Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 93

Declaration of Christine Saunders Haskett filed by Plaintiffs Apple, Inc., NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. re: 90 Motion Requesting Claims Construction (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 21 IEEE Dictionary, # 2 Ex. 22 '575 file history, # 3 Ex. 23 '486 file history, # 4 Ex. 24 Order No. 18, # 5 Ex. 25 '705 file history, # 6 Ex. 26 '647 file history, # 7 Ex. 27 Brad Cox, # 8 Ex. 28 Microsoft Press Dictionary, # 9 Ex. 29 '002 file history, # 10 Ex. 30 Dictionary of Computer Words, # 11 Ex. 31 Computer Dictionary, # 12 Ex. 32 Academic Press Dictionary, # 13 Ex. 33 IBM Dictionary, # 14 Ex. 34 Black's Law Dictionary, # 15 Ex. 35 About 3GPP, # 16 Ex. 36 '919 patent, # 17 Ex. 37 '713 provisional application) (Haslam, Robert)

EXHIBIT 24

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
AND COMPUTER DEVICES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

Inv. No. 337-TA-704

ORDER NO. 18: CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
(July 30,2010)

connection object representing the links between specific source object events and receiver
objects, along with the receiver object method it needs to invoke the dispatch change event."
(Id.) Nokia further asserts that both the specification and the dependent claims confirm that the

connection information resides in the connection object. (RMIB at 100-101; RMRB at 40 ("This
is consistent with the specification, which describes that the connection object dispatches
notifications to the appropriate method of the notification receiver. That the connection
information is stored in the connection object is further confirmed by the language used in the
dependent claims, which refer to 'the connection information in the connection object. '"
(emphasis original)).)
Nokia objects to Apple's construction, arguing that it "merely rearranges the words
within the phrase in dispute," and as a result, fails to provide any guidance as to the meaning of
"connection information representing a first object's interest in, and an associated object method
for, receiving notification of a change to a second object." (RMIB at 101.) Nokia disputes
Apple's contention that because "the 'registration' step requires that the connection information
be registered 'using' (claims 41 and 42) or 'with' (claim 1) a connection object," the "connection
information need not be present with the object." (RMRB at 41.) In rebuttal, Nokia argues that
"[t]he fact that the connection object must be used to perform the registration step suggests that
the connection information is part ofthat object, a fact that the dependent claims assume and that
the prosecution history explicitly requires." (RMRB at 41.)
Staff supports Nokia's construction. Staff states that the registration step recited in the
asserted independent claims requires that the connection information must be registered "with"
or "using" the connection object. (SMIB at 83.) This, Staff claims, indicates that "the
connection information is indeed contained within the connection object." (Id.) Staff also

- 51 -

asserts that the dependent claims confirm that the connection information is stored in the
connection object. (SMIB at 83; SMRB at 33 (stating, "the dependent claims confirm that the
connection information of the corresponding independent claims must indeed be stored 'in the'
connection object regardless of whether that connection information is registered 'with' or
'using' the connection object.").)
The main difference between the parties' proposed constructions is whether the
connection information must be stored in a connection object. The undersigned agrees with
Nokia and Staff that the connection information must indeed be stored in a connection object,
finding this to be consistent with the prosecution history, the specification, and the claims.
Apple's arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
During prosecution, the applicant explicitly stated that the '''connection information' is
contained within 'connection objects.'" (08115/01 Resp. to Office Action at 8 (stating,
'''Connection information' is contained within 'connection objects' .... The connection objects,
in tum, have more specialized information about which of the events generated by a source
object are of particular interest to each of the receiver objects for which it is responsible.").) The
specification provides additional support for Nokia's and Staffs construction for it establishes
that the "connection information" resides in the connection object and that the receiver object
method is part of the connection information. (See, e.g., '354 patent at 11:14-18 ("For each
connection registered with the notifier as interested in the notification, at function block 1860,
the connection is asked to dispatch the notification. In tum, at function block 1870, the
connection dispatches the notification to the appropriate method of the notification receiver.").)
The dependent claims further confirm that the "connection information" is stored in the
connection object because dependent claims 2,3,5-10,44-47, and 50 all refer to the "connection

- 52 -

information in the connection object," regardless of whether that connection information is
registered "with" or "using" the connection object. (!d. at claims 2,3,5-10,44-47, and 50.)18
Accordingly, the undersigned construes the term "connection information representing the
first/receiver object's interest in, and an associated object method for, receiving notification of a
change to a second/source object" to mean "in/ormation, stored in a connection object,

indicating specific source object events in which a receiver object is interested and the receiver
object method that should receive notification."
c) "connection object,,19

The term "connection object" appears in independent claims 1, 41, and 42, as well as
dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 8, of the '354 patent. The parties disagree on the proper claim
construction, and construe the term as follows:
Apple's Proposed Construction
Plain meaning. In the event the
court disagrees, the construction
should be "object containing a
method for providing
notifications from the second
object to the first object."

Nokia's Proposed Constrnction
Object containing methods for
dispatching notifications from the
notifier object to the specific
receiver objects that have identified
to the connection object an interest
in specific source object events.

Staff's Construction
See Nokia's proposed
construction.
NOTE: The Staffhas
indicated it would not be
opposed to replacing the
"notifier object" in Nokia's
proposed construction with
simply "notifier."

Apple asserts that its proposed construction is supported by both the claims and the
specification. (CMIB at 70.) Apple contends that Nokia's construction, on the other hand, seeks
to read in a "notifier object," which Apple claims, is improper for three reasons. First, Apple
argues that Nokia's proposed construction would exclude the preferred three-method
embodiment by injecting a fourth object, i.e., a "notifier object," to handle notifications. (CMIB
18 The undersigned agrees with Staff that the "dependent claims do more than simply refer to the use of connection
information in the connection object. Instead, they clarify that connection information is actually taken from the
connection object itself, and thus must be stored within the connection object." (See SMRB at 33, fu. 35.)
19 The parties agree that the terms "first object" and "second object" can be construed as "receiver object" and
"source object," respectively. (JC at App. D.)

- 53 -