Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 240

STATEMENT re Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit A-1, #6 Exhibit B-1, #7 Exhibit C-1, #8 Exhibit D-1, #9 Exhibit 1, #10 Exhibit 2, #11 Exhibit 3, #12 Exhibit 4, #13 Exhibit 5, #14 Exhibit 6)(Berry, Matthew)

Exhibit 1

Parties’ Joint Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507
I.

AGREED UPON TERMS

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Agreed Construction

1.

Instruction

Instruction

Found in Claim Numbers:

Agreed construction:

63-67, 70, 71, 74, 77, 80-83, 86

A statement that specifies a function to be performed by a system and that identifies
data involved in performing the function

2. determining the degree of similarity between the subject
matter content of the uncategorized segment and the subject
matter content of each of the previously categorized segments

determining the degree of similarity between the subject matter content of the
uncategorized segment and the subject matter content of each of the previously
categorized segments

Found in Claim Numbers:

Agreed construction:

39, 40, 43, 82, 83, 86

determining how similar the subject matter content of the uncategorized segment is
to the subject matter content of each of the previously categorized segments

3. one or more segments having previously been categorized by
identifying each of the one or more segments with one or more subject
matter categories, comprising . . .

subject matter categories

selecting one or more subject matter categories with which to
identify the uncategorized segment based upon the subject matter
categories used to identify the relevant previously categorized
segments.

topics (e.g., international, national, regional, business, sports, or human interest)
describing the subject matter content of a segment

Found in Claim Numbers:
39; 82

1

sf-2999374

Agreed construction:

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Agreed Construction

4. A method for acquiring and reviewing a body of information,
wherein the body of information includes a plurality of segments,
each segment representing a defined set of information in the body of
information, the method comprising the steps of:

body of information
Agreed construction:
collection of acquired information

body of information
Found in Claim Numbers:
20; 22; 24; 27; 34; 39; 63; 65; 67; 70; 77; 82

II.

DISPUTED TERMS

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

1. the display of the portion or
representation of the second
segment is generated in response
to the display of a first segment
to which the second segment is
related

generated in response to the display of a first segment

generated in response to the display of a first segment

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

originated or produced as a consequence of the display of a
first segment

rendered after and in reaction to the display of a first
segment

Found in claim numbers:

Intrinsic:

Intrinsic:

3:43-45 “A portion or a representation of the related

2:48-52 (“[Prior art] systems do not enable the real-time

1

In addition to the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence cited herein, the parties reserve the right to identify (1) all claims in which any term appears as support for
their constructions and (2) all intrinsic and extrinsic evidence for each claim term cited by the other side.
2
Defendants identify herein evidence that may support its proposed constructions. By identifying portions of the specification in this document, defendants do
not concede that any claim satisfies the enablement or written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and expressly reserve the right to challenge any claim
on those bases
2

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

20; 633

information can be displayed in response to (e.g.,
simultaneous with) the original information display.”

display of some or all of a body of information while also
displaying related information in response to the real-time
display.”)

5:10-17 (“The second display mechanism displays a portion
or representation of the second segment in response to the
display by the first display mechanism of a first segment to
which the second segment is related The second display
mechanism can display a portion or representation of the
second segment substantially coextensive in time with the
display of the related first segment by the first display
mechanism.”)
17:26-31 (“Identification of the relatedness of primary
information segments can be accomplished by determining
the degree of similarity between the primary information
segment being displayed and each other primary
information segment. The degree of similarity can be
determined using any appropriate method, such as, for
example, relevance feedback.”)
No Extrinsic

3:43-52 (“A portion or a representation of the related
information can be displayed in response to (e.g.,
simultaneous with) the original information display. For
instance, in a news browser . . . one or more text news
stories . . . that are related . . . to a television news story
that is being displayed can be automatically identified and
a portion of the related text news story or stories displayed
. . . .”)
4:34-40 (“The invention also enables the realtime display
of some or all of a body of information while also
displaying related information in response to the real-time
display. For example, in a news browser according to the
invention, television news programs can be acquired and
displayed as they occur. Related news stories, either from
previously acquired television news programs or text
news sources can be displayed as each television news
story is displayed in real time.”)
5:10-17 (“The second display mechanism displays a
portion or representation of the second segment in
response to the display by the first display mechanism of a
first segment to which the second segment is related. The
second display mechanism can display a portion or
representation of the second segment substantially
coextensive in time with the display of the related first
segment by the first display mechanism.”)
17:9-11 (“To enable display of thumbnails, primary
information segments that are related to the primary

3

The parties include by reference any claims that depend from the claims listed in this chart
3

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
information segment that is being displayed must be
determined.”)
17:26-31 (“Identification of the relatedness of primary
information segments can be accomplished by
determining the degree of similarity between the primary
information segment being displayed and each other
primary information segment. The degree of similarity can
be determined using any appropriate method, such as, for
example, relevance feedback.”)
19:2-7 (“As the segment of primary information being
displayed changes, the secondary information displays . . .
typically change as well. As indicated above, segments of
secondary information that are related to the primary
information that is being displayed can be identified . . .
.”)
1st Office Action at p. 5-6 (“The following is a statement
of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art, alone or in combination, with respect to
claims 1-17, 35, 59, 63, and 64, fails to teach or fairly
suggest a system for acquiring and reviewing a body of
information as set forth in claim 1, particularly in which
data representing segments of the body of information are
acquired and stored, and subsequently compared
according to predetermined criteria following the display
of a first segment, such that if segments are related then a
second segment is displayed. As for the most relevant art
of record, the Cobbley et al (5,614,940) reference
discloses a system in which broadcast information is
stored in a cache and indexed for retrieval by requesting
end users. The system fails to disclose or suggest to
comparison of segments for the subsequent display of
related segments by respective ‘display means’. The
Hidary et al (5,774,664) reference discloses a system in

4

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
which video programming and retrieved Internet
information segments are displayed in synchronization.
The reference likewise fails to disclose or suggest the
comparison of acquired segments of information. Rather,
the retrieval of web page information occurs automatically
in response to their receipt via a particular television
program, or in response to a particular time. As to claims
47-58 and 62, the prior art, alone or in combination, does
no teach or fairly suggest the identification of boundaries
of segments in a body of information, each segment
comprising a contiguous related set of information in the
body of information, wherein the body of information is
represented by text data and video data, particularly
through course and fine partitioning as set forth in the
claims, and subsequently the selection of best occurring
breaks.”) See also Final Office Action, Dec. 19, 2000, at
p. 4 (same).
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, May
6, 2011 at p. 4 - “On May 18, 2000, Examiner issued an
Office Action and in that, the Examiner indicated that
application claims 35 and 59 (among others), which
issued as claims 20 and 63, respectively were allowable.
There was no further examination of what ultimately
issued as claims 20 and 63 . . . . Regarding ‘the most
relevant art of record’ with respect to claims 35 and 59,
the Examiner stated reasons for allowance as follows:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication
of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in
combination, with respect to claims . . . 35 and 59, and . . .
fails to teach or fairly suggest a system for acquiring and
reviewing a body of information as set forth in claim 1,
particularly in which data representing segments of the
body of information are acquired and stored, and
subsequently compared according to predetermined

5

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
criteria following the display of a first segment, such that
if segments are related then a second segment is
displayed. As for the most relevant art of record, the
Cobbley et al (5,614,940) reference discloses a system in
which broadcast information is stored in a cache and
indexed for retrieval by requesting end users. The system
fails to disclose or suggest to comparison of segments for
the subsequent display of related segments by respective
‘display means’. The Hidary et al (5,774,664) reference
discloses a system in which video programming and
retrieved Internet information segments are displayed in
synchronization. The reference likewise fails to disclose
or suggest the comparison of acquired segments of
information. Rather, the retrieval of web page information
occurs automatically in response to their receipt via a
particular television program, or in response to a particular
time.” (emphasis in original).
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, May
6, 2011 at p. 7 (“Subsequently, Examiner issued a Notice
of Allowance on Mar. 4, 2011 in response to the
Patentee’s response to the final Office Action. The Notice
of Allowance referred back to the statement of reasons for
allowance set forth previously in the final Office Action.
Based on the foregoing, a particularly relevant
characteristic upon which the Patentee relied in
distinguishing issued claims 20 and 63 from the prior art
of record and the Examiner indicated in his reasons for
allowance was a system for acquiring and reviewing a
body of information as set forth in claim 1, particularly in
which data representing segments of the body of
information are acquired and stored, and subsequently
compared according to predetermined criteria following
the display of a first segment, such that if segments are
related then a second segment is displayed.”) (emphasis in

6

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
original)
Extrinsic:
response:
“something constituting a reply or a reaction” (MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1993)).

2. generating a display of … [a
first segment/a portion of, or a
representation of, a second
segment]

generating a display of

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

originating or producing a visual representation of … [a
first segment/a portion of, or a representation of, a second
segment]

rendering a visual representation of the recited segment,
portion or representation from data stored local to the
display

Intrinsic:

Intrinsic:

Claims 20, 36, 63, and 79.

Figure 1

“[T]he primary display device 102 displays the primary
information . . . .” 12:52.

Found in claim numbers:

generating a display of

10:30-38 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system
100 according to the invention for acquiring and
reviewing a body of information. A user 109 interacts
with a control device 101 to cause information to be
displayed on a primary display device 102. The control
device 101 includes an appropriate user interface (e.g., a
graphical user interface, as discussed in more detail
below) that allows the user 109 to specify control
instructions for effecting control of the system 100.”).

20; 22; 24; 63; 65; 67

2:60-62.The invention enables a body of information to be
displayed by electronic devices (e.g., a television, a
computer display monitor) . . .”
11:3-15 (“In particular, the devices 101, 102, 103, and 104
can be integrated into a system in which the devices do not
require wire communication over network communication
lines to communicate with each other (one or more of
devices 101, 102, 103, and 104 is ‘untethered’ with respect
to one or more of the other devices 101, 102, 103, and 104).
Thus, once the primary and secondary information have
7

sf-2999374

2:60-63 (“The invention enables a body of information to
be displayed by electronic devices (e.g., a television, a
computer display monitor) in a manner that allows the
body of information to be reviewed quickly and in a

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

been acquired by the system 100, the primary and
secondary information can be accessed and displayed at a
relatively fast speed, thus providing quick response to
control instructions from the user and enabling generation
of displays with acceptable fidelity.”)12:29-32 (“the system
100 according to the invention makes use of two devices for
display and control: a primary display device 102 for
displaying the primary information”)

flexible manner.”)

12:50-54 (“a system according to the invention (including
system 100) can be implemented so that the primary display
device 102 displays the primary information while a
separate device (e.g., the control device 101) displays the
secondary information.”)

4:47-56 (“For example, in a news browser according to
the invention, the user can cause a summary of one or
more television news stories to be displayed (rather than
the entire news story or stories), the user can speed up (or
slow down) the display of a television news story, and the
user can pause and resume the display of a television news
story such that the display resumes at an accelerated rate
until the display of the news story "catches up" to where
the display would have been without the pause (a useful
feature when the television news story is being acquired
and displayed in real time).”).

13:4-14 (“However, while a television is good for
displaying audiovisual information, the television doesn’t
do as good a job with the display of text, particularly at
typical viewing distances. A computer display monitor, on
the other hand, does a good job of displaying text. Thus a
computer display monitor can be used to display the
secondary information. . . . In particular, a portable
computer (e.g., a notebook or subnotebook computer) can
advantageously be used to implement such display.”)
14:31-35. “[W]hen a GUI according to the invention is
displayed on a display monitor of a digital computer, the
GUI can be implemented by appropriately tailoring
conventional computer display software, as known to those
skilled in the art in view of the discussion below.”
13:62-14:4. “The Thinkpad [control device 101] can be
configured (as known by those skilled in such art) to act as
an X/windows terminal (client) that communicates with an
X-windows host (server) using standard X-windows
protocols (as also known by those skilled in such art), to
8

sf-2999374

4:7-11 (“The invention can be implemented in a system
that is convenient to use, that presents the body of
information in a readily accessible way, and that presents
the information via one or more display devices that are
tailored for use with the particular type of data that is used
to generate the display.”)

4:61-5:6 (“The system includes . . . iii) a first display
mechanism for generating a display of a first segment of
the body of information from data that is part of the stored
data . . . . and v) a second display mechanism for
generating a display of a portion of, or a representation of,
a second segment of the body of information from data
that is part of the stored data.”)
5:24-31 (“The system can also include a mechanism for
identifying an instruction from a user to begin displaying
at least some of the body of information, the first display
mechanism beginning display of a segment in response to
the user instruction. When a portion or representation of a
second segment is being displayed, the system can enable
such a second segment to be selected for display by the

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

enable generation and display of the graphical user
interface. In this particular embodiment of the invention,
the primary display device 102, as well as the system
controller (X/windows host) 103, can be embodied, for
example, by an Indigo2 workstation computer made by
Silicon Graphics. . . .”

first display mechanism.”).

36:7-24. “The image to be displayed is represented by an
ordered set of display data. This display data is acquired
from a data source at a first rate. The display data is
transferred to a display device at the first rate as the display
data is acquired. An image is generated from the display
data transferred to the display device and displayed on the
display device. At some point, the user instructs the system
to pause the display. The system identifies the pause
instruction from the user and, in response, stops the transfer
of display data to the display device and begins storing the
acquired display data at the first rate. At some later time,
the user instructs the system to resume the display. The
system identifies the resume instruction from the user and,
in response, begins transferring stored display data to the
display device at a second, effective rate that is greater than
the first rate. An image is generated from the stored display
data transferred to the display device and displayed on the
display device.”
Extrinsic:
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. at 415
(defining “display” as “to unfold to the eye; put or spread
out so as to be seen” or “a visual representation of data, as
on a computer video screen”)
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. at 591
(defining “generate” as “to bring into being, cause to be” or
“to originate or produce by a physical, chemical,
9

sf-2999374

10:43-44 (“Herein, ‘primary information’ is any
information the display of which the user can directly
control.”).
11:3-15 (“In particular, the devices 101, 102, 103, and 104
can be integrated into a system in which the devices do
not require wire communication over network
communication lines to communicate with each other (one
or more of devices 101, 102, 103, and 104 is ‘untethered’
with respect to one or more of the other devices 101, 102,
103, and 104). Thus, once the primary and secondary
information have been acquired by the system 100, the
primary and secondary information can be accessed and
displayed at a relatively fast speed, thus providing quick
response to control instructions from the user and enabling
generation of displays with acceptable fidelity.”)
11:24-29 (“For example, the bandwidth of the network
communication medium may not be adequate to enable
transfer of data from the data storage device 104 to the
primary display device 102 quickly enough to enable a
display with acceptable fidelity to be generated by the
primary display device 102.” )
12:29-32 (“the system 100 according to the invention
makes use of two devices for display and control: a
primary display device 102 for displaying the primary
information”)
12:50-54 (“a system according to the invention (including
system 100) can be implemented so that the primary
display device 102 displays the primary information while
a separate device (e.g., the control device 101) displays

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

mechanical, electronic, or mathematical process”)

the secondary information.”)

Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 3d ed., at 516
(defining “X Window System” as “A non-proprietary,
standardized set of display-handling routines, developed at
MIT. Most often encountered on UNIX workstations, the X
Window System is independent of hardware and operating
system. An X Window System client calls on the server,
which is located on the user’s workstation, to provide a
window in which the client can generate a display of text or
graphics.”)

13:4-14 (“However, while a television is good for
displaying audiovisual information, the television doesn’t
do as good a job with the display of text, particularly at
typical viewing distances. A computer display monitor,
on the other hand, does a good job of displaying text.
Thus a computer display monitor can be used to display
the secondary information. . . . In particular, a portable
computer (e.g., a notebook or subnotebook computer) can
advantageously be used to implement such display.”)

Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, 10th ed., at
414 (defining “X client” as “In the X Window System, an
application that requests services from an X server. The
client can be any X-compatible application running on the
same or a networked computer. A special kind of client,
called the window manager, makes configuration options
available to the user. Note that the use of the term ‘client’ in
the X Window System should be differentiated from the use
of the same term in the client/server model; in X, the server
resides on each user’s workstation, while clients may
include programs running elsewhere on the network. See
client/server, X Protocol, X server, X Window System.”)

13:55-56 (“The portable computer and associated display
screen facilitate the presentation of a graphical user
interface . . . .” )

Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, 10th ed., at
416 (defining “X server” as “In the X Window System, a
program that runs on a specific computer and that is
configured to work with this computer’s video card,
monitor, and keyboard. X clients request windowing
services from the X server using a generalized, hardwareindependent protocol called the X protocol. Because the X
server takes over the job of knowing precisely how to
display images on a particular computer’s video hardware,
X-compatible applications do not have to include hardwarespecific information concerning the video display. Note that
10

sf-2999374

13:62-67 (“The ThinkpadTM can be configured (as
known by those skilled in the art) to act as an X/windows
terminal (client) that communicates with an X/windows
host (server), using standard X/windows protocols (as also
known by those skilled in such art), to enable generation
and display of the graphical user interface.”)
14:24-36 (“FIG. 2A is a diagrammatic representation of a
graphical user interface (GUI) 200 according to the
invention . . . Generally, a GUI according to the invention
can be displayed using any suitable display device.
Further, when a GUI according to the invention is
displayed on a display monitor of a digital computer, the
GUI can be implemented by appropriately tailoring
conventional computer display software, as known to
those skilled in the art in view of the discussion below.
For example, the GUI 200 can be displayed on the screen
of a portable computer.”)

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

the use of the term ‘server’ in the X Window System should
be differentiated from the use of the same term in the
client/server model; in X, the server resides on each user’s
workstation, while clients may include programs running
elsewhere on the network. See client/server, X Window
System.”

36:11-23 (“An image is generated from the display data
transferred to the display device and displayed on the
display device. . . . The system identifies the resume
instruction from the user and, in response, begins
transferring stored display data to the display device at a
second, effective rate that is greater than the first rate. An
image is generated from the stored display data transferred
to the display device and displayed on the display
device.”).

Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, 10th ed., at
416 (defining “X Protocol” as “A client-server protocol that
specifies how X Window System clients and servers can
exchange messages. X clients use the protocol to tell the X
server how to display an application’s window onscreen; X
servers use the protocol to convey keystrokes, mouse
movements and clicks, menu choices, and additional
information to the X client. See X client, X server, X
Window System.”
Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, 10th ed., at
417 (defining “X Window System” as “A graphical,
network-based windowing environment originally
developed for Unix and Unix-like operating systems (and
since made available for other platforms) at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; currently, it is under
continued development as an open source program by the
Open Group, a Unix industry consortium. X (as the X
Window System) is known to Unix users) provides the
basic windowing services, including fonts and pull-down
menus, for graphical Unix applications. X is designed to
function in a network environment. Thanks to its clientserver architecture, X can display the graphical interface of
an application running on some other computer on the
network. One drawback of X is that it does not supply (or
does not consistently supply) many of the services (such as
drag-and-drop across applications and desktop utilities) that
are familiar to users of consumer operating systems; for this
reason, desktop environments such as GNOME or KDE
11

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

have been developed to supply the X Window System with
these features. A version of X under independent
development, called XFree86, was initially designed to run
on Intel-based hardware; it is included in most Linux
distributions. See desktop environment, GNOME, KDE,
Unix, Unix-like operating system, windowing environment,
window manager, X client, X Protocol, X server.”
3. acquiring data representing
the body of information

acquiring data representing the body of information

acquiring data representing the body of information

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

obtaining data representing the body of information

retrieving data representing the body of information from
an external information source

Found in Claim Numbers:
20; 22; 24; 63; 65; 67
Intrinsic:
Intrinsic:
9:61-10:6 (“For example, in a particular application of the
invention, the content of one or more audiovisual news
programs is acquired from a first set of one or more
information sources and news stories (or ‘articles’) from
text news sources are acquired from a second set of one or
more information sources. The first set of information
sources could be, for example, CNN Headline News or
network (e.g., ABC, NBC, CBS) news programs. The
second set of information sources could be, for example,
on-line news services such as Clarinet™ or news wire
services such as AP or UPI. It is contemplated that this
application of the invention can be particularly useful as a
means of enhancing the viewing of conventional television
news programs.”).
11:34-51 (“Where the primary information source 107 is
comprised of television news broadcasts, for example, the
primary information data acquisition device 105 can be a
conventional television tuner and video capture device that
12

sf-2999374

9:61-10:6 (“For example, in a particular application of the
invention, the content of one or more audiovisual news
programs is acquired from a first set of one or more
information sources and news stories (or ‘articles’) from
text news sources are acquired from a second set of one or
more information sources. The first set of information
sources could be, for example, CNN Headline News or
network (e.g., ABC, NBC, CBS) news programs. The
second set of information sources could be, for example,
on-line news services such as Clarinet™ or news wire
services such as AP or UPI. It is contemplated that this
application of the invention can be particularly useful as a
means of enhancing the viewing of conventional
television news programs.”).
Figure 1
10:30-32 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

acquires that data representing the primary information via
conventional cable connections, satellite dish or television
antenna. Where the secondary information is comprised of
online text sources (i.e., text sources available over a
computer network such as the Internet), for example, the
secondary information data acquisition device 106 can be a
conventional modem or other communications adapter, as
known by those skilled in the art of data communications,
that enables acquisition of data representing the secondary
information via one or more conventional communication
lines, such as telephone lines, ISDN lines or Ethernet
connections. (It is also possible that the primary
information can be acquired from online sources, such as
via the Internet or other computer network.)”)

100 according to the invention for acquiring and
reviewing a body of information.”).

20:4-21 (“Or, the system controller 103 can acquire data
representing radio broadcasts using conventional equipment
for receiving (e.g., a radio and antenna) and recording (e.g.,
a conventional audiotape recorder) radio signals. Or, the
system controller 103 can acquire computer-readable data
files (that can include text data, audio data, video data or
some combination of two or more of those types of data),
using conventional communications hardware and
techniques, over a computer network (e.g., a public network
such as the Internet or a proprietary network such as
America Online™, CompuServe™ or Prodigy™) from an
information providing site that is part of that network. In
one particular embodiment of the invention, the system
controller 103 acquires primary information including the
television signals representing the content of designated
television news broadcasts, and secondary information
including computer-readable data files that represent the
content of designated news stories from text news
sources.”)
20:28-34 (“The schedule can be used, for example, to
13

sf-2999374

10:40-54 (“The system controller 103 causes primary
information to be acquired from a primary information
source 107 via a primary information data acquisition
device 105. Herein, ‘primary information’ is any
information the display of which the user can directly
control. The system controller 103 also causes secondary
information (which is typically related to the primary
information) to be acquired from a secondary information
source 108 via a secondary information data acquisition
device 106. Herein, ‘secondary information’ is any
information other than primary information that is
acquired by a system according to the invention and that
can be displayed by the system and/or used by the system
to manipulate or categorize (as described in more detail
below) the primary information.”)
11:34-51 (“Where the primary information source 107 is
comprised of television news broadcasts, for example, the
primary information data acquisition device 105 can be a
conventional television tuner and video capture device
that acquires that data representing the primary
information via conventional cable connections, satellite
dish or television antenna. Where the secondary
information is comprised of online text sources (i.e., text
sources available over a computer network such as the
Internet), for example, the secondary information data
acquisition device 106 can be a conventional modem or
other communications adapter, as known by those skilled
in the art of data communications, that enables acquisition
of data representing the secondary information via one or
more conventional communication lines, such as
telephone lines, ISDN lines or Ethernet connections. (It is
also possible that the primary information can be acquired

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

program a videocassette recorder to record particular
television programs at particular times. Likewise, the
schedule can be used, for example, to appropriately
program a computer to retrieve desired data files from
particular network sites (e.g., by specifying an appropriate
network address, such as a URL) of a computer network at
specified times.”)

from online sources, such as via the Internet or other
computer network.)”)

Abstract (“In a particular application of the invention, the
content of audiovisual news programs is acquired from a
first set of one or more information sources (e.g., television
news programs) and text news stories are acquired from a
second set of one or more information sources (e.g., on-line
news services or news wire services).)”
3:8-14 (“For example, as a news browser, the invention can
be used to review news stories acquired during one day
from several television news programs (e.g., CNN Headline
News, NBC Nightly News), as well as from text news
sources (e.g., news wire services, traditional print media
such as newspapers and magazines, and online news
services such as ClarinetTM).”)
6:57-63 (“The uncategorized segment can have been
acquired from a first data source (that supplies, for
example, television or radio broadcast signals) and the
previously categorized segment or segments can have been
acquired from a second data source (that supplies, for
example, computer-readable data files) that is different than
the first data source.”)
Extrinsic:
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. at 12
(defining “acquire” as “to come to have as one’s own; get
14

sf-2999374

11:60-64 (“When the device 105 or 106 is used to acquire
information over a computer network, the device 105 or
106 will be a device, such as a computer modem, for
which such communication to the system controller 103
can be implemented using well-known methods and
apparatus.”)
20:4-21 (“Or, the system controller 103 can acquire data
representing radio broadcasts using conventional
equipment for receiving (e.g., a radio and antenna) and
recording (e.g., a conventional audiotape recorder) radio
signals. Or, the system controller 103 can acquire
computer-readable data files (that can include text data,
audio data, video data or some combination of two or
more of those types of data), using conventional
communications hardware and techniques, over a
computer network (e.g., a public network such as the
Internet or a proprietary network such as America
Online™, CompuServe™ or Prodigy™) from an
information providing site that is part of that network. In
one particular embodiment of the invention, the system
controller 103 acquires primary information including the
television signals representing the content of designated
television news broadcasts, and secondary information
including computer-readable data files that represent the
content of designated news stories from text news
sources.”)
20:28-34 (“The schedule can be used, for example, to
program a videocassette recorder to record particular
television programs at particular times. Likewise, the
schedule can be used, for example, to appropriately
program a computer to retrieve desired data files from

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

possession of”)

particular network sites (e.g., by specifying an appropriate
network address, such as a URL) of a computer network
at specified times.”)
Abstract “In a particular application of the invention, the
content of audiovisual news programs is acquired from a
first set of one or more information sources (e.g.,
television news programs) and text news stories are
acquired from a second set of one or more information
sources (e.g., on-line news services or news wire
services).”
3:8-14 (“For example, as a news browser, the invention
can be used to review news stories acquired during one
day from several television news programs (e.g., CNN
Headline News, NBC Nightly News), as well as from text
news sources (e.g., news wire services, traditional print
media such as newspapers and magazines, and online
news services such as ClarinetTM”).
6:57-63 (“The uncategorized segment can have been
acquired from a first data source (that supplies, for
example, television or radio broadcast signals) and the
previously categorized segment or segments can have
been acquired from a second data source (that supplies,
for example, computer-readable data files) that is different
than the first data source.”)
10:53-55 (“A data storage device 104 stores the acquired
primary and secondary information.”)
No Extrinsic.

4. A method for acquiring and
reviewing a body of information,

segment

segment
15

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

wherein the body of information
includes a plurality of segments,
each segment representing a
defined set of information in the
body of information, the method
comprising the steps of:

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

a set of information that concerns a single theme or subject

A portion of the body of information whose boundaries
are defined by a single subject or theme.

Found in Claim Numbers:
20; 21 ; 22; 23; 24; 27; 28; 34; 39;
43; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 70; 71; 77;
82; 86

Intrinsic:
Intrinsic:
4:57-62. “In one aspect of the invention, a system enables
acquisition and review of a body of information that
includes a multiplicity of segments that each represent a
defined set of information (frequently, a contiguous related
set of information) in the body of information.”
22:25-31 “[O]f particular utility for the invention is the
identification within the primary and secondary information
of contiguous related sets of information that typically
concern a single theme or subject and that can be delineated
in some manner from adjacent information. Herein, each
such contiguous related set of information can be referred
to as a ‘segment’ of the primary or secondary information.”
22:39-57 “For example, if the primary information includes
the content of several news programs, the primary
information can be divided into particular news programs
and each news program can further be broken down into
particular news stories within the news program, each news
story being denoted as a segment. Similarly, if the
secondary information includes content from several text
sources, the secondary information can be divided into
particular text sources and each text source can be further
divided into separate text stories, each text story being
denoted as a segment. . . . [A] news story that is interrupted
by a commercial break [] may be defined as a single
segment, particularly if the body of information is modified
so that commercial breaks—and other extraneous portions
of the body of information—are eliminated (an approach
16

sf-2999374

Figure 3 & 9:1-3 (“FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a method in
accordance with the invention for identifying the
boundaries of segments in a body of information.”)
Figure 5 & 9:8-12 (“FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a method in
accordance with the invention for categorizing according
to subject matter an uncategorized segment of a body of
information based on the categorization of other
previously categorized segments of the body of
information.”)
22:23-31 (“The primary and secondary information can
be, and typically are, divided (‘partitioned’) into smaller
related sets of information of particular utility for the
invention is the identification within the primary and
secondary information of contiguous related sets of
information that typically concern a single theme or
subject and that can be delineated in some manner from
adjacent information. Herein, each such contiguous
related set of information can be referred to as a ‘segment’
of the primary or secondary information.”)
3:63-4:2 (“In particular, the subject matter category of a
segment of information can be determined by comparing
the segment to one or more previously categorized
segments and categorizing the segment in accordance with
the subject matter categorization of one or more
previously categorized segments that are determined to be

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

that, generally, is preferred, although such portions could
also be treated as segments.”

relevant to the uncategorized segment.”)

23:52-59 (“In a set of audiovisual data, breaks between
segments can be determined, for example, based upon
identification ofthe occurrence of a particular word,
sequence of words, or pattern of words (particularly words
that typically indicate a transition), and identification of
changes in speaker. As one illustration, in a news program,
phrases of the form, "Jane Doe, WXYZ news, reporting live
from Any town, USA," can indicate a break between
segments.”)
24:50-57 (“Partitioning of audio data using music
recognition can be particularly useful when transitions
between segments of the body of information are
sometimes made using standard musical phrases.
Illustratively, when the invention is implemented as a news
browser, music recognition can be used to partition certain
news programs (e.g., The MacNeill Lehrer news hour)
which use one or more standard musical phrases to
transition between news stories.”)

4:57-61 (“In one aspect of the invention, a system enables
acquisition and review of a body of information that
includes a multiplicity of segments that each represent a
defined set of information (frequently, a contiguous
related set of information) in the body of information.”)
5:17-24 (“The system can further include a mechanism for
identifying the subject matter content of a segment of the
body of information, so that the mechanism for comparing
can determine the similarity of the subject matter content
of a segment to the subject matter content of a different
segment (using, for example, relevance feedback) and use
that result to determine the relatedness of the compared
segments.”)
6:51-57 (“In another aspect of the invention, a method
categorizes according to subject matter a segment of a
body of information (that includes a plurality of
segments), the segment not previously having been
categorized according to subject matter, based upon the
subject matter category or categories associated with one
or more previously categorized segments of the body of
information.”)

No Extrinsic.
8:15-20 (“In still another aspect of the invention, a method
enables the identification of the boundaries of segments in
a body of information that is represented by a set of text
data and at least one of a set of audio data or a set of video
data, each segment representing a contiguous related set of
information in the body of information.”)
8:26-29 (“In the coarse partitioning method, time-stamped
markers in the set of text data are identified and used to
17

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
determine approximate segment boundaries within the
body of information.”)
8:43-58 (“when segment boundaries are being determined
in video data, scene break identification can be used to
implement the fine partitioning. When segment
boundaries are being determined in audio data, the fine
partitioning can be implemented by, for example, pause
recognition, voice recognition, word recognition or music
recognition.”)
22:36-48: (“Segments within the primary information are
‘primary information segments’ while segments within the
secondary information are ‘secondary information
segments.’ For example, if the primary information
includes the content of several news programs, the
primary information can be divided into particular news
programs and each news program can further be broken
down into particular news stories within the news
program, each news story being denoted as a segment.
Similarly, if the secondary information includes content
from several text sources, the secondary information can
be divided into particular text sources and each text source
can be further divided into separate text stories, each text
story being denoted as a segment.”).
22:48-50 (“Note that a ‘segment’ may sometimes, strictly
speaking, not be contiguous in time (though it is
contiguous in content).”)
22:50-55 (“For example, a news story that is interrupted
by a commercial break, then continues after the
commercial break, may be defined as a single segment,
particularly if the body of information is modified so that
commercial breaks-and other extraneous portions of the
body of information-are eliminated (an approach that,

18

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
generally, is preferred, though such portions could also be
treated as segments.”)
23:10-15 (“[T]he correlation of primary information
segments with secondary information segments can also
be used to categorize the primary information segments
according to subject matter, thus enabling the user to sort
or to cause display of segments of the primary information
that pertain to a particular subject matter category.”)
23:30-33 (“bodies of information that are collections of
segments (e.g., stories) from text sources that are
represented as computer-readable data typically include
markers that identify the breaks between segments.”)
27:59-67 (“An important aspect of the invention is the
capability to determine relatedness of segments of
information represented by two different types of data. . .
.”).
30:1-17 (“FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a method 500, in
accordance with this aspect of the invention, for
categorizing according to subject matter an uncategorized
segment of a body of information based on the subject
matter categorization of other previously categorized
segments of the body of information. For example, each
story from the Clarinet™ news service is categorized
according to the subject matter of the story by associating
one or more predefined subject matter categories (e.g.,
sports, travel, computers, business, international news)
with the story.”)
30:52-60 (“One or more subject matter categories can be
associated with the uncategorized segment. Generally, the
subject matter category or categories can be selected from

19

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
the subject matter categories associated with the relevant
previously categorized segments using any desired
method. For example, the subject matter category or
categories of the most similar previously categorized
segment could be selected as the subject matter category
or categories of the uncategorized segment.”)
31:62-32:2 (“(Note that, as mentioned above, as used here
in the description of skimming, "segment" refers to a
contiguous portion of a set of audio data that occurs
during a specified duration of time; elsewhere herein,
"segment" refers to a contiguous related set of information
within the primary or secondary information that typically
concerns a single theme or subject and that can be
delineated in some manner from adjacent information.)”).
Cl. 125 (“A system for identifying the boundaries of
segments in a body of information, each segment
comprising a contiguous related set of information in the
body of information”)
Extrinsic:
segment:
(1) “one of the constituent parts into which a body, entity,
or quantity is divided or marked off by or as if by natural
boundaries” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
(1993));
(2) “each of the parts into which a thing is or may be
divided; a division, section.” (Oxford English Dictionary
(1989)).

20

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

5. comparing data
representing a segment of the
body of information to data
representing a different segment
of the body of information

comparing data representing a segment of the body of
information to data representing a different segment of
the body of information

comparing data representing a segment of the body of
information to data representing a different segment
of the body of information

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

Found in Claim Numbers:

No construction needed; in the alternative: comparing data
that represents a segment of the body of information to data
that represents a different segment of the body of
information

comparing at least representative samples of different
segments of the body of information. The comparing step
occurs after “generating a display of a first segment of the
body of information.”

Intrinsic:

Intrinsic:

3:43-45. “A portion or a representation of the related
information can be displayed in response to (e.g.,
simultaneous with) the original information display.”

3:60-4:6 (“Additionally, the invention enables automatic
categorization of uncategorized segments of the body of
information based upon comparison to other segments of
the body of information that have been categorized. In
particular, the subject matter category of a segment of
information can be determined by comparing the segment
to one or more previously categorized segments and
categorizing the segment in accordance with the subject
matter categorization of one or more previously
categorized segments that are determined to be relevant to
the uncategorized segment. In a news browser according
to the invention, for example, this can be used to
categorize the news stories of a television news program
based upon the categorization of text news stories that are
found to be relevant to the television news stories.”)

20; 63

5:10-17 (“The second display mechanism displays a portion
or representation of the second segment in response to the
display by the first display mechanism of a first segment to
which the second segment is related The second display
mechanism can display a portion or representation of the
second segment substantially coextensive in time with the
display of the related first segment by the first display
mechanism.”)
18:23-27 (“For example, a representative video image (e.g.,
one or more video frames) can be selected from a library of
video images. For instance, a news story about baseball
could be represented by a keyframe showing a batter
swinging at a pitch.”)
28:36-29:3. “The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. In relevance feedback, a text
21

sf-2999374

4:57-5:6 (“In one aspect of the invention, a system enables
acquisition and review of a body of information that
includes a multiplicity of segments that each represent a
defined set of information (frequently, a contiguous
related set of information) in the body of information. The
system includes: i) a mechanism for acquiring data

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

representation of each segment to be compared (e.g., each
audiovisual news story or text story) is represented as a
vector, each component of the vector corresponding to a
word, the value of each component being the number of
occurrences of the word in the segment. (Two words are
considered identical--i.e., are amalgamated for purposes of
ascribing a magnitude to each component of the vector
representing the textual content of a segment--if the words
have the same stem; for example, "play", "played" and
"player" are all considered to be the same word for
purposes of forming the segment vector.) For each pair of
segments, the normalized dot product of the vectors
corresponding to the segments is calculated, yielding a
number between 0 and 1. The degree of similarity between
two segments is represented by the magnitude of the
normalized dot product, 1 representing two segments with
identical words and 0 representing two segments having no
matching words. The use of relevance feedback to
determine the similarity between two text segments is wellknown, and is described in more detail in, for example, the
textbook entitled Introduction to Modern Information
Retrieval, by Gerard Salton, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1983, the pertinent disclosure of which is incorporated by
reference herein. Relevance feedback is also described in
detail in "Improving Retrieval Performance by Relevance
Feedback," Salton, G., Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 288-297, June 1990
as well as "The Effect of Adding Relevance Information in
a Relevance Feedback Environment," Buckley, C. et. al.,
Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Research
and Development in Information Retrieval, DIGIR 94,
Springer-verlag (Germany), 1994, pp. 292-300, the
disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein.”
See generally 27:40-29:3.

representing the body of information; ii) a mechanism for
storing the data; iii) a first display mechanism for
generating a display of a first segment of the body of
information from data that is part of the stored data; iv) a
mechanism for comparing the data representing a segment
of the body of information to the data representing a
different segment of the body of information to determine
whether, according to one or more predetermined criteria,
the compared segments are related; and v) a second
display mechanism for generating a display of a portion
of, or a representation of, a second segment of the body of
information from data that is part of the stored data.”)

