intended to require every social signature of the Nunchi patents to include acoustic and optical
sensor data, they would have used the language of claim 22 of the ’618 patent in every claim,
including the referenced ’331 patent. He did not.
The fact that particular asserted claims from the patents-in-suit expressly require that a
social signature comprise at least data derived from optical and acoustic sensors for that
particular claim, does not mean that the Court should redefine the broader meaning of “social
signature” contemplated by the inventor. Importing limitations from specific asserted claims
into the broader term “social signature” would wrongly exclude those embodiments described in
the spec that are not so limited and would wrongly redefine those claims derived from the same
spec that are not so limited, such as, without limitation, those contained in the ’331 patent. (See
Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97892, *93-94 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (“many of
the limitations in Polycom’s construction are already listed as limitations in the surrounding
claim language and do not need to be imported into the definition of the term”.)
3. The Social Signature, By Itself, Need Not Be Indicative Of User
Activity.
Dropcam’s assertion that a social signature must be “indicative of a user activity”
(Dropcam Responsive Brief at 7:24-9:3) wrongly puts the cart before the horse. Indeed,
Dropcam states, “The constructed social signature is then used to determine a type of activity
such as ‘driving, napping, in a meeting, showering.’” (Emphasis added.) (Id. at 8:24-9:1.) Its
own statement therefore suggests that any activity classification occurs after the social signature
is constructed. e.Digital does not dispute that the social signature can be used to determine a
type of activity, but this can only be determined after a processor processes the social signature.
(See Ex. A at Fig. 3 and 18:63-19:3.)
A social signature, by itself, can be comprised of just raw and/or processed data and/or
other information based on the sensors of a particular system. (Id.) By itself, the social signature
need not be indicative of anything other than the data derived from the sensors until, if at all, a
processor processes the social signature. (Id.) In fact, each of the specification excerpts relied
upon by Dropcam confirms that this classification is done after the social signature is
constructed. (Dropcam’s Responsive Brief at 8:1-4.)
In addition, to the extent there is a subsequent classification based on the social
signature, it is not necessarily limited to a “social activity.” As shown in the Opening Brief, the
classification could indicate “non-use of the input device.” (Opening Brief at 8:5-8.) Dropcam
argues that these examples cited by e.Digital in its Opening Brief confuse “unprocessed data”
with “examples of what the claimed ‘social signature’ may identify.” (Dropcam Responsive
Brief at 8:13-24.) Rather, it is Dropcam who is confused. As set forth in the Opening Brief, raw
data might consist of a pulse rate, but the classification of whether that rate is high or low would
not necessarily be raw data from the heart rate sensor; rather that would be a classification
derived after processing the sensor data and, moreover, is not indicative of a “social activity.”
(Opening Brief at 8:9-14.) Similarly, a social signature derived from “sensors [which] detect …
that the mobile device … is outside” might consist of, among other things, GPS data,
temperature readings, and/or map location, but the classification that a device is outside is not
“raw sensor data” or “unprocessed data” as Dropcam suggests. More importantly, a
classification that a device is “outside,” is not necessarily indicative of a user’s social activity.
B. “social hierarchy”
1. The Social Hierarchy Is Not Necessarily An Ordered Ranking.
Dropcam selectively points to a number of embodiments in the specifications it claims
demonstrate that a “social hierarchy” must consist of an ordered ranking with levels “ranked
from greatest to least amount of provided information.” (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 9:13-
10:5.) To be clear, a social hierarchy can be an ordered ranking, but the specifications and
claims of the Nunchi patents make clear that a “social hierarchy” is not limited to an ordered
ranking. Further, any ordered ranking need not be limited to “greatest to least amount of
provided information,” which incidentally, is not even required by Dropcam’s own proposed
construction. For example, Dropcam fails to address the embodiments cited by e.Digital in its
Opening Brief, such as the emergency embodiment whereby different recipients may receive
information through different operations, such as “text messages, emails, computer read
