Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 75 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 881
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-386-VAC-CJB
`
`
`
`TECHNO VIEW IP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`OCULUS VR, LLC, and
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF TECHNO VIEW IP INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
`AUGUST 15, 2018 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`CONSTRUING DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`
`O’KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
`Sean T. O’Kelly (No. 4349)
`Daniel P. Murray (No. 5785)
`901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 778-4000
`(302) 295-2873 (facsimile)
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`dmurray@oelegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 75 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 882
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC,
`474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................... 4
`
`In re Rembrandt Techs., LP,
`2012 WL 4017470 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................ 4
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 4
`
`RULES
`
`D. Del. LR 72.1 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 75 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 883
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and (b)(3) and D. Del. LR 72.1(a)(3) and (b),
`
`plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc. (“TVIP”) respectfully objects to Magistrate Judge Burke’s August
`
`15, 2018 Report and Recommendation (D.I. 74)1 construing several disputed claim terms (Terms
`
`1–4) of TVIP’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,666,096 (the “’096 patent”) and 8,206,218 (the “’218
`
`patent”).2
`
`
`
`Term: “buffer” (Claims 8-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 of the '096 patent; claims 7, 8, and 11-13 of
`
`the '218 patent)
`
`TVIP objects to the ruling of the Report and Recommendation that Term 1 (“buffer”)
`
`should be construed as "memory location for temporary storage of image-related data." See D.I.
`
`74 at 6-10. The Report and Recommendation incorrectly interprets the Specification when
`
`stating that the specification does not “support the notion that the buffer recited in the claims
`
`stores something other than image-related data.” Id. at 10. To the contrary, the Specification
`
`clearly lays out that although what is sent to the display are images, the buffers can contain non-
`
`image data as well. As seen in Fig. 5A, memory 52 (i.e., the buffer) provides information not
`
`only to the monitor 59, but also to other components of the video game system, e.g., speaker 54
`
`and disk port 56. As stated in the Specification, the buffer, or the “extended memory (52) feeds
`
`the audio driver (53) and the speakers (54). Also the input and output driver (55) which in turn
`
`control the disk ports (56) and the interactive elements with the user (57) as the mouse,
`
`keyboard, gamepad and joystick.” ‘096 Patent, 9:26-30. Each of these functions involves the
`
`storage of data that is not image-related. Taken in their full context, nothing in the claims, or in
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, the docket entries referred to in these objections are those in Case No.:
`17-cv-386-VAC-CJB
`
` Pursuant to D. Del. LR 72.1(b), TVIP’s objections should be reviewed by the Court de novo.
`
`- 1 -
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 75 Filed 08/29/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 884
`
`the specifications, limits “buffer” to containing only image-related data. Accordingly, TVIP
`
`proposes that the Court adopt TVIP’s construction of the term “buffer” to mean “memory
`
`location for temporary storage of data.”
`
`
`
`Terms: “left backbuffer” and “right backbuffer” (Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of the '096 patent;
`
`claims 1 and 6 of the '218 patent)
`
`TVIP objects to the ruling of the Report and Recommendation that “left backbuffer”
`
`should be construed as a “memory location where the left image is temporarily stored, and that,
`
`at a given point in time, stores a separate image from any stored in the right backbuffer." See D.I.
`
`74 at 14-17. The Report and Recommendation does not consider the claim language itself when
`
`construing the term as requiring storing “a separate image from any stored in the right
`
`backbuffer.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added). That is, representative claim 1 of the ‘096 patent
`
`requires that when the image is in a 3D format, an image is stored in the left backbuffer, a
`
`slightly different image is stored in the right backbuffer, and then both images are eventually
`
`displayed. However, when the image is in a 2D rather than a 3D format, the image is stored in
`
`the left buffer and the image contents of the left buffer are eventually displayed. In this instance,
`
`there is no requirement that the image be sent to a right backbuffer. Only in the instance of a 3D
`
`image is the right backbuffer necessarily implicated. Therefore, at any given point in time, there
`
`may be no image in the right backbuffer and, therefore, the construction set forth in the Report
`
`and Recommendation cannot be correct.
`
`Thus, TVIP objects to the construction because it does not recognize that no image may
`
`be present in the right backbuffer. Accordingly, TVIP proposes that the construction for “left
`
`backbuffer” therefore be modified to read a “memory location where the left image is
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 75 Filed 08/29/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 885
`
`temporarily stored, and that, at a given point in time, stores a separate image from one stored in
`
`the right backbuffer, if any.”
`
`The Report and Recommendation also construed “right backbuffer” using very similar
`
`language, stating that it is a “memory location where the right image is temporarily stored, and
`
`that, at a given point in time, stores a separate image from any stored in the left backbuffer.” Id.
`
`at 17. While this construction is not objected to by TVIP, TVIP proposes that the construction
`
`be modified such that the constructions for left and right backbuffers continue to be analogous.
`
`Thus, TVIP recommends that the Court construe “right backbuffer” as a “memory location
`
`where the right image is temporarily stored, and that, at a given point in time, stores a separate
`
`image from one stored in the left backbuffer, if any.”
`
`
`
`Term: “frontbuffer” (Claim 14 of the '096 patent)
`
`TVIP objects to the ruling of the Report and Recommendation that “frontbuffer” should
`
`be construed as a "memory location for temporary storage of an image received from the
`
`backbuffer to be displayed." See D.I. 74 at 17-18. The Report and Recommendation improperly
`
`reads a claim term “buffer” out of dependent claim 14. Specifically, the Report and
`
`Recommendation appears to use the terms “buffer” and “backbuffer” interchangeably when
`
`construing “frontbuffer.” Claim 14 requires, in part, “storing the images in the first and second
`
`buffers to first and second frontbuffers ….” Contrary to the construction in the Report and
`
`Recommendation, however, the frontbuffer in claim 14 does not receive an image from a
`
`backbuffer. Instead, it is received from a buffer, as that term is specifically called out in
`
`independent claim 8.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-VAC-CJB Document 75 Filed 08/29/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 886
`
`Courts will generally attach different meanings and scope to different words or phrases
`
`used in separate claims. See Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007), In re Rembrandt Techs., LP, 2012 WL 4017470, *8 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal
`
`citations omitted) and Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1368-1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)). The Report and Recommendation recognized this inherent presumption, and attached
`
`different meanings to “buffer” and “backbuffer.” See D.I. 74 at 11, 13. However, when
`
`construing “frontbuffer,” the Report and Recommendation incorrectly and improperly changed
`
`the term “buffer” as used in claim 14 to “backbuffer.”
`
`While a backbuffer is a type of buffer, the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim
`
`language is not so limited. As such, TVIP proposes the following modified construction for
`
`“frontbuffer” as a “memory location for temporary storage of an image received from a buffer or
`
`backbuffer to be displayed.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O’KELLY ERNST & JOYCE LLC
`
`
`/s/ Sean T. O’Kelly
`Sean T. O’Kelly (No. 4349)
`Daniel P. Murray (No. 5785)
`901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 778-4000
`(302) 295-2873 (facsimile)
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`dmurray@oelegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`TECHNO VIEW IP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`