DEFENDANT BURST.COM, INC.'S REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (pages 51-53)

http://burstingsquidoo.com/12_22_06_Repl...


E. Apple Purposefully Avoids The Decompression Terms

Apple ignores the decompression claim terms because those terms expose the nonsensical nature of Apple's "time compression" arguments. Many of the apparatus claims in the patent include a "decompression means, coupled to said random access storage means, for selectively decompressing" the time compressed representation that is stored in random access storage. See, e.g., '995 claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28; see also '705 claims 4, 10 and '839 method claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28 (claiming a method variation). These claims provide that the stored time compressed representation is decompressed so that it can be edited or displayed for viewing by the user.

Decompression is the reverse process of the disclosed data compression and takes place in the compressor/decompressor 26. '995 Patent, 4:63-65, 5:57-59. This reverse process takes the compressed version of the audio/video source information - which has a reduced number of bits relative to the original source information - from storage and restores some or all of the original bits. The requirement that the decompression starts with the stored time compressed representation is explicit in the claims themselves.

Apple's constructions make no sense in the context of the decompression/decompressing claim terms because the product of Apple's time compression is composed of the same bits as the source information. Apple's expert, Mr. Halpern, readily admitted this one-to-one bit correspondence in both his report and deposition. See, e.g., 1st Payne Decl., Exh. 6 (Halpern Report), at 8-9 ("[t]ime compression does not change the 'bits' themselves...."); 1st Payne Decl., Exh. 8 (Halpern Depo Tr.), at 73:4-74:10, 126:12-20, 134:22-136:25, 153:24-154:5, 167:5-10, 281:14-19. Even more critically, during storage, the effect of Apple's type of compression (the increase in frequency or signaling rate) is completely lost because the frequency or signaling rate is not maintained during the storage process. The only item saved in the memory is the data itself- the 1's and O's. There is not, therefore, any "stored time compressed representation" to decompress in Apple's hypothetical system.

Another likely explanation for Apple's decision not to address the decompression terms is that not a single time compression reference cited by Apple uses the words decompression or decompressing (or any of their variants). The reason for Apple's decision is simple: the claimed concepts of decompression have no applicability to Apple's time compression world. Against this backdrop, all of Apple's time compression arguments must fail since they effectively ignore the decompression/decompressing claim terms.

COMMENT:

"Apple's constructions make no sense in the context of the decompression/decompressing claim terms because the product of Apple's time compression is composed of the same bits as the source information. Apple's expert, Mr. Halpern, readily admitted this one-to-one bit correspondence in both his report and deposition."

In the Apple Time Compressed world, there is a one-to-one bit correspondence in the time compression product and the source information used to create the time compressed product and there is no decompression as described in the Burst patents because there is nothing to decompress.

The Burst patents describe that decompression is a part of the invention but there is no decompression in the Time Compression Multiplexing patents.

"Time compressed representation" and "time compression multiplexing" are Apple and Oranges. They are distinctly different processes.