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

Filing 589

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Samsung's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Unredacted Version) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Briggs Declaration and Ex. A-F in support of Samsung's Opening Claim Construction Brief, #2 Exhibit Briggs Declaration Ex. G-I, #3 Declaration Wesel Declaration in Support of Samsung's Proposed Claim Construction for US Patent No. 7,200,792, #4 Declaration Cole Declaration in Support of Samsung's Proposed Claim Construction for US Patent No. 7,698,711, #5 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 1, #6 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 2, #7 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 3, #8 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 4, #9 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 5, #10 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 6, #11 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 7A-7G, #12 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 8, #13 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 9A-9C, #14 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 10, #15 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 11, #16 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 12)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/6/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

19

SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

20

Plaintiff,
vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25

Date: January 20, 2012
Time: 10:00 am
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL

26
27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3
4 I. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 

5 II. 

BACKGROUND REGARDING THE SAMSUNG PATENTS IN SUIT ........................... 1 

6

A. 

Samsung’s Standards Essential Patents..................................................................... 1 

7

B. 

Samsung’s Feature Patents ........................................................................................ 2 

8 III. 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW ........................................................................................ 3 

9 IV. 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 ............................................................................................... 4 

10

A. 

Introduction to the ’792 Patent .................................................................................. 4 

11

B. 

“Symbol” ................................................................................................................... 7 

12 V. 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,698,711 ............................................................................................. 12 

13

A. 

Introduction to the ’711 Patent ................................................................................ 12 

14

B. 

“Applet” .................................................................................................................. 13 

15 VI. 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 18 

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-iSAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
3

Page
Cases

4 Clearwater Systems Corp. v. Evapco, Inc.,
No. 2009-1284, 2010 WL 3448148 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2010) ..................................................16
5
Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
6
626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................4
7 Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.,
355 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................3
8
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
9
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................................................3
10 O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.,
521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................3, 4
11
Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
12
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................3
13 Protective Optics, Inc. v. Panoptx, Inc,
458 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .....................................................................................17
14
Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc,
15
413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................16
16 Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.,
845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................17
17
Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc.,
18
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................................3
19
Other
20
Harold, Eliotte, The Java Developer’s Resource (1997) .................................................................17
21
22

Gitlin, Richard D., Hayes and Weinstein, Data Communications Principles (Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers 1992) ........................................................................................7, 9

23 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th Ed., 2003), pg. 124 ....................17
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-iiSAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1 I.

INTRODUCTION

2

Defendants and counterclaimants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics

3 America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”)
4 respectfully submit this opening brief on two disputed claim terms from two of the 12 Samsung
5 utility patents infringed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”). The two terms at issue are “symbol” as used in
6 the U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 (the “’792 Patent”) and “applet” as used in U.S. Patent No.
7 7,698,711 (the “’711 Patent”). Samsung’s interpretation of these two terms finds full support in
8 the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. It is also supported by dictionary
9 definitions, and expert and inventor testimony. By contrast, Apple’s definitions are litigation10 inspired attempts to avoid infringement. The Court should reject Apple’s efforts to artificially
11 narrow the claims and should construe the terms in accordance with the intrinsic record and
12 qualifying extrinsic evidence.
13 II.

BACKGROUND REGARDING THE SAMSUNG PATENTS IN SUIT

14

In 1991, more than 15 years before Apple announced its first phone, Samsung began

15 developing mobile phone technology. Samsung has since invested billions of dollars researching
16 and developing patented technologies necessary to practice modern wireless standards as well as
17 novel feature technology. From 2005 through 2010 alone, Samsung invested more than $35
18 billion in research and development. More than a quarter of Samsung employees – over 50,100
19 engineers overall, including about 8,700 who work in telecommunications – engage daily in
20 cutting-edge research and development projects. By 2008, Samsung surpassed the 800 million
21 mark in the number of mobile phones manufactured.
22

A.

23

Many of Samsung’s technological innovations have been incorporated into mobile device

Samsung’s Standards Essential Patents

24 standards, which define the protocols for transmitting information wirelessly and ensure that
25 mobile devices made by different manufacturers can operate together within a wireless network.
26 Because interoperability is essential for wireless communications, technical standards are needed
27 to ensure an efficient and functional system. Samsung has been a leader in developing the ideas
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-1-

1 and protocols needed to increase the efficiency, reliability, and functionality of standards-based
2 wireless networks and the features available in these networks.
3

The standards organization that develops technical standards for mobile communications