22

sf-2999374

8:15-20 (“[A] method enables the identification the
identification of the boundaries of segments in a body of
information that is represented by a set of text data and at
least one of a set of audio or a set of video data, each
segment representing a contiguous related set of
information in the body of information.”)
10:14-16 (“when the user is observing a particular news
story in an audiovisual news program, the invention can
identify and display a related text news story or stories.”)
10:61-65 (“Illustratively, the primary information can be a
videotape (or other audiovisual data representation) of an
audiovisual news program or programs and the secondary
information can be the text of news stories from text news
sources.”)
17:9-11 (“To enable display of thumbnails, primary
information segments that are related to the primary
information segment that is being displayed must be
determined.”)

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

No Extrinsic.

17:26-29 (“Identification of the relatedness of primary
information segments can be accomplished by
determining the degree of similarity between the primary
information segment being displayed and each other
primary information segment.”)
18:23-27 (“For example, a representative video image
(e.g., one or more video frames) can be selected from a
library of video images. For instance, a news story about
baseball could be represented by a keyframe showing a
batter swinging at a pitch.”)
27:59-28:4 (“An important aspect of the invention is the
capability to determine relatedness of segments of
information represented by two different types of data. In
particular, the invention can enable the determination of
relatedness between segments of information represented
by audiovisual data (such as is frequently the case for the
primary information that can be displayed by the
invention) and segments represented by text data (such as
is generally the case for the secondary information as
described particularly herein). This aspect of the invention
enables the display of the related secondary information
region 204 to be generated. It can also enable
categorization of uncategorized segments, as described
further below.")
28:5-:35 "FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a method 400, in
accordance with this aspect of the invention, for
determining whether a first set of information represented
by a first set of data of a first type (e.g., audiovisual data)
is relevant to a second set of information represented by a
second set of data of a second type of data In step 401, a
set of data of the second type is derived from the first set
of data of the first type. In a typical application of the
method 400, step 401 causes a set of text data to be
23

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
produced from a set of audiovisual data. The set of text
data can be produced in any appropriate manner. For
example, "production" of the set of text data may be as
simple as extracting a pre-existing text transcript (e.g., a
closed caption transcript) from the set of audiovisual data.
Or, the set of text data can be produced from the set of
audio data using a conventional speech recognition
method. In step 402, the derived set of data (of the second
type) is compared to the second set of data of the second
type to determine the degree of similarity between the
derived set of data and the second set of data. . . . In step
403, a determination is made as to whether the first set of
data is relevant to the second set of data, based on the
comparison of step 402. Typically, a threshold level of
similarity . . . is specified so that only sets of information
that are sufficiently related to each other are identified as
related.”
28:36-56 (“The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. In relevance feedback, a text
representation of each segment to be compared . . . is
represented as a vector, each component of the vector
corresponding to a word, the value of each component
being the number of occurrences of the word in the
segment. . . . The use of relevance feedback to determine
the similarity between two text segments is well known . .
. .”)
29:18-43 (“This problem can be overcome by further
determining the degree of similarity between each of a
predetermined number of the secondary information
segments having the highest determined degree of
similarity (in one embodiment of the news browser
implementation of the invention, the 10 most similar text
stories are compared), and displaying only one of each

24

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
pair of secondary information segments having a degree
of similarity above a specified threshold, i.e., redundant
secondary information segments are eliminated. Again,
this can be more problematic than first appears. For
example, a particular segment may have greater than the
threshold degree of similarity when compared to each of
second and third segments, but the second and third
segments may have less than the threshold degree of
similarity when compared to each other. From the three
segments, it would be desirable to show both the second
and third segments. However, if the first segment is
compared to the second segment or the third segment, and
the second or third segment discarded, before comparison
of the first segment to the other of the second or third
segment (which will also result in discarding of one of the
compared segments), then only one of the three segments
will be shown. Such a situation could be handled by, for
example, calculating the similarity between all pairs of the
predetermined number of secondary information
segments, and performing comparisons that reveal the
situation described above before discarding any of the
secondary information segments.”)
1st Office Action at p. 5-6 (“The following is a statement
of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art, alone or in combination, with respect to
claims 1-17, 35, 59, 63, and 64, fails to teach or fairly
suggest a system for acquiring and reviewing a body of
information as set forth in claim 1, particularly in which
data representing segments of the body of information are
acquired and stored, and subsequently compared
according to predetermined criteria following the display
of a first segment, such that if segments are related then a
second segment is displayed. As for the most relevant art
of record, the Cobbley et al (5,614,940) reference
discloses a system in which broadcast information is

25

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
stored in a cache and indexed for retrieval by requesting
end users. The system fails to disclose or suggest to
comparison of segments for the subsequent display of
related segments by respective ‘display means’. The
Hidary et al (5,774,664) reference discloses a system in
which video programming and retrieved Internet
information segments are displayed in synchronization.
The reference likewise fails to disclose or suggest the
comparison of acquired segments of information. Rather,
the retrieval of web page information occurs automatically
in response to their receipt via a particular television
program, or in response to a particular time. As to claims
47-58 and 62, the prior art, alone or in combination, does
no teach or fairly suggest the identification of boundaries
of segments in a body of information, each segment
comprising a contiguous related set of information in the
body of information, wherein the body of information is
represented by text data and video data, particularly
through course and fine partitioning as set forth in the
claims, and subsequently the selection of best occurring
breaks.”) See also Final Office Action, Dec. 19, 2000, at
p. 4 (same).
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, May
6, 2011 at p. 4 - “On May 18, 2000, Examiner issued an
Office Action and in that, the Examiner indicated that
application claims 35 and 59 (among others), which
issued as claims 20 and 63, respectively were allowable.
There was no further examination of what ultimately
issued as claims 20 and 63 . . . . Regarding ‘the most
relevant art of record’ with respect to claims 35 and 59,
the Examiner stated reasons for allowance as follows:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication
of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in
combination, with respect to claims . . . 35 and 59, and . . .

26

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
fails to teach or fairly suggest a system for acquiring and
reviewing a body of information as set forth in claim 1,
particularly in which data representing segments of the
body of information are acquired and stored, and
subsequently compared according to predetermined
criteria following the display of a first segment, such that
if segments are related then a second segment is
displayed. As for the most relevant art of record, the
Cobbley et al (5,614,940) reference discloses a system in
which broadcast information is stored in a cache and
indexed for retrieval by requesting end users. The system
fails to disclose or suggest to comparison of segments for
the subsequent display of related segments by respective
‘display means’. The Hidary et al (5,774,664) reference
discloses a system in which video programming and
retrieved Internet information segments are displayed in
synchronization. The reference likewise fails to disclose
or suggest the comparison of acquired segments of
information. Rather, the retrieval of web page information
occurs automatically in response to their receipt via a
particular television program, or in response to a particular
time.” (emphasis in original).
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, May
6, 2011 at p. 7 (“Subsequently, Examiner issued a Notice
of Allowance on Mar. 4, 2011 in response to the
Patentee’s response to the final Office Action. The Notice
of Allowance referred back to the statement of reasons for
allowance set forth previously in the final Office Action.
Based on the foregoing, a particularly relevant
characteristic upon which the Patentee relied in
distinguishing issued claims 20 and 63 from the prior art
of record and the Examiner indicated in his reasons for
allowance was a system for acquiring and reviewing a
body of information as set forth in claim 1, particularly in

27

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
which data representing segments of the body of
information are acquired and stored, and subsequently
compared according to predetermined criteria following
the display of a first segment, such that if segments are
related then a second segment is displayed.”) (emphasis in
original)
No Extrinsic.

6. determine whether,
according to one or more
predetermined criteria, the
compared segments are related

determine whether, according to one or more
predetermined criteria, the compared segments are
related

determine whether, according to one or more
predetermined criteria, the compared segments are
related

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

No construction needed ;in the alternative: determine
whether the compared segments are related, according to at
least one criterion established before the comparison

Determine whether the compared segments have the same
or similar subject or theme, according to criteria
established before the comparison.

Intrinsic:

Intrinsic:

Claims 20, 27, 63, and 70; see also 4:57-5:24
(differentiating between relatedness and similarity of
subject matter content)

1:46-55 (“[T]he previous systems either require that
related segments have previously been determined or, at
least, that the segments have been categorized according
to subject matter content so that whether two segments are
related can readily be determined. Further, previous
systems have not enabled determination of relatedness
between segments of information represented by different
types of data, e.g., such systems cannot determine whether
a segment represented by audiovisual data is related to a
segment represented by text data.”)

Found in Claim Numbers:
20; 63

“A threshold of relatedness (the expression of the threshold
depending upon the method used to determine relatedness)
is preferably specified . . .” 17:11-13 (emphasis added).
17:26-29 (“Identification of the relatedness of primary
information segments can be accomplished by determining
the degree of similarity between the primary information
segment being displayed and each other primary
information segment.”)“The degree of similarity can be
determined using any appropriate method, such as, for
28

sf-2999374

3:34-43 (“The invention also enables automatic
identification of information that is related to information
that is being displayed, so that the related information can

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

example, relevance feedback.” 28:36-38; see also 28:3829:3.

be observed, thereby enabling information about a
particular subject to be examined in depth. In particular,
the invention enables such identification of related
segments to be made between segments of different types
(e.g., a segment represented by audiovisual data can be
compared to a segment represented by text data to enable
a determination of whether the segments are related).”).

Extrinsic:
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. at 1132
(defining “predetermine” as “to determine, decide, or
decree beforehand”)
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed, at 706 (defining
“related” as “Connected; associated.”)
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed, at 706 (defining
“relevant” as “Having to do with the matter at hand.”)

3:45-50 (“For instance, in a news browser according to the
invention, one or more text news stories (e.g., news stories
that are obtained from traditional print media or from
electronic publications) that are related (i.e., which cover
the same or similar subject matter) . . .”)
17:11-18 (“A threshold of relatedness (the expression of
the threshold depending upon the method used to
determine relatedness) is preferably specified so that only
segments that are sufficiently related to the displayed
segment are displayed in the related primary information
region 203, even if that means that less than the allotted
number of segments (including no segments) are
displayed.”)
17:26-29 (“Identification of the relatedness of primary
information segments can be accomplished by
determining the degree of similarity between the primary
information segment being displayed and each other
primary information segment.”)
22:23-31 (“The primary and secondary information can
be, and typically are, divided (‘partitioned’) into smaller
related sets of information of particular utility for the
invention is the identification within the primary and
secondary information of contiguous related sets of
information that typically concern a single theme or
subject and that can be delineated in some manner from

29

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
adjacent information. Herein, each such contiguous
related set of information can be referred to as a ‘segment’
of the primary or secondary information.”)
27:59-28:4 (“An important aspect of the invention is the
capability to determine relatedness of segments of
information represented by two different types of data. In
particular, the invention can enable the determination of
relatedness between segments of information represented
by audiovisual data (such as is frequently the case for the
primary information that can be displayed by the
invention) and segments represented by text data (such as
is generally the case for the secondary information as
described particularly herein. This aspect of the invention
. . . can also enable categorization of uncategorized
segments, as described further below. ”).
28:5-35 ("FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a method 400, in
accordance with this aspect of the invention, for
determining whether a first set of information represented
by a first set of data of a first type (e.g., audiovisual data)
is relevant to a second set of information represented by a
second set of data of a second type of data In step 401, a
set of data of the second type is derived from the first set
of data of the first type. In a typical application of the
method 400, step 401 causes a set of text data to be
produced from a set of audiovisual data. The set of text
data can be produced in any appropriate manner. For
example, "production" of the set of text data may be as
simple as extracting a pre-existing text transcript (e.g., a
closed caption transcript) from the set of audiovisual data.
Or, the set of text data can be produced from the set of
audio data using a conventional speech recognition
method. In step 402, the derived set of data (of the second
type) is compared to the second set of data of the second
type to determine the degree of similarity between the

30

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
derived set of data and the second set of data. . . . In step
403, a determination is made as to whether the first set of
data is relevant to the second set of data, based on the
comparison of step 402. Typically, a threshold level of
similarity . . . is specified so that only sets of information
that are sufficiently related to each other are identified as
related.”)
28:36-29:3 (“The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. In relevance feedback, a text
representation of each segment to be compared . . . is
represented as a vector, each component of the vector
corresponding to a word, the value of each component
being the number of occurrences of the word in the
segment. . . . For each pair of segments, the normalized
dot product of the vectors corresponding to the segments
is calculated, yielding a number between 0 and 1. The
degree of similarity between two segments is represented
by the magnitude of the normalized dot product, 1
representing two segments with identical words and 0
representing two segments having no matching words.
The use of relevance feedback to determine the similarity
between two text segments is well known, and is
described in more detail in [multiple references.]”)
No Extrinsic.

7. wherein the step of
determining the similarity of the
subject matter of segments further
comprises the step of performing
a relevance feedback method
wherein the step of determining

relevance feedback method

relevance feedback method

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

either (1) a method of generating and comparing vectorbased representations of text information, or (2) a method
of determining whether information is related based on

method that uses relevance assessments supplied by users
to reformulate search queries in order to determine the
similarity of two segments. This method compares text

31

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

the degree of similarity is
accomplished using a relevance
feedback method

judgments made by users

data representing segments to determine if the segments
are similar.

Found in Claim Numbers:

28:38-29:3. “In relevance feedback, a text representation of
each segment to be compared (e.g., each audiovisual news
story or text story) is represented as a vector, each
component of the vector corresponding to a word, the value
of each component being the number of occurrences of the
word in the segment. (Two words are considered identical-i.e., are amalgamated for purposes of ascribing a magnitude
to each component of the vector representing the textual
content of a segment--if the words have the same stem; for
example, "play", "played" and "player" are all considered to
be the same word for purposes of forming the segment
vector.) For each pair of segments, the normalized dot
product of the vectors corresponding to the segments is
calculated, yielding a number between 0 and 1. The degree
of similarity between two segments is represented by the
magnitude of the normalized dot product, 1 representing
two segments with identical words and 0 representing two
segments having no matching words. The use of relevance
feedback to determine the similarity between two text
segments is well-known, and is described in more detail in,
for example, the textbook entitled Introduction to Modern
Information Retrieval, by Gerard Salton, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1983, the pertinent disclosure of which is
incorporated by reference herein. Relevance feedback is
also described in detail in "Improving Retrieval
Performance by Relevance Feedback," Salton, G., Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 41,
no. 4, pp. 288-297, June 1990 as well as "The Effect of
Adding Relevance Information in a Relevance Feedback
Environment," Buckley, C. et. al., Proceedings of 17th
International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval, DIGIR 94, Springer-verlag
32

Intrinsic:
Intrinsic:

28; 40; 71; 83

sf-2999374

15:45-52 (“Moving from left to right in FIG. 2B, the
control buttons 216 respectively cause the display to
activate a dialog box that enables the user to perform a
keyword search of the text of news stories acquired by the
system of the invention, return to the beginning of the
currently displayed story to begin displaying the story
again, stop the display, start the display, and skip ahead to
the next story in a predetermined sequence of stories.”)
17:29-41 (“The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. The use of relevance feedback to
determine the similarity between two segments is
discussed in more detail below with respect to the
determination of the relatedness of primary and secondary
information segments (see, in particular, section IV.B.2.
below). The use of relevance feedback necessitates that
sets of text data that represent the primary information
segments be created (by, for example, using a
conventional speech recognition method to create a
transcript of the spoken portion of the audio data set) if
such sets of text data do not already exist (e.g., a closedcaption transcript).”)
28:36-29:1 (“The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. In relevance feedback, a text
representation of each segment to be compared (e.g., each
audiovisual news story or text story) is represented as a
vector, each component of the vector corresponding to a
word, the value of each component being the number of

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

(Germany), 1994, pp. 292-300, the disclosures of which are
incorporated by reference herein.”

occurrences of the word in the segment. (Two words are
considered identical--i.e., are amalgamated for purposes of
ascribing a magnitude to each component of the vector
representing the textual content of a segment--if the words
have the same stem; for example, ‘play’, ‘played’ and
‘player’ are all considered to be the same word for
purposes of forming the segment vector.) For each pair of
segments, the normalized dot product of the vectors
corresponding to the segments is calculated, yielding a
number between 0 and 1. The degree of similarity
between two segments is represented by the magnitude of
the normalized dot product, 1 representing two segments
with identical words and 0 representing two segments
having no matching words. The use of relevance feedback
to determine the similarity between two text segments is
well-known, and is described in more detail in, for
example, the textbook entitled Introduction to Modern
Information Retrieval, by Gerard Salton, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1983, the pertinent disclosure of which is
incorporated by reference herein. Relevance feedback is
also described in detail in ‘Improving Retrieval
Performance by Relevance Feedback,’ Salton, G., Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 41,
no. 4, pp. 288-297, June 1990 as well as ‘The Effect of
Adding Relevance Information in a Relevance Feedback
Environment,’ Buckley, C. et. al., Proceedings of 17th
International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval, DIGIR 94, Springer-verlag
(Germany), 1994, pp. 292-300, the disclosures of which
are incorporated by reference herein.”)

Extrinsic:
Salton/McGill, Introduction to Modern Information
Retrieval, pp. 123, 142, 238-39

30:34-39 (“The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. When relevance feedback is used, it is
necessary to obtain a textual representation of audiovisual
data, if appropriate (i.e., if one or both of the segments is
33

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
represented as audiovisual data) and not already
existent.”).
Extrinsic:
relevance feedback:
(1) “The query reformulation process incorporated into the
SMART retrieval system is known as ‘relevance
feedback’ because relevance assessments supplied by the
users for previously retrieved documents are returned to
the system and used to construct new query vectors. The
reformulated queries can then be compared with the stored
documents in a new search operation. The aim is to
construct new queries exhibiting a greater degree of
similarity with the documents previously identified as
relevant by the user than the original queries; at the same
time, the new queries are expected to be less similar to the
documents identified as nonrelevant by the user than the
originals. The assumption is that the reformulated queries
will retrieve more items resembling the relevant ones
previously retrieved, and fewer items resembling the
nonrelevant ones.” (Salton, Introduction to Modern
Information Retrieval (1983) at 123);
(2) “Relevance feedback is a commonly accepted method
of improving interactive retrieval effectiveness. [1, 2, 3]
An initial search is made by the system with a usersupplied query, returning a small number of documents to
the user. The user indicates which of the returned
documents are useful (relevant). The system then
automatically reformulates the original query based upon
those user relevance judgements. The new ‘feedback
query’ is then compared to the collection of documents,
returning an improved set of documents to the user.”
(Buckley et al., The Effect of Adding Relevance

34

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
Information in a Relevance Feedback Environment, in
DIGIR 94 (1994) at 1);
(3) “Conventionally, the query formulation, or
reformulation process is a manual, or rather an intellectual
task. The relevance feedback process, introduced in the
mid-1960s is a controlled, automatic process for query
reformulation, that is easy to use and can prove unusually
effective. The main idea consists in choosing important
terms, or expressions, attached to certain previously
retrieved documents that have been identified as relevant
by the users, and of enhancing the importance of these
terms in a new query formulation.” (Salton et al.,
Improving Retrieval Performance by Relevance Feedback,
in Journal for American Society for Information Science
(1990) at 1).
No Extrinsic.

8. identifying one or more of the
previously categorized segments
as relevant to the uncategorized
segment

relevant to the uncategorized segment

relevant to the uncategorized segment

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

No construction needed

having the same or similar subject matter as the
uncategorized segment

Found in Claim Numbers:
Intrinsic:
39; 82

Intrinsic:
Claims 39 and 82
“The related secondary information region 204 of the GUI
200 can display a predetermined number of relevant
secondary information segments.” 29:4-6.
Claims 20, 27, 63, and 70; see also 4:57-5:24
(differentiating between relatedness and similarity of
35

sf-2999374

30:40-46 (“In step 502, previously categorized segments
that are relevant to the uncategorized segment are
identified. Relevant segments can be identified based
upon the degree of similarity in the same manner as that
described above with respect to correlation of segments,
e.g., segments having greater than a threshold level of

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

subject matter content)

similarity can be designated as relevant.”)

“A threshold of relatedness (the expression of the threshold
depending upon the method used to determine relatedness)
is preferably specified . . .” 17:11-13 (emphasis added).

17:9-18 (“To enable display of thumbnails, primary
information segments that are related to the primary
information segment that is being displayed must be
determined. A threshold of relatedness (the expression of
the threshold depending upon the method used to
determine relatedness) is preferably specified so that only
segments that are sufficiently related to the displayed
segment are displayed . . .”)

28:20-31 (“In step 402, the derived set of data (of the
second type) is compared to the second set of data of the
second type to determine the degree of similarity between
the derived set of data and the second set of data. . . . In
step 403, a determination is made as to whether the first set
of data is relevant to the second set of data, based on the
comparison of step 402. Typically, a threshold level of
similarity . . . is specified so that only sets of information
that are sufficiently related to each other are identified as
related.”)
“The degree of similarity can be determined using any
appropriate method, such as, for example, relevance
feedback.” 28:36-38; see also 28:38-29:3.
Extrinsic:
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. at 1210
(defining “relevant” as “bearing upon or relating to the
matter in hand”)
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed, at 706 (defining
“related” as “Connected; associated.”)
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed, at 706 (defining
“relevant” as “Having to do with the matter at hand.”)

36

sf-2999374

17:26-31 (“Identification of the relatedness of primary
information segments can be accomplished by
determining the degree of similarity between the primary
information segment being displayed and each other
primary information segment. The degree of similarity
can be determined using any appropriate method, such as,
for example, relevance feedback.”)
27:45-58 (“Thus, it is necessary to determine which of the
segments of the secondary information are sufficiently
related to the primary information segment displayed on
the primary display device 102 to be displayed in the
related secondary information region 204. This can be
accomplished by determining the degree of similarity
between each segment of the primary information (e.g.,
news story from an audiovisual news program) and each
segment of the secondary information (e.g., text story
from a text news source), . . ..”)
28:20-31 (“In step 402, the derived set of data (of the
second type) is compared to the second set of data of the
second type to determine the degree of similarity between
the derived set of data and the second set of data. . . . In
step 403, a determination is made as to whether the first
set of data is relevant to the second set of data, based on

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
the comparison of step 402. Typically, a threshold level
of similarity . . . is specified so that only sets of
information that are sufficiently related to each other are
identified as related.”)
28:36-29:3 (“The degree of similarity can be determined
using any appropriate method, such as, for example,
relevance feedback. In relevance feedback, a text
representation of each segment to be compared . . . is
represented as a vector, each component of the vector
corresponding to a word, the value of each component
being the number of occurrences of the word in the
segment. . . .”)
No Extrinsic.

9. acquiring audiovisual data
representing at least a portion of
the body of information, wherein
the first and second segments are
represented by audiovisual data

audiovisual data

audiovisual data

Proposed construction:

Proposed construction:

data that must include audio, video and/or image data, and
may also include text data

data that must include audio and/or video data, and may
also include text data

Intrinsic:

Intrinsic:

2:10, 6:36-37, 6:42, 12:58, 13:3. Portions of the
specification discussing time-varying audiovisual
information as a type of audiovisual information.

9:55-56 (“‘audiovisual data’ refers to data that includes
audio and/or video data, and may include text data”)

Found in Claim Numbers:
22; 24; 65; 67

5:31-34. “Often the segments displayed by the first display
mechanism are represented by audiovisual data (and, in
particular, audiovisual data that can vary with time) . . . .”
5:36-39. “The segments displayed by the second display
mechanism can be represented by audiovisual data (e.g., a
37

sf-2999374

2:7-16 (“Typically, the display device of these systems
(e.g., conventional computer display monitor) does not
provide a high quality display of time-varying audiovisual
information (such as produced by a television, for
example). On the other hand, display devices that do
display such information well (e.g., televisions), typically
do not provide a high quality display of text information

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

single representative video image, or ‘keyframe’) . . . .”

(such as produced by a computer display monitor). A
system that can provide a high quality display of both
types of information is needed.)

9:55-56. “‘[A]udiovisual data’ refers to data that includes
audio and/or video data, and may include text data.”
9:51-53. “‘[V]ideo data’ refers to data used to generate a
video display substantially including images other than text
images . . . .”
16:67-17:3. “(As seen in FIG. 2B, the related primary
information region 213 of the GUI 210 includes three single
video images that each represent a news story from a news
program.”)
18:62-64. “For example, the secondary information displays
204a, 204b could be single video images, moving video
images or sets of text.”

3:8-14 (“For example, as a news browser, the invention
can be used to review news stories acquired during one
day from several television news programs (e.g., CNN
Headline News, NBC Nightly News), as well as from text
news sources (e.g., news wire services, traditional print
media such as newspapers and magazines, and online
news services such as Clarinet.TM.).”)
6:41-46 (“The first display device is particularly adapted
for generation of a display from time-varying audiovisual
data, while the second display device is particularly
adapted for generation of a display from text data. The
first display device can be, for example, an analog display
device such as a television.”)

No Extrinsic.
10:61-63 (“Illustratively, the primary information can be
videotape (or other audiovisual data representation) of an
audiovisual news program or programs . . . .”)
12:67-13:4 (“Thus, where the primary information is
audiovisual information, the primary display device 102 is
preferably a device that enables high quality audio and
video images (in particular, time-varying audio and video
images) to be produced, such as a television.”)
13:10-11 (“Herein, a ‘computer display monitor’ can
display not only video, but also audio.”)
5:31-36 (“Often, the segments displayed by the first
display mechanism are represented by audiovisual data
(and in particular, audiovisual data that can be used to
38

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
generate an audiovisual display that can vary with time),
such as, for example, data produced from television or
radio broadcast signals.”).
5:36-39. “The segments displayed by the second display
mechanism can be represented by audiovisual data (e.g., a
single representative video image, or ‘keyframe’) . . . .”
12:67-13:6 (“Thus, where the primary information is
audiovisual information, the primary display device 102 is
preferably a device that enables high quality audio and
video images (in particular, time-varying audio and video
images) to be produced, such as a television. However,
while a television is good for displaying audiovisual
information, the television doesn’t do as good a job with
the display of text . . . .”).
Extrinsic:
audiovisual:
“of or relating to both hearing and sight” (MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1993)).

10. Claim as a whole
Found in Claim Numbers:
20-24; 27-28; 31; 34; 37; 63-67;
70; 71; 74; 77; 80

Contrary to the Local Patent Rules and the Court’s Standing
Order for Patent Cases, Defendants’ “proposed
construction” is not a construction of a “disputed claim
term, phrase, or clause.” See Patent Local Rule 132 (Joint
Claim Chart must include “[e]ach party’s proposed
construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or
clause”); Standing Order for Patent Cases (Joint Claim
chart must include “each party’s proposed construction of
disputed terms”). Instead, Defendants’ simply seek to
import limitations into the claims without identifying any
particular basis in the claim language. See Allen Eng’g
39

sf-2999374

Claims as a whole
The claim encompasses acquiring pure, unaugmented
video information having no segment markers, and
identifying and comparing different segments thereof, and
displaying related segments thereof without
simultaneously displaying an unrelated segment.
Before determining whether a patent specification
“enables the full scope” of a patent claim, a court must
construe that full scope of the claim as a whole. E.g.,

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (“The words of the claims themselves define the
scope of the invention . . . .”). Moreover, proposed
constructions for many of the terms and phrases that are
part of the “claims as a whole” are separately provided
herein.

Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999–1002
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming finding of invalidity because
claims were “construed . . . to include both video games
and movies,” but the specification enabled the claimed
“invention” only for video games); see generally Power
Mosfet Technologies, L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d
1396, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The terms in the Special
Master Report were construed in isolation, and at no other
time did the district court or the Special Master construe
the claims as a whole.”); id. at 1410 (This “limited
construction left substantial ambiguity as to the meaning
of the claims as a whole….”); id. at 1412 (“[A]
construction of the claims as a whole would have been
beneficial to the litigants.”).
Intrinsic:
Title: (“Browser for use in navigating a body of
information, with particular application to browsing
information represented by audiovisual data”)
Abstract: (“The invention facilitates and enhances review
of a body of information (that can be represented by a set
of audio data, video data, text data or some combination
of the three), enabling the body of information to be
quickly reviewed to obtain an overview of the content of
the body of information and allowing flexibility in the
manner in which the body of information is reviewed. In a
particular application of the invention, the content of
audiovisual news programs is acquired from a first set of
one or more information sources (e.g., television news
programs) and text news stories are acquired from a
second set of one or more information sources (e.g., online news services or news wire services). In such a
particular application, the invention can enable the user to
access the news stories of audiovisual news programs in a

40

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
random manner so that the user can move quickly among
news stories or news programs.”)
1:26-31: (“Too, there is a much larger universe of
information from which the desired information must be
extracted. Trying to get just an overview of a large body
of information can be overwhelming, and attempting to
find specific material within the body of information can
be like searching for a needle in a haystack.”)
Related Art at 1:37-55: (“In particular, there is a need for
systems and methods of organizing, categorizing and
relating the various segments of a large body of
information to facilitate the access and review of the body
of information. For example, while some previous
systems for enabling observation of a large body of
information enable identification of one or more segments
of information that are related to a specified segment of
information, these systems do not automatically display
such related segments of information. Moreover, the
previous systems either require that related segments have
previously been determined or, at least, that the segments
have been categorized according to subject matter content
so that whether two segments are related can readily be
determined. Further, previous systems have not enabled
determination of relatedness between segments of
information represented by different types of data, e.g.,
such systems cannot determine whether a segment
represented by audiovisual data is related to a segment
represented by text data.”)
1:61-65: (“It would also be desirable for such systems
and methods to be adapted for use with bodies of
information represented by different types of data (i.e.,
audio data, video data, text data or some combination of

41

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
the three).”)
2:60 – 3:4: (“The invention enables a body of information
to be displayed by electronic devices (e.g., a television, a
computer display monitor) in a manner that allows the
body of information to be reviewed quickly and in a
flexible manner. Typically, the body of information will
be represented by a set of audio data, video data, text data
or some combination of the three. In a particular
embodiment, the invention enables generation of an
audiovisual display of one or more segments of
information, as well as a display (a text display, an audio
display, a video display, or an audiovisual display), for
each of the segments, of one or more related segments of
information.”)
3:34-43: (“The invention also enables automatic
identification of information that is related to information
that is being displayed, so that the related information can
be observed, thereby enabling information about a
particular subject to be examined in depth. In particular,
the invention enables such identification of related
segments to be made between segments of different types
(e.g., a segment represented by audiovisual data can be
compared to a segment represented by text data to enable
a determination of whether the segments are related).”)
3:60-63: (“Additionally, the invention enables automatic
categorization of uncategorized segments of the body of
information based upon comparison to other segments of
the body of information that have been categorized.”)
4:30-42: (“The invention also enables real-time
acquisition and review of some or all of the body of
information. The invention enables on-the-fly analysis of
data as the data is acquired, so that the data can be

42

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
organized, categorized and related to other data. The
invention also enables the realtime display of some or all
of a body of information while also displaying related
information in response to the real-time display. For
example, in a news browser according to the invention,
television news programs can be acquired and displayed
as they occur. Related news stories, either from previously
acquired television news programs or text news sources
can be displayed as each television news story is
displayed in real time.”)
5:17-24: (“The system can further include a mechanism
for identifying the subject matter content of a segment of
the body of information, so that the mechanism for
comparing can determine the similarity of the subject
matter content of a segment to the subject matter content
of a different segment (using, for example, relevance
feedback) and use that result to determine the relatedness
of the compared segments.”)
9:47-60: (“The body of information can be represented by
one or more sets of audio data, one or more sets of video
data, one or more sets of text data or some combination of
the three. Herein, "audio data" refers to data used to
generate an audio display, "video data" refers to data used
to generate a video display substantially including images
other than text images, "text data" refers to data used to
generate a video (or audio, though typically video) display
of text images, and "audiovisual data" refers to data that
includes audio and/or video data, and may include text
data. In a particular embodiment, the invention enables the
acquisition and review of one or more sets of information
represented by audiovisual data, as well as related sets of
information represented by text data.”
20:6-15: (“Or, the system controller 103 can acquire

43

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
computer-readable data files (that can include text data,
audio data, video data or some combination of two or
more of those types of data), using conventional
communications hardware and techniques, over a
computer network (e.g., a public network such as the
Internet or a proprietary network such as America
Online.TM., CompuServe.TM. or Prodigy.TM.) from an
information providing site that is part of that network.”)
24:66 – 25:40: (“Video data can be partitioned, for
example, by searching for scene breaks, a method similar
to the pause recognition method for partitioning audio
data discussed immediately above. One method of
accomplishing this is described in detail in the abovementioned U.S. patent application entitled "A Method of
Compressing a Plurality of Video Images for Efficiently
Storing, Displaying and Searching the Plurality of Video
Images," by Subutai Ahmad. In that method, the content
of each video frame is represented by a vector, as
described above. The vector for each video frame is
compared to the vector of the immediately previous video
frame and the immediately subsequent video frame, i.e.,
vectors of adjacent video frames are compared. In one
approach, a break is identified each time the difference
between the vectors of adjacent video frames is greater
than a predetermined threshold. In another approach, a
predetermined number of partitions is specified and the
video frames are partitioned to produce that number of
partitions (the partitioning can be accomplished by
considering each video frame to be initially partitioned
from all other video frames and recursively eliminating
the partition between partitioned video frames having the
least difference, or considering none of the video frames
to be partitioned and recursively establishing partitions
between unpartitioned video frames having the greatest

44

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
difference).
Other approaches to scene break identification could be
used, as known by those skilled in the art of processing
video images. Some other approaches to scene break
identification are discussed in "Automatic Parsing of
News Video," by HongJiang Zhang, Gong Yihong,
Stephen W. Smoliar, and Tan Ching Yong, IEEE
Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems,
Boston, May 1994, the disclosure of which is incorporated
by reference herein. For example, scene breaks could be
identified based upon the magnitude of the overall
changes in color of the pixels of adjacent video frames (a
color change having a magnitude above a specified
threshold is identified as a scene break). Or, scene breaks
could be identified based upon the magnitude of the
compression ratio for a particular set of adjacent video
frames (a relatively small amount of compression
indicates a relatively large change between video frames
and, likely, a change in scenes, i.e., a scene break).”)
25:41 – 26:2: (“The above-described methods for
partitioning audio or video data directly may not, by
themselves, enable identification of segment breaks to be
accomplished easily or at all. For example, without
augmentation, pause recognition or scene break
identification typically are not implemented in a manner
that enables distinguishing between segment breaks and
other breaks. Voice recognition may not, alone, be a
reliable indicator of segment breaks, since switches in
speaker often occur for reasons unrelated to a segment
break. Word recognition, too, may be erratic in
determining segment breaks; it also requires obtaining a
text transcript of the audio. Music recognition works well
only with a limited number of information sources, i.e.,
information sources that use well-defined musical

45

sf-2999374

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2
transitions.
It may be possible to include markers (similar to those
discussed above with respect to closed caption text data)
in either audio or video data that directly identify segment
or other breaks within the audio or video data. The
invention contemplates use of such markers to segment
audio and/or video data.
If a set of audiovisual data also includes text data (e.g., a
closed caption transcript of the spoken audio), it is
possible to partition the audiovisual data by partitioning
the text data, then using the partitioned text data to
partition the audio data and video data in a corresponding
manner. Even if the audiovisual data does not initially
include text data, the text data can be produced using a
speech recognition method. The text data can be
partitioned using any appropriate method, as described
above. “)28:5-10: (“FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a method
400, in accordance with this aspect of the invention, for
determining whether a first set of information represented
by a first set of data of a first type (e.g., audiovisual data)
is relevant to a second set of information represented by a
second set of data of a second type (e.g., text data).”)
No Extrinsic.

11. Claims as a whole
Found in Claim Numbers:
20-24; 27-28; 31; 34; 37; 39; 40;
43; 82; 83; 86.

The determination of whether a claim recites patentable
subject matter is a matter of statutory interpretation that is
not properly resolved as part of the Markman briefing
process. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(en banc). Defendants’ “proposed construction”—which is
not a claim construction at all—does not comply with
Patent Local Rule 132 (Joint Claim Chart must include
“[e]ach party’s proposed construction of each disputed
46

sf-2999374

Claims as a whole
The claim is directed to and preempts an abstract idea
(algorithm) and does not mandate any particular machine
or mandate any particular transformation of any particular
article.
“[C]laim construction . . . is an important first step in a §

Claim Language
(Disputed Terms in Bold)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support1

Defendant’s Proposed Construction and Evidence in
Support2

claim term, phrase, or clause”) or the Court’s Standing
Order for Patent Cases (Joint Claim chart must include
“each party’s proposed construction of disputed terms”).
Moreover, proposed constructions for many of the terms
and phrases that are part of the “claims as a whole” are
separately provided herein.

101 analysis” to determine whether “the claim as a whole”
is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In re Bilski,
545 F.3d 943, 951, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d
sub nom, Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010); see
generally Power Mosfet Technologies, L.L.C. v. Siemens
AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The terms in
the Special Master Report were construed in isolation, and
at no other time did the district court or the Special Master
construe the claims as a whole.”); id. at 1410 (This
“limited construction left substantial ambiguity as to the
meaning of the claims as a whole….”); id. at 1412 (“[A]
construction of the claims as a whole would have been
beneficial to the litigants.”).
No Intrinsic.
No Extrinsic.

47

sf-2999374