 4-5; Figures 6A and 8.)
In contrast to Samsung’s unfounded definition, Apple’s alternative construction draws

12
13

directly from the specification. It recites language from, and the examples delineated in, the

14

specification (including the examples of a web page and HTML or XML document, as well as the

15

“boxes of content” language) which is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”

16

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Samsung’s attempt to add complexity and ambiguity to the term

17

“structured electronic document” has no foundation in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence.

18

Therefore, the Court should either conclude that this term has its plain and ordinary meaning or

19

adopt Apple’s construction.

20

III.

21
22
23
24
25
26

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Apple requests that the Court adopt its proposed constructions

and reject Samsung’s unsupported definitions.
Dated: July 10, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

27
28
APPLE’S REBUTTAL SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf- 3167780

10