Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:2012cv00100 - Document 263 (E.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: SUBSTITUTE MEMORANDUM AND OPINION and ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 257 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 8/7/2014. (gsg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION CORE WIRELESS LICENSING, S.A.R.L Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC. Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-CV-100 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBSTITUTE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court s previous Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 245) is withdrawn and this Opinion is substituted in its place. This Substitute Memorandum Opinion and Order is made due to the Court s inadvertent inclusion of United States Patent Nos. 6,792,277, 6,788,959, and 6,674,860, which have been dismissed per the Court s Order (Doc. No. 186). Additionally, the Court excises the terms located in Claims 18 and 19 of United States Patent 6,978,143, based on Plaintiff Core Wireless Licensing, S.a.r.l. s ( Core ) representation that they are no longer in suit. Doc. No. 260 at n.3. Accordingly, an additional objection period shall run from the date of this Substitute Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Core s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. No. 257) is DENIED AS MOOT. This Substitute Memorandum Opinion and Order construes terms in United States Patent Nos. 7,383,022 ( the 022 Patent ), 7,599,664 ( the 664 Patent ), 6,978,143 ( the 143 Patent ), and 7,804,850 ( the 850 Patent ). Core alleges Defendant Apple, Inc. ( Apple ) infringes the 022, 664, 143, and the 850 Patents (collectively, the patents-in-suit ). BACKGROUND Core filed an Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc. No. 122). Apple filed a Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc. No. 127) addressing some of the arguments raised by Core. Thereafter Core filed a Reply to a narrow subset of Apple s arguments (Doc. No. 134). Additionally, the parties submitted a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Doc. No. 108), including a Joint Claim Construction and Chart attached as Exhibit 1 (Doc. No. 108-1). A Markman Hearing was held on October 3, 2013 (Doc. No. 142 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. ). Additionally, Apple filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,321 is Based On 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶2 (Doc. No. 126). 1 The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was denied. See Doc. Nos. 182, 196. THE PATENTS The patents-in-suit generally related to cellular communications. The 022 Patent, and its continuation, the 664 Patent, describe filtering the signal of mobile equipment ( ME ), such as a cell phone, to account for the various conditions experienced by a particular ME as it travels through different areas. This is done using a forgetting factor, which is used to discount the importance of certain older data relating to older conditions, when appropriate. The 022 and 664 Patents disclose two ways for altering the forgetting factor : (1) adjusting the default value of [the forgetting factor]; or (2) replacing the forgetting factor by computing a new forgetting factor with ME specific data. 022 Patent col. 6:52 53; see id. col. 59 57. The 143 Patent details the ways in which a cell phone, rather than a base station, may determine whether to use a dedicated channel or a common channel for packet data transfer. See 143 Patent col. 3:53 4:18. 1 At the Markman hearing Apple represented that we re content to stand on our papers on indefiniteness. 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. 117:18-18. 2 The 850 Patent describes the reduction of congestion on networks using autonomous transmissions. 850 Patent col. 3:26-60 47. APPLICABLE LAW It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent s intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int l Trade Comm n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term s context in the asserted claim can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314 15. 3 [C]laims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part. Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). [T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor s lexicography governs. Id. Also, the specification may resolve ambiguous claim terms where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone. Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. But, [a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims. Comark Commc ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ( As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent. ). Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court 4 understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term s definition is entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms. Id. The patents-in-suit also contain means-plus-function limitations that require construction. Where a claim limitation is expressed in means-plus-function language and does not recite definite structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) mandates that such a claim limitation be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Id. (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6). Accordingly, when faced with means-plus-function limitations, courts must turn to the written description of the patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the [limitations]. Id. Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple inquiries. The first step in construing [a means-plus-function] limitation is a determination of the function of the meansplus-function limitation. Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Once a court has determined the limitation s function, [t]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Id. A structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the 5 specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. Braun, 124 F.3d at 1424. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS modifying the default forgetting factor ( 022 Patent, claims 1, 13 and 17); modify the default forgetting factor ( 022 Patent, claim 7); modifying the default forgetting factor ( 664 Patent, claims 5 and 18); and modifying the default factor ( 664 Patent, claims 11 and 24) The central issue with these terms is the meaning of modify. 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 37:36. Core proposes the [p]lain and ordinary meaning / no construction [is] necessary. Doc. No. 108-1 at 20-22. Apple alleges that the claims at issue are tied in concrete ways to the modification approach such that the factor can never be replaced outright. Accordingly, Apple proposes adjusting the default forgetting favor upwards or downwards by an amount determined by the application of a mathematical computation based on the received indication of signal quality. 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 37:22-23; Doc. No. 108-1 at 20-22. First, Apple argues that the patents both provide for a modification based approach and a replacement based approach. 022 & 664 Patents col. 7:14-21 (describing correct or refine allegedly in contrast with discarded ). 2 Additionally, Apple alleges that the prosecution history of the 022 Patent demonstrated a difference between modify and replace. Doc. No. 127 at 13 (citing the abandoned parent application of the 022 Patent, Apple identifies claim 13 which recited modify and contrasts it with claim 14 which recited replace, arguing that the inventors intended these as alternative techniques ). Based on these two arguments Apple contends that the claims at issue are directed only to the modify embodiment. Id. at 14. 2 The 664 patent is a continuation of the 022 patent, and as a result they share substantially identical specifications. 6 Core contends that the plain meaning of modify includes replacing because modification includes changing, and changing necessarily includes replacing as a subtype of replacing. Doc. No. 134 at 4-5 (explaining that the language of the abandoned parent application of the 022 Patent provides no evidence that the applicants intended the terms [ modify and replace ] to be mutually exclusive alternatives). Core bolsters its position with an array of citations to the specification demonstrating that many different terms were used to describe changing the factor. Doc. No. 134 at 4; 022 Patent cols. 3:26 ( modify ), 7:3 ( modified or replaced forgetting factor ), Fig. 4 ( adjust or replace ), 1:57 ( replace ), 3:29 ( replace ), 2:2 ( adjusted ), 6:48 ( adjust ), 4:11 ( change ), 6:52 ( refined ), 7:17 ( correct or refine ), 6:65 ( revised ); 664 Patents cols. 3:34 ( modify ), 7:3 ( modified or replaced forgetting factor ), Fig. 4 ( adjust or replace ), 1:61 ( replace ), 3:37 ( replace ), 2:7 ( adjusted ), 6:48 ( adjust ), 4:17 ( change ), 6:51 ( refined ), 7:16 ( correct or refine ), 6:66 ( revised ). Accordingly, in view of the absence of any evidence which clearly establishes modify and replace are mutually exclusive, and in view of the myriad of uses of modify, replace, adjust, change, refine, correct, and revise in the specification of the 664 and 022 Patents, no construction is necessary. means for sending uplink packet data to the system using a selected channel, wherein the selected channel is either a common channel (RACH) or a dedicated channel (DCH) ( 143 Patent, claim 17) At the hearing, the parties agreed to the function and structure for this term. Accordingly, the function is sending uplink packet data to the system using a selected channel; the structure is antenna 801, switch 802, control unit 803, burst generator 822, modulator RF transmitter 823, as shown in Fig. 8 and in Fig. 6, steps 670 and 690, and as described in the Patent at 7:4-13; 7:17-20; 7:24-28; and statutory equivalents thereof. See 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 55:18-56:13. 7 means for comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection ( 143 Patent, claim 17); and The parties agree that these terms are means-plus-function limitations governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and agree that the claimed function for the first term is comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection, and the function for the second term is comparing a current value of the last channel selection parameter sent to the mobile station to said calculated value of the channel selection parameter. Doc. No. 108-1 at 15-17. With respect to the structure for both, Core proposes: A control unit 803 wherein the control unit 803 is programmed to control the comparison of the threshold value of the channel selection parameter to the current value of the channel selection parameter in accordance with the algorithm shown in Fig. 6, step 650, and described in 6:20-39; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification. Id. For the first term Apple proposes: A control unit 803 programmed to compare the threshold value of a channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter and provide the comparison result to a channel selection function within the mobile station, wherein the control unit 803 is programmed to control the comparison of the threshold value of the channel selection parameter to the current value of the channel selection parameter in accordance with the algorithm shown in Fig. 6, steps 650-660, and described in 6:20-39; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification. Id. For the second term Apple proposes: A control unit 803 programmed to compare a current value of the data packet size to the computed value of the maximum allowed RLC-PDU size for the RACH channel and provide the result to a channel selection function within the mobile station, wherein the control unit 803 is programmed to control the comparison of the current value of the data packet size to the computed value of the maximum allowed RLC-PDU size for the RACH channel and provide the result to a channel selection function within the mobile station in accordance with the algorithm described in 6:22-47; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification. Id. 8 The central dispute between the parties is whether the control unit structure proposed in both Core and Apple s constructions falls within the rule of WMS Gaming, such that the control unit is a general purpose processor necessitating an algorithm to further define the structure performing the comparing function. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ( In a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. ); see also U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., 6:12-cv-235, Doc. No. 283 at 12 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2013) (This Court has previously found that [a] comparator [] is a corresponding structure for [a] comparing function. ). Apple argues WMS Gaming applies because the control unit is a general purpose processor involving specialized software. 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 61:23-25. Specifically, Apple points to a portion of the specification which provides that the control unit that controls the other blocks executes the block control functions according to specialized software. 143 Patent col. 7:25-26. It appears that Core essentially agrees with Apple regarding the structure, except that Core seeks to avoid a finding that the control unit falls within the rule of WMS Gaming, and therefore does not require reference to an algorithm within the construction. See 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 67:14-18 (Mr. Allison, for Core, argued that the dispute is a fairly narrow one we re having here. We have agreed that that s the description of the particular control unit 803, and we re not contesting that and are content to say that s what we should show the jury. I guess the slight disagreement that we have remaining is that we we are concerned that because casting this WMS Gaming language, that the jury might think that it has to be some sort of exact replica 9 of an algorithm in the specification and not allow the full scope of the invention. ). Additionally, Core does not object to the Court s removal of references to figures and the specification which Core intended as mere examples of the things which the control unit controls. See 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 59:25-60:2, 66:3-4 (Core indicating agreement with the Court s proposed construction). Specifically, Core argues that language describing how the control unit that controls the other blocks executes the block control functions according to special software does not place control unit within the scope of WMS Gaming because it [does not] say that the control unit is a general purpose processor, [only that it] use[s] software. 143 Patent col. 7:25-26; 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 58:16-22. Core also contends that the claim language at issue does not invoke WMS Gaming because the specification makes a merely technical point that [the] special means that the control unit controls [are] sending, . . . receiving, and [also] comparing. 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 58:25-59:5. Given Core s general agreement with the structure identified by Apple, and the examples provided with respect to that structure in the specification, the Court finds that the rule of WMS Gaming is applicable to the control unit because the control unit controls as directed by special software. 143 Patent col. 7:25-28 (referring to Figure 8, the specification provides that the control unit that controls the other blocks executes the block control functions according to special software, thus realizing the above-described block functions according to the invention. ) (emphasis added); see also 143 Patent cols. 7:4-42 (describing how the control unit, using special software, controls other blocks such as block 833 [which] performs signal processing and block 820 [which] encrypts the processed signal [and] block 821 [which] 10 interleaves the signal [and] block 822 [all of] which are modulated and amplified into a RF signal in block 823 [which is] transmitted [by the] antenna 801 by means of switch 802 ). Thus, in view of the agreement between Core and Apple, as well as the disclosure of special software, the algorithm provided in Figure 6, and the vague description of control unit, the Court finds that the structure disclosed in the specification which performs the claimed function includes an algorithm executed by control unit 803. 143 Patent col. 7:25-26 ( [T]he control unit that controls the other blocks executes the block control functions according to special software. ); id. Fig. 6; id col. 5:58-60 ( FIG. 6 shows a flow chart of a method according to the invention for transferring packet data. ); Doc. No. 108-1 at 15-17 (both Core s and Apple s proposed construction reference Fig. 6 with respect to how the control unit 803 controls); WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int l Game Tech., 184 F.3d at 1348 ( The instructions of the software program that carry out the algorithm electrically change the general purpose computer by creating electrical paths within the device. These electrical paths create a special purpose machine for carrying out the particular algorithm ) (citing In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the Court construes the means-plus-function limitation as follows: the function for the first term is comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection; the function for the second term is comparing a current value of the last channel selection parameter sent to the mobile station to said calculated value of the channel selection parameter; the structure for the first terms is: A control unit 803 wherein the control unit 803 is programmed to control the comparison of the threshold value of the channel selection parameter to the current value of the channel selection parameter in accordance with the algorithm 11 shown in Fig. 6, step 650, and described in 6:20-39; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof; and the structure for the second term is: A control unit 803 wherein the control unit 803 is programmed to control the comparison of the current value of the last channel selection parameter sent to the mobile station to said calculated value of the channel selection parameter, in accordance with the algorithms shown in Fig. 6, steps 650, and described in 6:2039; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof. means for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system ( 143 Patent, claim 17) The parties agree that this term is a means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and agree that the claimed function is receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system. Doc. No. 108-1 at 14-15 With respect to the structure, Core proposes: An antenna 801, switch 802, control unit 803, RF receiver 811, and detection demodulator 812, as shown in Fig. 8, for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system, where the control unit 803 controls the reception blocks in accordance with the description in 6:56-62; 7:1-3; 7:14-17; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification. Id. Apple proposes: An antenna 801, switch 802, control unit 803, RF receiver 811, and detection demodulator 812, as shown in Fig. 8, for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system, where the control unit 803 is programmed to control the reception blocks in accordance with the algorithm described in 6:5662; 7:1-3; 7:14-17; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification. Id. The central issue and arguments are the same as with means for comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection, above. 143 Patent col. 9:5-16, 10:1-10; 9:17-20; see 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 78:6-11 (Core noted that it agreed to the Court s proposed construction 12 for means for storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter except that it look[ed] like there may be the same issues with algorithms on means for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system ); id. 80:8-13 ( For [ means for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system Apple offered that it] absolutely could agree [to the Court s preliminary proposal ], [a]nd [reiterated that it] believes the algorithm references are correct. ). In view of the Courts construction for means for comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection, the Court accordingly construes the means-plus-function limitation as follows: the function is receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system; the structure is: An antenna 801, switch 802, control unit 803, RF receiver 811, and detection demodulator 812, as shown in Fig. 8, for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system, where the control unit 803 is programmed to control the reception blocks in accordance with the algorithm described in 6:5662; 7:1-3; 7:14-17; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof. means for storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter ( 143 Patent, claim 17) At the hearing, the parties agreed to the function and structure for this term. Accordingly, the function is storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter, and the structure is a memory 804 for storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter, as described in 5:60-62 and 6:64-7:1 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof. See 10/03/13 Hr g Tr. at 79:22-24 (Core agreeing with the Court s proposed construction for means for storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter ); id at 80:11-13 ( For . . . means for storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter . . . Apple] 13 absolutely could agree, your Honor. And again, we believe the algorithm references are correct. ). predetermined period ( 850 Patent, claims 1, 11, 21) . The Court finds that the parties have not presented a meaningful claim scope dispute. Accordingly, the Court finds no construction of this particular term is necessary at this time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court s claim interpretations are set forth in Appendix A, attached to this opinion. SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of August, 2014. 14 APPENDIX A Term Construction U.S. Patent Nos. 7,383,022 & 7,599,664 modifying the default forgetting factor ( 022 Patent, claims 1, 13 and 17); No construction is necessary. modify the default forgetting factor ( 022 Patent, claim 7); modifying the default forgetting factor ( 664 Patent, claims 5 and 18); and modifying the default factor ( 664 Patent, claims 11 and 24) U.S. Patent No. 6,978,143 means for sending uplink packet data to the system using a selected channel, wherein the selected channel is either a common channel (RACH) or a dedicated channel (DCH) ( 143 Patent, claim 17) means for comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection ( 143 Patent, claim 17); and As agreed at the hearing: Function: Sending uplink packet data to the system using a selected channel Structure: Antenna 801, switch 802, control unit 803, burst generator 822, modulator RF transmitter 823, as shown in Fig. 8 and in Fig. 6, steps 670 and 690, and as described in the patent at 7:4-13; 7:17-20; 7:24-28; and statutory equivalents thereof. Function: Comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection Structure: A control unit 803 wherein the control unit 803 is programmed to control the comparison of the threshold value of the channel selection parameter to the current value of the channel selection parameter in accordance with the algorithm shown in Fig. 6, step 650, and described in 6:20-39; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof. 15 means for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system ( 143 Patent, claim 17) Function: Receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system; Structure: An antenna 801, switch 802, control unit 803, RF receiver 811, and detection demodulator 812, as shown in Fig. 8, for receiving a threshold value of a channel selection parameter from the system, where the control unit 803 is programmed to control the reception blocks in accordance with the algorithm described in 6:56-62; 7:1-3; 7:14-17; and 7:24-28 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof. means for storing said threshold value of As agreed at the hearing: the channel selection parameter ( 143 Patent, claim 17) Function: Storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter Structure: A memory 804 for storing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter, as described in 5:60-62 and 6:64-7:1 of the 143 specification; and statutory equivalents thereof. 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
