Saint Lawrence Communications LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al
Filing 236
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 10/24/2016. (ch, )
g–1 then g0=g/1.19 bounded by g0>g–1, gs=Sm*g0+(1–Sm)*g, or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 23 (formatting modified); id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 21-22. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 23; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 21-22. Plaintiff argues that the specification discloses an algorithm. Dkt. No. 70 at 6-7. The specification sets forth the applicable mathematical relationship. See, e.g., ’123 Patent at 16:4568 & Fig. 5. The Court hereby finds that the claimed function is “calculating a smoothing gain based on said first and second factors” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that Sm=λθ and gs = Sm*g0 + (1–Sm)*g, wherein if g < g–1 then g0 = g*1.19 bounded by g0 < g–1, and wherein if g > g–1 then g0 = g/1.19 bounded by g0 > g–1; and equivalents thereof.” - 20 - F. “means for calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said voicing representative factor” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Indefinite Function: “calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said voicing representative factor” This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: λ=0.5(1–rv), Sm=λθ, if g < g–1 then g0=g*1.19 bounded by g0g–1 then g0=g/1.19 bounded by g0>g–1, gs=Sm*g0+(1–Sm)*g, or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 29-30 (formatting modified); id., Ex. B at 12; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 28. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 102 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 29-30; id., Ex. B at 12; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 28. The specification sets forth the applicable mathematical relationship. See, e.g., ’123 Patent at 16:45-68 & Fig. 5. The Court hereby finds that the claimed function is “calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said voicing representative factor” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that Sm=λθ and gs = Sm*g0 + (1–Sm)*g, wherein if g < g–1 then g0 = g*1.19 bounded by g0 < g–1, and wherein if g > g–1 then g0 = g/1.19 bounded by g0 > g–1; and equivalents thereof.” - 21 - G. “means for calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said stability representative factor” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(6). Indefinite Function: “calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said stability representative factor” This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: λ=0.5(1–rv), Sm=λθ, if g < g–1 then g0=g*1.19 bounded by g0 g–1 then g0=g/1.19 bounded by g0>g–1, gs=Sm*g0+(1–Sm)*g, or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 31; id., Ex. B at 12; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 29-30. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 103 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 31; id., Ex. B at 12; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 29-30. The specification sets forth the applicable mathematical relationship. See, e.g., ’123 Patent at 16:45-68 & Fig. 5. The Court hereby finds that the claimed function is “calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said stability representative factor” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that Sm=λθ and gs = Sm*g0 + (1–Sm)*g, wherein if g < g–1 then g0 = g*1.19 bounded by g0 < g–1, and wherein if g > g–1 then g0 = g/1.19 bounded by g0 > g–1; and equivalents thereof.” - 22 - H. “means for finding an innovative codevector in an innovative codebook in relation to an index k of said innovative codebook” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “finding an innovative codevector in an innovative codebook in relation to an index k of said innovative codebook” Structure, materials, or acts: “innovative codebook or equivalents thereof” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 25; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 23-24. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 26 and 28 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 25; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 23. Plaintiff argues that the specification discloses an algorithm. Dkt. No. 70 at 7. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The parties do not appear to dispute the claimed function. As for the corresponding structure, the specification cites several United States Patents as disclosing how “the innovative codebook search is performed in module 110 by means of an algebraic codebook.” ’123 Patent at 14:28-41 & 15:3-9 (citing U.S. Patents No. 5,444,816, 5,699,482, 5,701,392 & 5,754,976). The bare “module 110” is inadequate disclosure of structure for performing the claimed function, and reliance on material outside of the specification is generally insufficient to satisfy - 23 - the corresponding structure requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“material incorporated by reference cannot provide the corresponding structure necessary to satisfy the definiteness requirement for a means-plus-function clause”). The case of Otto Bock HealthCare LP v. Ossur HF, however, discusses “using a U.S. patent application incorporated by reference to define structure for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.” Otto Bock HealthCare LP, 557 F. App’x 950, 955-56 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2014) (“In fact, 37 C.F.R. 1.57(d) specifically envisions using a U.S. patent application incorporated by reference to define structure for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”). Otto Bock can be distinguished in some circumstances because “the parties in that case did not dispute whether the specification of the patent-in-suit disclosed a corresponding structure for the claimed function. Rather, the parties disputed the scope of the corresponding structure.” Mobile Telecomm. Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1652, Dkt. No. 244 (N.D. Tex. May 8, 2015) (Lynn, J.) (citations omitted). Here, as noted above, the ’123 Patent discloses that “the innovative codebook search is performed in module 110 by means of an algebraic codebook.” ’123 Patent at 14:28-30 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification itself discloses an “algebraic codebook” as corresponding structure. The above-noted patents cited by the specification provide additional disclosure regarding algebraic codebooks. See U.S. Patent No. 5,701,392 at 1:63-2:5 (“A second type of codebooks are [sic] the algebraic codebooks. By contrast with the stochastic codebooks, algebraic code books are not random and require no substantial storage. An algebraic codebook is a set of indexed codevectors of which the amplitudes and positions of the pulses of the kth codevector can be derived from a corresponding index k through a rule requiring no, or minimal, - 24 - physical storage. Therefore, the size of algebraic codebooks is not limited by storage requirements. Algebraic codebooks can also be designed for efficient search.”) (emphasis added); see also United States Patents No. 5,444,816, 5,699,482, 5,701,392 & 5,754,976. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “finding an innovative codevector in an innovative codebook in relation to an index k of said innovative codebook,” and the corresponding structure is “an algebraic codebook; and equivalents thereof.” I. “means for finding a codevector in relation to at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Indefinite Function: “finding a codevector in relation to at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Structure, materials, or acts: “codebook or equivalents thereof” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 21-22; id., Ex. B at 9; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 20-21. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 102, and 103 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 21-22; id., Ex. B at 9; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 20-21. This term presents substantially the same dispute as to corresponding structure as the term “means for finding an innovative codevector in an innovative codebook in relation to an index k of said innovative codebook,” addressed above. The Court accordingly finds that the claimed function is “finding a codevector in relation to at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” and the corresponding structure is “an algebraic codebook; and equivalents thereof.” - 25 - J. “means for calculating a second factor representative of stability of said wideband signal in response to at least one third wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Indefinite Function: “calculating a second factor representative of stability of said wideband signal in response to at least one third wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: θ=1.25–Ds/400000.0 or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 22; id., Ex. B at 9-10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 21. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 22; id., Ex. B at 9-10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 21. The specification sets forth the applicable mathematical relationship. See, e.g., ’123 Patent at 15:62-64 & 16:21-31. The Court hereby finds that the claimed function is “calculating a second factor representative of stability of said wideband signal in response to at least one third wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that θ = 1.25 – Ds/400000.0 bounded by 0 < θ < 1; and equivalents thereof.” - 26 - K. “means for calculating an energy of the corresponding pitch prediction error” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Indefinite Function: This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). “calculating an energy of the corresponding pitch prediction error” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: E=||x–byT||2 or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 35; id., Ex. B at 15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 31. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 8 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 35; id., Ex. B at 15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 31. Plaintiff argues that the specification discloses an algorithm. Dkt. No. 70 at 8. The specification sets forth the applicable mathematical relationship. See, e.g., ’521 Patent at 10:5464 & 12:26-35. The Court hereby finds that the claimed function is “calculating an energy of the corresponding pitch prediction error” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that E=||x–byT||2; and equivalents thereof.” - 27 - L. “means for amplifying the found codevector with said smoothing gain to thereby produce said gain-smoothed codevector” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Indefinite Function: “amplifying the found codevector with said smoothing gain to thereby produce said gainsmoothed codevector” This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Structure, material, acts: “amplifier 232 or equivalents thereof” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 23-24; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 22-23. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 102, and 103 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 23-24; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 22. Claim 21 of the ’123 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added): 21. A device for producing a gain-smoothed codevector during decoding of an encoded wideband signal from a set of wideband signal encoding parameters, said device comprising: means for finding a codevector in relation to at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter of said set; means for calculating a first factor representative of voicing in the wideband signal in response to at least one second wideband signal encoding parameter of said set; means for calculating a second factor representative of stability of said wideband signal in response to at least one third wideband signal encoding parameter of said set; means for calculating a smoothing gain based on said first and second factors; and means for amplifying the found codevector with said smoothing gain to thereby produce said gain-smoothed codevector. The claimed function is “amplifying the found codevector with said smoothing gain to thereby produce said gain-smoothed codevector.” As for the proper corresponding structure, the specification discloses: - 28 - Finally, the smoothed fixed codebook gain gs is calculated in gain smoothing calculator 228 . . . . The smoothed gain gs is then used for scaling the innovative codevector ck in amplifier 232. ’123 Patent at 16:62-67 (emphasis added); see id. at Fig. 2 (illustrating element 232). The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is thus “amplifier 232.” See id. The Court accordingly hereby finds that the claimed function is “amplifying the found codevector with said smoothing gain to thereby produce said gain-smoothed codevector” and the corresponding structure is “amplifier 232; and equivalents thereof.” M. “means for calculating said periodicity factor α using the relation: α = 0.125 (1 + rv), where rv = (Ev – Ec) / (Ev + Ec) where Ev is the energy of the pitch codevector and Ec is the energy of the innovative codevector” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “calculating said periodicity factor α” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: α=0.125(1+rv), where rv=(Ev – Ec)/(Ev + Ec) where Ev is the energy of the pitch codevector and Ec is the energy of the innovative codevector, or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 5; id., Ex. B at 3; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 20. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 6 and 26 of the ’805 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 5; id., Ex. B at 3; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 20. - 29 - Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. In particular, Defendants argue that this term “specifies a relation for calculating the periodicity factor α, but it is silent on what actually performs the calculation. That is, the limitations do not identify specific circuitry or a programmed processor.” Id. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth a mathematical relationship, the claims do not themselves recite a processor. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “calculating said periodicity factor α,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that α = 0.125(1+rv), where rv = (Ev – Ec)/(Ev + Ec) where Ev is the energy of the pitch codevector and Ec is the energy of the innovative codevector; and equivalents thereof.” - 30 - N. “means for finding a codevector in a codebook in relation to said at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “finding a codevector in a codebook in relation to said at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter” Structure, materials, or acts: “codebook or equivalents thereof” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 24; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 23. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 23 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 24; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 23. Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. - 31 - This term presents substantially the same dispute as to corresponding structure as the term “means for finding an innovative codevector in an innovative codebook in relation to an index k of said innovative codebook,” addressed above. The Court accordingly finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “finding a codevector in a codebook in relation to said at least one first wideband signal encoding parameter,” and the corresponding structure is “an algebraic codebook; and equivalents thereof.” O. “means for computing a voicing factor rv by means of the following relation: rv = (Ev– Ec) / (Ev+Ec)” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “computing a voicing factor rv” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: rv=(Ev– Ec)/(Ev+Ec), or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 25; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 24. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 26 and 28 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 25; id., Ex. B at 10; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 24. Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. - 32 - Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth a mathematical relationship, the claims do not themselves recite a processor. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “computing a voicing factor rv,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that rv=(Ev–Ec)/(Ev+Ec); and equivalents thereof.” P. “means for computing a factor λ using the following relation: λ = 0.5 (1–rv)” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “computing a factor λ” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: λ=0.5(1–rv) or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 25-26; id., Ex. B at 10-11; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 24-25. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 28 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 25-26; id., Ex. B at 10-11; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 24-25. - 33 - Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth a mathematical relationship, the claim does not itself recite a processor. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “computing a factor λ,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that λ=0.5(1–rv); and equivalents thereof.” - 34 - Q. “means for calculating an Imimitance [sic, Immitance] Spectral Pair distance measure between the Immitance Spectral Pairs in a present frame n of the wideband signal and the Immitance Spectral Pairs of a past frame n-1 of the wideband signal . . .” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “calculating an Im[]mitance Spectral Pair distance measure between the Immitance Spectral Pairs in a present frame n of the wideband signal and the Immitance Spectral Pairs of a past frame n-1 of the wideband signal” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: 𝑝𝑝−1 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠 = �(𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖 (𝑛𝑛) − 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡 (𝑛𝑛−1) )2 𝑖𝑖=1 where p is the order of the linear prediction filters or equivalents thereof.” 4 Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 27; id., Ex. B at 11; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 25-26. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 31 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 27; id., Ex. B at 11; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 25-26. The full disputed term is: “means for calculating an Imimitance [sic, Immitance] Spectral Pair distance measure between the Immitance Spectral Pairs in a present frame n of the wideband In the parenthetical “𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖 (𝑛𝑛) − 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡 (𝑛𝑛−1) ,” Plaintiff’s use of “t” instead of “i” appears to be a typographical error. See ’123 Patent at Cl. 31; see also id. at 16:6-15. Because this typographical error is readily evident, the Court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that subscript “t” is “undefined in the patent.” Dkt. No. 69 at 10 n.5. 4 - 35 - signal and the Immitance Spectral Pairs of a past frame n-1 of the wideband signal through the following relation: 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠 = ∑ 𝑖𝑖=1 (𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖 (𝑛𝑛) − 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖 (𝑛𝑛−1) )2 where p is the order of the linear prediction 𝑝𝑝−1 filters.” Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth a mathematical relationship, the claim does not itself recite a processor. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “calculating an Immitance Spectral Pair distance measure between the Immitance Spectral Pairs in a present frame n of the wideband signal and the Immitance Spectral Pairs of a past frame n-1 of the wideband signal,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that 𝑫𝑫 𝒔𝒔 = ∑ 𝒊𝒊= 𝟏𝟏 (𝒊𝒊 𝒊𝒊 𝒑𝒑 𝒊𝒊 (𝒏𝒏) − 𝒊𝒊 𝒊𝒊 𝒑𝒑 𝒊𝒊 (𝒏𝒏−𝟏𝟏) ) 𝟐𝟐 where p is the order of 𝒑𝒑−𝟏𝟏 the linear prediction filters; and equivalents thereof.” - 36 - R. “means for calculating a gain smoothing factor Sm based on both the first λ and second θ factors through the following relation: Sm = λθ” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “calculating a gain smoothing factor Sm based on both the first λ and second θ factors” Structure, material, or acts: “Sm=λθ” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. B at 11-12; Dkt. No. 70, App’x 1 at 3; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 27. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 33 and 34 of the ’123 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. B at 11-12; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 27. Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth a mathematical relationship, the claims do not themselves recite a processor. - 37 - The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “calculating a gain smoothing factor Sm based on both the first λ and second θ factors,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that Sm = λθ; and equivalents thereof.” S. “means for calculating said pitch gain b(j) using the relation: b(j)=xty(j)/||y(j)||2” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “calculating said pitch gain b(j)” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: b(j) = xty(j)/||y(j)||2 where j=0, 1, 2, . . . , K, and K corresponds to a number of signal paths, and where x is said pitch search target vector and y(j) is said convolved pitch codevector or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 35; id., Ex. B at 14-15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 30-31. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 6 and 7 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 35; id., Ex. B at 14-15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 30. Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. - 38 - Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth a mathematical relationship, the claims themselves do not recite a processor. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “calculating said pitch gain b(j),” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that b(j) = xty(j)/||y(j)||2 where j=0, 1, 2, . . . , K, and K corresponds to a number of signal paths, and where x is said pitch search target vector and y(j) is said convolved pitch codevector; and equivalents thereof.” - 39 - T. “means for comparing the energies of said pitch prediction errors of the different signal paths and for choosing as the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error the signal path having the lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction error” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction This term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Indefinite This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, if the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) applies: Function: “comparing the energies of said pitch prediction errors of the different signal paths and choosing as the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error” Structure, material, or acts: “A computer performing the following algorithm: choosing the signal path having the lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction error or equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 36; id., Ex. B at 15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 32. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 8 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 36; id., Ex. B at 15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 32. Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause th[is] . . . term[] recite[s] sufficient structure (corresponding algorithm) in the claim itself, [Plaintiff] respectfully submits that th[is] . . . term[] [is] not subject to § 112(6).” Dkt. No. 70 at 9. Defendants respond that “[t]he inclusion of mathematical formulas (or ‘algorithms,’ as [Plaintiff] calls them) in these claim terms does not specify the underlying structure that actually performs operations in accordance with those formulas.” Dkt. No. 69 at 12. - 40 - “[T]he word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies,” and Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Although the disputed term sets forth an algorithm, the claim does not itself recite a processor. The Court therefore hereby finds that this is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “comparing the energies of said pitch prediction errors of the different signal paths and choosing the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured for choosing the signal path having the lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction error; and equivalents thereof.” U. “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to filter the noise wg through a bandwidth expanded version of the same LP synthesis filter used in the downsampled domain (1/Â(z/0.8)), and equivalents thereof” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 15; id., Ex. B at 7-8; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 6 of 11; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 6 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 49 of the ’802 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 15; id., Ex. B at 7-8; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1. - 41 - (1) The Parties’ Positions Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Defendants also argue that Plaintiff “has not identified an algorithm that performs the claimed function,” and whereas “the claimed function requires shaping the spectrum of ‘the noise sequence,’” “the specification recites no structure for performing this function.” Dkt. No. 121 at 2-3. Plaintiff replies that “Defendants antecedent basis argument misreads the claim, which recites shaping ‘the spectrum of the noise sequence.’” Dkt. No. 122 at 6. In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. (2) Analysis Williamson, in an en banc portion of the decision, abrogated prior statements that the absence of the word “means” gives rise to a “strong” presumption against means-plus-function treatment. 792 F.3d at 1348-49 (citation omitted). Williamson also abrogated prior statements that this presumption “is not readily overcome” and that this presumption cannot be overcome “without a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.” Id. (citations omitted). In a subsequent part of the decision (not considered en banc), Williamson affirmed the district court’s finding that the term “distributed learning control module” was a means-plus-function term that was indefinite because of lack of corresponding structure, and in doing so Williamson stated that “‘module’ is a well-known nonce word.” Id. - 42 - at 1350. Further, Williamson identified “mechanism,” “element,” and “device” as other “nonce” words. Id. Williamson also noted that “the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word ‘means’ but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. at 1348. Here, the disputed term recites a “unit,” and the term is otherwise arranged in meansplus-function format. At the June 29, 2016 hearing, Plaintiff did not attempt to distinguish the above-discussed portions of Williamson and did not otherwise attempt to substantively rebut Defendants’ argument that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies. In some circumstances, modifiers can impart sufficient structural meaning so as to avoid means-plus-function treatment. See id. at 1351 (“the presence of modifiers can change the meaning of ‘module’”). No such language is evident here. Further, “the claim does not describe how the ‘. . . [device]’ interacts with other components . . . in a way that might inform the structural character of the limitation-in-question or otherwise impart structure to the ‘. . . [device]’ as recited in the claim.” Id. The Court thus concludes that the disputed term is a means-plus-function term subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. As to corresponding structure, the specification discloses: The scaled noise sequence wg produced in gain adjusting module 214 is . . . given by: wg=gtw. When the tilt is close to zero, the scaling factor gt is close to 1, which does not result in energy reduction. When the tilt value is 1, the scaling factor gt results in a reduction of 12 dB in the energy of the generated noise. Once the noise is properly scaled (wg), it is brought into the speech domain using the spectral shaper 215. In the preferred embodiment, this is achieved by filtering the noise wg through a bandwidth expanded version of the same LP synthesis - 43 - filter used in the down-sampled domain (1/Â(z/0.8)). The corresponding bandwidth expanded LP filter coefficients are calculated in spectral shaper 215. ’802 Patent at 19:21-35. Although this disclosure refers to filtering the “wg” noise rather than the “w” noise, this disclosure is nonetheless reasonably linked to the claimed function of “shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence.” Defendants’ expert opines that “[t]here are many ways to expand a bandwidth of this filter, but the patent specification does not adequately describe any method to be used.” Dkt. No. 121-1, Aug. 22, 2016 Clements Decl. at ¶ 14. Such arguments may perhaps bear upon enablement or written description but are not relevant or persuasive as to the present claim construction proceedings. See also Dkt. No. 122, Ex. G, Aug. 29, 2016 Ogunfunmi Decl. at ¶ 4 (“For any given sampling rate, there is only one filter that meets the above description of being the bandwidth expanded version of the same LP synthesis filter used in the down-sampled domain.”). The Court accordingly hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plusfunction term, the function is “shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured to filter the noise wg through a bandwidth expanded version of the same LP synthesis filter used in the down-sampled domain (1/Â(z/0.8)), and equivalents thereof.” - 44 - V. “gain adjustment module, responsive to said white noise sequence and a set of gain adjusting parameters, for producing a scaled white noise sequence” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured such that wg = gtw and equivalents thereof” Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: a processor configured to produce scaled white noise sequence wg by “The vector s’ is filtered through the deemphasis filter D(z) (module 207) to obtain the vector sd, which is passed through the highpass filter 208 to remove the unwanted frequencies below 50 Hz and further obtain sh.” (‘802, 17:43-46.) “The tilt factor is computed in module 212 as the first correlation coefficient of the synthesis signal sh and it is given by 𝑁𝑁−1 ∑ 𝑛𝑛=1 𝑠𝑠ℎ (𝑛𝑛)𝑠𝑠ℎ (𝑛𝑛 − 1) 𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑁𝑁−1 2 ∑ 𝑛𝑛=0 𝑠𝑠ℎ (𝑛𝑛) conditioned by tilt >= 0 and tilt >= rv.” (‘802, 18:44-55.) “[D]eriv[ing] the scaling factor gt from the amount of high frequency contents [with one of] two methods … based on the tilt of signal described above. Method 1: The scaling factor gt is derived from the tilt by gt = 1-tilt bounded by 0.2≦[1-tilt]≦1.0 … Method 2: The tilt factor gt is first restricted to be larger or equal to zero, then the scaling factor is derived from the til[t] by gt = 10-0.6tilt The scaled noise sequence wg produced in gain adjusting module 214 is therefore given by: wg = gtw.” (19:5-24.) - 45 - Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 16-17; id., Ex. B at 8-9; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 6 of 11; Dkt. No. 121 at 4-5; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 6 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 3 and 8 of the ’802 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 16-17; id., Ex. B at 8-9; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1. (1) The Parties’ Positions Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). In particular, Defendants argue that this term merely replaces “means” with “module” and recites a function performed by the module. Dkt. No. 69 at 14. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s alternative proposal “identifies multiplying by a scaling factor gt – but fails to provide the algorithm used to generate this scaling factor.” Dkt. No. 121 at 5. Plaintiff replies that “Defendants add algorithms for other claim elements.” Dkt. No. 122 at 6. In sur-reply, Defendants argue that “[t]he spectral tilt calculation is required to calculate gain,” and Defendants submit an expert declaration in this regard. Civil Action Nos. 2:15-CV349, Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see id., Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. at ¶ 14. (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “producing a scaled white noise sequence.” - 46 - As to corresponding structure, the specification discloses: Different methods can be used to derive the scaling factor gt from the amount of high frequency contents. In this invention, two methods are given based on the tilt of signal described above. Method 1: The scaling factor gt is derived from the tilt by gt = 1-tilt bounded by 0.2≦gt≦1. For strongly voiced signal where the tilt approaches 1, gt is 0.2 and for strongly unvoiced signals gt becomes 1.0. Method 2: The tilt factor gt is first restricted to be larger or equal to zero, then the scaling factor is derived from the tilt by gt = 10-0.6tilt The scaled noise sequence wg produced in gain adjusting module 214 is therefore given by: wg=gtw. ’802 Patent at 19:5-24. Whereas Defendants argue that the corresponding structure must include the two abovequoted methods for deriving gt, the claimed function pertains not to how gt is derived but rather to how gt is used to obtain wg. See, e.g., Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp., 325 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Under section 112, paragraph 6, structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. . . . A court may not import into the claim features that are unnecessary to perform the claimed function.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court accordingly hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plusfunction term, the function is “producing a scaled white noise sequence,” and the - 47 - corresponding structure is “a processor configured such that wg = gtw and equivalents thereof.” W. “convolution unit for convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted synthesis filter impulse response signal” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to convolve the vectors vf(j) with the impulse response h to obtain the vectors y(j), where j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , K, and equivalents thereof” Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 34; id., Ex. B at 14; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 6 of 11; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 6 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 5, 6, and 7 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 34; id., Ex. B at 14; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1. (1) The Parties’ Positions Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Defendants also argue that “[t]his term is indefinite for reasons similar to [the ‘spectral shaping unit’ term] above.” Dkt. No. 121 at 6. Plaintiff replies: “Defendants’ argument that ‘convolving refers to a broad class of different possible algorithms’ is incorrect. The convolution of sampled signals is an established mathematical operation . . . . Regardless of the way that one convolves the pitch codevector with the impulse response signal, the output will always be the same.” Dkt. No. 122 at 7. In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. - 48 - (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted synthesis filter impulse response signal.” As to corresponding structure, the specification discloses: The different vectors vf(j) are convolved in respective modules 304(j), where j=0, 1, 2 . . . , K, with the impulse response h to obtain the vectors y(j), where j=0, 1, 2, . . . , K. ’521 Patent at 12:23-26. Although Defendants argue that “convolving refers to a broad class of different possible algorithms” (Dkt. No. 121 at 6 (citing Dkt. No. 121-1, Aug. 22, 2016 Clements Decl. at ¶¶ 22-23)), Plaintiff’s expert has persuasively opined that “[t]he result of ‘convolving’ two signals is absolute and fixed, just as the result of multiplying two values is absolute and fixed.” Dkt. No. 122, Ex. G, Aug. 29, 2016 Ogunfunmi Decl. at ¶ 6. The Court therefore hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term, the function is “convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted synthesis filter impulse response signal,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured to convolve the vectors vf(j) with the impulse response h to obtain the vectors y(j), where j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , K, and equivalents thereof.” - 49 - X. “pitch search unit for producing pitch codebook parameters” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively: The corresponding structure comprises the combined corresponding structures identified for [“pitch codebook search device responsive to the perceptually weighted signal and linear prediction synthesis filter coefficients for producing the pitch codevector and an innovative search target vector” (Claims 10, 28 of the ’521 Patent) and “pitch analysis device responsive to the pitch codevector for selecting, from said sets of pitch codebook parameters, the set of pitch codebook parameters associated to the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error” (Claims 10, 28 of the ’521 Patent)] below. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 37; id., Ex. B at 15; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1-2; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 6 of 11; Dkt. No. 121 at 7; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 6 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 10 and 28 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 1-2. (1) The Parties’ Positions Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Defendants also argue that this term is indefinite because it is made up of other indefinite terms. Dkt. No. 121 at 9. Plaintiff replies that “Defendants seek to add algorithms for other claim elements.” Dkt. No. 122 at 9. - 50 - (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted synthesis filter impulse response signal.” As to corresponding structure, the disputed term appears in Claim 10 of the ’521 Patent, which recites in relevant part: d) a pitch search unit for producing pitch codebook parameters, said pitch search unit comprising: i) said pitch codebook search device responsive to the perceptually weighted signal and the linear prediction synthesis filter coefficients for producing the pitch codevector and an innovative search target vector; and ii) said pitch analysis device responsive to the pitch codevector for selecting, from said sets of pitch codebook parameters, the set of pitch codebook parameters associated to the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error The disputed term is recited as “comprising” the “pitch codebook search device” and the “pitch analysis device,” which are distinct disputed terms addressed herein. The corresponding structure for the “pitch search unit for producing pitch codebook parameters” thus simply comprises the corresponding structure for those constituent terms. No further construction of the present disputed term is necessary. - 51 - Y. “signal fragmenting device for receiving an encoded wideband speech signal and extracting from said encoded wideband speech signal at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and synthesis filter coefficients” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to demultiplex the long-term prediction (LTP) parameters T, b, and j per subframe; the innovation codebook index k and gain g per subframe; and the shortterm prediction parameters (STP) Â(z) per frame; and equivalents thereof” Alternatively, a distinct hardware component for receiving an encoded wideband speech signal and extracting from said encoded wideband speech signal at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and synthesis filter coefficients Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 12-13; id., Ex. B at 4; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 2; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 7 of 11; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 7 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 21, 22, 23, and 26 of the ’805 Patent. Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 2. (1) The Parties’ Positions Plaintiff argues that “[t]he term ‘device’ is commonly used and would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dkt. No. 70 at 11. Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Alternatively, Defendants argue, the Court “should require that each ‘device’ must be a ‘distinct hardware component,’ i.e. a hardware structure that performs the specific operations required by the claims.” Dkt. No. 69 at 15. Plaintiff replies that “nothing in the intrinsic record limits the ‘device’ terms to a ‘distinct hardware component’ or exclude[s] the use of a computer.” Dkt. No. 71 at 7. - 52 - As to Plaintiff’s alternative proposal, Defendants argue that “[t]he term ‘demultiplex’ is a broad functional term that does not provide a person of skill in the art with any algorithm (stepby-step procedure) – for performing the claimed [extracting] function.” Dkt. No. 121 at 10 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, Defendants argue, “[Plaintiff’s] construction also fails to identify any algorithm for the ‘receiving’ function.” Id. Plaintiff replies that “[t]he ’805 Patent discloses ‘digital input 222 (input stream to the demultiplexer 217)’ and specifies that ‘[d]emultiplexer 217 extracts the synthesis model parameters from the binary information received from a digital input channel.’” Dkt. No. 122 at 7-8. In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “receiving an encoded wideband speech signal and extracting from said encoded wideband speech signal at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and synthesis filter coefficients.” As to corresponding structure, the specification discloses: Demultiplexer 217 extracts the synthesis model parameters from the binary information received from a digital input channel. From each received binary frame, the extracted parameters are: the short-term prediction parameters (STP) Â(z) (once per frame); the long-term prediction (LTP) parameters T, b, and j (for each subframe); and the innovation codebook index k and gain g (for each subframe). - 53 - ’805 Patent at 13:41-50; see id. at 7:1-7 (“List of Transmitted Parameters”). Defendant has urged that the disclosed “[d]emultiplexer 217” is a “black box” that is insufficient structure. Dkt. No. 121 at 10 (quoting Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Plaintiff’s expert has persuasively opined, however, that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what multiplexing and demultiplexing mean in the context of digital bit streams,” and “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to multiplex the disclosed parameters into a digital bit stream and how to subsequently extract those parameters from the digital bit stream.” Dkt. No. 122, Ex. G, Aug. 29, 2016 Ogunfunmi Decl. at ¶ 7; see Typhoon Touch, 659 F.3d at 1385 (“the amount of detail that must be included in the specification depends on the subject matter that is described and its role in the invention as a whole, in view of the existing knowledge in the field of the invention”). Finally, to whatever extent Defendant maintains that Plaintiff’s proposed corresponding structure fails to disclose necessary structure for “receiving,” no specialized structure is necessary for performing this “receiving” function. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions.”). The Court therefore hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term, the function is “receiving an encoded wideband speech signal and extracting from said encoded wideband speech signal at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and synthesis filter coefficients,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor - 54 - configured to demultiplex the long-term prediction (LTP) parameters T, b, and j per subframe, the innovation codebook index k and gain g per subframe, and the short-term prediction parameters (STP) Â(z) per frame; and equivalents thereof.” Z. “pitch codebook search device responsive to said perceptually weighted signal for producing pitch codebook parameters and an innovative search target vector” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to find the parameters b, T and j which minimize the mean-squared error e(j) = ||x - b(j)y(j)||2 and configured such that x′ = x-byT, and equivalents thereof” Alternatively, a distinct hardware component responsive to said perceptually weighted signal for producing pitch codebook parameters and an innovative search target vector Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 11; id., Ex. B at 6; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 2-3; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at pp. 7-8 of 11; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at pp. 7-8 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 18 and 19 of the ’524 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 11; id., Ex. B at 6; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 2-3. (1) The Parties’ Positions Plaintiff argues that “[t]he term ‘device’ is commonly used and would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dkt. No. 70 at 11. Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Alternatively, Defendants argue, the Court “should require that each ‘device’ must be a ‘distinct hardware component,’ i.e. a hardware structure that performs the specific operations required by the claims.” Dkt. No. 69 at 15. - 55 - Plaintiff replies that “nothing in the intrinsic record limits the ‘device’ terms to a ‘distinct hardware component’ or exclude[s] the use of a computer.” Dkt. No. 71 at 7. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s alternative proposed construction “fails to provide an algorithm for producing either the pitch codebook parameters or an innovative search target vector ‘responsive to the perceptually weighted signal,’ which is the output of the ‘Perceptual Weighting filter’ 105.” Dkt. No. 121 at 11. Further, Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s proposed construction “fails to disclose how to ‘find’ these parameters, merely identifying desired qualities of b, T, and j – that the ones that are chosen should minimize the mean-squared-error – without any algorithm for finding these parameters.