Message: Someone must have wanted out real badly
messages sent to a voice line, and … networking service and microblog updates.” (Ex. A (’522
patent) at 21:4-14 (emphasis added); see also id. at 21:19-24, 21:28-33, 21:38-44.) Hierarchy
levels would not be distinguished by the amount of information disclosed but by the operation
used to convey the information and, thus, Dropcam’s proposed construction is too narrow.
Further, Dropcam’s argument that an arrangement limited to only one level is not a
hierarchy under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term belies the fact that both parties
acknowledge the inventor intended to act as his own lexicographer with respect to this term.
Dropcam’s attempt to try to shoehorn the construction of “social hierarchy” back into the plain
and ordinary meaning of the term “hierarchy” is misguided. e.Digital does not dispute that a
social network could be one of several hierarchy levels, but neither the claims nor the
specification requires that there be additional levels. (See, e.g., Ex. A at 17:21-24 (“it is
understood that additional or fewer levels can be provided, depending on the social template”).)
2. A Social Hierarchy Is Not Necessarily Limited To Social Groups.
Once again, Dropcam isolates single embodiments from the specification to support its
limiting construction while ignoring those that are directly contrary to its position. As set forth
in the opening brief and above, a social hierarchy could consist of an arrangement of different
operations, such as email, text, computerized voice message, social network update, etc. These
operations are not “social groups.” Similarly, Dropcam completely ignores the “emergency”
embodiment, which allows for information to be sent to “emergency services,” which one of
ordinary skill in the art would not equate with a “social group.” Likewise, the claims and
specifications of the Nunchi patents do not preclude a social hierarchy comprised of an
individual person, thing or operation. An individual is not a “group.” Dropcam’s attempt to
limit social hierarchy levels to “social groups” is plainly wrong and should therefore be rejected.
3. The Social Hierarchy Is Not Necessarily Defined Within The Social
Template
The claims of the Nunchi patents are relatively broad when it comes to the relationship
between the social template and social hierarchy. For example, claim 1 of the ’522 patent
provides in pertinent part:
“each social template being selectable to provide, for each level of the
patent) at 21:4-14 (emphasis added); see also id. at 21:19-24, 21:28-33, 21:38-44.) Hierarchy
levels would not be distinguished by the amount of information disclosed but by the operation
used to convey the information and, thus, Dropcam’s proposed construction is too narrow.
Further, Dropcam’s argument that an arrangement limited to only one level is not a
hierarchy under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term belies the fact that both parties
acknowledge the inventor intended to act as his own lexicographer with respect to this term.
Dropcam’s attempt to try to shoehorn the construction of “social hierarchy” back into the plain
and ordinary meaning of the term “hierarchy” is misguided. e.Digital does not dispute that a
social network could be one of several hierarchy levels, but neither the claims nor the
specification requires that there be additional levels. (See, e.g., Ex. A at 17:21-24 (“it is
understood that additional or fewer levels can be provided, depending on the social template”).)
2. A Social Hierarchy Is Not Necessarily Limited To Social Groups.
Once again, Dropcam isolates single embodiments from the specification to support its
limiting construction while ignoring those that are directly contrary to its position. As set forth
in the opening brief and above, a social hierarchy could consist of an arrangement of different
operations, such as email, text, computerized voice message, social network update, etc. These
operations are not “social groups.” Similarly, Dropcam completely ignores the “emergency”
embodiment, which allows for information to be sent to “emergency services,” which one of
ordinary skill in the art would not equate with a “social group.” Likewise, the claims and
specifications of the Nunchi patents do not preclude a social hierarchy comprised of an
individual person, thing or operation. An individual is not a “group.” Dropcam’s attempt to
limit social hierarchy levels to “social groups” is plainly wrong and should therefore be rejected.
3. The Social Hierarchy Is Not Necessarily Defined Within The Social
Template
The claims of the Nunchi patents are relatively broad when it comes to the relationship
between the social template and social hierarchy. For example, claim 1 of the ’522 patent
provides in pertinent part:
“each social template being selectable to provide, for each level of the
predetermined social hierarchy, a corresponding differing amount of information
to each member of the predetermined social hierarchy”
(Ex. A at claim 1.)
With respect to the relationship between the social template and social hierarchy, all this
particular claim (and similar claims) requires is that a social hierarchy be associated with a social
template so that, when a social template is “selected” by the processor, the processor can make
information available to the various members of the social hierarchy based on the selected social
template. Nothing in this or any other claim of the Nunchi patents requires that the social
hierarchy be “defined within each social template” as argued by Dropcam. At minimum, the
claims simply require that the social template comprise parameters and/or information against
which the detected social signature can be compared and analyzed (id.), as encompassed by
e.Digital’s proposed construction. Dropcam’s proposed construction completely fails to address
this required component of a social template at all. In fact, while focusing on Table 2 of the
specifications, Dropcam completely ignores the data ranges represented in Table 1. (See Ex. A
at 15:48-57.)
Dropcam points to just one embodiment that suggests that a social hierarchy can be
stored somewhere in the social template. However, as set forth above, the claims do not require
it and it would be improper to import a single, isolated embodiment as a claim limitation. (See
Dropcam Responsive Brief at 12:1-2, citing ’618 patent at 14:53-54; see also Deere & Co. v.
Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012).) Moreover, the specifications repeatedly
make clear that a social hierarchy need only be associated with or correspond to a social
template. (See Ex. A (’522 patent) at Abstract (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:29-36; 2:59-60
(“According to an aspect of the invention, at least one of the social templates corresponds to an
emergency update”) (emphasis added); 3:28-33; 4:58-60; 5:34-42; 7:44-49; claims 1, 8, 17; Ex.
B (’514 patent) at claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 21, 26, 34, 36; Ex. C (’523 patent) at claims 1 and 19; Ex.
D (’524 patent) at claim 1; Ex. E (’618 patent) at claims 1, 6, 15, 22; Ex. F (’619 patent) at
claims 1, 4, 19, 29.)
The remaining embodiments upon which Dropcam attempts to rely do not support a
conclusion that a social hierarchy is defined within the social template. At best, they suggest a
to each member of the predetermined social hierarchy”
(Ex. A at claim 1.)
With respect to the relationship between the social template and social hierarchy, all this
particular claim (and similar claims) requires is that a social hierarchy be associated with a social
template so that, when a social template is “selected” by the processor, the processor can make
information available to the various members of the social hierarchy based on the selected social
template. Nothing in this or any other claim of the Nunchi patents requires that the social
hierarchy be “defined within each social template” as argued by Dropcam. At minimum, the
claims simply require that the social template comprise parameters and/or information against
which the detected social signature can be compared and analyzed (id.), as encompassed by
e.Digital’s proposed construction. Dropcam’s proposed construction completely fails to address
this required component of a social template at all. In fact, while focusing on Table 2 of the
specifications, Dropcam completely ignores the data ranges represented in Table 1. (See Ex. A
at 15:48-57.)
Dropcam points to just one embodiment that suggests that a social hierarchy can be
stored somewhere in the social template. However, as set forth above, the claims do not require
it and it would be improper to import a single, isolated embodiment as a claim limitation. (See
Dropcam Responsive Brief at 12:1-2, citing ’618 patent at 14:53-54; see also Deere & Co. v.
Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012).) Moreover, the specifications repeatedly
make clear that a social hierarchy need only be associated with or correspond to a social
template. (See Ex. A (’522 patent) at Abstract (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:29-36; 2:59-60
(“According to an aspect of the invention, at least one of the social templates corresponds to an
emergency update”) (emphasis added); 3:28-33; 4:58-60; 5:34-42; 7:44-49; claims 1, 8, 17; Ex.
B (’514 patent) at claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 21, 26, 34, 36; Ex. C (’523 patent) at claims 1 and 19; Ex.
D (’524 patent) at claim 1; Ex. E (’618 patent) at claims 1, 6, 15, 22; Ex. F (’619 patent) at
claims 1, 4, 19, 29.)
The remaining embodiments upon which Dropcam attempts to rely do not support a
conclusion that a social hierarchy is defined within the social template. At best, they suggest a
12 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply