Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 86

Declaration of Derek C. Walter in Support Apple's of Opening Claim Construction Brief re 85 filed by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V) (Powers, Matthew) (Filed on 5/7/2010) Modified on 5/10/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT A

Page 1

L E X S E E 2 0 0 9 U . S . D I S T . L E X I S 18172 A Q U A - L U N G A M E R I C A , I N C . , P l a i n t i f f , v. A M E R I C A N U N D E R W A T E R P R O D U C T S , I N C . , e t ai, D e f e n d a n t s . NO. C 07-2346 R S UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN J O S E DIVISION 2 0 0 9 U.S. Dist. L E X I S 1 8 1 7 2

F e b r u a r y 26, 2009, Decided F e b r u a r y 26, 2009, F i l e d P R I O R H I S T O R Y : A q u a - L u n g America, Inc. v. Am. Underwater Prods., 2 0 0 7 U s . Dist. L E X I S 83141 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2007) C O U N S E L : [*1] F o r Aqua-Lung America, Inc., Plaintiff: A. James Isbester, L E A D ATTORNEY, T o w n s e n d a n d T o w n s e n d a n d C r e w LLP, San F r a n c i s c o , CA; A n d r e w J. Patch, P R O H A C VICE, Douglas V. Rigler, L E A D A T T O R N E Y S , J e f f r e y M i c h a e l G o e h r i n g , Y o u n g a n d T h o m p s o n , A l e x a n d r i a , VA; G i l l i a n W i n i f r e d Thackray, L E A D A T T O R N E Y , I s b e s t e r & T h a c k r a y L L P , B e r k e l e y , CA. F o r A m e r i c a n U n d e r w a t e r P r o d u c t s , Inc., d o i n g b u s i n e s s as Oceanic, a California corporation, T w o F o r t y Deuce Corporation, a C o l o r a d o corporation, Defendants: Joel A K a u t h , L E A D A T T O R N E Y , Kauth, P o m e r o y , P e c k & B a i l e y L L P , I r v i n e , CA. F o r T w o F o r t y Deuce Corporation, a C o l o r a d o c o r p o r a t i o n , A m e r i c a n U n d e r w a t e r P r o d u c t s , Inc., C o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t s : Joel A Kauth, L E A D A T T O R N E Y , K a u t h , P o m e r o y , P e c k & B a i l e y L L P , I r v i n e , CA. F o r Aqua-Lung America, Inc., Counter-defendant: A. J a m e s Isbester, L E A D A T T O R N E Y , T o w n s e n d a n d T o w n s e n d and Crew LLP, San Francisco, CA; Douglas V. Rigler, L E A D ATTORNEY, Jeffrey Michael Goehring, Y o u n g a n d T h o m p s o n , A l e x a n d r i a , V A ; Gillian W i n i f r e d Thackray, L E A D A T T O R N E Y , Isbester & T h a c k r a y L L P , B e r k e l e y , CA. J U D G E S : RICHARD M a g i s t r a t e Judge. SEEBORG, United States

O P I N I O N BY: RICHARD S E E B O R G OPINION

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS
I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves a built-in [*2] device for scuba e q u i p m e n t i n t e n d e d to k e e p w a t e r o u t o f a r e g u l a t o r e v e n i f t h e d i v e r f o r g e t s t o r e p l a c e t h e d u s t c a p a f t e r use. O n December 10, 2008, a hearing was h e l d for the purpose o f construing t e n d i s p u t e d terms i n the claims o f U n i t e d States P a t e n t Nos. 6,601,609 ("the '609 patent"), 6,901,958 ("the '958 patent"), and 7,185,674 ("the '674 p a t e n t " ) . 1 T h e three p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t s t e m from a c o m m o n o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , U n i t e d States P a t e n t A p p l i c a t i o n N o . 09/872,130 ( " t h e ' 130 application"), filed June 1, 2001. 1 W h i l e t h i s a c t i o n w a s filed b e f o r e t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e 2 0 0 8 P a t e n t L o c a l Rules, t h e C o u r t r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s f o l l o w the p r o c e d u r e s

Page 2 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *2

set forth i n Patent L.R. 4-1 (b) providing for the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f u p to t e n t e r m s l i k e l y to b e the m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e s o l v i n g t h e dispute. The p r e s e n t analysis will t r e a t o n l y the t e n terms s e t forth i n the J o i n t C l a i m C o n s t r u c t i o n C h a r t s u b m i t t e d to the Court. T h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e f i r s t t w o p a t e n t s are effectively the same while the '674 patent, as a c o n t i n u a t i o n - i n - p a r t patent, has a d d e d descriptions. The p a t e n t s , t h e r e f o r e , are s i m i l a r b u t u s e d i f f e r e n t c l a i m language. D e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f p l a i n t i f f A q u a - L u n g America, Inc. ("Aqua-Lung"), [*3] the alleged infringer, m a i n t a i n s t h a t the p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t c l a i m the s a m e s t r u c t u r e u s i n g a n e v e r - c h a n g i n g v a r i e t y o f n a m e s t h a t are i n t e n d e d t o be i n c r e m e n t a l l y b r o a d e r a n d c o v e r m o r e s u b j e c t matter t h a n the inventor o f the patents-in-suit actually invented. The p a t e n t holders, d e f e n d a n t s a n d c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t s A m e r i c a n U n d e r w a t e r P r o d u c t s , Inc. a n d T w o F o r t y Deuce Corporation (collectively "Two F o r t y " ) , r e s p o n d t h a t t h e s c o p e o f t h e c l a i m s are f u l l y supported b y the original p a t e n t application. A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a r g u m e n t s , the e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d , a n d the r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f the r e c o r d , the C o u r t c o n s t r u e s the t e n d i s p u t e d c l a i m t e r m s a s s e t forth b e l o w . II. L E G A L STANDARD C l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n is a q u e s t i o n o f l a w to b e d e c i d e d b y the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F . 3 d 967, 9 7 9 ( F e d Cir. 1995). Claim construction b e g i n s w i t h t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e c l a i m s t h e m s e l v e s . z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F . 3 d 1340, 1348 ( F e d Cir. 2007). Claim language generally carries the meaning as normally used in the field, as i t is u n d e r s t o o d b y a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y skill i n t h e a r t a t the time o f the invention. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest M{g., L.P., 3 2 7 F . 3 d 1364, 1 3 6 7 ( F e d Cir. 2003). [*4] "The i n q u i r y i n t o h o w a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y skill i n the a r t understands a c l a i m t e r m provides a n objective baseline from w h i c h to b e g i n claim interpretation." Phillips v. A W H Corp., 415 F . 3 d 1303, 1313 ( F e d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d (the c l a i m s , s p e c i f i c a t i o n , a n d i f applicable, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n history) p r o v i d e s t h e c o n t e x t e n a b l i n g a c o u r t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e m e a n i n g o f the c l a i m t o one o f ordinary skill in the art. I d The definition found in the specification is the b e s t guide t o the meaning o f a d i s p u t e d term, i d a t 1315, b e c a u s e the p a t e n t e e c a n a s s i g n t e r m s a d e f i n i t i o n t h a t i s u n i q u e f r o m its o r d i n a r y meaning. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,

527 F . 3 d 1379, 1381 ( F e d Cir. 2008); see Phillips, 415 F . 3 d at 1 3 1 6 ("[A] special definition given t o a c l a i m t e r m b y t h e p a t e n t e e t h a t d i f f e r s from t h e m e a n i n g i t w o u l d otherwise possess . . . [is governed by] the inventor's lexicography . . . . ").
A s t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t h a s m a d e clear: U l t i m a t e l y , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o b e g i v e n a t e r m c a n o n l y be d e t e r m i n e d a n d confirmed w i t h a full understanding o f w h a t the i n v e n t o r s a c t u a l l y i n v e n t e d a n d i n t e n d e d t o e n v e l o p w i t h the c l a i m . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t s t a y s t r u e to t h i s c l a i m [*5] language a n d m o s t naturally aligns w i t h t h e p a t e n t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the invention w i l l be, in the end, the correct construction.

Renishaw P L C v. Marposs Societa' p e r Azioni, 1 5 8 F . 3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 5 0 ( F e d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). 2
2 F o r p u r p o s e s o f d e t e r m i n i n g o n e s k i l l e d i n the art, Two F o r t y represented t h a t each o f the a s s e r t e d c l a i m s i n a t l e a s t t w o o f the p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t w e r e e n t i t l e d t o a p r i o r i t y date o f June 1, 2001, as Aqua-Lung similarly contends. T w o F o r t y b e l i e v e s t h a t this p r i o r i t y date s h o u l d also apply t o the '674 patent, a n d therefore, all t h r e e p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t . I n the a l t e r n a t i v e , T w o F o r t y maintains t h a t the '674 p a t e n t should have a F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 2 p r i o r i t y date. T h e e n d r e s u l t , according t o T w o Forty, is t h a t a person o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n the a r t i n the s c u b a i n d u s t r y i n June 2001 o r February 2002 w o u l d have a t least four y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e i n r e p a i r i n g , d e s i g n i n g , o r manufacturing scuba regulator devices. A q u a - L u n g does n o t a d v a n c e a n alternative definition. The eight m o n t h difference i n p r i o r i t y dates for d e t e r m i n i n g o n e s k i l l e d i n t h e a r t d o e s n o t seem t o be significant here as b o t h parties briefly g l o s s e d o v e r the i s s u e i n t h e i r briefs. T h e p a r t i e s have n o t submitted [*6] extrinsic evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e i t h e r d a t e m a k e s a d i f f e r e n c e for the understanding o f one o f skilled in the art. Indeed, this m o s t likely is due t o the fact t h a t p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e from o n e o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l l e v e l is m o r e a p p l i c a b l e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e

Page 3 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *6

i s s u e o f o b v i o u s n e s s , w h i c h is b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f this order. Janssen Pharmaceutica N V. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 4 5 6 F. Supp. 2 d 644, 6 5 2 - 6 5 4 ( D N J . 2006). R e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t p r i o r i t y d a t e u l t i m a t e l y is e m p l o y e d , t h e ' 1 3 0 a p p l i c a t i o n a s filed o n t h a t d a t e , r e p r e s e n t s a m a j o r c o m p o n e n t o f t h e intrinsic record.
III. D I S C U S S I O N

1. Housing T h e t e r m " h o u s i n g " a p p e a r s i n t h e c l a i m s o f t h e ' 130 application and i n all three o f the patents-in-suit. See '130 application claim 1 at 35 ("a housing defining a central p a s s a g e w a y h a v i n g fluid i n l e t a n d fluid o u t l e t o p e n i n g s " ) ; '609 p a t e n t claim 5 at 20:8-15 ("a housing defining an internal p a s s a g e w a y having a gas inlet opening near a n u p s t r e a m e n d o f s a i d housing, a n d a g a s o u t l e t o p e n i n g s p a c e d from s a i d g a s i n l e t o p e n i n g , s a i d h o u s i n g h a v i n g a f i r s t a t t a c h m e n t p o r t i o n c o n f i g u r e d for c o n n e c t i o n o f a n u p s t r e a m e n d o f s a i d filter a s s e m b l y to a p r e s s u r i z e d source o f breathable gas a n d a second [*7] attachment portion configured for connection o f a downstream end o f s a i d filter a s s e m b l y to s a i d r e g u l a t o r d e v i c e " ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; '958 p a t e n t c l a i m 8 a t 1 8 : 4 9 - 5 4 ( " a h o u s i n g d e f i n i n g a d u c t w i t h g a s i n l e t a n d gas o u t l e t o p e n i n g s d e f i n e d a t o p p o s i t e ends o f s a i d duct, s a i d h o u s i n g h a v i n g a valve sealing face disposed n e a r said gas inlet opening and adapted for engagement w i t h said high-pressure gas s o u r c e " ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; '674 p a t e n t c l a i m 1 a t 2 6 : 4 5 ("a housing including a bore"); see also '130 application claim 13 a t 37, c l a i m 21 at 40, claim 29 at 43, claim 38 a t 45, claim 51 at 49; '609 p a t e n t claim 1 at 17:55-59; '958 p a t e n t claim 1 at 17:62-67; '674 p a t e n t claim 13 at 27:24-35. Aqua-Lung proposes t h a t "housing" be construed as " a s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n t e r n a l s p a c e t h a t d e f i n e s the i n t e r n a l p a s s a g e w a y " w h i l e T w o F o r t y c o u n t e r s w i t h "the b o d y o r s k e l e t a l p o r t i o n o f the d e v i c e . " B a s e d o n a r e a d i n g o f the claim language above, Aqua-Lung's proposed c o n s t r u c t i o n is t o o n a r r o w a s n o t e v e r y c l a i m i n c l u d e s a n "internal p a s s a g e w a y . " T h a t p o r t i o n o f its p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , s h o u l d n o t b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e final construction. T h a t said, T w o F o r t y ' s p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o o b r o a d [*8] as i t fails to take into account the internal space a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e "housing" c l a i m s above. A review o f the specifications i n the '609 and '958 p a t e n t s

further c l a r i f i e s t h a t a "housing" s u r r o u n d s a n i n t e r n a l space. The specifications i n the '609 and '958 p a t e n t s c o n t a i n i d e n t i c a l r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e t e r m : (1) "the h o u s i n g 34 includes a gas inlet opening 38 w h i c h is surrounded b y a raised collar o r flange 40"; (2) "a housing 62 having a top or inlet end 64, a central shaft 65 a n d a b o t t o m o r outlet e n d 66"; (3) "[t]he housing 62 o f this embodiment includes the u p p e r o r inlet end portion 64, an bottom o r outlet end portion 66, a central bore 78, a n annular inner lip 82 forming a narrowed e n d opening 80, and a n exit opening 116"; and (4) "[t]he housing 230 includes a n inlet e n d portion 232 and a n outlet e n d portion 234." '609 p a t e n t a t 7 : 3 7 - 3 9 , 8 : 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 0 : 5 1 : 5 4 , 1 4 : 4 4 - 4 5 ; '958 p a t e n t a t 7 : 4 5 - 4 7 , 8:57-58, 1 0 : 5 9 - 6 2 , 14:52-53. A n y r e m a i n i n g d o u b t t h a t a d e f i n i t i o n o f "housing" s h o u l d r e f e r t o a n i n t e r n a l s p a c e is d e b u n k e d b y t h e a b s t r a c t a n d the s u m m a r y o f t h e '130 a p p l i c a t i o n w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t " a f l u i d flow c o n t r o l v a l v e is d i s c l o s e d . T h i s valve includes a housing w h i c h defines a central [*9] p a s s a g e w a y h a v i n g fluid i n l e t a n d fluid o u t l e t o p e n i n g s . " '130 application a t 7, 53 (emphasis added); see also '609 p a t e n t s u m m a r y a t 4 : 2 - 4 ; '958 p a t e n t s u m m a r y a t 4 : 9 - 1 2 . T h e s e a d d i t i o n a l e x a m p l e s m a k e c l e a r t h a t t h e "housing" as u s e d i n the claims n o t e d above, defines a n internal space. B a s e d o n the foregoing, the C o u r t c o n s t r u e s " h o u s i n g " a s " a s t r u c t u r e s u r r o u n d i n g a n i n t e r n a l space." 2. Passageway T h e i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t the t e r m " p a s s a g e w a y " w a s n e v e r u s e d i n t h e ' 130 a p p l i c a t i o n b y itself. I n s t e a d , t h e f o u n d a t i o n a l t e r m t h a t is f o u n d i n t h e summary o f the invention and i n numerous claims is " c e n t r a l p a s s a g e w a y . " See '130 a p p l i c a t i o n s u m m a r y a t 7 and claim 1 at 35 ("a housing w h i c h defines a central p a s s a g e w a y h a v i n g fluid i n l e t a n d fluid o u t l e t o p e n i n g s " ) . T h e p a t e n t s t h a t f o l l o w e d c o n t a i n the a d d i t i o n a l t e r m "internal passageway" along w i t h "central passageway." See '609 p a t e n t summary 4:2-4 ("a housing w h i c h defines a c e n t r a l p a s s a g e w a y h a v i n g fluid i n l e t a n d f l u i d o u t l e t o p e n i n g s " ) ; '958 p a t e n t c l a i m 1 a t 1 7 : 6 2 - 6 4 ( " a h o u s i n g d e f i n i n g a n i n t e r n a l p a s s a g e w a y h a v i n g a gas i n l e t o p e n i n g n e a r a n u p s t r e a m e n d o f s a i d h o u s i n g , a n d a gas outlet opening spaced from said gas [* 10] inlet opening"); see also '674 p a t e n t claim 13 a t 27:31-35. T w o F o r t y acknowledges t h a t there terminology u s e d i n the patents such p a s s a g e w a y " a n d "internal p a s s a g e w a y . " p r o p o s e s t h a t the C o u r t define " p a s s a g e w a y " is d i f f e r e n t as " c e n t r a l Two Forty b y itself, a s

Page 4 2 0 0 9 U . S . D i s t . L E X I S 18172, * 1 0

i t is t h e s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t , a n d a n y a d j e c t i v e p l a c e d b e f o r e i t c a n be d e a l t w i t h b y t h e j u r y . T h e j u r y , for e x a m p l e , c a n p l u g i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f " p a s s a g e w a y " r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r i t is p r e c e d e d b y " i n t e r n a l " o r "central." T h e C o u r t agrees, a n d t h e r e f o r e , w i l l o n l y d e f i n e the m a j o r s t r u c t u r a l p o r t i o n . A q u a - L u n g proposes t h a t "passageway" b e d e f i n e d as "a conduit formed i n the housing t h a t leads gas t h r o u g h t h e h o u s i n g a n d w h i c h is f i l l e d w i t h p r e s s u r i z e d gas w h e n the housing is connected t o a source o f gas." T w o F o r t y p r o p o s e s t h a t i t b e c o n s t r u e d as " a p a t h i n the device." A q u a - L u n g ' s p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n a t t e m p t s to a d d i n e x t r a n e o u s l i m i t a t i o n s , w h i c h a r e f o u n d n o w h e r e i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e claims s e t forth above o r t h e illustrative e m b o d i m e n t s . N e i t h e r the i d e n t i f i e d c l a i m l a n g u a g e n o r a n y o f the c l a i m s a p p e a r t o i n c l u d e a n y l i m i t a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the " p a s s a g e w a y " b e i n g filled w i t h p r e s s u r i z e d gas, or the passageway leading [* 11] gas through the h o u s i n g . T h e i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e c o n d u i t is a fixed thing, w h i c h c a n n o t actively l e a d anything. T h a t is, i t is a f i x e d s t r u c t u r e a n d g a s m a y o r m a y n o t flow through it. Said another way, the claim is directed at a d e f i n e d structure, a n d n o t a n y c o n t e n t s t h a t m a y o r m a y n o t b e i n t h e p a s s a g e w a y a t a n y g i v e n time. A n y r e s u l t i n g construction, therefore, c a n n o t include a n y extraneous portion o f Aqua-Lung's proposed definition detailing: (1) any leading o f "gas through the housing"; and (2) the c o n d u i t b e i n g " f i l l e d w i t h p r e s s u r i z e d gas w h e n the h o u s i n g i s c o n n e c t e d t o a s o u r c e o f gas." This leaves the Court w i t h T w o Forty's self-styled s i m p l i s t i c p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n a n d the first p o r t i o n o f Aqua-Lung's p r o p o s e d definition o f the t e r m " p a s s a g e w a y . " I n some cases, the o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f a c l a i m b y o n e o f o r d i n a r y skill i n the a r t m a y b e r e a d i l y apparent even t o lay judges. Phillips, 415 F . 3 d at 1314. I n s u c h a case, c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v e s n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the w i d e l y a c c e p t e d m e a n i n g o f the c o m m o n l y u n d e r s t o o d w o r d s t h r o u g h the u s e o f a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e d i c t i o n a r y u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the intrinsic evidence. Id. I n Brown v. 3M, 265 F . 3 d 1349, 1352 (Fed. C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , [*12] for example, the w o r d "or" w a s c o n s t r u e d t o m e a n t h a t the a p p a r a t u s w a s c a p a b l e o f c o n v e r t i n g "only two-digit, o n l y three-digit, o n l y four-digit, o r a n y c o m b i n a t i o n o f t w o - , t h r e e - , a n d four-digit date-data." The F e d e r a l C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t w a s a c o r r e c t p l a i n reading o f the c l a i m t e x t a n d it d i d n o t

constitute a t e c h n i c a l t e r m o f a r t r e q u i r i n g elaborate interpretation.ld. A t t h e h e a r i n g , T w o F o r t y a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t its p r o p o s e d definition, w h i l e c o m p o r t i n g w i t h t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f a simple term, m i g h t b e o v e r b r o a d . Accordingly, t h e y p r o p o s e d a m o d i f i e d definition o f "passageway" as "a c o n d u i t formed in the housing t h a t allows gas through it." This definition incorporates the r e m a i n i n g first p a r t o f A q u a - L u n g ' s p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n a n d e x c l u d e s the e x t r a n e o u s s e c o n d p a r t d e s c r i b e d above. I n l i g h t o f t h i s a m e n d e d d e f i n i t i o n , a n d b a s e d o n the foregoing, the C o u r t a d o p t s T w o F o r t y ' s a m e n d e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " p a s s a g e w a y " as " a c o n d u i t f o r m e d i n the housing t h a t allows gas t o pass through it." 3. Bore W h i l e t h e t e r m "bore" a p p e a r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n the c l a i m s o f e i t h e r the '609 p a t e n t o r the '958 patent. The t e r m first appears as a claim element i n the '674 patent. [* 13] See '674 p a t e n t c l a i m 1 a t 26:45 ( " a h o u s i n g i n c l u d i n g a b o r e " ) , claim 13 at 27:27-29 ("a first stage regulator comprising: a h o u s i n g ; a n d a gas i n l e t o p e n i n g l o c a t e d w i t h i n a b o r e i n the housing"); see also id., claim 1 at 26:46, 50, claim 13 a t 27 :40-41. Aqua-Lung proposes t w o different definitions for the t e r m "bore": (1) in claims one through twelve o f the '674 p a t e n t , " a n i n t e r n a l p a s s a g e w a y t h a t is c y l i n d r i c a l " ; a n d (2) i n claims thirteen through twenty-four o f the '674 p a t e n t , " a t h r e a d e d o p e n i n g t o a first s t a g e r e g u l a t o r h o u s i n g w h e r e t h e f l u i d flow c o n t r o l v a l v e is c o n n e c t e d . " T w o F o r t y proposes t h a t the t e r m be defined as "a hole o r passage." A q u a - L u n g m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e '674 p a t e n t u s e s t h e t e r m "bore" as a special definition given t o "passageway" b y t h e p a t e n t e e t h a t d i f f e r s from t h e m e a n i n g i t w o u l d otherwise possess. I t c o n t e n d s t h a t two d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s o f " b o r e " a r e n e e d e d b e c a u s e t h e '674 p a t e n t r e f e r s t o t w o d i f f e r e n t things. I n c l a i m s o n e t h r o u g h t w e l v e , "bore" i s b e i n g u s e d a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o "passageway" while I I I c l a i m s t h i r t e e n t h r o u g h t w e n t y - four i t I S b e i n g u s e d as the d o w n s t r e a m c o n n e c t i o n p o i n t to t h e r e g u l a t o r . A c c o r d i n g t o Aqua-Lung, while "passageway" [*14] i n the first instance is referred t o as a "bore," i t does n o t cease being a " p a s s a g e w a y . " I n the c o n t e x t o f the i n d i v i d u a l e m b o d i m e n t s , " p a s s a g e w a y " i s c a l l e d a "bore," t h e r e b y

