Message: Someone must have wanted out real badly
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.”
Finally, Dropcam’s insistence that a “social template” is a “data structure” does nothing
to clarify the meaning of the term. e.Digital does not dispute that the “social template” is a data
structure. However, inclusion of the term in the construction of “social template” is more likely
to confuse rather than enlighten a lay jury responsible for determining infringement. First, the
term is not used anywhere in the specifications. Second, “data structures” are not a commonly
understood concept and the term would likely require its own separate construction, which
Dropcam has not defined or asked the Court to define at any point to date.
D. “unique social signature”
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.
E. “sensor value range”
1. The Values Of A “Sensor Value Range” Are Not Necessarily
Measurements, But A Representation Of Possible Sensor Data Output
Values
“Sensor value range(s)” are those parameters associated with “social templates.” As
discussed above with respect to “social templates,” a sensor value range is not sensor data, but
rather a representation of possible sensor data output values. (Ex. A (’522 patent) at 15:48-58.)
These values are not necessarily data directly derived from sensors as Dropcam appears to
“Assigning,” is entirely consistent with e.Digital’s position and is not the equivalent of “storing.”
Finally, Dropcam’s insistence that a “social template” is a “data structure” does nothing
to clarify the meaning of the term. e.Digital does not dispute that the “social template” is a data
structure. However, inclusion of the term in the construction of “social template” is more likely
to confuse rather than enlighten a lay jury responsible for determining infringement. First, the
term is not used anywhere in the specifications. Second, “data structures” are not a commonly
understood concept and the term would likely require its own separate construction, which
Dropcam has not defined or asked the Court to define at any point to date.
D. “unique social signature”
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.
E. “sensor value range”
1. The Values Of A “Sensor Value Range” Are Not Necessarily
Measurements, But A Representation Of Possible Sensor Data Output
Values
“Sensor value range(s)” are those parameters associated with “social templates.” As
discussed above with respect to “social templates,” a sensor value range is not sensor data, but
rather a representation of possible sensor data output values. (Ex. A (’522 patent) at 15:48-58.)
These values are not necessarily data directly derived from sensors as Dropcam appears to
suggest. Sensor value ranges can be, either in whole or in part, derived from the system’s
sensors as disclosed in the “training” embodiments described throughout the specifications, but
nothing in the specifications or the claims precludes these values from being pre-defined,
whether by the system’s OEM, the user, or any other person, device or function that can define a
sensor value range. (See, e.g., Ex. A (’522 patent) at 17:17-21, 19:55-56 (“user might create a
new social template”), 19:59-65 (“social templates could be…refined through the collective
experience of any number of other user experiences”), claim 1 (requiring only that the social
template consist of sensor value ranges, but not defining how the ranges are constructed), et al.)
Thus, even to the extent the sensors of a Nunchi-based system take “measurements,” it would not
be accurate to say that the “sensor value range” is limited to a “range of measurements.”
Dropcam concedes that a detected social signature, which is the data or other information
being compared to the sensor value ranges, can consist of “processed data.” Going back to the
“map location” embodiment discussed previously, “the processor compares the location with
map data to determine a map location of the communication device, and creates the detected
social signature to include information on the map location of the communication device, the
movement being experienced by the communication device, and the environment of the
communication device.” (Ex. A (’522 patent) at 1:47-58.)
The determined map location could be “restaurant, store, office,” etc. (See id. at 13:40-
45.) This “value,” which was determined from processing raw sensor data with other map data,
is not itself a “measurement,” even though it may have been derived in part from sensor
measurements. It stands to reason, then, that any sensor value range related to this portion of the
social signature would not be a “range of measurements” as proposed by Dropcam. It could be a
“range of places,” e.g., “Starbucks, Peets, Coffee Bean” or “Vons, Albertsons, Sprouts, Ralphs,”
rather than simply “numerical values” as argued by Dropcam.
2. Dropcam’s Proposed “A Range Between Two Values” Is Unduly
Limiting.
As set forth in the Opening Brief, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term range is “a
variation within limits.” (Ex. H at 596.) A plain understanding of a “limit” includes not just an
interval, which is what Dropcam proposes, but also a ceiling and a floor. Nothing in the claims
sensors as disclosed in the “training” embodiments described throughout the specifications, but
nothing in the specifications or the claims precludes these values from being pre-defined,
whether by the system’s OEM, the user, or any other person, device or function that can define a
sensor value range. (See, e.g., Ex. A (’522 patent) at 17:17-21, 19:55-56 (“user might create a
new social template”), 19:59-65 (“social templates could be…refined through the collective
experience of any number of other user experiences”), claim 1 (requiring only that the social
template consist of sensor value ranges, but not defining how the ranges are constructed), et al.)
Thus, even to the extent the sensors of a Nunchi-based system take “measurements,” it would not
be accurate to say that the “sensor value range” is limited to a “range of measurements.”
Dropcam concedes that a detected social signature, which is the data or other information
being compared to the sensor value ranges, can consist of “processed data.” Going back to the
“map location” embodiment discussed previously, “the processor compares the location with
map data to determine a map location of the communication device, and creates the detected
social signature to include information on the map location of the communication device, the
movement being experienced by the communication device, and the environment of the
communication device.” (Ex. A (’522 patent) at 1:47-58.)
The determined map location could be “restaurant, store, office,” etc. (See id. at 13:40-
45.) This “value,” which was determined from processing raw sensor data with other map data,
is not itself a “measurement,” even though it may have been derived in part from sensor
measurements. It stands to reason, then, that any sensor value range related to this portion of the
social signature would not be a “range of measurements” as proposed by Dropcam. It could be a
“range of places,” e.g., “Starbucks, Peets, Coffee Bean” or “Vons, Albertsons, Sprouts, Ralphs,”
rather than simply “numerical values” as argued by Dropcam.
2. Dropcam’s Proposed “A Range Between Two Values” Is Unduly
Limiting.
As set forth in the Opening Brief, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term range is “a
variation within limits.” (Ex. H at 596.) A plain understanding of a “limit” includes not just an
interval, which is what Dropcam proposes, but also a ceiling and a floor. Nothing in the claims
12 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply