In any event, Dropcam’s argument is flawed for a number of reasons. First, it presumes that “each social hierarchy level must receive information.” As noted above, claim 1 of the ’522
patent (as with other claims), only requires that “at least one member of the predetermined hierarchy [be provided] only as much information as allowed.” (Emphasis added.) (Ex. A at
claim 1.) Second, the claims do not say anything about a “single event,” “same event” or any “event.” As pointed out in e.Digital’s Opening Brief, the information provided, if any, can relate
to availability for a phone call, which is not an “event,” or to multiple events detected by continuous or multiple-sampled sensor measurements.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dropcam argues that e.Digital’s proposed construction fails to specify what the unique social signature is associated with. (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 14:8-12.) However, the
context is provided by the claim itself as explained in the Opening Brief. (Opening Brief at 13:23-26.) Plaintiff’s proposed construction, read in the context of the full claim limitation, makes clear that a “unique social signature” is one that is associated specifically with a particular social template at a given time. Unlike, Dropcam’s proposed construction, e.Digital’s construction makes room for embodiments discussed in the specifications, including the training embodiments which contemplate the use of another template upon unsuccessful classification and the adaption of templates to successfully associate a unique social signature with the social templates. Its conclusory assertions to the contrary, Dropcam’s proposed construction would
wrongly imply that a social signature can only ever be associated with one social template.
------------------------------------------------------------
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 (’618Prosecution 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 refers to “assigning” a constructed social signature or social hierarchy to a social template. (Id.) “Assigning,” is entirely consistent with e.Digital’s position and is not the equivalent of “storing.”
