UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00454

(Lead Case)

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD 

ENTERPRISE COMPANY; ARUBA 

NETWORKS, LLC. 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00457

(Member Case)

PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 472
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 1

A. Preamble: “A method of transmitting information in a wireless communication 

channel comprising...” (Claim 1)............................................................................ 1

B. “first center frequency / second center frequency” (claim 1) ................................. 6

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 473
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,

512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 3

Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc.,

616 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 11

Choon’s Design, LLC v. IdeaVillage Prods. Corp.,

776 Fed App’x 691 (Fed. Cir. 2019)......................................................................................... 13

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.,

812 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 4

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,

868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989)................................................................................................... 3

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int'l GmbH,

8 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 2

Haddad v. United States,

164 Fed. Cl. 28 (2023).............................................................................................................. 11

Harari v. Lee,

656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 5

In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.,

696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 13

In re Varma v. IBM Corp.,

816 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 4

Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,

383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 13

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc.,

554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 12

Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,

401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 12

On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus.,

442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 3

Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 12

VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,

767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 11, 12

Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,

605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................... 3

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 474
1

I. INTRODUCTION

The single asserted patent in this case, U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (the “’802 Patent”), 

discloses innovative systems and methods for transmitting information in a wireless channel using 

separate first and second center frequencies. This stands in contrast to previous conventional 

systems that used only a single “center frequency (or modulation frequency)” in “one or more 

transmission channels... from the transmitter to the receiver.” Ex. 1 (’802 Patent) at 1:12-40, cl. 1. 

Here, Plaintiff seeks two specific claim constructions to confirm the plain and ordinary meaning 

of the claim language in light of the patent specification. Plaintiff previously presented these 

constructions to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board in response to invalidity theories that had 

incorrectly interpreted the relevant terms. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the preamble is 

limiting and refers to a single wireless communication channel in response to IPR2024-00606 filed 

by a third party. Additionally, in response to IPR2024-00707 filed by Defendants, Plaintiff argued 

that “first center frequency / second center frequency” should be interpreted as “[t]he frequency of 

the carrier that the baseband signal is upconverted to”. The Court should adopt Plaintiff’s proposed 

constructions and confirm that the patent claims have their plain and ordinary meaning in light of 

the specification.

II. ARGUMENT

A. Preamble: “A method of transmitting information in a wireless 

communication channel comprising...” (Claim 1)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

The preamble is limiting as to “in a wireless 

communication channel”

No construction necessary

The phrase “in a wireless communication channel” in claim 1’s preamble is necessary in 

imparting life and meaning to the claim. In particular, the preamble clarifies that the patent claim 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 475
2

concerns transmissions in a single wireless communication channel, rather than any two 

transmissions at different frequencies. This intent is consistently supported by the ’802’s 

specification, which repeatedly explains that the invention is regarding a specific method within 

“a [wireless] communication channel.” See, e.g., Ex. 1 (’802 Patent) Abstract (“Embodiments of 

the present invention transmit signals simultaneously over a communication channel at different 

RF center frequencies”); 1:61-63 (“In one embodiment, the present invention includes a method 

of transmitting information in a wireless communication channel”); see also 2:45-47; 6:60-62; 

10:63-66; 12:14-15. In fact, the ’802 provides specific formulas to recover information based on 

the response of the different frequency ranges within a single communication channel. Id., 13:21-

23 (“[h1, h2, ..., hN] represents the channel response over band frequency f1. [g1, g2, ..., gN] 

represents the channel response over band frequency f2.”). 

In accord, the claim recites a method of transmitting information “in a wireless 

communication channel” that comprises transmitting information across two frequency ranges as 

claimed. Ex. 1 (’802 Patent) cl. 1. The preamble’s limiting role aligns with the Federal Circuit 

which has ruled that, “statements of intended purpose in methods of using apparatuses,” such as 

this, “ha[ve] tended to result in a conclusion that such preamble language is limiting.” Eli Lilly & 

Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int'l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Without the preamble’s 

limitation, the claim does not recite a complete structure, and would instead indiscriminately cover 

all transmission of information across two frequency ranges, diverging from the invention’s 

intended scope. The Federal Circuit has found similar preambles to be limiting: 

To read the claim in light of the specification indiscriminately to cover all types of

optical fibers would be divorced from reality. The invention is restricted to those

fibers that work as waveguides as defined in the specification, which is not true

with respect to fibers constructed with the limitations of paragraphs(a) and (b) only. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 476
3

Thus, we conclude that the claim preamble in this instance does not merely state a

purpose or intended use for the claimed structure.

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see

also Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding the preamble

to be limiting where “a construction that required only receipt and storage of the channel map 

information, and not the ability to decode using that information, could effectively broaden the

claims to cover all devices and methods of decoding an A/65 compliant digital broadcast.”).

In fact, the Federal Circuit has reversed a district court holding that a similar preamble was 

not limiting. In On Demand, the district court had held that the preamble’s recitation of “high 

speed manufacture” did not limit the claims to require that the claimed steps “must take place 

within a short period of time.” On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., 442 F.3d 1331, 1343

(Fed. Cir. 2006). In reversing the district court, the Federal Circuit explained that “the preamble

in this case necessarily limits the claim, in that it states the framework of the invention,” and “the

entirety of the claim implements the preamble’s high speed manufacture of a single copy.” Id.,

1343-1344. Similarly, in this case, the preamble’s “in a wireless communication channel” states

the framework of the invention, and the context in which the specifically claimed transmission of

information must take place. Therefore, “in a wireless communication channel” is limiting.

And although further construction of “in a wireless communication channel” is not

necessary, Plaintiff notes that, unlike the familiar situation where the article “a” appears in the

body of a “comprising” claim and thus means “one or more,” here “a wireless communication

channel” clearly refers to a single wireless communication channel. The indefinite article “a” 

generally means “one or more” only “in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase 

‘comprising.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

In other words, when a claim’s preamble concludes with “comprising,” the body of the claim is 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 477
4

open-ended because anything that follows “comprising” simply must be included. For instance, if 

a claim begins with a preamble concluding with “comprising” and the body of the claim requires, 

e.g., “a processor,” the claim would, generally, encompass a system with more than one processor. 

That principle, however, does not apply where the article “a” appears before “comprising.” 

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that “a 

process” requires a single processor because the claim recites “‘a processor’ in the preamble before 

recitation of ‘comprising’ ...”). The preamble here, again, requires “[a] method of transmitting 

information in a wireless communication channel comprising: ....” Here, “a wireless 

communication channel” appears before the word “comprising.” Consequently, the claimed 

method must be performed within “a wireless communication channel,” not multiple wireless 

communication channels.1 

Because the case law that “a” means “one or more” does not apply in this specific situation,

the Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “a”; i.e., “one.” As the Federal Circuit 

has held, for instance, “a statistical analysis request” means “one request”: 

The error of Interpretation 1 is plain from the claim phrase at issue. The phrase 

requires “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected 

investments.” [citation]. That language on its face excludes Interpretation 1. A 

single request must correspond to at least two investments.

In re Varma v. IBM Corp., 816 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Varma explained, even

though the claim may permit the existence of more than one “statistical analysis request,” there

must be one request that meets the claimed limitations:

The Board also cited the indefinite article “a” before “statistical analysis request”

to support Interpretation 1. But while “a” sometimes is non-restrictive as to

1 This is, of course, not to say that the claim would not cover a system wherein more than one 

wireless communication channel independently practice the entirety of the claimed method.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 478
5

number, permitting the presence of more than one of the objects following that

indefinite article, context matters even as to whether the word has that meaning.

See Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). And here the question is 

not whether there can be more than one request in a claim-covered system: there 

can. Rather, the question is whether “a” can serve to negate what is required by 

the language following “a”: a “request” (a singular term) that “correspond[s]” 

to “two or more selected investments.” It cannot. For a dog owner to have “a dog 

that rolls over and fetches sticks,” it does not suffice that he have two dogs, each 

able to perform just one of the tasks. In the present case, no matter how many 

requests there may be, no matter the variety of the requests the system may receive, 

the system must be adapted to receive a request that itself corresponds to at least 

two investments.

Id., 1363; see also Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “a bit line” 

requires a single bit line). Here too, the limitation requires “a wireless communication channel” 

(a singular term) wherein the claimed method is performed. Like the hypothetical dog in Verma, 

it would not suffice to have a portion of the claimed method performed in one “wireless 

communication channel” and another portion of the claimed method performed in a different 

“wireless communication channel.”

Moreover, the claim language and specification reinforce the plain meaning and support 

the conclusion that the claimed method must be performed within a single “wireless 

communication channel.” Again, “a wireless communication channel” appears before 

“comprising,” and therefore does not appear after an open-ended limitation. Second, the plain 

meaning requires that the method be performed within a single “wireless communication channel.” 

Finally, the specification repeatedly explains that the invention is directed at performing the 

claimed method in a single wireless communication channel. Ex. 1 (’802 Patent) 1:61-63, 2:45-

47; 6:60-62; 10:63-66; 12:14-15. And this is confirmed by the fact that, for example, the 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 479
6

specification recites specific mathematical methods to recover information based on the responses 

of the different frequency ranges within a single communication channel. Ex. 1 (’802 Patent)

13:21-23. 

Therefore, claim 1 requires that the claimed method be performed within a single “wireless 

communication channel.”

B. “first center frequency / second center frequency” (claim 1)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

The frequency of the carrier that the baseband 

signal is upconverted to

Plain and ordinary meaning

The phrases “first center frequency” and “second center frequency” should be construed to 

mean “The frequency of the carrier that the baseband signal is upconverted to.” This interpretation 

is consistent with the usage of the term “center frequency” throughout the ’802 patent, which refers 

to the carrier center frequency resulting from up-conversion of a baseband signal. A baseband 

signal represents the data to be transmitted in its raw form. For various known reasons, the 

baseband signal cannot be wirelessly transmitted in its existing form and must be “up-converted” 

with a much higher frequency signal called a “carrier signal.” Additionally, the ’802 patent 

mentions “center frequency” more than 90 times, including in its background of the invention and 

in every embodiment. It repeatedly, consistently and exclusively uses “center frequency” to mean 

the frequency of the carrier signal to which the baseband signal is up-converted. Thus, the claims’ 

requirement of two “center frequenc[ies],” one greater than the other, means that there has to be 

two up-conversions to two different carrier signals with two frequencies, one greater than the other.

The claims require transmitting data across two frequency ranges, each with its own “center 

frequency, ” with one center frequency “greater than” the other. The ’802’s specification confirms 

that the claimed “center frequency” refers to the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 480
7

upconverted to. Therefore, to have two, different “center frequencies,” there must be two upconversions to two carrier signals with different frequencies.

Understanding what a “center frequency” is, however, requires a brief discussion of the 

underlying technology. Per Professor Cooklev: 

A baseband signal represents the information to be transmitted in its raw form. It 

can be either an analog electrical waveform (e.g., voice) or a digital signal. 

Baseband signals generally include frequencies that are very low and close to zero. 

However, antennas cannot emit zero-frequency signals and are ineffective when the 

frequency is low. Therefore, the frequency of many baseband signals is too low for 

them to be effectively or feasibly transmitted over a wireless system. As another 

issue, frequency ranges are typically assigned (e.g., by a governmental regulatory 

body) such that baseband frequencies are not available for use. 

Therefore, the baseband signal often cannot be transmitted wirelessly. It would 

instead have to be modulated on a signal at a much higher frequency prior to 

transmission. This higher frequency signal is called a carrier signal. In such 

instances, the baseband signal is said to be “up-converted” to the carrier signal’s 

higher frequency. As I will explain later in my declaration, the “center frequency” 

is the carrier signal frequency to which the baseband signal is up-converted prior to 

transmission.

The distinction between a baseband signal and a “center frequency” 

(interchangeably referred to in the ’802 as a carrier frequency) to which the 

baseband signal is up-converted is shown in the figure below. The top image shows 

a baseband signal with a low frequency2. The middle image shows the carrier signal 

with a much higher “center frequency” fc. In practice this carrier signal is generated 

by a local oscillator (LO). The third image shows the carrier signal after it has been 

2 For ease of illustration, the shown signal is real-valued, even though baseband signals are 

generally complex-valued. Ex. 2 (Cooklev Decl.) ¶ 41 n.1.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 481
8

amplitude modulated by the baseband signal. This modulated carrier signal is what 

would be transmitted out of the transmitter.

Ex. 2 (Cooklev Decl.) ¶¶ 39-41.

As Professor Cooklev explains, from the outset, the ’802 patent makes clear that a “center 

frequency” is the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is upconverted to:

The ’802 patent mentions “center frequency” more than 90 times, including in its 

background of the invention and in all of its embodiments. Every time it is used, it 

means the frequency of the carrier signal to which the baseband signal is 

upconverted. In the background of the invention, the ’802 patent explains that the

baseband signal is “up-convert[ed]” to the frequency of the “local oscillator (LO)”. 

[’802 Patent] 1:25-27. The output of this up- conversion is amplified and 

transmitted through the antenna. Id., 27- 30. The ’802 patent then explains that its 

prior art Figure 1 transmitter was “limited to up-converting a [baseband] signal to 

one center frequency (or modulation frequency), which is the LO frequency.” Id., 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 482
9

1:30-32. Thus, from the very outset of its disclosure, the ’802 patent uses “center 

frequency” as the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal upconverted to.

Ex. 2 (Cooklev Decl.) ¶¶ 42-43.

And, per Professor Cooklev, “center frequencies, ” and more specifically, the limited use 

of a single center frequency (or carrier frequency) is a focal point of the background of the 

invention:

In light of the background discussion in the ’802 patent, the use of two “center 

frequencies” as claimed is a major focus of the invention. The ’802 patent explains 

that in the prior art the ’802 patent sought to improve upon, baseband signals were 

upconverted to a single carrier frequency and, thus, the amount of information that 

could be transmitted was limited by the bandwidth around that single up-conversion 

frequency. [’802 Patent] 1:32-35. To maximize throughput, the prior art increased 

the bandwidth around the single up-conversion frequency. [Id.] 1:25-32. 

Ex. 2 (Cooklev Decl.) ¶ 44.

The ’802 patent, in this regard, sought to improve upon the prior art by introducing two 

different center frequencies, a focal point of the claimed inventions reflected in every embodiment 

of the patent. Per Professor Cooklev: 

In contrast to the prior art, which sought to improve throughput by increasing 

bandwidth around a single center frequency, the ’802 patent increases throughput 

in an altogether different fashion. It increases throughput by, inter alia, disclosing 

up-conversion to two, different, center frequencies (rather than just one). By 

utilizing two, different, center frequencies, the bandwidth can effectively be 

increased by aggregating the capacities of two different communication channels 

together. 

In accord with this insight, every embodiment of the ’802 patent similarly uses 

“center frequency” to mean the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is 

upconverted to. For example, Figure 2, annotated below, is illustrative:

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 483
10

Figure 2 discloses a wireless digital baseband processor 250 that provides data via 

two separate digital baseband signals 251 and 252. [’802 Patent] 5:60-66. After 

being converted to analog in DAC 201/202 and filtered, signals 251 and 252 are 

fed into respective up-converters 205 and 206. Up-converter 205 accordingly 

upconverts data 251 into a first “center frequency” f1 and, similarly, data 252 is upconverted by element 206 into a second “center frequency” f2. Id., 6:22-56. These 

two up-converted signals are then combined, amplified and transmitted. Id., 7:4-

14. Thus, the ’802 patent uses “center frequencies” f1 and f2 to mean the carrier 

signal frequencies the two baseband signals 251 and 252 are upconverted to.

The resulting signal is shown schematically in the annotated version of the ’802 

patent’s Figure 3. The blue region shows the baseband signal upconverted to the 

first carrier signal with a first center frequency f1. The red region shows the 

baseband signal upconverted to the second carrier signal with a second center 

frequency f2.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 484
11

This very same meaning of “center frequency” as the carrier frequency the 

baseband signal is upconverted to is reflected in the ’802 patent’s other 

embodiments as well. See, e.g., [’802 Patent] 9:9-57 (Figure 6 embodiment); 

12:33-58 (Figure 10 embodiment).

Ex. 2 (Cooklev Decl.) ¶¶ 45-49. 

Additionally, the ’802 Patent uses the terms “center frequency” and “carrier frequency” 

interchangeably, further reinforcing that “center frequency” means the carrier signal frequency the 

baseband signal is up-converted to.3 For example, in connection with its Figure 8 embodiment, 

the ’802 Patent explains:

This example provides a transmitter for sending the same data across a 

communication channel at two different RF carrier frequencies to improve 

reliability and/or increase the range of the system. ... Up-converter 812 includes a 

3 As the Federal Circuit has recognized, a patent may use different terms interchangeably to mean 

the same thing. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

(internal citations omitted) (finding “detachable” and “releasably” to have the same meaning); 

VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317-1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (reversing broad 

construction of “secure communication link” in part because “the specification appear[ed] to use 

the terms ‘secure communication link’ and ‘VPN’ interchangeably, suggesting that the inventors 

intended the disputed term to encompass the anonymity provided by a VPN” and no “embodiment 

or disclosure” “expressly divorc[ed] those terms”); see also Haddad v. United States, 164 Fed. Cl. 

28, 66 (2023) (finding that the patent used “authenticity risk rating,” “authentication rating,” and 

“ID forgery risks rating” interchangeably).

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 485
12

second input coupled to an output of a synthesizer 814, which may be used to upconvert the analog signal to a RF center frequency f1. Similarly, up-converter 

813 includes a second input coupled to another output of a synthesizer 814 (or to a 

different synthesizer), which may be used to up-convert the analog signal to a RF 

center frequency f2. ... The output of power amplifier 815 is coupled to antenna 

850 to transmit the digital data simultaneously as an electromagnetic signal using 

two different RF carrier frequencies.

Ex. 1 (’802 Patent) at 10:64-11:20. As Professor Cooklev explains:

As can be seen, here, the ’802 patent is using “center frequency” and “carrier 

frequency” interchangeably. Specifically, the ’802 patent explains that it obtains a 

signal with two different “carrier frequencies” through combining signals that are 

separately up-converted to “center frequencies” f1 and f2. “Carrier frequency” is a 

term of art and, like “center frequency” in the ’802 patent, refers to the carrier signal 

frequency the baseband signal is upconverted to. 

Ex. 2 (Cooklev Decl.) ¶ 51.

In sum, and in accord with the ’802 patent’s consistent usage, the Court should construe

“center frequency” to mean the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is upconverted to. 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the specification is always highly 

relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to 

the meaning of a disputed term.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Medrad, Inc. v. MRI 

Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning 

of the term . . . in a vacuum. Rather, we must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the 

written description and the prosecution history.”) (citation omitted); Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue 

Sky Med. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1018-19 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (limiting “wound” to “skin wounds” 

where “[a]ll of the examples described in the specification involve skin wounds”); VirnetX, Inc. v. 

Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317, 1317-1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (reversing construction of “secure 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 486
13

communication link” that did not require anonymity, where “the specification appear[ed] to use 

the terms ‘secure communication link’ and ‘VPN’ interchangeably, suggesting that the inventors 

intended the disputed term to encompass the anonymity provided by a VPN” and no embodiments 

or disclosure “expressly divorc[ed]” the two terms); Wisconsin A (limiting “prediction” to dynamic 

prediction where all embodiments describe dynamic prediction and allowing the term to cover 

static prediction “would ‘expand the scope of the claims far beyond anything described in the 

specification’”); Choon’s Design, LLC v. IdeaVillage Prods. Corp., 776 Fed App’x 691, 695-96 

(Fed. Cir. 2019) (construing “at least one pin bar” to extend only to detachable pin bars, where 

“the specification discloses only loom kits having detachable bases and pin bars”). 

In re Abbott is particularly instructive. In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142 

(Fed. Cir. 2012). There, the Patent and Trademark Office had construed “electrochemical sensor” 

under its plain meaning to include wired connections. Id. at 1146. The Federal Circuit reversed, 

explaining:

Even more to the point, every embodiment disclosed in the specification shows an 

electrochemical sensor without external cables or wires. Indeed, the only mention 

of a sensor with external cables or wires in Abbott’ s patents is a single statement 

addressing the primary deficiency of the prior art. It is true that the specification 

does not contain an explicit statement disclaiming electrochemical sensors with 

external cables or wires. .... We have held that “[e]ven when guidance is not 

provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms 

by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading 

of the patent documents.” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 

1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Abbott’s 

patents “repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively” depict an electrochemical 

sensor without external cables or wires while simultaneously disparaging sensors 

with external cables or wires. Id. at 1303.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 487
14

Id., 1149-1150. Similar to In Re Abbott, the ’802 patent “repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively” 

uses “center frequency” is in every embodiment to mean the carrier frequency the baseband signal 

is upconverted to. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should give “center frequency” its plain and ordinary 

meaning of in light of the patent specification: the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is 

up-converted to.

Dated: September 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Amy E. Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

James Pickens

CA State Bar No. 307474

Christian W. Conkle

CA State Bar No. 306374

Jonathan Ma

CA State Bar No. 312773

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

rak_cobblestone@raklaw.com 

Andrea Fair

Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

(903) 757-6400

andrea@wsfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 488
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this document is being served upon counsel of record for Defendants on 

September 26, 2024 via CM/ECF.

/s/ Christian W. Conkle

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64 Filed 09/26/24 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 489