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

Filing 468

EXHIBITS re 466 Declaration in Support, OF SAMSUNG'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3a, # 2 Exhibit 3b, # 3 Exhibit 3c, # 4 Exhibit 3d, # 5 Exhibit 3e, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Related document(s) 466 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/8/2011)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)  charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com  Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com th  555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065  Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)  michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000  Facsimile: (213) 443-3100  Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung  Telecommunications America LLC  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION  APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792  Plaintiff, vs.  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.  Date: January 20, 2012 Time: 10:00 am Courtroom 4, 5th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh     02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 1 1 I, Richard Wesel, declare: 2 1. I am a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the field of 3 Electrical Engineering, specializing in communications. I have been asked to provide an expert 4 declaration on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and 5 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) as to the meaning of the 6 term “symbol” in claims 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792, as it would have been 7 understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (on or around 8 December 2001). If called upon as a witness, I could competently testify to the truth of each 9 statement herein. 10 2. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $450 per hour. 11 My compensation does not depend in any way on the outcome of this investigation or the 12 particular testimony or opinions I provide. 13 3. In preparing this declaration, I have considered my own experiences in the field, 14 the items discussed herein, and the items listed below: 15 A. U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 (“ '792 patent”). 16 B. U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 prosecution history. 17 C. Declaration of Prof. Richard D. Gitlin in Support of Apple's Proposed Claim Construction for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792, dated November 14, 2011 (“Gitlin Decl.”). D. Gitlin, Hayes and Weinstein, DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers (1992) (“Gitlin, et. al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES”). E. Apple's PLR 4-2 disclosure, dated Oct. 31, 2011, for the term “symbol,” i.e., Apple's PLR 4-2 disclosure at 12-17. F. Samsung's PLR 4-2 disclosure, dated Oct. 31, 2011, for the term “symbol,” i.e., Samsung's PLR 4-2 disclosure, Exhibit A at 46. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration based on any new information received that is relevant to my opinions. 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 2 1 I. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 2 5. I have a bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from the 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford 4 University. 5 6. I am currently a Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department and Associate 6 Dean of Academic and Student Affairs for the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied 7 Science (HSSEAS) at the University of California, Los Angeles. 8 7. I have been an electrical engineering professor at UCLA since 1996 teaching 9 courses in error control coding and communication systems among other topics. I received the 10 HSSEAS TRW Excellence in Teaching Award in 2000. 11 8. I have authored or co-authored over 130 conference and journal publications on 12 communications and signal processing. 13 9. I have received the National Science Foundation CAREER Award and an Okawa 14 Foundation Award for Excellence in Telecommunications Research. 15 10. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae setting forth my 16 qualifications and publications. 17 18 II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART 19 11. I understand that to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, 20 one looks to the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have given the term at the 21 time of the invention, which in this case is at least as early as December 2001. Based on my 22 experiences and the materials I have reviewed, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the 23 field of the '792 patent is a person in the field of electrical engineering specializing in 24 communications, with either a Bachelor's degree and approximately three years of experience or a 25 Master's degree with approximately one year of experience. 26 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 3 1 III. MEANING OF “SYMBOL” – PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING 2 12. I have been asked to provide my opinion about the meaning of the word “symbol” 3 as used in claims 11 and 14 of the '792 patent. I understand that the meaning of a term is 4 considered in the context of the patent as a whole, including the claim language and the 5 specification, as well as the patent's prosecution history – collectively described as intrinsic 6 evidence. I also understand that claim construction may take into account extrinsic evidence, such 7 as dictionaries and treatises; however, such evidence is considered less reliable than intrinsic 8 evidence, and is examined in the context of the available intrinsic evidence. 9 13. I am informed and understand that district courts are not required to construe every 10 limitation present in a patent's claim. In particular, a district court is not obligated to construe 11 terms with ordinary meanings, lest trial courts be inundated with requests to parse the meaning of 12 every word in the asserted claims. However, a determination that a claim term “needs no 13 construction” or can be understood according to its “plain and ordinary meaning” may be 14 inadequate when a term has more than one ordinary meaning or when reliance on a term's ordinary 15 meaning does not resolve the parties' dispute. 16 14. The '792 patent is directed to the field of communications, specifically to data 17 transmission in a communication system. In that field, “symbol” is such a ubiquitous and well18 understood term in data communications that some data communications textbooks use it without 19 any definition. See Gitlin, et. al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES. In my opinion, it would 20 be immediately apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the '792 patent uses “symbol” 21 in a manner similar to other books, documents, and writings in the communications field. Thus, a 22 person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Claims 11 and 14 of the ’792 patent are 23 properly understood using the plain and ordinary meaning of “symbol.” Because “symbol” is 24 being used in this ordinary and customary sense, no construction of this term is necessary. 25 15. The plain and ordinary meaning is clear in the context of data transmission and 26 reception. In that context, “symbol” is widely understood to describe a modulated signal 27 representing a number of bits of information. The signal is “modulated” in the sense that one or 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 4 1 more of its properties, such as phase, frequency, or amplitude, are altered to convey the 2 information. The selected modulation technique specifies the number of bits that a symbol 3 represents. Therefore, if the Court decides a construction of the term “symbol” is necessary, it 4 should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: “a modulated signal representing a number of 5 bits specified according to the modulation technique.” Apple's and Samsung's proposed 6 constructions are summarized in the table below. 7 Claim No. Disputed Term 8 9 11 and 14 “symbol” 10 Apple's Proposed Construction “a modulated pattern in a sequence of such patterns that represents a plurality of bits” 11 12 13 14 a.) 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. Plain and ordinary meaning If the Court decides a construction is necessary: “a modulated signal representing a number of bits specified according to the modulation technique” “a modulated signal” v. “a modulated pattern” 1.) 16 Samsung's Proposed Construction Intrinsic Evidence – “a modulated signal” A “symbol” is a “modulated signal,” and not a “modulated pattern.” The language of the claims indicates that symbol is used in this plain and ordinary sense. Claims 11 and 14 both claim a “received symbol.” In order for a “symbol” to be “received,” it must have been transmitted by a source. The transmission and reception of a symbol indicate the “symbol” is a signal. 17. Moreover, Claims 11 and 14 include the language “demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits.” The ordinary meaning of “demodulating” requires a demodulator to receive a modulated signal. The understanding of “symbol” in its ordinary sense as a “signal” is fully consistent with the use of “demodulating” in the claim language. 18. The specification further confirms that a “received symbol” refers to a “signal.” Columns 21-24 of the specification teach the functionality of the receivers that is described in 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 5 1 Claims 11 and 14. Near the beginning of that section, entitled “Receiver According to Invention,” 2 the specification states, “Since a received signal is in the form of a symbol modulated by a 3 modulator in the transmitter, the received signal is first demodulated by a demodulator and then 4 provided to a deinterleaver.” '792 patent at 21:48-51 (emphasis added). The specification 5 describes a “received signal” as a “symbol” because “symbol” refers to a type of signal under its 6 ordinary meaning. 7 19. Indeed, the phrase “received signal” in the specification is used in a parallel manner 8 to the term “received symbol” in Claims 11 and 14. The specification language cited above 9 (21:48-51) closely tracks the language of Claims 11 and 14. Both the specification and the claim 10 language describe receiving information in the form of a signal/symbol, demodulating that 11 information, and then deinterleaving that information. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art 12 would have recognized that this specification language describes “symbol” as used in Claims 11 13 and 14. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specification language and the claim language 14 that highlights the parallel use of “signal” and “symbol” in the specification and the claims of the 15 ’792 patent. 16 17 18 19 20 '792 Patent, 21:48-51 “Since a received signal is in the form of a symbol modulated in the transmitter, the received signal is first demodulated by a demodulator and then provided to a deinterleaver.” 21 22 Claim 11 “An apparatus for receiving data in a communication system comprising: Claim 14 “A method for receiving data in a communication system, comprising: a demodulator for demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits; a first deinterleaver …” demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits; writing the plurality of systematic bits on a column by column basis in a first deinterleaver…” 23 2.) 24 25 20. Extrinsic Evidence – “a modulated signal” As mentioned above in ¶14, Dr. Gitlin's book does not even define “symbol,” 26 which is not surprising because “symbol” is a widely understood term. 27 implicitly uses “symbol” in its plain and ordinary sense to mean a “modulated signal,” by using 28 However, Dr. Gitlin 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?