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 (’618 Prosecution 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 refer to " Assigning" a constructed social signature in social hierarchy to a social template. " Assigning " is entirely consistent with e.DIGITAL position and is not equivalent of "storing ".