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

Filing 558

REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF to re #461 Claim Construction Statement Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-5 by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit R, #3 Exhibit S, #4 Exhibit T, #5 Exhibit U, #6 Exhibit V)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/29/2011) Modified text on 12/30/2011 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT V

MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
Administrative Law Judge

In the Matter of
CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
RELATED SOFTWARE

Inv. No. 337-TA-750

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT AND BRIEF OF THE
COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF

Lynn I. Levine, Director
Anne Goalwin, Supervisory Attorney
Lisa M. Kattan, Investigative Attorney
OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW., Suite 401
Washington, D.C. 20436
202.205.2058 (Phone)
202.205.2158 (Facsimile)
September 9, 2011

Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only

APLNDC-X0000006648

9

1. proximity image representing a scan of a plurality of electrodes
/ proximity image (claims 1, 10, 24)

Claim Term

“proximity image
representing a
scan of a plurality
of electrodes”
(claims 1, 24)

Apple and Staff’s
Proposed
Constructions
a proximity image
where the data
corresponds to signals
from a plurality of
electrodes

Motorola’s Proposed Constructions

a two-dimensional pixilated image
corresponding to a two-dimensional
array of pixilated electrodes wherein
each pixel represents self-capacitance
measured at a single electrode during
a particular scan cycle
“proximity image” an array of proximity see “proximity image representing a
(claims 1, 10, 24) data
scan of a plurality of electrodes”

Staff agrees with Apple’s construction of these terms.7 The specification of the
‘828 Patent supports Apple’s construction. See APHB at 49-50. In contrast, Motorola’s
construction attempts to limit the term to self-capacitance, and read out mutual
capacitance, which the plain meaning of the claims terms does not warrant. See APHB at
50-51. Motorola’s construction likewise improperly reads in other limitations from
particular embodiments in the specification. Id.
2. segmenting each proximity image into one or more pixel
groups that indicate significant proximity (claim 1)
Claim Term

Apple and Staff’s
Proposed Construction

“segmenting each
proximity image into
one or more pixel

collecting pixels in each
proximity image into one or
more pixel groups that are

Motorola s Proposed
Constructions
plain and ordinary meaning

7

The Staff proposed a different construction for this term during preliminary claim
construction, but has determined at this time that Apple’s construction is the correct one.
MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
APLNDC-X0000006667
Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only

10
Claim Term

Apple and Staff’s
Proposed Construction

groups that “indicate
significant proximity”

identified by their proximity
values

Motorola s Proposed
Constructions

Apple and the Staff’s construction should be adopted because the evidence will
show that Apple and Staff have proposed the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
See APHB at 51-52, citing CX-201C (Balakrishnan Direct Witness Statement) at Q.405411; JX-003 (‘828 Patent) at 8:61-63 (“image segmentation means for collecting into
groups those proximity image pixels intensified by contact of the same distinguishable
part of a hand.”); id. at 19:2-5 and 23:8-25:2.
Motorola’s also proposes that the term be given its plain and ordinary meaning,
however its construction does not require that the claimed system be able to segment
images with more than one pixel group into distinguishable parts. See MPHB at 319322.8 The Staff believes that the evidence will not support Motorola’s construction.
3. each pixel group representing proximity of a distinguishable
hand part or other touch object (claim 1, 10)
Claim Term

“each pixel group
representing
proximity of a
distinguishable
hand part or other
touch object”

Apple and Staff’s
Proposed
Construction
each pixel group
representing the
distance or pressure
between the touchsensitive surface and a
different part of a
hand or other touch
object

Motorola’s Proposed
Construction
each pixel group representing
proximity of a specific hand part
such as a thumb, fingertip, or
palm that can be assigned a
specific hand and finger identity
so that hand configurations and
motions can be distinguished

8

Motorola urges this construction because without it, prior art, such as the Desai thesis,
which can only process single images, does not disclose this limitation.
MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
APLNDC-X0000006668
Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only

11
The proper construction of this limitation does not require the additional
limitation, as Motorola proposes, that the each pixel group be a “specific hand part such
as a thumb, fingertip, or palm that can be assigned a specific hand and finger identity”
which in effect reads out the claim language stating that an “other touch object” besides a
hand is claimed. See APHB at 53-54, citing CX-201C (Balakrishnan Direct Witness
Statement) at Q.419-424.
In addition, distinguishing different hand parts is specifically claimed in
dependent claims 4 and 14, which depend from Claim 1, which includes the limitation at
issue. See APHB at 53-54, citing CX-201C (Balakrishnan Direct Witness Statement) at
Q.419-424.
4. mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse to at least one of the pixel
groups (claims 1, 10)

Claim Term
“mathematically
fitting an ellipse”
(claim 1)
“mathematically
fit an ellipse”
(claim 10)
“mathematically
fitting an ellipse to
at least one of the
pixel groups”
(claim 1)
“mathematically
fit an ellipse to at
least one of the
one or more pixel
groups” (claim 10)

Apple s Proposed
Constructions
comput(ing) numerical
parameters that
mathematically define an
ellipse

comput(ing) numerical
parameters that
mathematically define an
ellipse which
approximates the shape
of at least one of the
pixel groups

Motorola and Staff’s Proposed
Constructions
applying a unitary transformation
of the group covariance matrix of
second moments of proximity data
to fit an ellipse

for at least one of the pixel groups,
applying a unitary transformation
of the group covariance matrix of
second moments of proximity data
for all pixels in that pixel group to
fit an ellipse

MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only
APLNDC-X0000006669

51
In the Staff’s view, the term “substantially perpendicular” can be construed and
should be given its ordinary meaning in this art. The ‘607 Patent does not give a special
definition of this term, nor does it disclaim anything that would otherwise be considered
substantially perpendicular. See APHB at 261, citing CX-202C [Subramanian Direct
Witness Statement] at Q124-127.22
11. “disposed on” (claim 4)
Claim Term
“disposed on”

Apple s Proposed
Construction
located on

Motorola s Proposed
Construction
placed on using
deposition, etching, or
printing

Staff’s Proposed
Construction
placed or arranged
on

In the Staff’s view, the term disposed on in the context of the ‘607 Patent means
placed or arranged on, that is that an item A is disposed on item B with a particular
technique. The evidence is expected to show that the term signifies more than the mere
location of item A, but is not limited to the specific techniques of deposition, etching or
printing that are identified in the patent, as Motorola contends. See JX-002 (‘607 Patent)
at 15:40-45 (“the sensor layer 176 is typically disposed on the glass member 178 using
suitable transparent conductive materials and patterning techniques”); id. at 59-61 (“Like
the sensing layer 176, the driving layer 180 is disposed on the glass member using
suitable materials and patterning techniques”).
12. “glass member” (claim 4, 5, 10)
Claim Term

Apple and Staff’s Proposed
Construction

Motorola s Proposed Construction

22

See also, JX-002 [’607 patent] at Figs. 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and associated text; 2:5067; 5:47-58; 11:61-67; 12:3-23; 14:44-47
MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
APLNDC-X0000006709
Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only

52
Claim Term
“glass member”

Apple and Staff’s Proposed
Construction
glass or plastic element

Motorola s Proposed Construction
plain and ordinary meaning

In the Staff’s view, the patentees acted as their own lexicographers and gave a
clear definition of “glass member” in the specification of the ‘607 Patent: “By way of
example, each particular type of layer may be formed from the same or different material.
For example, any suitable glass or plastic material may be used for the glass members.”
JX-002 (‘607 Patent) at 16:44-4723; see also CX-202C [Subramanian Direct Witness
Statement] at Q136-143.24 Thus the evidence is expected to show that a construction that
attempts to read out either glass or plastic as an option for glass member does not
comport with the intrinsic evidence and is not correct.
13. “disposed over” (claims 4, 5, 10)

Claim Term
“disposed over”

Apple s Proposed
Construction
located over

Motorola and Staff’s Proposed
Construction
placed on top of

The parties appear to be offering constructions of the term “disposed over” that
differ in wording but not in substance as none of the infringement, validity, or domestic
industry issues appear to turn on the meaning of the term. See, e.g., APHB at 265,
MPHB at 158. As such, the Staff is of the view that the Judge need not adopt a particular
construction for this term. However, the Staff expects the evidence to show that its
proposed construction of “disposed over” as meaning “placed on top of” is consistent

23

See also, JX-002 [’607 patent] at Figs. 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and associated text; 10:3758; 12:35-13:6; 13:62-14:11; 14:60-62; 15:35-16:49; 20:32-47; Claims 4, 5, 10.
24

See also, JX-002 [’607 patent] at Figs. 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and associated text; 10:3758; 12:35-13:6; 13:62-14:11; 14:60-62; 15:35-16:49; 20:32-47; Claims 4, 5, 10.
MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
APLNDC-X0000006710
Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only

Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software

Inv. No. 337-TA-750

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on September 9, 2011, she caused the foregoing
COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S PREHEARING STATEMENT AND
BRIEF to be filed with the Commission, served by hand upon Administrative Law Judge
Theodore R. Essex (2 copies plus .pdf and .docx copies to
[e-mail]), and served upon the parties via encrypted email:
Complainant Apple Inc.
Mark Davis, Esq.
Weil, Gotshall & Manges LLP
1300 Eye Street
Washington, D.C. 20005

Robert T. Haslam
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphins Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Respondents Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street. 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Charles F. Schill
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20036

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

/s/ Lisa M. Kattan
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
202.205.2058
202.205.2158 (Facsimile)

Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only

APLNDC-X0000006795