WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 149

***FILED IN ERROR. SEE DOCUMENT 150 FOR CORRECT PLEADING*** JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Ericsson Inc., Exedea INC., HTC America, Inc., HTC Corporation, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, WI-LAN Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-PARTIES PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH DISPUTED CLAIM TERM, PHRASE, OR CLAUSE, # 2 Exhibit B-Wi-LAN'S IDENTIFICATION OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE, # 3 Exhibit C-DEFENDANTS' IDENTIFICATION OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE)(Fedock, John) Modified on 2/7/2012 (mll, ).

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A
The Parties’ Proposed Construction of Each Disputed Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause
CLAIM TERM

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

channel pool

Plain and ordinary meaning

“The set of orthogonal channels available
to a central terminal to use to establish
wireless links”

orthogonal channel(s)

Wi-LAN proposes construing “orthogonal Orthogonal channel: “A communication
channels” (in the plural) and “orthogonal channel defined by an orthogonal code”
channel” (in the singular) separately, as
follows:
Orthogonal channels: “A set of channels
that cross-correlate to zero with respect to
each other”
Orthogonal channel: “One of the set of
orthogonal channels”

overlay code

“Orthogonal codes used to increase the “A second code applied in series with the
number of orthogonal channels that would orthogonal code”
otherwise be available”

parameters pertaining to a wireless link
within the cell indicative of whether that
wireless link is subject to interference
from signals generated by said other cells

Plain and ordinary meaning

1

“Two or more indicators that an individual
wireless link is experiencing interference
from other cells”

CLAIM TERM

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

subscriber terminal

“User equipment”

“A fixed-location device”

time division multiplexing (TDM)
techniques

“Techniques for allocating an interval of
time within a predetermined frame period
to a data item, based on one or more
characteristics associated with the data
item”

“Methods in which a communication
channel is shared among multiple wireless
links by allowing each to use the channel
for a given period of time in a defined,
repeated sequence”

Wi-LAN believes that it is improper to
construe this term in isolation. Rather, WiLAN proposes construing the term “a
TDM decoder arranged to extract a data
item from a predetermined time slot within
said orthogonal channel,” as follows:

“A device used to extract information from
a communication channel that is shared
among multiple wireless links by
allocating a given period of time to each
such link in a defined, repeated sequence”

TDM techniques
Plaintiff’s proposed term:
a TDM decoder arranged to extract a data
item from a predetermined time slot
within said orthogonal channel
Defendants’ proposed term:
TDM decoder

Plaintiff’s proposed term:
a TDM encoder arranged to apply time
division multiplexing (TDM) techniques
Defendants’ proposed term:
TDM encoder

“Hardware or software for extracting a
data item from a predetermined time slot
within the orthogonal channel”
Wi-LAN believes that it is improper to
construe this term in isolation. Rather, WiLAN proposes construing the term “a
TDM encoder arranged to apply time
division multiplexing (TDM) techniques,”
as follows:
“Hardware or software for applying TDM
techniques”

2

“A device that applies time division
multiplexing (TDM) techniques to share a
communication channel among multiple
wireless links”

CLAIM TERM

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

time slot

“An interval of time”

“A period of time during which a single
wireless link is permitted to use a shared
communication channel”

channelisation means for determining
which of the orthogonal channels will be
subject to TDM techniques, and for
transmitting that information to a plurality
of subscriber terminals
• ’326 patent, claim 6

Function: determining which of the Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112
orthogonal channels will be subject to
TDM techniques
Corresponding Structure: The modem shelf
46, including at least the Demand
Assignment Engine 380 described in the
’326 patent. (See also Ex. B.)
Function: transmitting that information to a
plurality of subscriber terminals
Corresponding Structure: The modem shelf
46, the power supply 44 and RF Combiner
42. (See, e.g., ’326 patent, 7:35-8:51, Fig.
3 & Fig. 3A; see also Ex. B.)

channelisation means also determines, for
those orthogonal channels subject to TDM
techniques, how many time slots will be
provided within each orthogonal channel
• ’326 patent, claim 7

Function:
determining,
for
those Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112
orthogonal channels subject to TDM
techniques, how many time slots will be
provided within each orthogonal channel
Corresponding Structure: The modem shelf
46, including at least the Demand
Assignment Engine 380 described in the
’326 patent. (See also Ex. B.)

channelisation means for determining Function: determining which of the Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112
which of the orthogonal channels will be orthogonal channels will be subject to
subject to overlay codes, and for
3

CLAIM TERM

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
transmitting that information to a plurality overlay codes
of subscriber terminals
Corresponding Structure: The modem shelf
• ’819 patent, claim 10
46, including at least the Demand
Assignment Engine 380 described in the
’819 patent. (See also Ex. B.)
Function: transmitting that information to a
plurality of subscriber terminals
Corresponding Structure: The modem shelf
46, the power supply 44 and RF Combiner
42. (See, e.g., ’819 patent, 7:26-8:43, Fig.
3 & Fig. 3A; see also Ex. B.)

4

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION