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

Filing 319

RESPONSE to Motion re 306 MOTION to Sever and Memorandum In Support filed by WI-LAN Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Weaver, David)

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A
Overlap of Defendants’ Experts’ Non-infringement Positions
Claim Limitation

Applicable Claims Defendants’ Experts’ Non-Infringement Arguments

data items pertaining to different
wireless links [are] transmitted
simultaneously within the same
orthogonal channel

326: 2, 5–10
211: 2, 5
819: 11
327: 13
326: 2, 5–10
211: 2, 5
819: 11
327: 13
326: 2, 5–10
211: 2, 5
819: 11
327: 13
326: 2, 5–10
211: 2, 5
819: 11
326: 1–10
211: 1–5
819: 11
327: 15

The accused control/broadcast channels do not satisfy the "wireless link"
limitation because they are not directed toward a particular subscriber.

326: 1–10
211: 1–5
819: 11
327: 13, 15

Only 15 orthogonal HS-PDSCH channels are created, not 16.

an overlay code generator for
providing an overlay code

an overlay code generator for
providing an overlay code

a second [encoder/decoder],
selectively operable instead of the
TDM [encoder/decoder]
a TDM encoder arranged to apply
TDM techniques
OR
a TDM decoder arranged to extract
a data item from a predetermined
time slot
an orthogonal code from a set of
‘m’ orthogonal codes used to create
(said) ‘m’ orthogonal channels

The accused overlay codes do not “subdivide an orthogonal channel” as per the
Court’s claim construction of “overlay codes.”

There are no "overlay codes" because only a single OVSF code is used per
channel, which is not “an additional code” as per the Court’s claim construction
of “overlay codes.”
The accused second encoder/decoder is not "selectively operable" instead of the
accused TDM encoder/decoder because each operates on a separate channel
where the encoding does not change.
Data items are not allocated to time slots within a "predetermined frame
period."

1