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff replies that “Defendants seek to add algorithms for other claim elements.” Dkt. No. 122 at 9; see id. at 10. In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “producing pitch codebook parameters and an innovative search target vector.” As to corresponding structure, Plaintiff’s proposal is supported by disclosures in the specification that are sufficiently linked to the claimed function. See ’524 Patent at 12:43-59 & 13:1-12; see also id. at 8:59-65 (“In analysis-by-synthesis encoders, the optimum pitch and - 56 - innovation parameters are searched by minimizing the mean squared error between the input speech and synthesized speech in a perceptually weighted domain.”). The Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term, the function is “producing pitch codebook parameters and an innovative search target vector,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured to find the parameters b, T and j which minimize the mean-squared error e(j) = ||x - b(j)y(j)||2 and configured such that x′ = x-byT, and equivalents thereof.” AA. “innovative codebook search device, responsive to said synthesis filter coefficients and to said innovative search target vector, for producing innovative codebook parameters” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to find the optimum excitation codevector ck and gain g which minimize the mean-squared error E = ∥x′−gHck∥2, and equivalents thereof” Alternatively, a distinct hardware component responsive to said synthesis filter coefficients and to said innovative search target vector, for producing innovative codebook parameters Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 11-12; id., Ex. B at 6-7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 3-4; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 8 of 11; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 8 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 18 and 19 of the ’524 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 11-12; id., Ex. B at 6-7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 3. (1) The Parties’ Positions Plaintiff argues that “[t]he term ‘device’ is commonly used and would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dkt. No. 70 at 11. Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting - 57 - Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Alternatively, Defendants argue, the Court “should require that each ‘device’ must be a ‘distinct hardware component,’ i.e. a hardware structure that performs the specific operations required by the claims.” Dkt. No. 69 at 15. Plaintiff replies that “nothing in the intrinsic record limits the ‘device’ terms to a ‘distinct hardware component’ or exclude[s] the use of a computer.” Dkt. No. 71 at 7. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s alternative proposal “fails to disclose how to ‘find’ these innovative codebook parameters ck and g, merely identifying their desired qualities – that the ones that are ‘found’ should minimize the mean-squared-error – without any algorithm for doing this search.” Dkt. No. 121 at 12. Further, Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s proposal “fails to provide an algorithm for producing the innovative codebook parameters ‘responsive to said synthesis filter coefficients.’” Id. Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ arguments should be rejected for the same reasons as for the term “pitch codebook search device responsive to the perceptually weighted signal and linear prediction synthesis filter coefficients for producing the pitch codevector and an innovative search target vector” that appears in Claims 10 and 28 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 122 at 10. In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “producing innovative codebook parameters.” - 58 - As to corresponding structure, Plaintiff’s proposal is supported by disclosures in the specification that are sufficiently linked to the claimed function. See ’524 Patent at 13:12-20. The opinion of Defendants’ expert to the contrary is unpersuasive. See Dkt. No. 121-1, Aug. 22, 2016 Clements Decl. at ¶ 26. The Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term, the function is “producing innovative codebook parameters,” and the corresponding structure is minimize the mean-squared error E = ∥x′−gHck∥2, and equivalents thereof.” “a processor configured to find the optimum excitation codevector ck and gain g which BB. “signal forming device for producing an encoded wideband [speech] signal” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to multiplex the pitch codebook parameters T, b, and j; the innovation codebook parameters k and g; and the synthesis filter coefficients Â(z); and equivalents thereof” Alternatively, a distinct hardware component for producing an encoded wideband [speech] signal Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 12; id., Ex. B at 7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 4; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at 8-9; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at pp. 8-9 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 18 and 19 of the ’524 Patent and Claims 10 and 11 of the ’521 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 12; id., Ex. B at 7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 4. (1) The Parties’ Positions Plaintiff argues that “[t]he term ‘device’ is commonly used and would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dkt. No. 70 at 11. - 59 - Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Alternatively, Defendants argue, the Court “should require that each ‘device’ must be a ‘distinct hardware component,’ i.e. a hardware structure that performs the specific operations required by the claims.” Dkt. No. 69 at 15. Plaintiff replies that “nothing in the intrinsic record limits the ‘device’ terms to a ‘distinct hardware component’ or exclude[s] the use of a computer.” Dkt. No. 71 at 7. As to Plaintiff’s alternative proposal, Defendants argue that “‘multiplex’ does not provide an algorithm, but describes a broad class of algorithms.” Dkt. No. 121 at 12. Plaintiff replies that “[t]he ‘signal forming device’ corresponds to the encoder’s multiplexer 112 that multiplexes the parameters into a digital bit stream.” Dkt. No. 122 at 7 (citing ’524 Patent at 13:31-33). In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “producing an encoded wideband [speech] signal.” As to corresponding structure, the specification discloses: Referring to FIG. 1, the parameters b, T, j, Â(z), k and g are multiplexed through the multiplexer 112 before being transmitted through a communication channel. - 60 - ’524 Patent at 13:31-33; see ’521 Patent at 13:22-24 (same); see also ’521 Patent at 12:45-56. Plaintiff’s proposed corresponding structure is thus supported by disclosure that is sufficiently linked to the claimed function. The opinions of Defendants’ expert to the contrary are unpersuasive. See Dkt. No. 121-1, Aug. 22, 2016 Clements Decl. at ¶ 28; see also Typhoon Touch, 659 F.3d at 1385 (“the amount of detail that must be included in the specification depends on the subject matter that is described and its role in the invention as a whole, in view of the existing knowledge in the field of the invention”). The Court therefore hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term, the function is “producing an encoded wideband [speech] signal,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured to multiplex the pitch codebook parameters T, b, and j, the innovation codebook parameters k and g, and the synthesis filter coefficients Â(z); and equivalents thereof.” CC. “signal fragmenting device for receiving an encoded version of a wideband signal previously down-sampled during encoding and extracting from said encoded wideband signal version at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and linear prediction filter coefficients” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) Alternatively, the corresponding structure is: “a processor configured to demultiplex the long-term prediction (LTP) parameters T, b, and j per subframe; the innovation codebook index k and gain g per subframe; and the shortterm prediction parameters (STP) Â(z) per frame; and equivalents thereof” Alternatively, a distinct hardware component for receiving an encoded version of a wideband signal Dkt. No. 61, Ex. B at 7; Dkt. No. 70, App’x 2 at 3; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 4-5; Dkt. No. 89, Ex. A at p. 7 of 11; Dkt. No. 122, App’x at p. 7 of 11. The parties submit that this term appears - 61 - in Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 49 of the ’802 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. B at 7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 4-5. (1) The Parties’ Positions Plaintiff argues that “[t]he term ‘device’ is commonly used and would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dkt. No. 70 at 11. Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Alternatively, Defendants argue, the Court “should require that each ‘device’ must be a ‘distinct hardware component,’ i.e. a hardware structure that performs the specific operations required by the claims.” Dkt. No. 69 at 15. Plaintiff replies that “nothing in the intrinsic record limits the ‘device’ terms to a ‘distinct hardware component’ or exclude[s] the use of a computer.” Dkt. No. 71 at 7. As to Plaintiff’s alternative proposal, Defendants argue that Plaintiff “fails to provide any algorithm for the receiving or extracting functions,” and “the disclosure that [Plaintiff] purports to be an algorithm does not teach extracting ‘linear prediction filter coefficients’ as required by the claimed function.” Dkt. No. 121 at 13. Plaintiff replies that “[t]he ’805 Patent discloses ‘digital input 222 (input stream to the demultiplexer 217)’ and specifies that ‘[d]emultiplexer 217 extracts the synthesis model parameters from the binary information received from a digital input channel.’” Dkt. No. 122 at 7-8. In sur-reply, Defendants submit expert opinion that there is no algorithm. See Dkt. No. 212 at 3; see also id. at Ex. C, Sept. 6, 2016 Clements Decl. - 62 - (2) Analysis For substantially the same reasons set forth above as to the term “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal,” the Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “receiving an encoded version of a wideband signal previously down-sampled during encoding and extracting from said encoded wideband signal version at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and linear prediction filter coefficients.” As to the corresponding structure, the specification discloses: Demultiplexer 217 extracts the synthesis model parameters from the binary information received from a digital input channel. From each received binary frame, the extracted parameters are: the short-term prediction parameters (STP) Â(z) (once per frame); the long-term prediction (LTP) parameters T, b, and j (for each subframe); and the innovation codebook index k and gain g (for each subframe). ’802 Patent at 14:64-15:7. Plaintiff’s proposed corresponding structure is thus supported by disclosure that is sufficiently linked to the claimed function. The opinions of Defendants’ expert to the contrary are unpersuasive. See Dkt. No. 121-1, Aug. 22, 2016 Clements Decl. at ¶ 29; see also Typhoon Touch, 659 F.3d at 1385 (“the amount of detail that must be included in the specification depends on the subject matter that is described and its role in the invention as a whole, in view of the existing knowledge in the field of the invention”). Also, whereas Defendants argue that the structure identified by Plaintiff “does not teach extracting ‘linear prediction filter coefficients’ as required by the claimed function” (Dkt. No. 121 at 13), Plaintiff has persuasively argued that the - 63 - short-term prediction parameters Â(z) include linear prediction filter coefficients. See ’802 Patent at 9:33; see also id. at 17:32 (“quantized LP coefficients Â(z)”). The Court therefore hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term and that the function is “receiving an encoded version of a wideband signal previously down-sampled during encoding and extracting from said encoded wideband signal version at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and linear prediction filter coefficients,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor configured to demultiplex the long-term prediction (LTP) parameters T, b, and j per subframe, the innovation codebook index k and gain g per subframe, and the short-term prediction parameters (STP) Â(z) per frame; and equivalents thereof.” DD. “signal synthesis device including a linear prediction filter for filtering said excitation signal in relation to said linear prediction filter coefficients to thereby produce a synthesized wideband signal” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Alternatively, a distinct hardware component for filtering said excitation signal in relation to said linear prediction filter coefficients to thereby produce a synthesized wideband signal Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 13; id., Ex. B at 7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 5. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 49 of the ’802 Patent. Dkt. No. 61, Ex. A at 13; id., Ex. B at 7; Dkt. No. 73, App’x B at 5. Plaintiff argues that “[t]he term ‘device’ is commonly used and would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dkt. No. 70 at 11. - 64 - Defendants argue that this term uses a well-known “nonce” word and is “in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations.” Dkt. No. 69 at 13 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350). Alternatively, Defendants argue, the Court “should require that each ‘device’ must be a ‘distinct hardware component,’ i.e. a hardware structure that performs the specific operations required by the claims.” Dkt. No. 69 at 15. Plaintiff replies that “nothing in the intrinsic record limits the ‘device’ terms to a ‘distinct hardware component’ or exclude[s] the use of a computer.” Dkt. No. 71 at 7. Because the term itself recites a “linear prediction filter,” this disputed term is not a means-plus-function term. See, e.g., Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348, 1350; Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Court hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments. The Court also hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ alternative proposed construction, and no further construction is necessary, as likewise discussed as to the term “innovation filter for filtering the innovative codevector in relation to said periodicity factor to thereby reduce energy of a low frequency portion of the innovative codevector and enhance periodicity of a low frequency portion of the excitation signals,” below. The Court accordingly hereby construes “signal synthesis device including a linear prediction filter for filtering said excitation signal in relation to said linear prediction filter coefficients to thereby produce a synthesized wideband signal” to have its plain meaning. - 65 - EE. “pitch analysis device for producing a set of pitch codebook parameters” Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction No construction necessary Indefinite The term is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). To the extent the Court finds that § 112(6) applies to the preamble, the corresponding structure is “a processor configured (a) such that vT(n) = u(n-T) for n=0 . . . n=N-1 when T>N, and vT(n) is the available samples from the past excitation when T N, and vT(n) is the available samples from the past excitation when T N, the pitch codebook is equivalent to the filter structure (1/(1-bz–T), and a pitch codebook vector vT(n) at pitch lag T is given by vT(n)=u(n-T), n=0, . . . , N-1. For pitch lags T shorter than N, a vector vT(n) is built by repeating the available samples from the past excitation until the vector is completed (this is not equivalent to the filter structure). *** [T]he target vector x is updated by subtracting the LTP contribution: x'=x–byT where b is the pitch gain and yT is the filtered pitch codebook vector (the past excitation at delay T filtered with the selected low pass filter and convolved with the impulse response h as described with reference to FIG. 3). ’521 Patent at 10:35-46 & 12:62-13:2; see id. at 12:2-12 (“pitch codebook search module 301”) & 12:19-20 (“pitch codevector generator 302”); see also id. at 11:1-10. The Court hereby finds that the present disputed term is a means-plus-function term, the function is “producing the pitch codevector and an innovative search target vector,” and the corresponding structure is “a processor: configured for maximizing the search criterion - 73 - 𝐶𝐶 = 𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡 𝑦𝑦 𝑇𝑇 𝑡𝑡 �𝑦𝑦 𝑇𝑇 𝑦𝑦 𝑇𝑇 ; configured such that vT(n) = u(n-T) for n=0 . . . n=N-1, when T>N, and vT(n) is the available samples from the past excitation when T
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.