Message: Someone must have wanted out real badly
Facebook or Linked-In page, which is not strictly “sending” information, but could also
encompass a simple modification of an already existing post. (See Opening Brief at 19:13-18.)
Dropcam’s assertion that claim construction is limited to those embodiments actually
disclosed by the patentee is wrong. The claims, not the specifications, define the right to
exclude. Markman, supra at 980; Comark Communs., supra at 1186. It is hornbook law that
claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As the Supreme Court in Philips
acknowledged, “[i]n some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a
person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in
such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
understood words.” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This is clearly
one of those instances. Dropcam cannot be permitted to cherry-pick embodiments described in
the specification to support a construction that does not comport with the plain and ordinary
meaning of claim terms. See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, supra at 1354; see also Liebel
Flarsheim Co., supra at 906.
Finally, “differing levels of information” is not limited to “different amounts of
disclosure.” Dropcam misrepresents e.Digital’s statements in the Opening Brief. e.Digital did
not say “the information reported to the levels of the social hierarchy differs by the amount of
disclosure” in every embodiment. Rather, e.Digital stated:
In each of the embodiments described in the patents and in the claims, different
types of information are automatically made available to people or websites
based on what information the user wants to make available. The levels of the
hierarchy are not necessarily ordered or ranked. What sets the hierarchy levels
apart, assuming there is more than one, relates more to what and/or how
information is provided to the various hierarchy levels and is not necessarily
related to importance of the members of each hierarchy level – each level is
simply “different.”
(Emphasis added.) (Opening Brief at 12:6-12.)
Dropcam further ignores the “emergency” embodiment discussed in that same section
which makes clear that the hierarchy can be arranged such that different hierarchy levels are
provided information via different operations, such as text, email, voice message, social network
encompass a simple modification of an already existing post. (See Opening Brief at 19:13-18.)
Dropcam’s assertion that claim construction is limited to those embodiments actually
disclosed by the patentee is wrong. The claims, not the specifications, define the right to
exclude. Markman, supra at 980; Comark Communs., supra at 1186. It is hornbook law that
claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As the Supreme Court in Philips
acknowledged, “[i]n some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a
person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in
such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
understood words.” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This is clearly
one of those instances. Dropcam cannot be permitted to cherry-pick embodiments described in
the specification to support a construction that does not comport with the plain and ordinary
meaning of claim terms. See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, supra at 1354; see also Liebel
Flarsheim Co., supra at 906.
Finally, “differing levels of information” is not limited to “different amounts of
disclosure.” Dropcam misrepresents e.Digital’s statements in the Opening Brief. e.Digital did
not say “the information reported to the levels of the social hierarchy differs by the amount of
disclosure” in every embodiment. Rather, e.Digital stated:
In each of the embodiments described in the patents and in the claims, different
types of information are automatically made available to people or websites
based on what information the user wants to make available. The levels of the
hierarchy are not necessarily ordered or ranked. What sets the hierarchy levels
apart, assuming there is more than one, relates more to what and/or how
information is provided to the various hierarchy levels and is not necessarily
related to importance of the members of each hierarchy level – each level is
simply “different.”
(Emphasis added.) (Opening Brief at 12:6-12.)
Dropcam further ignores the “emergency” embodiment discussed in that same section
which makes clear that the hierarchy can be arranged such that different hierarchy levels are
provided information via different operations, such as text, email, voice message, social network
update, etc. (Opening Brief at 11:11-21; Ex. A at 21:4-14.) This embodiment makes no mention
of “different amounts of information.” (Id. at 21:4-44.)
Once again, Dropcam is improperly singling out select embodiments from the
specifications in an effort to limit the scope of the claims. Dropcam’s proposed construction
must therefore be rejected.
I. “provided/provides/providing an update”
For the reasons set forth above and in the Opening Brief, “provided/provides/providing”
is not limited to “sending” and should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Dropcam
further wrongly asserts that an “update” must relate to a “user’s status.” Again, Dropcam selfservingly
identifies one embodiment in the specification and attempts to limit the entirety of the
claims to that embodiment.
However, social networks and microblogs are commonly used to share updates that are
not necessarily directly related to that status of the user, such as, e.g., photographs, music, and
links to news articles. (Ex. J at 459.) In its Opening Brief, referring to the “emergency”
embodiments discussed in the specifications, e.Digital pointed out several possible emergency
examples that could result in social network/microblog updates that do not necessarily relate to
the user’s status. (Opening Brief at 20:18-28.) Dropcam fails to provide any meaningful
response to these examples other than to say they are not disclosed in the specification, but the
specification clearly discloses an “emergency” embodiment along with a number of other
embodiments, within which these examples would fall. The fact that a patentee does not disclose
every possible embodiment or permutation of an embodiment cannot possibly mean that a patent
claim does not extend to those undisclosed embodiments, particularly where the claims are
drafted more broadly.
J. “accurate”
A proper reading of the “training” claims and specifications of the Nunchi patents
demonstrates that the term “accurate” clearly does not mean “free from mistakes or errors.”
Rather, as shown in the Opening Brief, when the patents use the term “accurate,” the question
being asked is whether the template that corresponds best with the detected social signature is the
of “different amounts of information.” (Id. at 21:4-44.)
Once again, Dropcam is improperly singling out select embodiments from the
specifications in an effort to limit the scope of the claims. Dropcam’s proposed construction
must therefore be rejected.
I. “provided/provides/providing an update”
For the reasons set forth above and in the Opening Brief, “provided/provides/providing”
is not limited to “sending” and should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Dropcam
further wrongly asserts that an “update” must relate to a “user’s status.” Again, Dropcam selfservingly
identifies one embodiment in the specification and attempts to limit the entirety of the
claims to that embodiment.
However, social networks and microblogs are commonly used to share updates that are
not necessarily directly related to that status of the user, such as, e.g., photographs, music, and
links to news articles. (Ex. J at 459.) In its Opening Brief, referring to the “emergency”
embodiments discussed in the specifications, e.Digital pointed out several possible emergency
examples that could result in social network/microblog updates that do not necessarily relate to
the user’s status. (Opening Brief at 20:18-28.) Dropcam fails to provide any meaningful
response to these examples other than to say they are not disclosed in the specification, but the
specification clearly discloses an “emergency” embodiment along with a number of other
embodiments, within which these examples would fall. The fact that a patentee does not disclose
every possible embodiment or permutation of an embodiment cannot possibly mean that a patent
claim does not extend to those undisclosed embodiments, particularly where the claims are
drafted more broadly.
J. “accurate”
A proper reading of the “training” claims and specifications of the Nunchi patents
demonstrates that the term “accurate” clearly does not mean “free from mistakes or errors.”
Rather, as shown in the Opening Brief, when the patents use the term “accurate,” the question
being asked is whether the template that corresponds best with the detected social signature is the
12 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply