Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Techonologies Inc et al

Filing 88

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II .(lc). Modified on 9/4/2014 (lc).

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12

PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR

13

SOLUTIONS LLC,

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

Case No. 8:13-cv-01535-ODW(JEMx)
CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION ORDER

v.

[59]

QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
I.

INTRODUCTION

19

This is a patent-infringement suit involving memory in semiconductor devices,

20

and specifically relates to an improved circuit design for such memory. Plaintiff

21

Progressive Semiconductor Solutions, LLC. (“Progressive”) asserts U.S. Patent

22

Nos. 6,473,349 (“the ’349 Patent”) and 6,862,208 (“the ’208 Patent”) against

23

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (“Qualcomm”). The constructions of five terms across

24

the ’349 and ’208 Patents remain in dispute.

25

II.

BACKGROUND

26

Progressive is the owner of the ’349 Patent titled “Cascode sense AMP and

27

column select circuit and method of operation,” and the ’208 Patent titled “Memory

28

device with sense amplifier and self-timed latch.” (SAC ¶¶ 7–8.)

1

On September 30, 2014, Progressive brought a patent-infringement suit against

2

Defendants Marvell Semiconductor Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies Inc. (ECF

3

No. 1.) On March 3, 2014, the Court severed the action under 35 U.S.C. § 299. (ECF

4

No. 45.) Progressive filed an amended complaint against Qualcomm (ECF No. 46),

5

and a new civil action against Marvell, Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v.

6

Marvell Semiconductor, Case No. 8:14-cv-00330-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21,

7

2014).

8

The two suits were coordinated for all purposes except trial. On August 6,

9

2014, the parties filed their final amended joint claim chart. (ECF No. 83.) The

10

parties dispute the construction of five terms: (1) “the amplifier being controlled by

11

the sense enable signal and being made operative only when the pair of pass

12

transistors are made nonconductive by the sense enable signal” (’349 Patent); (2) “in

13

response to a sense enable signal” (’349 Patent); (3) “sense enable signal” (’208

14

Patent); (4) “at about the same time as the assertion of the sense enable signal” (’208

15

Patent); (5) “storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal only in response

16

to the amplified data signal”/“latching the data in response to only the amplified data

17

signal” (’208 Patent). (Id.)

18

On August 11, 2014, the Court held a consolidated claim-construction hearing.

19

(ECF No. 87.) The parties informed the Court that a settlement had been reached

20

between Progressive and Marvell.

21

Stipulation to Dismiss Marvell from the action. Marvell, Case No. 8:14-cv-00330-

22

ODW-JEM, ECF No. 78. The Court construes the disputed terms below.
III.

23

On August 21, 2014, Progressive filed a

LEGAL STANDARD

24

The purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning and scope of the

25

patent claims alleged to be infringed. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.

26

Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim construction is a question of

27

law to be decided by the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,

28

///

2

1

979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the proper construction of a claim, the Court

2

reviews both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, placing emphasis on the former.

3

A. Intrinsic Evidence

4

The court begins with intrinsic evidence of claim meaning—which consists of

5

the claim language, patent specification, and, if in evidence, prosecution history.

6

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Vitronics Corp. v.

7

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

8

The Court must always begin with an examination of the claim language itself.

9

August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also

10

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

11

(“The claims define the scope of the right to exclude; the claim construction inquiry,

12

therefore, begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the claim.”). Claim

13

language is paramount; the other intrinsic and extrinsic evidence—while valuable—

14

cannot be utilized to rewrite the claim language. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV

15

Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

16

The terms used in the claims are generally given their “ordinary and customary

17

meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. This “ordinary and customary meaning” is the

18

meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in question

19

at the time of the invention. Id. The POSITA “is deemed to read the claim term not

20

only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in

21

the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.

22

A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term

23

unless the patentee (1) sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or

24

(2) disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during

25

prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.

26

Cir. 2012).

27

The specification is “always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”

28

Markman, 52 F.3d at 978. “[T]he specification may reveal a special definition given

3

1

to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise

2

possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at

3

1316. But the Court must be wary of “improperly importing a limitation from the

4

specification into the claims.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, 653 F.3d 1296, 1305

5

(Fed. Cir. 2011).

6

The Court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history. The prosecution

7

history encompasses the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO,

8

including the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.”

9

prosecution history provides evidence about how the PTO and the inventor understood
Id.

Id.

The

10

the invention.

But “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing

11

negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that

12

negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for

13

claim construction purposes.” Id.

14

B. Extrinsic evidence

15

Courts may also rely on extrinsic evidence to better understand the underlying

16

technology and to determine what a POSITA would understand the claim terms to

17

mean.

18

external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert testimony, dictionaries,

19

and learned treatises.” Id. at 1317. But while extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is

20

“unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered

21

in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319. Thus, it is less significant than

22

intrinsic evidence. Id.

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.

IV.

23

Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence

DISCUSSION

24

The patents at issue address memory within a semiconductor chip, and more

25

particularly, novel circuit designs and methods for accessing that memory in a manner

26

that increases speed and reliability, while reducing power consumption of the chip.

27

To understand the patents, some background information is useful.

28

///

4

1

A. Background of the inventions

2

Qualcomm sells semiconductor chips referred to as integrated circuits. The

3

data stored on the chips is in SRAM. SRAM data is stored in tiny circuits, called

4

memory cells, which collectively form a memory array. (ECF No. 75, Ex. A.) Data is

5

accessed via unique addresses assigned to the individual memory cells, which are

6

organized into rows and columns. (Id.) Thus, a memory cell’s address consists of a

7

row and column address part. (Id.) “Wordlines” run along the rows of the memory

8

while “bit lines” run up and down. (Id.) Each memory cell is associated with a

9

wordline and two “complementary” bit lines, and each set of complementary bit lines

10

is connected to a sense amplifier. (Id.)

11

The electric signal held in the memory cells is very small. (Id.) The signal is

12

read as two complementary or “differential” signals that each have different voltage

13

values. (Id.) The differential signals that appear on the bit lines collectively represent

14

a single bit of logical information—either 0 or 1. (Id.) But because the voltage

15

differences involved are so small, a special “sense amplifier” circuit is employed to

16

detect and amplify the differential signals. (Id.) The retrieved bit (0 or 1) from the

17

selected memory cell is then stored in a storage device called a “latch” for later use.

18

(Id.)

19

A transistor is commonly used as an electronic switch. (Id.) Pass transistors

20

may be used to construct an “isolation circuit,” because when the transistors are turned

21

“off,” they serve to “isolate” one part of the circuit (for example, the data paths) from

22

another part of the circuit (for example, the sense amplifier).

23

transistors allow variable signals to pass and travel to the sense amplifier when they

24

are conductive; signals cannot travel to the sense amplifier when the pass transistors

25

are nonconductive. (Id.)

(Id.)

The pass

26

The ’349 Patent is directed to sense amplifier circuitry used in RAM. The

27

patent discloses configurations of sense amplifier circuitry that avoid drawing excess

28

charge from the bit lines.

5

1

The ’208 Patent is also directed to amplifying circuitry for use in RAMs. (’208

2

Patent 1:5–13.) The patent discloses an isolation circuit and a self-timed latch. The

3

self-timed latch does not require a clock signal. (Id. 3:28–32.) Rather, its timing is

4

determined by the incoming data signals generated by the sense amplifier. (Id.)
Both patents explain that the designs decrease the chips’ size and power

5
6

consumption while increasing the speed and power.

7

B. Disputed claim terms of the ’349 Patent

8

CLAIM TERM

9

1. “the amplifier being
controlled by the
sense enable signal
and being made
operative only when
the pair of pass
transistors are made
nonconductive by
the sense enable
signal”

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUCTION
Plain meaning, except
as to “operative” and
“sense enable signal”

DEFENDANT’S
CONSTRUCTION
“the sense enable signal
simultaneously activates
the amplifier and turns off
the pair of pass transistors”

17

The parties request construction of an entire limitation—“the amplifier being

18

controlled by the sense enable signal and being made operative only when the pair of

19

pas s transistors are made nonconductive by the sense enable signal”—but only

20

actually dispute the meaning of “operative only when” in the context of the limitation.

21

Essentially, the parties dispute whether “operative only when” expresses temporal

22

requirements that demand simultaneous coordination of the isolation and

23

amplification processes by the sense enable signal.

24

Progressive asserts that the claim language does not expressly or impliedly

25

require that the sense enable signal “simultaneously activate” the amplifier and

26

deactivate the pass transistor. Rather, Progressive aruges, the claim language is broad

27

enough to permit either a simultaneous or sequential effect. Qualcomm argues that

28

///

6

1

because the sense enable signal is used to trigger processes at both the amplifier and

2

the pass transistors, simultaneous coordination is necessarily required.

3

Although the limitation contains technical terminology (e.g., amplifier, sense

4

enable signal, and pass transistors) the disputed languge itself is a general-usage

5

phrase that neither party asserts has any specialized meaning in the art.

6

Beginning with the words of the claims themselves, the plain meaning of

7

“operative only when” does not convey simultaneous coordination.

Rather, it

8

indicates a condition that must be met: the pass transistors must be nonconductive for

9

the sense amplifier to function.

10

The amplifier described in the ’349 Patent is efficient in power consumption.

11

(See ’349 Patent 1:38–40 (“An objecive of memory sense amplifiers is to avoid

12

drawing excess charge from a bit line subsequent to clocking the sense amplifer.”)).

13

The patent explains that the amplifier is “operative” (amplifying a differential signal)

14

only when it can avoid drawing excess charge from the bit lines. (Id. 7:42–45; 6:67–

15

7:1 (“[The] sense amplifier 72 does not drain current from either bit line after

16

sensing.”)) And the amplifier can avoid drawing excess charge from the bit lines only

17

when the pair of pass transistors “are made nonconductive” by the sense enable signal.

18

(Id. 8:37–41.) Although the claim language indicates the sense enable signal’s dual

19

function—amplification and isolation—this does not dictate that these processes be

20

synchronous, as Qualcomm urges.

21

In support of its simultaneous-coordination argument, Qualcomm points to

22

language in the specification that instructs when the sense enable signal is asserted, it

23

turns on the amplifier and turns off the pass transistors. (E.g., ’349 Patent at 3:41–45

24

(“When the signal SE is asserted, pass gates 30 and 31 are turned off. Transistor 39 is

25

turned on when signal SE is asserted.”); 4:6-8 (“when sense enable singal SE activates

26

amplifier 47, pass gates 44 function to disconnect amplifier 47 from data line pair.”);

27

4:66–5:1 (“[w]hen the sense enable signal SE is asserted, P-15 channel transistor pass

28

gates 70 and 72 are turned off.”).) But this language does not specify that the

7

1

resulting effects (activation and deactivation) are simultaneous. The specification

2

does not clearly redefine the conditional “operative only when” to impliclitly or

3

explicitly require synchronicity. Indeed the extrinsic evidence calls into question

4

whether the signal could arrive at two separate locations within a circuit at exactly the

5

same time. (See ECF No. 80, Ex. 1.)

6

“Operative only when” does not suggest, by itself, anything regarding

7

simulatenous events.

8

enable signal—triggers both the amplifier and the pass transistors, but nothing in the

9

claims, specification, or prosecution history indicate the applicant’s intention to

10

mandate simultaneous coordination. Accordingly, there is no reason to deviate from

11

the plain conditional meaning of the disputed language: the pass transistors must be

12

nonconductive for the sense amplifier to function.

13

The specification discloses that a single singal—the sense

CLAIM TERM

14
15
16
17

2. “in response to a
sense enable signal”

PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUCTION
Plain meaning, except
as to except again as to
the technical term
“sense enable signal”

DEFENDANT’S
CONSTRUCTION
“directly controlled by a
[the] sense enable signal”

18
19

The presumed meaning of “in response to” is the plain and ordinary meaning of

20

the phrase. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “In response to” is a general-usage term that

21

neither party asserts has any specialized meaning in the art.

22

Progressive asserts that “in response to” should be given its plain and ordinary

23

meaning. Qualcomm argues that, read in context of the claims and specification, the

24

meaning of “in response to” is “directly controlled by.” Qualcomm argues that the

25

specification provides for a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the sense

26

enable signal and the pass transistor control. (See, e.g., ’349 Patent 3:41–42 (“When

27

the signal SE is asserted, pass gates 30 and 31 are turned off.”); 4:6–8 (“[W]hen sense

28

enable signal SE activates amplifier 47, pass gates 44 function to disconnect amplifier

8

1

47 from the data line pair.”).) Thus, Qualcomm asserts, the Court should adopt its

2

proposed construction to make clear that the sense enable signal—and no other

3

signal—controls the isloation process.

4

Claim 1 of the ’349 Patent claims, in relevant part, reads:

5

A sense amplifier comprising: a pair of pass transistors having first and

6

second inputs respectively connected to a data path and complementary

7

data path for receiving a differential data signal, the pair of pass

8

transistors respectively connecting the data path and complementary data

9

path at first and second outputs thereof in response to a sense enable

10

signal, the first and second inputs of the pair of pass transistors are not

11

electrically the same as the first and second outputs thereof when the pair

12

of pass transistors are disabled by the sense enable signal . . . .

13

(8:30–41 (emphasis added). Neither the claims nor the disclosure are ambiguous as to

14

whether the data line inputs are dependent on any signal other than sense enable

15

signal.

16

The function of claim construction is to clarify and, when necessary, explain

17

what the patentee covered by the claims. S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d

18

1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Construction of the disputed language is unnecessary

19

here, as the claim scope is clear. The plain meaning of “in response to” conveys a

20

stimulus and an effect.

21

relationship is unchanged: the plain meaning of “in response to” would be understood

22

to mean that the pass transistors react to the stimulus of the sense enable signal.

23

Because the intrinsic evidence does not mandate a specialized definition of “in

24

response to,” the Court declines to depart from its plain and ordinary meaning.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Read in context of the claims and specification, that

9

1

C. Disputed terms of the ’208 Patent

2

CLAIM TERM

3

1. “sense enable
signal”

4
5
6

PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUCTION
Plain meaning; “a
signal that enables the
sense amplifier to
function as intended”

DEFENDANT’S
CONSTRUCTION
Plain meaning

7

Although both parties agree that the plain meaning of “sense enable signal”

8

applies, the parties dispute what that plain meaning is. Progressive asserts that the

9

plain and ordinary meaning of sense enable signal is “a signal that enables the sense

10

amplifier to function as intended.”

11

Qualcomm argues that Progressive’s proposed construction is confusing and

12

unnecessary because the full description of the sense enable singal’s function is

13

already given in the claim. The Court agrees.

14

The patent claims “a sense amplifier for amplifying a data signal from a

15

selected one of the plurality of memory cells via the bit line to provide an amplified

16

data signal . . . in response to asserting a sense enable signal.” (’208 Patent 7:5–8)

17

(emphasis added).) Thus, the patent is clear that the function of the sense enable

18

signal is to stimulate the sense amplifier to amplify a data signal. (See also id. 1:25–

19

27.) Thus, the construction “function as intended” is superfluous because the intended

20

function is clearly stated in the claim.

21

The ordinary meaning of the “sense enable signal”—read in the context of the

22

patent—is clear and the specification is consistent with that meaning. Accordingly,

23

the Court declines to depart from the ordinary meaning of “sense enable signal.”

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

10

1
2

CLAIM TERM

3

2. “at about the same
time as the assertion
of the sense enable
signal”

4
5
6
7
8

PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUCTION
“immediately before or
immediately after the
assertion of the sense
enable signal, during a
time span that is a
fraction of the
associated clock
signal’s period”

DEFENDANT’S
CONSTRUCTION
Indefinite

9
10

Claims 1 and 22 of the ’208 Patent recite that the memory cells are decoupled

11

from the sense amplifier “at about the same time” as the assertion of the sense enable

12

signal. (7:9–13; 10:23–25.) The parties dispute whether “at about the same time” is

13

indefinite.

14

For a patent claim to be valid it must “particularly point [] out and distinctly

15

claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C.

16

§ 112(b). The purpose of this definiteness requirement is “to ensure that the claims

17

delineate the scope of the invention using language that adequately notifies the public

18

of the patentee’s right to exclude.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417

19

F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A claim is indefinite if, when “read in light of the

20

specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, [the claims] fail to

21

inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the

22

invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).

23

Qualcomm contends that “at about the same time” is an indefinite term of

24

degree, which cannot be construed, because no objective anchor is provided in the

25

specification. The claim term at issue here—“about”—is a term of degree. Datamize,

26

LLC, 417 F.3d at 1351. When the patentee uses a word of degree, the court “must

27

determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring

28

that degree.” Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826

11

1

(Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide a standard for imposing a more

2

precise construction of the term, the Federal Circuit has ruled that imposing a more

3

precise construction would be error. See Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble

4

Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339

5

F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

6

Here, the Court finds that the ’208 Patent specification provides a sufficient

7

standard for measuring with reasonable certainty the boundaries of “at about the same

8

time.” The specification provides a detailed discussion about the timing and sequence

9

of the two relevant signals and corresponding events.

10

Two signals are asserted “at about the same time:” (1) the sense enable signal—

11

which is responsible for amplyfing the differential data signal—and (2) the isolation

12

(CD) signal—which, when driven high, is responsible for decoupling the memory cell

13

from the amplifier. Figured 4 shows the temporal relationship between the circuit

14

signals, as a function of time:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Figure 4 shows the operation of the sense enable and isolation signals over a

27

period of time equal to three clock cycles.1 Towards the end of the first clock cycle

28

1

The clock cycles are defined between the dotted lines.

12

1

(highlighted in green), isolation signal CD is asserted and the sense enable signal is

2

asserted (see red dots)—“at about the same time.” The timing of the two signals are

3

“logically derived from the clock signal”2—a known point of reference. (Id. 4:4–7.)

4

The patent explains that the sense enable signal should be asserted “[a]fter a

5

predetermined period of time from when the CD signal is driven low at 405 . . . .” (Id.

6

4:1–4. This “predetermined period of time” is determined by the POSITA based on

7

the intended application (e.g., DRAM or SRAM). The description of Figure 4 states

8

that at “about the same time that the SENSE ENABLE signal is asserted the CD signal

9

is driven high to isolate the local data lines LDL 305 and *LDL 307 from the bit lines

10

. . . .” ( Id. 4:9–12.)
Figure 4 also shows the time span during which a differential data signal is

11
12

generated (the time span during which one of the signal’s voltage is pulled down):

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

///

27
28

2

The clock signal is provided by clock circuitry external to the memory device. The clock signal is
represented in Figure 5 of the ’208 Patent. (Id. 3:46–47.)

13

1

Progressive has also presented extrinsic evidence that the term “at about the

2

same time” is easily understood by a POSITA. The Federal Circuit has explained that

3

although courts “have emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim

4

construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, such

5

as expert testimony.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1348 (internal quotation marks omitted).

6

The opinion of an expert can illuminate the meaning of an ambiguous term of degree.

7

See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1353-54; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d

8

1200, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

9

Regarding “at about the same time” Progressive’s expert Dr. John Hayes

10

testified that the specification explains to him—as a POSITA—how to design an

11

integrated circuit like the claimed invention. (ECF No. 80, Ex. A.) Dr. Hayes

12

testified that “it would not be difficult for a skilled artisan to sequence the signals in

13

the desired manner [because] . . . the timing of the SENSE ENABLE and CD signals

14

is based on the clock signal and is therefore a known point of reference.

15

Dr. Hayes also testified that because the patent provides a clear signal sequence—

16

after a diferential data signal as been generated but before the sense enable signal is

17

deasserted—and Figure 4 shows the time span during which the differential data

18

signal is generated, a POSITA has sufficient data to design the circuit in accordance

19

with the claim or to avoid infringement. (Id.)

(Id.)

20

Qualcomm argues that Figure 4 does not provide a standard for measuring

21

whether signals are triggered at the same time, but rather only illustrates that signals

22

that are triggered at exactly the same time—as shown in the drawing—are triggered at

23

“about the same time.” Qualcomm asserts that Figure 4 does not teach how far apart

24

those signals can be triggered and still fall within the about-the-same-time scope.

25

The Court does not agree. The’208 Patent teaches specific confines within

26

which the the two signals should be asserted—(1) within a single clock cycle, (2) after

27

a differential data signal has been generated, and (3) before the sense enable signal has

28

been deasserted (driven low).

Additionally, the written description explains that

14

1

timing signals are logically derived from the clock signal. (’208 Patent 76:24–77:4.)

2

The timing diagram provides all the data necessary for a POSITA to understand the

3

boundaries of the claim to a reasonable certainty.

4

The omission of a specific, quantifiable time period (e.g., “within 10

5

nanoseconds”) within which the two events should occur is reasonable for this type of

6

invention. Circuit designers require some flexibility and discretion to program the

7

timing in accordance with the desired application. Thus, claiming events that occur

8

within a narrow, specified window of time (a single clock cycle) and “at about the

9

same time” is sufficinetly definite under § 112(b). The language “at about the same

10

time” is properly construed as: “After a differential data signal is generated but before

11

the sense enable signal is deasserted, occurring within a single clock cycle.”

12

CLAIM TERM

13

3. “storing data
corresponding to the
amplified data
signal only in
response to the
amplified data
signal” / “latching
the data in response
to only the amplified
data signal”

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUCTION
Plain meaning

DEFENDANT’S
CONSTRUCTION
“storing data . . . data signal
only dependent on the
amplified data signal;”
“latching only dependent
on the amplified data
signal”

21

Although Defendants purport to request construction of an entire limitation—

22

“storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal only in response to the

23

amplified data signal”—the dispute actually surrounds the phrase “only in response

24

to.” The parties do not dispute the meaning of “only in response to,” but Defendants

25

seek to replace the phrase “in response to” with “dependent on.”
Qualcomm asserts that its proposed construction clarifies that plain meaning of

26
27

“only in response to”—that no other timing signal can induce data storage.

28

///

15

In

1

contrast, Progressive asserts Qualcomm’s replacement of “in response to” with

2

“dependent on” is redundant and unnecessary.

3

The presumed meaning of “only in response to” is the plain and ordinary

4

meaning of the phrase. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “Only in response to” is a general-

5

usage phrase that neither party asserts has any specialized meaning in the art. The

6

plain meaning of “in response to” connotes a stimulus and an effect, but is equivocal

7

as to the exclusivity of that simulus. But the addition of “only” into the phrase

8

eliminates the equivocality, clarifiying that it is singly the function of the designated

9

stimulus that brings about the effect.

10

Thus, the plain meaning of “only in response to” to a POSITA, read in the

11

context of the claim language, is that data storage (effect) is exclusively in response to

12

the the amplified data signal (stimulus). Because both parties agree that this is the

13

meaning of the phrase, any further construction would be redundant. The plain and

14

ordinary meaning of “storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal only in

15

response to the amplified data signal”/“latching the data in response to only the

16

amplified data signal” applies.
V.

17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court adopts the aforementioned
constructions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

September 4, 2014

23
24
25

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

16