4 systems is called the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). Samsung joined 3GPP in 1998
5 – the same year 3GPP was created – and has played a critical role in developing the 3GPP
6 standard. Samsung’s sustained investment in mobile communications research and development
7 has generated numerous technological advances, including thousands of Samsung patents. Many
8 of these advances have been incorporated into the 3GPP standard, and 3GPP has recognized
9 hundreds of Samsung patents as essential to the 3GPP standard. Samsung has asserted seven
10 such standard essential patents in this action, including the ’792 Patent. Because the 3GPP
11 standard defines how information is transmitted over a mobile network, Samsung’s standards
12 essential patents are necessarily infringed by products that comply with the 3GPP standard.
13 Apple’s own expert, Richard Gitlin, acknowledges this. Deposition of Richard D. Gitlin (“Gitlin
14 Dep.”) at 12:16-25 (Briggs Decl. at Ex. D).1
15

Apple was a late arrival to the mobile communication device market. Apple did not enter

16 this market until 2007 when it released the iPhone. However, Apple made its mobile devices
17 3GPP compliant without securing necessary patent licenses, including licenses from Samsung. In
18 doing so, Apple necessarily infringed and continues to infringe on hundreds of Samsung’s
19 standards essential patents worldwide, including the standards essential patents asserted in this
20 action. By taking advantage of the pre-existing 3GPP infrastructure without paying royalties,
21 Apple has been free-riding on Samsung’s and other companies’ investments in and contributions
22 to mobile communications technology.
23

B.

24

Samsung has asserted five feature patents against Apple in this action, including the ’711

Samsung’s Feature Patents

25 Patent. Samsung’s feature patents cover aspects that are critical to the use and enjoyment of
26
27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

1

Citations to “Briggs Decl. Ex. ___” refer to the Declaration of Todd M. Briggs in Support
of Samsung’s Opening Claim Construction Brief and the exhibits thereto.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-2-

1 Apple’s iPhone, iPad and iPod products. These patents provide the user with the ability to fully
2 utilize the features and capabilities of today’s smart phones, tablet computers, and music players.
3 Samsung’s patents provide functionalities essential to the user experience for these devices,
4 including such fundamental features as the ability to play music on a mobile device while
5 performing other tasks, the simultaneous generation and display of the time in various locations in
6 the world, the ability to email photographs taken using the device, and the ability to show
7 messages on one part of a display while allowing a user to view other functions on another part of
8 the display. The inventions disclosed in Samsung’s feature patents have become integral parts of
9 the user experience and are demanded by consumers. They are what makes today’s phone a
10 “smartphone.” Apple realized the importance of the features covered by Samsung’s patents and
11 incorporated them into its mobile communication devices.
12 III.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW

13

Claim construction is a matter of law to be determined by the Court.

Markman v.

14 Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
15 (1996). “It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the
16 intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in
17 evidence, the prosecution history. Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the
18 legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
19 Inc., 355 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d
20 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In addition to such intrinsic evidence, a court may rely on extrinsic
21 evidence, such as dictionaries and treatises, to shed light on the claimed technology. Phillips v.
22 AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, such evidence is considered “less
23 significant than the intrinsic record” and “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
24 determining how to read claim terms.” Id. at 1317-18.
25

“[A] district court is not obligated construe terms with ordinary meanings, lest trial courts

26 be inundated with requests to parse the meaning of every word in the asserted claims.” O2 Micro
27 Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
28 “[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-3-

1 patent’s asserted claims.” Id. at 1362. A finding that a claim term “needs no construction” or
2 has the “plain and ordinary meaning” may be inadequate where the plain and ordinary meaning
3 fails to resolve the parties’ dispute. Id. at 1361. However, a finding of “plain and ordinary
4 meaning” is sufficient where the court rejects the opposing party’s claim construction. See
5 Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a
6 finding of “plain and ordinary meaning” where the district court rejected Defendant’s claim
7 construction and prevented courtroom argument regarding the meaning of the term).
8 IV.

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792

9

A.

10

Introduction to the ’792 Patent

The ’792 Patent, entitled “Interleaving Apparatus and Method for Symbol Mapping in an

11 HSDPA Mobile Communication System,” is a standards essential patent that describes novel
12 techniques for interleaving and deinterleaving data in a mobile communication system. The ’792
13 Patent is one of a series of patents filed by Samsung that relate to cutting-edge technology
14 developed by Samsung called “symbol mapping based on bit priority” or “SMP.”

SMP

15 significantly improves the performance of wireless data transmissions, by utilizing the fact that
16 some bits represented by a symbol are less prone to error than others. SMP revolutionized data
17 transmission, and its incorporation into 3GPP was cited in major publications. Deposition of
18 Hun-Kee Kim, Rough Tr. at 54:15-55:12 (Briggs Decl. Ex. A); SAMNDCA00146000 (Briggs
19 Decl. Ex. B); “Samsung Electronics’ Asynchronous IMT-2000 Technology Adopted as
20 International Standard Specification,” September 20, 2002, iNews24.com (Briggs Decl. Ex. C).
21 SMP technology, including the ’792 Patent, was accepted as essential to the 3GPP mobile
22 communication standard, and consequently Apple’s products necessarily practice the ’792 Patent.
23 Deposition of Richard D. Gitlin (“Gitlin Dep.”) at 12:16-25 (Briggs Decl. Ex. D).
24

As a general matter, mobile communication devices communicate by transmitting and

25 receiving radio frequency signals. Declaration of Richard Wesel In Support of Samsung’s
26 Proposed Claim Construction for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 (“Wesel Decl.”) at ¶15.

The

27 properties of these signals are altered, or “modulated,” in order to represent bits of information.
28 Id. This is somewhat similar to the way radio works by modulating the amplitude (AM) or
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-4-

1 frequency (FM) of a signal to send information. However, in digital communications, unlike with
2 analog radio, the signals represent a number of bits of information – in other words, a set of 1’s
3 and 0’s.
4

In digital communications systems, data is first encoded using an encoder. This adds

5 additional bits called parity bits that allow for the correction of errors that may occur during
6 transmission. The bits are then “interleaved,” or jumbled up, so that any errors that occur will be
7 more widely distributed and easier to correct. A modulator then receives the bits output from the
8 interleaving process and performs a digital-to-analog conversion. This produces a modulated
9 analog signal known as a symbol for wireless transmission.
10

In this context, a “symbol” is widely understood to describe a modulated signal

11 representing a number of bits of information. Wesel Decl. at ¶15. The modulation technique
12 specifies the number of distinct modulations, or “symbols,” that are used. Using more distinct
13 symbols allows each symbol to represent a greater number of bits, as shown below.
14

Number of Distinct
Symbols

Modulation Technique

15
16
17
18

BPSK
QPSK
8PSK
16QAM
64QAM

19
20

2
4
8
16
64

Number of Bits
Represented by Each
Symbol
1
2
3
4
6

As shown below for the example of 16QAM, the graphical depiction of these symbols is

21 typically in the form of a two-dimensional graph known as a “signal constellation" of symbols,
22 where the amplitude and the angle (or phase) is used to show the separate signals. Each point
23 represents a symbol and corresponds to the amplitude and phase of an analog signal.

For

24 instance, the farther away from the center a point is, the greater its amplitude. Each distinct
25 symbol represents a number of bits. In our example, the symbol on the top-right corner has been
26 designated as representing a four bit value, 0-1-1-1. Other symbols have other unique 4-bit
27 values.
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-5-

Imaginary Axis
(quadrature or Q)

1
0011

0010

0110

3

0111

0100

0101

3

2
0001

0000
1

4
5
6
7

‐3

‐1

1001

1000

1

θ

3

1100

1101

1110

1111

‐1
1011

1010

Real Axis
(in‐phase or I)

‐3

8
9
10

Fig. 1 – Signal Constellation Diagram

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Fig. 2 – Analog Signal Corresponding to Each Symbol

23
24

The array of waves above offer a more intuitive understanding of the signal constellation.

25 Each waveform in Fig. 2 is the analog signal corresponding to the point on the signal constellation
26 in Fig. 1. For example, consider the symbol in Fig. 1 corresponding to 0-1-0-1 (with a red
27 arrow). The distance between the symbol point and the center (i.e. the length of the red arrow in
28 Fig. 1) corresponds to the amplitude (or size) of the signal in Fig. 2. The further away from the
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-6-

1 center, the higher the amplitude. By comparison, because the point representing the 0-1-1-1
2 symbol on the upper right corner of Fig. 1 is even further away from the center, it represents a
3 signal of even higher amplitude. (Similarly, the angle/phase represents the amount by which the
4 signal is shifted left or right.)
5

To summarize, each point on the signal constellation – each distinct symbol – has a unique

6 analog signal. The symbol represents a sequence of bits (such as 0-1-0-1 or 0-1-1-1) as depicted
7 by Fig. 1. However, each symbol actually is a signal that has been modulated (altered) to change
8 its amplitude and phase. It is these signals/symbols, and not a pattern of 0's and 1's, that are
9 transmitted to allow wireless communication.
10

B.

11

“Symbol”

Samsung’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

12

If the court decides a construction is
necessary:
“a modulated signal representing a number
of bits specified according to the
modulation technique.”

13
14
15

Apple’s Proposed Construction
“a modulated pattern in a sequence of
such patterns that represents a plurality of
bits”

16
The term “symbol” appears in claims 11 and 14 of the ’792 Patent. Claim 11 is provided

17
18
19
20

below for context.
11.

An apparatus for receiving data in a communication system, comprising:
a demodulator for demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and
parity bits;

21
22
23

a first deinterleaver for writing the plurality of systematic bits on a column by column
basis and performing inter-column permutation;

24

a second deinterleaver for writing the plurality of parity bits on a column by column basis
and performing inter-column permutation;

25

a rate matcher for rate matching the de-interleaved systematic bits and parity bits; and

26

a decoder for decoding the rate matched systematic bits and parity bits, wherein a size of
the first deinterleaver is equal to a size of the second deinterleaver.

27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-7-

1

No construction of this term is necessary because it has a well-understood meaning in the

2 art.

However, if the Court determines that this term does require construction, Apple’s

3 construction should be rejected as it contains limitations that are nonsensical, unnecessary, and
4 find no support in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. Samsung’s alternative construction, on the
5 other hand, finds complete support in the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
6
7

1.

“Symbol” Should be Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning

The term “symbol” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and need not be further

8 construed. In the field of communications, “symbol” is a ubiquitous and well-understood term.
9 Wesel Decl. at ¶14. Indeed, Dr. Gitlin himself uses “symbol” without definition in his textbook.
10 See Gitlin, Hayes and Weinstein, DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES, Kluwer Academic/Plenum
11 Publishers (1992) (“Gitlin et. al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES”) (Briggs Decl. Ex. E);
12 Wesel Decl. at ¶14. As discussed above, mobile communication devices generally communicate
13 by transmitting and receiving modulated signals. Wesel Decl. at ¶15. These modulated signals
14 are known as “symbols” and each symbol represents a number of bits specified according to the
15 modulation technique. Id. Claims 11 and 14 use “symbol” in this well-understood manner.
16 The specification also uses “symbol” in an ordinary sense. See, e.g. ’792 Patent at 21:48-51
17 (describing how a “received signal” is in the form of a symbol).
18
19
20

2.

If the Court Determines that “Symbol” Warrants Construction, the
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence Support Samsung’s Alternative
Construction

If the Court determines a construction of “symbol” is necessary, “symbol” should be

21 construed consistent with its ordinary meaning: “a modulated signal representing a number of bits
22 specified according to the modulation technique.” Samsung’s proposed alternative construction
23 is consistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term. Apple’s
24 proposed construction, in contrast, adds three unnecessary and unsupportable limitations.
25

(a)

A symbol is “a modulated signal” and not “a modulated
pattern”

26
A symbol is a “signal.” Wesel Decl. at ¶16. Although it may represent a series or pattern
27
of bits, a “symbol” is not itself a “pattern.” Id. This is consistent with the plain and ordinary
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-8-

1 meaning of symbol, as supported by the intrinsic evidence. For instance, Claims 11 and 14
2 require “demodulating a received symbol.” ’792 Patent at Claims 11 and 14 (Briggs Decl. Ex.
3 G). In order to be “received,” a “symbol” must first have been transmitted. This requires that
4 the symbol be a signal. Id. at ¶17. A “pattern,” on the other hand, may or may not be capable of
5 transmission.

The claim language also specifies that the received symbol is converted

6 (demodulated) into “a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits.” Id. The ordinary meaning of
7 “demodulating” requires a demodulator to receive a modulated signal. Id.
8

The specification strongly confirms that symbols are a type of signal. The specification

9 closely tracks the language of Claims 11 and 14 describing “symbol,” explaining that a symbol is
10 a modulated signal. A comparison between the specification and the claims removes any doubt
11 that they are discussing the same signal/symbol:
12
13
14
15
16
17

’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.”

18

Claim 11
Claim 14
“An apparatus for receiving “A method for receiving
data in a communication
data in a communication
system comprising:
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…”

19
The extrinsic evidence also confirms that a “symbol” is ordinarily a “signal,” and not a
20
“pattern.”

Apple’s expert, Dr. Gitlin, uses “symbol” and “signal” interchangeably in his

21
textbook. See, e.g. Gitlin et al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES at 72-78 (Briggs Decl. Ex.
22
E); Gitlin. Dep. at 93:6-94:13. This is because “symbol” ordinarily refers to a “modulated
23
signal.” However, Dr. Gitlin does not use “pattern” in the same manner. See Gitlin Dep. at
24
95:16-21. Indeed, Dr. Gitlin cannot cite any examples in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence where
25
“pattern” is used to refer to a “symbol.” See, e.g. id. at 98:1-17. Dr. Gitlin’s declaration also
26
refers to a “signal constellation of symbols.” Declaration of Prof. Richard D. Gitlin in Support of
27
Apple’s Proposed Claim Construction for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792, dated November 14, 2011
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-9-

1 (“Gitlin Decl.”), at ¶57; Wesel Decl. at ¶21. Consistent with its plain meaning, the Court should
2 construe “symbol” as a signal, not a pattern.
3

Apple seeks to uphold its position that a “symbol” is a “pattern” by focusing on other

4 specification language that discusses “symbol pattern.” However, “symbol pattern” refers to the
5 pattern of bits that are then mapped onto a symbol. See Wesel Decl. at ¶23-25, ’792 Patent at
6 10:53-56, 20:13 (describing the use of “symbol pattern” to refer to systematic and parity bits).
7 Dr. Gitlin himself uses the term “pattern” to refer to a pattern of bits that are input into a
8 “mapper.” Gitlin Dep. at 62:23-63:1 (Q: Okay. So when you use the term “pattern,” that’s
9 referring to the pattern of bits that are input into the mapper? A: Yes.). Since “pattern” refers to
10 a pattern of bits, “pattern” cannot refer to a “symbol” because both Apple and Samsung agree that
11 a symbol represents a number of bits.
12

In order to salvage its defective argument, Apple claims that a “modulator” is not a

13 modulator. Instead, Apple proposes that a “modulator” is a mapper. See, e.g. Gitlin Dep. at
14 56:19-57:1, 114:1-16 (describing the alleged use of the term “modulator” to mean “mapper,” and
15 “demodulator” to mean “demapper”). Apple’s interpretation of “modulator” is incorrect. The
16 plain language of the claims speak of demodulating a “received symbol.” ’792 Patent, Claims 11
17 and 14. Again, in order to be received, a symbol must be transmitted. That transmission can
18 only happen if a modulator modulates a signal.

Unsurprisingly, “modulator” is properly

19 interpreted as a “modulator,” and not a “mapper.”
20
21
22

(b)

A symbol is a signal “representing a number of bits specified
according to the modulation technique,” not a sequence of
patterns “that represents a plurality of bits.”

A symbol represents a number of bits specified according to the modulation technique used

23 to generate the symbol. In plain and ordinary usage, a symbol could represent just one bit, such
24 as under BPSK (Binary Phase-Shift Keying). Wesel Decl. at ¶26. It could represent 6 bits,
25 under 64QAM (64-ary Quadrature Amplitude Modulation). Id. Regardless, the number of bits
26 in a symbol is specified by the modulation technique. Id. This is confirmed by the language of
27 the claims and specification. See, e.g., ’792 Patent at Claim 10 (“if the modulation scheme is
28 16QAM… mapping onto one modulation symbol 2 bits from the first interleaver and 2 bits from
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-10-

1 the second interleaver), ’792 Patent at 22:11-13 (“The DEMUX demultiplexes as many input bits
2 as a prescribed number according to a modulation technique.”). Dr. Gitlin fully agrees that
3 “symbol” ordinarily includes symbols that represent only one bit.

As he states, “[O]ne of

4 ordinary skill in the field of the ’792 Patent would be aware of symbols that do not represent
5 a plurality of bits.” Gitlin Decl. at ¶53; see also Wesel Decl. at ¶32. Indeed, Dr. Gitlin agrees
6 with Samsung’s proposed language, “representing a number of bits specified according to the
7 modulation technique.” Gitlin Dep. at 120:25-121:10. (Q: I mean, would you agree that a
8 symbol represents a number of bits specified according to a modulation technique? A: Yes. Q.
9 Okay. So your real issue with Samsung’s proposed construction is the portion that states “a
10 modulated signal”? A: Yes.)
11

Apple argues that the ’792 deviates from this plain and ordinary meaning and adopts a

12 special definition of “symbol,” as representing a “plurality of bits.”

