AKA, Time Compressed/Time Compression

Feb. 12, 2007
PREFACE:

I woke up the day after the Markman hearing with "Time Compression" on the mind. Gee, I wonder why? -- Suddenly, it all came together for me!

During Power's presentation of his "Time Compression" arguments, and not being given any definite clue as to how J. Patel was leaning on this construction, I had a certain amount of concern for her decision. I understood the arguments, and Burst had the MUCH better part of it, in my view, but how would J. Patel rule? Does she understand enough of the technology? Were the briefs effective in explaining to her what the Burst patents actually said? How well did she follow Dr. Hemami's tutorial?

Then, that morning, with a clear head, suddenly it all made sense. I recalled BurstingSquidoo at the tutorial. I was frantically taking down every word I could. He was cooly sitting there with his ears alert for the magic words: "time compressed" and "time compression." He's written about this so much, and he's committed to memory the Burst briefs. (I was, and still am, behind in reading the Burst side of the case. I've concentrated heavily on reading and understanding the Apple side. Know your enemy! I've shot down, in my way of looking at it, the Apple arguments, without any need for assistance of the Burst lawyers. So as I start reading their side of the dispute, I see Apple's case as falling apart from within. It hardly needs any outside pressure!

So that morning I remembered BurstingSquidoo reporting how the judge asked Powers, during his tutorial presentation, to show her WHERE in the patents he found the term "time compression." He ducked the question the first time, but she insisted. He then admitted that the term was NOT in the patents. (Thanks, Joe! I missed the significance of the moment, and failed to get it into my notes! BIG MISS.)

The Judge's question was a hint of events to come. It was a sign that, as BurstingSquidoo stated, "She gets it!" I wasn't quite so certain as he. Not, that is, until awaking that morning after the Markman. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. Let's take it a step at a time.

----------------------------------------------------

Time Compressed/Time Compression

OK. I know everyone is exhausted of discussing this subject! But it is THE key term that must be construed by Judge Patel. It is the make-or-break construction for Burst. If Apple's construction wins, there is no Burst IP! Simple as that. So, how will J. Patel define the term?

A key, and perhaps the principal, point is that Powers can't find "time compression" in the patent language, because, duh... , it's not there! Big problem! So, does he begin his claim construction argument by discussing the language of the patent itself -- the INTRINSIC evidence in patent claims? NOT AT ALL. He immediately jumps to the EXTRINSIC evidence of the prosecution history of the patents to make his arguments: