relationship between a social template and a social hierarchy, but to they do not necessarily lead
to the conclusion that the social hierarchy is defined within the social template. For example,
nowhere in the specifications does the inventor state that the information represented in Table 2
is contained, stored or otherwise defined within the social template. (Ex. A (’522 patent) at
15:43-16:64.) Table 2 is simply demonstrative and indicates how a social template can be used
to provide different information to different members of a social hierarchy; it is not a technical
drawing. It does not require that the social hierarchy be defined in the social template as stored
in the system’s memory. e.Digital does not dispute that the social template may contain rules for
what information may be provided to members of a social hierarchy as Table 2 suggests, but the
hierarchy is not necessarily “defined” within the social template.
Dropcam’s argument that “it would not be possible for a ‘social template’ to provide
‘information to each member of the predetermined social hierarchy” if the social hierarchy were
not “defined within” each social template is simply unsupported and erroneous. (See Dropcam’s
Responsive Brief at 13:15-20.) Once a processor evaluates the detected social signature in light
of the various social templates to arrive at a classification, the processor can associate that
classification with a given social hierarchy even if said hierarchy is not stored in the social
template in the system’s memory. This can be done, by way of example and not limitation, using
a simple index system or any other means of linking data.
C. “social template”
The fact that a social template does not “store” a social hierarchy is discussed at length
and supported in the previous section. e.Digital therefore incorporates those arguments as
though set forth fully herein. Similarly, social templates do not “store” a social signature,
particularly as that term is defined by Dropcam. The specifications do refer to a “social
signature of the social template,” but this is not the “detected social signature” Dropcam attempts
to define in its proposed construction of “social signature.” Rather, the “social signature of the
social template” more accurately refers to the sensor value ranges that make up the “unique
social signature” described in the claims and throughout the specifications. (See, e.g., Ex. A at
claims 1 (“each social template corresponding to a unique social signature comprising a first
sensor value range and a second sensor value range …”), 8, and 17, etc.) The purpose of these
sensor value ranges is to provide a basis for selecting at least one social template to then be used
by a processor to analyze the detected social signature. (See Ex. A at claim 1 (“processor …
determines which of the social signatures of the stored social templates has a greatest
correspondence with the created social signature through comparison of the first and second
detected sensor values and the first and second sensor value ranges of each stored social
template”); see also, e.g., id. at Fig. 3, 18:63-19:3 (“In operation 315 [of Fig. 3], the formatted
data [i.e., the detected social signature] is compared to the social templates”).)
Neither Dropcam’s construction of “social template” nor its construction of “social
signature” encompasses the sensor value ranges discussed throughout the claims and
specifications. Rather, Dropcam’s proposed construction of “social signature” as a “combination
of optical sensor data and acoustic sensor data indicative of a type of activity” would exclude the
sensor value ranges clearly disclosed by the patents. In fact, Dropcam relies heavily on Tables 1
and 2 to support its proposed “social template” and “social hierarchy” constructions, but
conveniently ignores the value ranges contained in Table 1. These ranges are not “data,” to
which Dropcam’s proposed “social signature” construction is limited, but are instead
representations of sensor value possibilities, against which, the actual retrieved data can be
analyzed. Dropcam’s proposal to incorporate its proposed construction of “social signature” into
the construction of “social template” cannot be correct.
Dropcam mistakenly contends that the patentee somehow “disclaimed any social
template that does not have each of a social signature and a social hierarchy.” (Dropcam
Responsive Brief at 13:4-12.) Dropcam asserts that “the applicant explained that the prior art
‘contact record’ was not a ‘social template’ on the basis that it had no social hierarchy where the
‘privacy settings’ were not stored in the ‘contact record’ like the social hierarchy is stored in the
‘social template.’” (Id. at 13:8-11, citing Dropcam’s Ex. B (’618 Prosecution History, March 16,
2012 Applicant Arguments/Remarks) at p. 5.) However, the patentee said nothing of the sort!
There is absolutely no statement by the patentee that that a social hierarchy is “stored” in the
social template. In fact, when referring to the invention of the ’618 patent, the patentee only
