Message: Someone must have wanted out real badly
themselves confines a range to only a “range…between two values.” Dropcam once again seeks
to usurp the plain and ordinary meaning of a range by unduly importing limitations from an
embodiment in the specification.
F. “optical sensor”
Dropcam argues that “neither the claims nor the specification contemplate [an optical
sensor] detecting ‘one or more’ amounts” of light.” (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 3-5.) This is
not correct. The specifications repeatedly disclose embodiments in which sensors take
measurements at intervals or continuously, from which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
infer the likelihood of multiple sensor measurements. (See Ex. A (’522 patent) at 11:51-53
(“The optical sensor 130 may generate simple light level measurement data continuously, or at a
sampling rate that may be fixed or variable”); see also 11:23-27 (“The inertial sensor 120 may
generate acceleration measurement data continuously, or at a sampling rate that may be fixed or
variable”); 11:41-43; 12:62-13:7 (noting the use of location sensor to sample multiple sensor
measurements to determine acceleration rates “using the differences in the location
measurements”).) The specifications further disclose “the optical sensor 130 can be a camera
(still or video) as used in mobile phones.” (Id. at 11:55-56.) Video inherently requires
continuous light level and light characteristic (e.g., color) measurements. It is therefore more
than obvious from the specification that the “optical sensor” of the Nunchi patents is not limited
to “a single light level measurement.”
Dropcam further argues that its proposed construction allows for optical sensors that do
more than just collect data about the “amount of light” in an environment. They assert that their
construction reflects the proposition that “an ‘optical sensor’ must at least collect data about the
amount of light in the environment.” However, the words “at least” appear nowhere in
Dropcam’s proposed construction and, thus, Dropcam’s own argument appears to be a shift away
from its own initial construction. e.Digital’s proposed construction on the other hand makes
clear that an “optical sensor” can be capable of detecting other qualities of light as disclosed in
the specifications of the Nunchi patents. Its construction should therefore be adopted.
to usurp the plain and ordinary meaning of a range by unduly importing limitations from an
embodiment in the specification.
F. “optical sensor”
Dropcam argues that “neither the claims nor the specification contemplate [an optical
sensor] detecting ‘one or more’ amounts” of light.” (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 3-5.) This is
not correct. The specifications repeatedly disclose embodiments in which sensors take
measurements at intervals or continuously, from which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
infer the likelihood of multiple sensor measurements. (See Ex. A (’522 patent) at 11:51-53
(“The optical sensor 130 may generate simple light level measurement data continuously, or at a
sampling rate that may be fixed or variable”); see also 11:23-27 (“The inertial sensor 120 may
generate acceleration measurement data continuously, or at a sampling rate that may be fixed or
variable”); 11:41-43; 12:62-13:7 (noting the use of location sensor to sample multiple sensor
measurements to determine acceleration rates “using the differences in the location
measurements”).) The specifications further disclose “the optical sensor 130 can be a camera
(still or video) as used in mobile phones.” (Id. at 11:55-56.) Video inherently requires
continuous light level and light characteristic (e.g., color) measurements. It is therefore more
than obvious from the specification that the “optical sensor” of the Nunchi patents is not limited
to “a single light level measurement.”
Dropcam further argues that its proposed construction allows for optical sensors that do
more than just collect data about the “amount of light” in an environment. They assert that their
construction reflects the proposition that “an ‘optical sensor’ must at least collect data about the
amount of light in the environment.” However, the words “at least” appear nowhere in
Dropcam’s proposed construction and, thus, Dropcam’s own argument appears to be a shift away
from its own initial construction. e.Digital’s proposed construction on the other hand makes
clear that an “optical sensor” can be capable of detecting other qualities of light as disclosed in
the specifications of the Nunchi patents. Its construction should therefore be adopted.
G. “information”
Dropcam asserts that the “information” provided to the hierarchy “must result from the
social template comparison.” (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 19:17-20:5.) However, the social
template comparison is already a component of the claims and therefore need not be incorporated
into the Court’s construction. See Polycom, Inc., supra at *93-94. Moreover, the claims do not
speak in terms of comparing just “sensor data with social templates.” The claims disclose a
number of steps that ultimately “result” in, e.g., providing “to at least one member of the
predetermined social hierarchy only as much information as allowed based on the retrieved
social template.” (See, e.g., Ex. A (’522 patent) at claim 1, et al.) Dropcam’s attempt to
paraphrase the limitations of the over-100 varied claims of the Nunchi patents into a single
proposed construction of the term “information” is incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate.
Dropcam further argues that “each social hierarchy level must receive information about
the same event.” (Emphasis added.) (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 20:6-21:5.) Setting aside
for a moment whether Dropcam is correct – which it is not – this is not even Dropcam’s
proposed construction. Rather, Dropcam’s proposed construction is that information must relate
to a “single event,” not the “same event.”
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.
H. “provide/provides/providing differing levels of information”
As demonstrated in the Opening Brief, the plain and ordinary meaning of “provide” is not
limited to “send,” which construction could potentially exclude the “social network” and
“microblog” embodiments discussed in the patents that disclose “updating,” e.g., a personal
Dropcam asserts that the “information” provided to the hierarchy “must result from the
social template comparison.” (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 19:17-20:5.) However, the social
template comparison is already a component of the claims and therefore need not be incorporated
into the Court’s construction. See Polycom, Inc., supra at *93-94. Moreover, the claims do not
speak in terms of comparing just “sensor data with social templates.” The claims disclose a
number of steps that ultimately “result” in, e.g., providing “to at least one member of the
predetermined social hierarchy only as much information as allowed based on the retrieved
social template.” (See, e.g., Ex. A (’522 patent) at claim 1, et al.) Dropcam’s attempt to
paraphrase the limitations of the over-100 varied claims of the Nunchi patents into a single
proposed construction of the term “information” is incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate.
Dropcam further argues that “each social hierarchy level must receive information about
the same event.” (Emphasis added.) (Dropcam Responsive Brief at 20:6-21:5.) Setting aside
for a moment whether Dropcam is correct – which it is not – this is not even Dropcam’s
proposed construction. Rather, Dropcam’s proposed construction is that information must relate
to a “single event,” not the “same event.”
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.
H. “provide/provides/providing differing levels of information”
As demonstrated in the Opening Brief, the plain and ordinary meaning of “provide” is not
limited to “send,” which construction could potentially exclude the “social network” and
“microblog” embodiments discussed in the patents that disclose “updating,” e.g., a personal
11 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply