What Apple’s Claim Construction Brief further alleges:

“…In the ‘995 patent, four distinct structures are disclosed as input means for receiving uncompressed audio/video source information: video line or camera input line 15, TV RF tuner 16, auxiliary digital input port 17, and fiber optic port 18….These four are the only structures clearly linked and are necessary to perform the function of receiving audio/visual source information in the ‘995 patent.…”

So Apple says Burst’s ‘995 patent covers UNcompressed audio/video received in only four ways. Burst’s ‘995 patent says in fact there are TWO additional ways.. And both are fatal to Apple’s infringement defense.:

“78. An audio/video transceiver apparatus as in claim 77 wherein said audio/video transmitter/receiver means comprises a modem for coupling to a TELEPHONE transmission line….

77. An audio/video transceiver apparatus as in claim 73…….

73. An audio/video transceiver apparatus as in claim 60 further comprising high speed bus means, …

60. An audio/video transceiver apparatus comprising: input means for receiving analog and/or digital audio/video source information; ….

My comment:

The Burst patent carefully and correctly extends the claim of an apparatus with the ability to receive uncompressed a/v input in claim 60 down to claim 78 which makes the claim that reception capability of the apparatus described in #60 includes a modem for telephone line communications. It is clear the reception capability in #60 includes UNcompressed a/v because either digital OR analog “source information” is specified to be received.
-------------

“15. An audio/video transceiver apparatus as in claim 9 wherein said input means is coupled to an EXTERNAL COMPUTER…

9. An audio/video transceiver apparatus as in claim 1 wherein: said audio/video source information comprises digital audio/video source information…

1. An audio/video transceiver apparatus comprising: input means for receiving audio/visual source information; compression means, coupled to said input means, for compressing said audio/video source information into a time compressed representation thereof”

My comment:

The Burst ‘995 patent carefully and correctly extends the claim of an apparatus with the ability to receive uncompressed a/v input in # 1 down thorough #9 to #15 which makes the claim that transceiver apparatus reception capability described in #9 (and hence #1) includes coupling to an external computer (translation: Itunes server). It is clear the capability in #1 includes reception of UNcompressed a/v because a compression means is applied to “ source information” AFTER is it received.

Furthermore in the Embodiment description of ‘995, the coupling to an external computer in claim #15 is further specified:

“…Auxiliary digital input port 17 is employed to receive any acceptable digital signal such as computer-generated video signal or as may be supplied by another VCR-ET. This signal, for example, may be an RGB video signal such as that delivered to computer monitors, or it may be a digitized audio signal….”This is worth repeating : “..the signal may be a DIGITIZED AUDIO SIGNAL….”
-------------

Apple is going down this particular road against these claims in ‘995 because the huge majority of program material that it sells on Itunes is source material that has been received,compressed and then downloaded from external computers coupled to the Ipod over telephone lines.

It would appear that in this endeavor they have clearly and utterly failed.

In a larger sense, if this particular argument is so specious, how credible are the rest of their claim construction assertions?

Disclaimer: remember of course, I am an inexpert, wild-eyed stock speculating crackpot.