Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 1199
`
`EXHIBIT A
`PARTIES' PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE(cid:71)(cid:71)
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 patent at Claim 1
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Term
`the ordering of method steps in
`claim 1
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`Proposed Construction:
`The following steps:
`
`“determining the level of complexity . . .” and
`
`“designating an application software”
`
`must be performed before the following steps:
`
`“wherein the high-level code is processed by a natural
`language compiler comprised of one or more modules
`executed on one or more independent computing systems,
`depending on the level of complexity . . .” and
`
`“wherein when the high-level code comprises a complex
`structure the parsing and determining steps are performed
`by application software executed on a network server . . .”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at Claim 1; 4:24-5:4; 6:13-8:7; Figs.
`1, 3A, and 3B; 3/14/2007 Amendment at 3-7; 12/4/2007
`Amendment at 2-4, 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Page 1 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 1200
`
`
`
`2
`
`Term
`“complex structure” / “less
`complex structure”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`Proposed Construction:
`Indefinite
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at 2:14-25; 4:15-5:4.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`3
`
`“high-level code”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Text formatted in a human-readable context, such as a
`natural language (e.g., English, French, Spanish, Japanese,
`etc.)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at Title; 1:8-11; 1:42-51; 2:26-31;
`4:15-23; 4:42-45; 5:31-36; 6:8-12; Claim 1; Claim 6; Figs.
`1-2.
`
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary
`
`Alternatively, “high-level code that cannot be processed
`solely by application software installed and executed on the
`mobile device to produce executable code” / “high-level
`code that can be processed by application software installed
`and executed on the mobile device to produce executable
`code”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 patent at Claims 1 and 6; 4: 32-5: 4; 5:64-6:7; and any
`corresponding figures
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (cited during patent prosecution)
`[34: 31-58]
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “naturally spoken or written text.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 Patent at (Claims 1 and 6; 4: 15-31; 6: 51-61; 8: 43-51;
`and any corresponding figures)
`
`Page 2 of 11
`
`

`

`
`
`Term
`
`4
`
`the parsing and determining
`steps
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 1201
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th
`ed. (2000) definition of “High-level programming
`language”
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 16th ed. (2000) definition of
`“High Level Languages”
`
`Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1999)
`definition of “High level”
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed. (1999) definition of
`“Code”
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th
`ed. (2000) definition of “Code”
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th
`ed. (2000) definition of “Source code”
`Proposed Construction:
`Indefinite
`
`Alternatively: Refers to the “parsing the high-level
`code…”, “determining at least one operation…”,
`“determining whether high-level code…” and “determining
`level of complexity…” limitations.
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (cited during patent prosecution)
`[1: 38-42]
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 Patent at Claim 1; 5: 44-63; and any corresponding
`figures
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at 4:24-6:7; Claim 1; 3/14/2007
`Amendment at 3-7; 12/4/2007 Amendment at 2-4, 6-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Page 3 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 1202
`
`
`
`Term
`
`5
`
`“natural language compiler”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“A program that processes natural language to produce
`executable code.”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at 4:24-66; 5:31-43; 6:8-12.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th
`ed. (2000) definitions of “Source code” and “Compiler”
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 16th ed. (2000) definition of
`“Compiler”
`
`
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “software that processes high-level code.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`’124 patent at 4: 42-48; 8: 43-51; and any corresponding
`figures
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (cited during patent
`prosecution)[1: 38-42]
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`“compile” – “To translate all or part of a program expressed
`in a high-level language into a computer program expressed
`in an intermediate language, an assembly language, or a
`machine language.” IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`
`“compiler” – “(1) A translator that can compile” IBM
`Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`
`“natural language” – “(1) A language whose rules are based
`on current usage without being specifically prescribed.”
`
`Page 4 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 1203
`
`
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`6
`
`“microcontroller”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“a single chip that can execute programs without any
`additional resources; not a microprocessor or
`microcomputer”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at 5:5-10; 7:33-38:
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Ted Van Sickle, Programming Microcontrollers in C 91
`(1994)
`
`John B. Peatman, Design with Microcontrollers xiii (1988)
`
`Martin Bates, PIC Microcontrollers Introduction (2nd ed.
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`
`“Natural language query” – “A query written in natural
`language (for example, plain English) seeking information
`from a database.” Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 20th ed.
`(2004)
`
`“Natural language (software)” – “A language whose rules
`are based on usage rather than being pre-established prior to
`the language’s use. Examples include German and
`English.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms, 7th ed. (2000)
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “a chip that includes a processor.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’124 patent at Claims 1 and 6; 5:5-10; 7:33-38; 8: 43-51;
`and any corresponding figures
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 1204
`
`
`
`Term
`
`7
`
`“means for receiving a high-
`level code comprising one or
`more keywords”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`2004)
`
`Martin Bates, PIC Microcontrollers 15 (2nd ed. 2004)
`
`Kenneth J. Ayala, The 8051 Microcontroller: Architecture,
`Programming, and Applications 4-5 (2nd ed. 1997)
`
`Gemalto SA v. HTC Corp., 754 F. 3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`2014)
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: receiving a high-level code comprising one or
`more keywords
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Structure: A keypad or pointing device.
`
`Function: “receiving a high- level code”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’124 patent at 6:51-62; Claim 6; Figs. 1, 3A, and
`3B.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Structure: communication interface 1108 (6: 63-7: 32);
`user interface 1124 (7: 66- 8:7); user interface 1105 (6:
`51-61)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 Patent at Claim 6; 6: 51- 61; 6: 63-7: 32; 7: 66- 8: 7; 8:
`43-51; and any corresponding figures
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (cited during patent
`prosecution)[1: 38-42]
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Page 6 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 1205
`
`
`
`8
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`“means for determining level of
`complexity and implementation
`of the high-level code” 1
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: determining level of complexity and
`implementation of the high-level code
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Structure: Indefinite for insufficient disclosure of
`corresponding structure.
`
`Function: “determining level of complexity and
`implementation of the high- level code”
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`9
`
`“means for producing an
`executable code that can be
`executed by a microcontroller
`of the mobile communication
`device to perform he respective
`operation associated with the
`operative language”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: producing an executable code that can be
`executed by a microcontroller of the mobile communication
`device to perform the respective operation associated with
`
`Structure: Application software 1122 (4:42- 5:4; Fig.2)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’124 patent at Claim 6; 4:42- 5:4; Fig.2; and any
`corresponding figures
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Function: “producing an executable code that can be
`
`1 Defendants proposed that in order to streamline claim construction briefing, the Court’s ruling regarding term nos.8 and 9 would be applied to term nos. 10-13 as well (without
`engaging in briefing for term nos. 10-13); in particular, the determination of whether term nos. 8 and 9 are means-plus-function terms would be applied to term nos. 10-13 as
`well; further, the determination of whether term nos. 8 and 9 are indefinite or whether the corresponding structure is “Application software 1122” would be applied to term nos.
`10-13 as well. Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants’ proposal. Terms nos. 10-13 are different terms requiring separate analysis.
`
`Page 7 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 1206
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`executed by a microcontroller of the mobile communication
`device to perform he respective operation associated with
`the operative language”
`
`Structure: Application software 1122(4:42-5: 4; Fig. 2)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 Patent at Claim 6; 4:42-5: 4; Fig. 2; and any
`corresponding figures)
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`“executable instruction” – “(A) An instruction that is in the
`instruction set for a given computer and can be executed in
`its current form.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of
`IEEE Standards Terms, 7th ed. (2000)
`
`“execution statement” – “(1) A statement that specifies one
`or more actions to be taken by a computer for calculations
`to be performed, conditions to be tested, flow of control to
`be altered.” IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`the operative language
`
`Structure: Indefinite for insufficient disclosure of
`corresponding structure.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`10
`
`“means for parsing the high-
`level code for the keywords to
`recognize the operative
`language associated with
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: parsing the high-level code for the keywords to
`
`Page 8 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 1207
`
`
`
`Term
`controlling one or more
`operations of the mobile
`communication device”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`recognize the operative language associated with
`controlling one or more operations of the mobile
`communication device
`
`Structure: Indefinite for insufficient disclosure of
`corresponding structure.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`11
`
`“means for determining at
`least one operation associated
`with the operative language”
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: determining at least one operation associated
`with the operative language
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Function: “parsing the high- level code for the keywords
`to recognize the operative language associated with
`controlling one or more operations of the mobile
`communication device”
`
`Structure: Application software 1122 (5: 44-52; Fig. 2)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 Patent at Claim 6; 5: 44-52; Fig. 2; and any
`corresponding figures)
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Structure: Indefinite for insufficient disclosure of
`corresponding structure.
`
`Function: “determining at least one operation associated
`with the operative language”
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Structure: Application software 1122 (5:31-43; 5:53- 63;
`Fig. 2)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Page 9 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 1208
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`’124 Patent at Claim 6; 5:31-43; 5:53-63; Fig. 2; and any
`corresponding figures
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Function: “determining whether high-level code comprises
`keywords defining one or more relationships and
`conditions corresponding to the operative language”
`
`Structure: Application software 1122 (4:29-31; 5:31-43;
`5:54-63; Fig. 2)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`’124 Patent at Claim 6; 4:29-31; 5:31-43; 5:54-63; Fig. 2;
`and any corresponding figures
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,975 (cited during patent
`prosecution)[1: 38-42]
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`
`12
`
`“means for determining
`whether high-level code
`comprises keywords defining
`one or more relationships and
`conditions corresponding to the
`operative language”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: determining whether high-level code comprises
`keywords defining one or more relationships and conditions
`corresponding to the operative language
`
`Structure: Indefinite for insufficient disclosure of
`corresponding structure.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01883-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 09/07/16 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 1209
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`IXI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`“means for designation [sic] an
`application software to process
`the high-level code”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Function: designating an application software to process
`the high-level code
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`This term is not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and no
`construction is necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`
`Structure: Indefinite for insufficient disclosure of
`corresponding structure.
`
`Function: “designating an application software to process
`the high-level code”
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`Structure: Application software 1122 (4:42-66)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’124 patent at Claim 6; 4:42-66; and any corresponding
`figures
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`
`13
`
`(cid:71)
`
`Page 11 of 11
`
`