valve adapter” (claim 14) / “flush opening” (claim 16) ‘687 Patent 14 Not a “means-plus-function” phrase governed by § 112, ¶ 6 “flush opening” ‘687 Patent 20 Not a “means-plus-function” phrase governed by § 112, ¶ 6 “first end” / “the first end being configured ‘687 Patent 4, 7, 14, 17, 20 Not a “means-plus-function” phrase governed by § 112, ¶ 6 Case 5:16-cv-00073-JRG-CMC Document 111 Filed 09/22/17 Page 52 of 53 PageID #: 4430 53 to couple to a dual flush canister” (claims 4, 14, 20) “tabs” / “tabs extending inward” (claim 4, 14) / “the plurality of tabs being configured to engage a lip of a flush opening of a flush valve previously installed in the toilet” (claim 4) ‘687 Patent 4, 14 Not a “means-plus-function” phrase governed by § 112, ¶ 6 “circular support structure” / “a circular support structure configured to align the dual flush canister” (claim 20) ‘687 Patent 20, 21 Not a “means-plus-function” phrase governed by § 112, ¶ 6 Case 5:16-cv-00073-JRG-CMC Document 111 Filed 09/22/17 Page 53 of 53 PageID #: 4431

SecureAuth’s attempt to exclude these embodiments is fatal to its construction. See Micro Chem., 194 F.3d at 1258 (“When multiple embodiments in the specification correspond to the claimed function, proper application of §112, ¶ 6 generally reads the claim element to embrace each of those embodiments.”) IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, StrikeForce respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed constructions for the disputed terms and reject SecureAuth’s attempts to improperly narrow the claims.

IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, High 5 respectfully requests that the Court enter summary judgment in High 5’s favor that all asserted claims of the Konami patents-in-suit are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 2 and 6 and 35 U.S.C. § 101. Case 2:14-cv-01483-RFB-NJK Document 92 Filed 10/21/16 Page 37 of 39 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H O L LA N D & H A R T L L P 54 41 K IE T ZK E L A N E S E C O N D F L O O R R E N O , N V 8 95 11 DATED this 21st day of October, 2016.

Accordingly, to the extent Nichia fails to prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence, VIZIO has established its defense of non-infringement. Furthermore, as set forth above in Section I.(C)(3), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why Nichia’s infringement allegations must fail. 4. Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 VIZIO has shown and will show at trial that claim 4 of the ‘375 patent is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112. As set forth above in Section I.(C)(4), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why the ‘375 patent is invalid.

Accordingly, to the extent Nichia fails to prove such facts by a preponderance of the evidence, VIZIO has established its defense of non-infringement. Furthermore, as set forth above in Section I.(C)(3), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why Nichia’s infringement allegations must fail. 4. Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 VIZIO has shown and will show at trial that claim 4 of the ‘375 patent is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112. As set forth above in Section I.(C)(4), VIZIO has identified and will present to the jury multiple reasons why the ‘375 patent is invalid.

“Where the alleged disavowal is ambiguous, or even ‘amenable to accelerometer and motion detection apparatus, as well as sequences of steps for performing the claimed logic functions. Such sequences of steps comprise structural algorithms in the context of § 112(6). See, e.g., Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1384-87 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Id. at 1319 (emphasis original). “Section 112, paragraph 6, is intended to prevent such pure functional claiming.” Id. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claim was invalid for indefiniteness.

(finding the term “module” to be a generic term subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6). In fact, courts have previously held that the term “processor” invokes 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 6. See, e.g., Vocaltag Ltd. v. Agis Automatisering B.V., 659 Fed. Appx. 616 (Fed. Cir.

Defendant's Construction: This claim element is indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because there is no specific algorithm or other disclosure of a controller means for carrying out the function of “enabling said controller means to deliver the medication to the patient according to a selected one of said first and second medication dispensing protocols.” If the claim is not found indefinite, then it should be construed as follows: The following structure, located on the pump (or insulin pen): the “accept/reject modified protocol” in block 36 of Fig. 3.

Id. Just as the “so that” clause could not be ignored in Noah Systems, the “such that” clause cannot be ignored here. The corresponding structure for a § 112, ¶ 6 term must “perform all of the claimed functions.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52.