Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SLYCE ACQUISITION INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SYTE – VISUAL CONCEPTION LTD.
`AND KOHL’S CORPORATION,
`
` Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-257-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SLYCE ACQUISITION INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................4 
`I.
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ...................................................................................................4 
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................4 
`A.
`The ’624 Patent ..............................................................................................................4 
`INTERPRETATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS ...................................................................7 
`A. Claims 1, 23, and 34 Are Not Subject to Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 .....7 
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................................8 
`2.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................................................9 
`3.
`Claim 34 ..............................................................................................................11 
`Claim 12 is Subject to Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 and is Valid and
`Definite ........................................................................................................................12 
`1. Means for storing ................................................................................................14 
`2. Means for analyzing............................................................................................16 
`3. Means for receiving ............................................................................................17 
`4. Means for calculating..........................................................................................18 
`5. Means for determining ........................................................................................20 
`6. Means for displaying ..........................................................................................21 
`The Asserted Claims Need Not be Performed in the Order Recited ...........................22 
`“Measure of Distinction”/“Plurality of Categories”/“Alignment of Categories” ........23 
`1. Measure of distinction ........................................................................................23 
`2.
`Alignment of categories ......................................................................................25 
`3. Wherein the attribute information comprises a plurality of categories, including
`a color category ...................................................................................................26 
`“Determining the Second Item to be Similar to the First Item” ..................................28 
`“Wherein the Attribute Information is Derived from a Sample of a Desired Item” ....29 
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`2 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F. 3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)...............................................................................................23
`
`In re Beauregard,
`53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................12
`
`Epcon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc.,
`279 F. 3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002).................................................................................................9
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................8
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................23
`
`Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp.,
`181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................23
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
`131 S.Ct. 2238 (2011) ..............................................................................................................25
`
`OI Corp. v. Tekmar Co. Inc.,
`115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................9
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................................8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................27
`
`True Chemical Solutions, LLC v. Performance Chemical Company,
`MO-18-CV-00078-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Claim Construction Order .........................................15
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................8, 10, 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 ........................................................................................................8, 14, 24, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282, ¶1 ........................................................................................................................25
`
`3 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`In accordance with the Court’s Order dated October 30, 2019 (Dkt. No. 31), Slyce
`
`Acquisition Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Slyce”) hereby submits its Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Slyce asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,152,624 (“the ’624 Patent) against Syte – Visual
`
`Conception Ltd. (“Syte”) and Kohl’s Corporation (“Kohl’s”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in this
`
`action. Slyce does not believe that any terms of the asserted patent require construction.
`
`Nonetheless, to the extent the Court deems constructions necessary, and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, Slyce respectfully asks the Court to adopt its proposed constructions and to reject
`
`Defendants’.
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`Slyce presently asserts claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-16, 18-19, 22-27, 29-30, 33-38, 40-41, and 44
`
`of the ’624 Patent.
`
`III.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’624 Patent
`
`The ’624 patent is titled “systems and methods for visual presentation and navigation of
`
`content using data-based image analysis.” The patent is directed to methods and systems for
`
`browsing and navigating image-based content, and for determining the similarity among a user-
`
`selected image and other images based on an analysis of images’ attribute information.
`
`4 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`Figure 4 (above) shows a display screen that presents a user with several images depicting
`
`items, wherein each image has attribute information about the image, including categories such as
`
`a color category. The patented system and method allows a user to select an image and have the
`
`system calculate the similarity between the selected image attributes and categories and other
`
`stored images’ attributes and categories. The system and method will then display the image(s)
`
`that are similar to the user-selected image in accordance with a certain threshold or other criterion.
`
`5 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`Figure 2 (above) shows an illustrative table for storing image attribute information. Table
`
`202 can also include automatically derived analytical metrics that describe properties of a stored
`
`image of an item (e.g., pattern, geometry, outline, etc.), or externally derived information (e.g.,
`
`historical sales data, profitability and/or cost data, competitive information, customer survey
`
`information, etc.), comments about an item, or any other suitable information. ’624 Patent, Col. 7,
`
`lines 22-28.1 The browsing application of the patent allows a user to navigate image-based content
`
`(typically representing a retail item) and to interact with that content to display images similar to
`
`a user-selected image.
`
`1 Hereafter all citations to the ’624 Patent shall be made in column:line format.
`6 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`IV.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 23, and 34 Are Not Subject to Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. §
`112, ¶6
`
`Defendants have alleged that independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 34 of the ’624 Patent are
`
`subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 and/or are indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶2. Defendants are wrong and their positions are without merit.
`
`Independent claims 1, 23, and 34 of the ’624 Patent are not subject to interpretation under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. Importantly, independent claims 1, 23, and 34 do not recite the term “means”
`
`and, therefore, § 112, para. 6 is presumed not to apply.
`
`To determine whether § 112, para. 6 applies to a claim limitation,
`our precedent has long recognized the importance of the presence or
`absence of
`the word
`"means."
`In Personalized Media
`Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, building
`upon a line of cases interpreting § 112, para. 6, we stated that the
`use of the word "means" in a claim element creates a rebuttable
`presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies. 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed.
`Cir. 1998) (citing cases). Applying the converse, we stated that the
`failure to use the word "means" also creates a rebuttable
`presumption—this time that § 112, para. 6 does not apply. Id.2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In making the assessment of whether the limitation in question is a means-plus-function
`
`(or step-plus-function for method claims) term subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6, the
`
`essential inquiry is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Id., citing, Greenberg v.
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("What is important is ... that the
`
`term, as the name for structure, has a reasonably well understood meaning in the art."). Each of
`
`                                                            
`2 All emphasis added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`7 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`claims 1, 23, and 34 use terminology and structure well-understood in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, and therefore should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is a method claim (see below). In a method claim, “steps” refers to the generic
`
`description of elements of a process, and the term "acts" to refer to the implementation of such
`
`steps. § 112, para. 6 is only implicated only when steps plus function without acts are present.
`
`Epcon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F. 3d 1022, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing,
`
`OI Corp. v. Tekmar Co. Inc., 115 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`It is plain that the text above in claim 1 includes no words indicating “step plus function”
`
`form, such as “step for.” Epcon Gas, 279 F.3d at 1028. It is also clear that each step of the method
`
`recites a specific act. In fact, the specific act for each of the method’s steps is the first recited word
`
`of each element. Defendants cannot overcome the presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 does not
`
`8 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`apply because “step plus” language is not used, and further cannot overcome the simple fact that
`
`claim 1 recites specific acts in each of the elements of the method. And, because claim 1 should
`
`not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, the claims are also not indefinite as lacking adequate
`
`structure.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 23
`
`Claim 23 (see below) is a system claim that does not recite the term “means” anywhere in
`
`the claim. It is therefore presumed to not be subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. Williamson, 792 F.3d
`
`at 1348. Claim 23 further recites well-known and understood structural terms that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have a sufficiently definite meaning for that structure.
`
`The first element, a “storage device,” is well-known in the computer arts and is easily
`
`supported by the illustration in Fig. 1 (e.g., Application Server 108) and its corresponding
`
`9 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`description in the specification – “[c]omputing device 102 may be coupled to a storage device,
`
`such as an application server 108 or other suitable storage device.” 5:47-49. Fig. 2 also describes
`
`the structure of the storage device by illustrating an exemplary database that stores item
`
`information and images. 5:1-3. The specification further describes the storage device structure
`
`with reference to Fig. 11a, “[a]t step 1102, retail item images and descriptive attribute information
`
`associated with the items or images may be stored (for example in database 106 or any other
`
`suitable storage device or combination of devices).” 12:62-66. Still more description of the storage
`
`device structure can be found with reference to Fig. 13, “[a]t step 1306, browsing application 104
`
`may store the reduced-size image and the associated web page address in any suitable storage
`
`device (e.g., database 106, computing device 102, etc.).” 15:61-64.
`
`The second element of the claim is a “processor.” At the time of the ’624 Patent, the notion
`
`of a computer processor for use in an Internet browsing application was unquestionably well-
`
`known. There is no basis for Defendants’ position as it relates to this term. That said, Fig. 1 and
`
`its corresponding description in the specification support the use of this term, “[c]omputing device
`
`102 may include appropriate hardware (e.g., circuitry, processors, memory, user input devices,
`
`display devices, etc.) for implementing algorithms or software applications, for example browsing
`
`application 104 or any other suitable algorithm or software application (e.g., an operating system,
`
`a web browser, a point-of-sale transaction browsing application, etc.).” 5:40-46.
`
`The final structural element recited in claim 23 is a “display device.” Again, there is no
`
`question as to what a display device is in the context of the ’624 Patent. Fig. 1 shows computing
`
`devices 102, which all have display devices. Figs. 3-10 are all images of displays screens, “FIGS.
`
`3-10 show illustrative display screens for allowing users to navigate image-based content in
`
`accordance with the present invention.” 5:4-6. Any argument that the structure of this “display
`
`
`
`10 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`device” element would not be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a
`
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure is patently absurd. And, because claim 23
`
`should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, the claims are also not indefinite as lacking
`
`adequate structure.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 34
`
`Claim 34 (see below) is a “Beauregard claim” directed to a non-transitory machine-
`
`readable storage medium. See generally, In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Again,
`
`it is difficult to even conceive of the argument Defendants are attempting to make by urging this
`
`claim be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. Claim 34 recites a non-transitory machine-
`
`readable storage medium for allowing a user of a browsing application to navigate image-based
`
`content using a graphical user interface that comprises a “processor” for performing specific tasks.
`
`
`
`11 
`
`
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`For the same reasons set forth above in Section IV(A)(2) with respect to the “processor” in
`
`claim 23, the “processor” in claim 34 would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. And, for the same reasons set
`
`forth above in Section IV(A)(1) with respect to method claim 1, the elements of claim 34 recite
`
`well-known structures and definitive acts and should therefore not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶6. Because of this, the claims are also not indefinite as lacking adequate structure.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 12 is Subject to Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 and is Valid
`and Definite
`
`’624 Patent
`
`Claim Term(s)
`
`means for storing a
`plurality of images,
`wherein each image
`depicts an item
`
`Slyce’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for storing a plurality
`of images
`
`Function: for storing a plurality
`of images
`
`Structure: At least Figs. 1, 2,
`11a, 11b, and 13, their
`corresponding description in the
`specification, and equivalents.
`
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for analyzing a first
`image of the plurality of images
`to detect attribute information
`associated with a first item
`depicted in the first image
`
`Structure: At least Figs. 1 and 2,
`their corresponding description
`in the specification, and
`equivalents.
`
`Structure: Storing at a
`server/memory remote from the
`user’s browsing device, prior to
`analyzing and receiving a user
`selection
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for analyzing to
`detect attribute information a
`first image of the plurality of
`images to detect attribute
`information associated with a
`first item depicted in the first
`image…
`
`Structure: Indefinite
`
`means for analyzing a
`first image of the
`plurality of images
`to detect attribute
`information associated
`with a first item
`depicted in the first
`image, wherein the
`attribute information
`comprises a plurality of
`categories, including a
`color category
`
`12 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`means for receiving a
`user selection, from a
`user, of the first
`image depicting the first
`item
`
`means for calculating a
`measure of distinction
`between the first item
`and a second item based
`on the plurality of
`categories, wherein the
`measure of distinction
`represents an alignment
`of categories between
`the first and
`second items
`
`means for determining
`the second item to be
`similar to the first item
`if the measure of
`distinction satisfies a
`criterion
`
`means for displaying a
`second image of the
`plurality of images
`depicting the second
`item
`
`
`
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for receiving a user
`selection, from a user
`
`Structure: At least Figs. 1, 4, and
`11a, their corresponding
`description in the specification,
`and equivalents.
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for calculating a
`measure of distinction between
`the first item and a second item
`based on the plurality of
`categories
`
`Structure: Figs. 2 and 4, and
`their corresponding description
`in the specification, and
`equivalents.
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for determining the
`second item to be similar to the
`first item
`
`Structure: Fig. 2 and its
`corresponding description in the
`specification, and equivalents.
`N/A
`
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for receiving a user
`selection, from a user, of the
`first image depicting the first
`item
`
`Structure: Indefinite
`
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for calculating a
`measure of distinction wherein
`the measure of distinction
`represents an alignment of
`categories between the first and
`second items
`
`Structure: Indefinite
`
`Subject to treatment under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: for determining the
`second item to be similar to the
`first item if the measure of
`distinction satisfies a criterion
`
`Structure: Indefinite
`
`Defendants have not put forth
`any position on this claim
`element.
`
`Plaintiff agrees that claim 12 is drafted in means-plus-function form and should be
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Plaintiff disagrees with the assertion by Defendants that
`
`the claim limitations are indefinite as lacking sufficient structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. To
`
`
`
`13 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 14 of 31
`
`construe a means-plus- function claim, first, “the court must first identify the claimed function.”
`
`True Chemical Solutions, LLC v. Performance Chemical Company, MO-18-CV-00078-ADA
`
`(W.D. Tex.), Claim Construction Order dated September 25, 2019, citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at
`
`1351. Second, “the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification
`
`corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. Structures in the specification are “corresponding
`
`structure[s]” when “the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim.” Id. Under step 1 of the analysis, the proposed functions of each of the
`
`elements are taken from the claim itself and expressed in the table above. As set forth more fully
`
`below, and pursuant to step 2 of the analysis, the proposed structure supporting each means-plus-
`
`function element is detailed.
`
`1.
`
`Means for storing
`
`The structure for the storage means in claim 12 is first set forth in Fig. 1 of the ’624 Patent.
`
`The computing devices 102 running the browser application have storage means as does the
`
`application server 108 with its database. Per the ’624 Patent, “[c]omputing device 102 may be
`
`coupled to a storage device, such as application server 108 or any other suitable storage device.
`
`Database 106 may be implemented on application server 108 or on any other suitable device.
`
`Database 106 may be, for example, any number of multi-tiered databases for storing item
`
`information and images. In some embodiments not shown, database 106 may be implemented as
`
`part of computing device 102, or part or all of database 106 may be implemented on both
`
`computing device 102 and application Server 108.” 5:47-56. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the ’624 Patent would readily understand this storage means structure, and would
`
`also understand how image files and attributes can be stored in a computer system used for
`
`navigating image-based content.
`
`
`
`14 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 15 of 31
`
`The specification teaches that retail item information may be stored in a database and may
`
`be associated with a particular retail item (e.g., as a record of information for each stored item).
`
`One or more images of the item may be stored in the database and associated with the items
`
`database record. The database may also include various descriptive terms associated with the item
`
`or image of the item, for example color, pattern, material, size, price, manufacturer or brand,
`
`weight, any other suitable descriptive characteristic or a combination thereof. 3:47-55. The
`
`images of the items stored in the database, and the associated attribute information, may be indexed
`
`using any known structure (e.g., B-Trees, Sequential Indices, Cube Indices, or any other suitable
`
`indexing technique or combination of techniques). 3:60-65. Fig. 2 shows a more detailed
`
`embodiment of a storage means for storing item information and images in a database 106 and
`
`table 202. 5:1-3.
`
`Fig. 2 shows not only what (retail item) information may be stored and how, but how that
`
`stored item attribute information can be related to the retail item. 7:4-7. The content stored in the
`
`database may be stored with various relational attributes and may be dynamically presented,
`
`
`
`
`
`15 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 15
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 16 of 31
`
`sorted, ranked, selected, or viewed in greater detail. This organization of content allows for easy
`
`navigation of content and integration with other sources of content. 1:27-32.
`
`The ’624 Patent also describes the structure of other known applicable storage means “for
`
`storing and indexing image-based content in a database.” 2:20-21 For example various index
`
`structures, such as B-Trees, Sequential Indices, Cube Indices, etc. are known and commonly used
`
`to store, index, and retrieve image-based content in multimedia databases. 2:20-24. Further
`
`support for the structure of the storage means can be found with reference to Figs. 11a (1102) and
`
`11b (1152, 1154, 1158, and 1160) and Fig. 13 (1306). In light of the foregoing, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize the structure in the specification and associate
`
`it with the “storage means.” This term is therefore not indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`Means for analyzing
`
`The structure for the “analyzing means” is also set forth in the specification. First, the ’624
`
`Patent teaches that “[t]echnologies and techniques are also known for automatically detecting and
`
`analyzing image data from an external source and for automatically synthesizing, generating,
`
`compressing, editing and enhancing stored image data.” 2:24-28. Additionally, with reference to
`
`Figs. 1 and 2, the patent demonstrates the relationship of the analyzing means and the image
`
`attribute information. Database 106 stores automatically derived analytical metrics that describe
`
`properties of a stored image of an item (e.g., pattern, geometry, outline, etc.), or externally derived
`
`information (e.g., historical sales data, profitability and/or cost data, competitive information,
`
`customer survey information, etc.), comments about an item, or any other suitable information.
`
`6:58-64.
`
`Specifically, the information in the database (and illustrated in Fig. 2) is “captured via
`
`automated image detection and analysis hardware and software that may be used to automatically
`
`determine descriptive attribute information (e.g., color, size, shape, pattern, etc.) of an item using
`
`16 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 17 of 31
`
`a sample of the item (e.g., an image of the item or a physical specimen of a desired item). The
`
`descriptive attributes may include geometry, color, categorical descriptors, purely mathematical
`
`descriptors, or any other suitable attribute information. Fully automated image detection and
`
`analysis, which is important for implementation in a large item database environment, may be
`
`achieved using known systems and methods for detecting and storing descriptive information of
`
`an item automatically determined from a sample (e.g., image or physical specimen) of an item. For
`
`example, histograms of color usage may be used in conjunction with edge detection techniques to
`
`determine the color, number, and orientation of lines and curves in an items pattern. Outline
`
`processing techniques may be used to automatically determine an item’s overall shape.” 7:50 –
`
`8:1. Lastly, the patent provides additional structure by teaching that a Cube Index may be “used
`
`to index and retrieve retail item information. A cube is an online analytical processing method that
`
`searches content by creating intersections of numerous dimensions, where the dimensions act as
`
`indices and include keyed data records.” 10:61-64.
`
`In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize the
`
`structure in the specification and associate it with the “analyzing means.” This term is therefore
`
`not indefinite.
`
`3.
`
`Means for receiving
`
`Ample structure is also provided for the “receiving means.” Fig. 1 of the patent illustrates
`
`the software and hardware used for the present invention. 4:66-67. This figure also illustrates
`
`computing devices 102, application server 108, and their corresponding communications network.
`
`In the background of the invention, the specification details that “[p]ublicly known software
`
`browsing applications, such as web browsers (e.g., Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, Netscape
`
`Navigator, etc.), have been developed to facilitate the navigation of vast amounts of content using
`
`a combination of select able text and images. For example, in an online retail environment using a
`
`
`
`17 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 17
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 18 of 31
`
`web-based browsing application, a web browser interface may be used to allow a user to select
`
`images of retail items in order to find more content related to the selected item.” 1:51-59. A web
`
`browser, coupled with the hardware and communication network shown in Fig. 1, has sufficient
`
`structure for a person of ordinary skill in the art to attribute this structure with the “receiving
`
`means.”
`
`Fig. 4 shows a display screen and its corresponding description teaches how a user makes
`
`a selection that is ultimately received by the receiving means, “[d]isplay Screen 402 may be the
`
`initial display screen provided to a user and may include various displayed item images from which
`
`the user may select an item of interest.” 8:40-43. The patent goes on to detail the specific structure
`
`used to make a user selection -- “a user may select an image or group of images to find a similar
`
`item or group of items (e.g., the user may select the portion of a display screen on which the
`
`selected item is displayed using a touch-sensitive screen, the user may navigate a pointer to the
`
`image and select the image using a mouse, keyboard, or using any other suitable input device).
`
`9:22-28. Similarly, with respect to Fig. 11a, the patent describes that “[t]he user may select the
`
`image or images using any suitable input device, such as a mouse, keypad, touch-sensitive display
`
`screen, etc. 13:20-22.
`
`In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize the
`
`structure in the specification and associate it with the “receiving means.” This term is therefore
`
`not indefinite.
`
`4.
`
`Means for calculating
`
`Not only is there adequate structure for the “calculating means” disclosed in the
`
`specification, but it can also be found in the claim language itself. The calculating means limitation
`
`of claim 12 recites:
`
`
`
`18 
`
`Syte - Visual Conception Ltd. Ex. 1006 p. 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00257-ADA Document 42 Filed 02/28/20 Page 19 of 31
`
`
`
`The words used in this element describe the structure of the calculating means. It not only
`
`describes what is to be calculated (a measure of distinction between the first and second items),
`
`but it also provides detail regarding what this calculation represents (an alignment of categories
`
`between the first and second items). The plain language of this claim element allows a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand the structure of the “calculating means” and to attribute that
`
`structure to the calculating function.
`
`The specification layers further structure by teaching that the software browsing
`
`application of the claims calculates a measure of distinction between items in terms of descriptive
`
`or visual item characte