However, Apple is

13 improperly limiting the definition of “symbol.” Samsung acknowledges that Claims 11 and 14
14 include limitations requiring a “plurality of ... bits.” However, these limitations are found in other
15 claim terms, not the term “symbol.” Wesel Decl. at ¶33. Claim 11 reads “... a demodulator for
16 demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits.” If “symbol”
17 inherently meant signals representing “a plurality of bits,” then the use of “plurality” in Claim 11
18 would be redundant. Id. In other words, “symbol” is used according to its plain and ordinary
19 meaning, even though Claims 11 and 14 as a whole refer to a “plurality of ... bits.” Id. In
20 contrast, Apple’s construction contradicts the plain and ordinary meaning. The Court should
21 reject Apple’s position and find that no construction of “symbol” is necessary.
22
23

(c)

A symbol is not “in a sequence” of such symbols

Apple’s position, that a symbol must be “in a sequence” of such symbols, should also be

24 rejected because it is contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of symbol and not supported by
25 the evidence. A symbol can appear alone, outside of a sequence. Gitlin Dep. at 100:13-17. It is
26 true that a symbol typically appears in a sequence of symbols when transmitting data. Wesel
27 Decl. at ¶35. Indeed, the deinterleavers described in Claims 11 and 14 operate on sequences of
28 symbols, because the deinterleaving process only makes sense in the context of a sequence of
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-11-

1 symbols. Id. However, this limitation does not extend to the term “symbol.” A symbol does
2 not cease to be a symbol simply because it is by itself. Wesel Decl. at ¶36. As an analogy,
3 words often appear in a sequence of words, as in a sentence or a paragraph. However, a word
4 standing alone is still a word. Wesel Decl. at ¶34. One would not define “word” by stating that
5 a word appears in a sequence of words. Id. Likewise, it would be improper to define “symbol”
6 by stating that a symbol appears in a sequence of symbols. A “symbol” is still a “symbol,” even
7 if it does not appear “in a sequence” of symbols.
8 V.

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,698,711

9

A.

10

Introduction to the ’711 Patent

The ’711 Patent, entitled “Multi-Tasking Apparatus and Method in Portable Terminal,”

11 describes an “apparatus and method capable of performing multiple tasks in a portable terminal …
12 in which the menu functions of the portable terminal can be implemented while continuing to play
13 the music.” ’711 Patent Abstract (Briggs Decl. Ex. H). The apparatus and method of the ’711
14 Patent were invented to address the problem of users’ inability to multi-task while listening to
15 music in the background. In the prior art, users could not “simultaneously work on several menus
16 of the portable terminal while listening to the music using the conventional MP3 music function.”
17 ’711 Patent at 1:39-41. The ’711 Patent solved this problem by disclosing an apparatus and
18 method by which “menu functions of the portable terminal can be implemented while continuing
19 to play a music file.” ’711 Patent at 1:58-61. The invention of the ‘711 patent allowed users to
20 do what consumers now take for granted: schedule appointments, email, and look at their photos
21 while listening to their favorite songs.
22

One of the features that distinguishes the invention disclosed in the ’711 Patent is its use of

23 applets to offer the user a rich multi-tasking experience. The music background player not only
24 contains the ability to play music while the user multi-tasks, but it also contains application
25 modules and applets that allow the user to access many different types of programs and menus, all
26 while still listening to MP3 files. ’711 Patent Col. 3:8-14, Fig. 2. Unlike the prior art, which
27 was limited in what type of multi-tasking could be performed, the ’711 Patent’s use of applets to
28 integrate full multi-tasking functionality created an enhanced user experience.
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-12-

1
2
3

B.

“Applet”

Samsung’s Proposed Construction
“A small application designed to run
within another program.”

4
5

Apple’s Proposed Construction
“An operating system-independent
computer program that runs within an
application module.”

The term “applet” appears in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 of the ’711 Patent. Claim 1

6 illustrates how “applet” is used in the claims:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1.

A multi-tasking method in a pocket-sized mobile communication device
including an MP3 playing capability, the multi-tasking method
comprising:
generating a music background play object, wherein the music background
play object includes an application module including at least one applet;
providing an interface for music play by the music background play
object;
selecting an MP3 mode in the pocket-sized mobile communication device
using the interface;
selecting and playing a music file in the pocket-sized mobile
communication device in the MP3 mode;
switching the MP3 mode to a standby mode while the playing of the music
file continues;
displaying an indication that the music file is being played in the standby
mode;
selecting and performing at least one function of the pocket-sized mobile
communication device from the standby mode while the playing of the
music file continues; and
continuing to display the indication that the music file is being played
while performing the selected function.

The dispute boils down to whether an “applet” must be “operating system-independent,” as
Apple contends, or not as Samsung contends. As explained below, nothing in the intrinsic
evidence requires or even mentions operating system dependence or independence and the
extrinsic evidence demonstrates that an “applet” can be either operating system dependent or
independent. The Court should reject Apple’s attempt to import a limitation that appears only in
a cherry-picked set of extrinsic sources. Samsung’s construction is supported by the intrinsic and
extrinsic evidence and should be adopted by the Court.

28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-13-

1

1.

The Intrinsic Evidence Supports Samsung's Construction

2

Samsung's construction is based directly on the '711 specification.

3

The term “applet” appears only once in the specification. That portion refers to “applet”

4 as follows:
5
6
7

FIG.1 is a block diagram of a portable terminal according to an exemplary
embodiment of the present invention, in which an MP3 music control processor is
not included. Application modules of the portable terminal include at least one
applet and each of the application modules, that is each menu of the portable
terminal, independently performs multi-tasking.

8 ’711 Patent at 3:8-14 (emphasis added).
9

This description closely tracks Samsung’s proposed construction: “A small application

10 designed to run within another program.” Nothing in the specification even remotely suggests
11 that an “applet” must be operating system independent. In fact, the specification does not even
12 use the term operating system.
13

The prosecution history also supports Samsung’s construction. The term “applet” was

14 added during prosecution at the request of the Patent Examiner. As detailed in an interview
15 summary, the “Examiner suggested to further include the definition ‘a music background play
16 object’ as ‘wherein the music background play objects including an application module includes at
17 least one applet’ as argued during the interview to distinct [sic] from the icon as taught by
18 KOKUBO.” U.S. Patent Application No. 11/778,466, Examiner’s Interview Summary of
19 December 16, 2009 (Briggs Decl. at Ex. I). As a result of this request, the applicant amended the
20 claims to include the language , “wherein the music background play object includes an
21 application module including at least one applet.” U.S. Patent Application No. 11/778,466,
22 Applicant’s December 8, 2009 Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment at pp. 2-4. During
23 the amendment process, neither the examiner nor the applicant, provided a definition of the term
24 “applet.” Furthermore, the Kokubo patent, which prompted the amendment, does not disclose, or
25 even discuss, operating system dependence or independence.

The prosecution history thus

26 confirms that inclusion of the term “applet” in the ’711 patent had absolutely nothing to do with
27 dependence on or independence of a particular operating system.
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-14-

1

The extrinsic evidence confirms that Apple’s construction is improper. As explained by

2 Samsung’s expert, Joe Tipton Cole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
3 there were many different types of applets written in many different types of languages and that
4 those applets may be operating system dependent or independent. Cole Decl. 2 at ¶¶ 49-58.
5 Thus, one skilled in the art would have been aware of the operating system dependent nature of
6 many of the applets used in 2005.

For example, there were applets that were designed

7 specifically for the Windows environment, as well as the Linux environment, and even for Apple’s
8 own operating system environment that were operating system dependent.

Id. at ¶¶ 65-66.

9 When confronted with this list of applets, Apple's expert, Tony Givargis, agreed that these were
10 examples of non-Java applets that existed in 2005, and that those in the art would be aware of
11 these different types of applets. Deposition Transcript of Tony Givargis ("Givargis Dep.") at
12 30:17-33:12, 44:18-21 ("Givargis Dep.") (Briggs Decl. at Ex. F).
13

Supporting Mr. Cole’s opinion and the contemporaneous evidence of operating system

14 dependent applets, are the contemporaneous notes and testimony of the inventor of the ’711
15 Patent, Moon-Sang Jeong. His notes include an entire page dedicated to applets and interfaces.
16 While there is no mention of a specific operating system-independent or Java applet, there are
17 dozens of other applets that have nothing to do with operating system-independent applets. See
18 Cole Ex. 4 (SAMNDCA00139800). Furthermore, Dr. Joeng testified that at the time of the
19 invention “applet” could be used in both an operating system dependent and independent fashion.
20 Deposition of Moon-Sang Jeong at 30:15-31:1 (Cole Ex. 3). While “applet” generally could be
21 used in both fashions, Dr. Jeong explained that he was using “applet” in an operating system22 dependent fashion based on his development of the ’711 invention in the context of his
23 development of the Qualcomm platform that used only Qualcomm chipsets. Id. at 35:4-36:16.
24 When confronted with Mr. Jeong's testimony, Dr. Givargis, admitted that the applets that Mr.
25
26
27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

2

Citations to “Cole Decl. Ex. ___” and “Cole Decl. ¶___” refer to the Declaration of Joe
Tipton Cole in Support of Samsung’s Opening Claim Construction Brief and the exhibits thereto.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-15-

1 Jeong was working with – i.e. the invention that would issue as the ’711 patent – were system
2 dependent. Givargis Dep. at 40:10-16.
3

2.

Apple’s Attempt To Import A Limitation From Carefully Selected
Extrinsic Sources Should Be Rejected

4
Apple and Dr. Givargis rely exclusively on cherry-picked extrinsic evidence relating to the
5
use of “applet” in an operating system independent fashion, such as the use of Java applets.
6
Apple and Dr. Givargis completely ignore the intrinsic evidence and the abundance of extrinsic
7
evidence establishing that applets can be operating system dependent.
8
Dr. Givargis tries to rationalize his reliance on Java-type applets by stating in his report
9
that in 2005 “mobile phone manufacturers increasingly produced Java-enabled devices.”
10
Declaration of Tony Givargis, PhD in Support of Apple’s Proposed Claim Construction for U.S.
11
Patent No. 7,698,711 (“Givargis Decl.”) at ¶ 22. While Dr. Givargis points to supposed trends in
12
mobile phone manufacturing to support his emphasis on Java, he is unable to point to any
13
reference to Java in the ’711 Patent or any evidence that would connect the ’711 Patent to Java
14
type devices. Givargis Dep. at 35:20-36:23. In fact, Dr. Givargis admitted that "[t]here is
15
absolutely no reference to Java" in the entire file history of the ’711 patent. Id at 35:20-24. Not
16
only is there no reference to Java in the file history, but Dr. Givargis admitted that there is no
17
reference to Java in the portions of the specification and claims that refer to “applet”. Id. at
18
36:15-19.
19
After erroneously concluding that the “applet” of the ’711 Patent refers to a Java applet,
20
Dr. Givargis uses the extrinsic sources that discuss Java applets to further narrow “applet” to
21
require “operating system-independence.” That is rather like citing only books about dogs as
22
evidence that all animals have four legs and a tail. While Java applets are often operating system
23
independent, that is simply not true for all applets. When asked to point out where the ’711
24
Patent mentions operating system independence with regards to the term “applet,” Dr. Givargis
25
admitted that there was no such language in the patent. Id. at 36:15-23, 39:17-40:1. When asked
26
the same question regarding the prosecution history, Dr. Givargis likewise failed to find any
27
support for his position. Id. at 35:25-36:4. Much like his unsupported reliance on Java, Dr.
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-16-

1 Givargis has no intrinsic support for his position that “applet” is limited to “operating system2 independent” applets. Therefore, the Court should disregard Apple’s construction. Seachange
3 Intern., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc, 413 F.3d 1361, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[I]t is improper to import a
4 limitation into a claim where the limitation has no basis in the intrinsic record.”); Clearwater
5 Systems Corp. v. Evapco, Inc., No. 2009-1284, 2010 WL 3448148, *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2010)
6 (overruling the district court’s construction when an extraneous limitation was imported into the
7 claim and there was no limiting language in the claims, written description, or prosecution history
8 requiring such a limitation).
9

Not only does the intrinsic evidence not support Dr. Givargis’ position, but the very

10 extrinsic evidence he cites does not support his absolute position that “applet” must be operating
11 system-independent. The Java Developer’s Resource (1997) by Eliotte Harold states that Java
12 applets “can be independent of the host platform.” Givargis Decl. at ¶ 45. Dr. Givargis also cites
13 the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th Ed., 2003) at page 124, which
14 defines applet as “a small program, typically written in Java.” Givargis Decl. at ¶ 42. At best,
15 the references make general statements about the possibility of making applets independent of an
16 operating system, or the possibility of using Java for applets. In none of these cases is operating
17 system independence a requirement.
18

In short, Apple’s attempt to import a limitation that has no basis in the intrinsic record

19 from selected extrinsic sources is improper and should be rejected. See Specialty Composites v.
20 Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (overturning the district court’s construction of
21 the term “plasticizer” that narrowed the term to “external plasticizer” when there was no evidence
22 in the intrinsic record to narrow the claim term and those skilled in the art used “plasticizer” as a
23 broad and inclusive term); Protective Optics, Inc. v. Panoptx, Inc, 458 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1061 24 1063 (N.D.Cal. 2006) (“Where a claim is expressed in general descriptive words, the court will
25 not put a narrowing modifier before an otherwise general term that stands unmodified in a claim.”)
26 The Court should therefore adopt Samsung’s construction of “applet” which does not import such
27 limitations and instead conforms to the general meaning of the term to one skilled in the art as
28 well as conforming with the intent and practice of the inventor of the ’711 Patent.
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-17-

1 VI.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that this Court adopt its claim

3 constructions for “symbol” and “applet.”
4 DATED: December 8, 2011
5

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

6
7
8
9
10
11

By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51845/4468852.5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-18-