Page 5 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *14

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e l a t t e r is a t l e a s t n o t n a r r o w e r t h a n t h e former. The end result, according to Aqua-Lung, is that once "passageway" is defined, then "bore" essentially m u s t b e d e f i n e d accordingly. T w o F o r t y counters t h a t t h e i r simple m e a n i n g o f "bore" is based on the various uses o f the structure in the patents. Like Aqua-Lung, Two Forty explains that "bore" is u s e d i n t w o d i f f e r e n t p i e c e s o f t h e i n v e n t i o n . T h e f i r s t is t h e s m a l l e r i n s e r t p o r t i o n o f t h e o p e n i n g h o l e i n t h e c o n n e c t i o n p o i n t o f t h e r e g u l a t o r . T h e s e c o n d a r i s e s i n the l a r g e r r e g u l a t o r i n w h i c h t h e s m a l l e r i n s e r t is p l a c e d . A c c o r d i n g t o T w o F o r t y , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t p a r t is a t issue, these two different pieces contain a "bore" that is u s e d c o n s i s t e n t l y i n t h e p a t e n t as a h o l e . T w o F o r t y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e j u s t is n o n e e d t o h a v e t w o d e f i n i t i o n s for the same term especially when the different e m b o d i m e n t s e n c o m p a s s a c o n s i s t e n t element. The e m b o d i m e n t s s h o w a hole i n a n o t h e r w i s e s o l i d piece, w h e t h e r i t b e i n t h e l a r g e r o r s m a l l e r insert. T w o F o r t y , [* 15] therefore, submitted a dictionary definition o f the term "bore," arguing that a person o f ordinary skill i n the a r t w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h e t e r m to m e a n a h o l e i n t h e housing. A s n o t e d above, t h e intrinsic r e c o r d a s s i s t s i n ascertaining the meaning o f "bore" to one o f ordinary s k i l l i n t h e a r t b e c a u s e the d e f i n i t i o n f o u n d i n the specification is the best guide to the meaning o f the term. Phillips, 415 F . 3 d a t 1315. A representative portion from the specification o f the '609 p a t e n t states that: "The housing shaft 65 includes a threaded portion 68 which is designed to engage a bore 69 (FIG. 14) disposed within the first stage regulator housing 34." 8:54-56 (emphasis added). A representative sample o f "bore" in the '958 p a t e n t provides that: "the inlet valve 60 is illustrated i n a closed position wherein the upper curved surface 94 o f the piston 90 is in firm contact with the annular lip 82 so as to seal the opening 80 to the bore 78." 9:64-67 ( e m p h a s i s added). Indeed, a r e v i e w o f t h e e m b o d i m e n t s a c c o m p a n y i n g the specification reveals that a "bore" is portrayed as a c i r c u l a r o p e n i n g o r hole in t h e h o u s i n g o f two d i f f e r e n t pieces. Similarly i n the specification o f the '674 patent, embodiments [* 16] show a first stage regulator housing w i t h a c i r c u l a r hole a n d a s m a l l e r device w i t h a c i r c u l a r opening. See 10:62-64 ("[t]he housing shaft 65 includes a threaded portion 68 which is designed to engage a bore 69 (FIG. 14) disposed within the first stage regulator

h o u s i n g 34") ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; 12:8-10 ("In t h i s c l o s e d position, neither fluid, liquid nor particulate matter o f a n y kind can pass into the bore 78 through the inlet 80.") ( e m p h a s i s added). The i n t r i n s i c record, t h e r e f o r e , d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t w o d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s o f the t e r m "bore." T w o F o r t y ' s s u g g e s t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n is m o r e a m e n a b l e t o o n e s k i l l e d i n the art. I t accurately describes "bore" i n all instances o f use, whether in the '609, '958, or '674 patents. N o r does the '674 p a t e n t s b y i t s e l f indicate a separate meaning for "bore." A t least for claims one through twelve o f the '674 p a t e n t s , A q u a - L u n g ' s p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n o f "an i n t e r n a l p a s s a g e w a y t h a t is c y l i n d r i c a l " d o e s n o t s o u n d t h a t m u c h d i f f e r e n t t h a n T w o Forty's p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n o f "a hole o r passage." T w o F o r t y ' s p r o p o s e d definition, however, lacks t h e "cylindrical" q u a l i f y i n g e l e m e n t t h a t A q u a - L u n g p r o p o s e d a n d is p r e s e n t i n t h e e m b o d i m e n t s . A t the hearing, both [* 17] sides agreed that the term "bore" does bring i n this cylindrical concept. A n y d e f i n i t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , m u s t i n c l u d e t h a t d e f i n i n g aspect. I n short, there may be different uses o f "bore" i n the claims o f the '674 patents, but a t base the meaning r e m a i n s the s a m e . S a i d a n o t h e r w a y , t h e C o u r t c a n n o t import limitations from specific embodiments where "bore" is used in multiple contexts. The fact remains that whether "bore" is a cylindrical hole in the regulator o r a c y l i n d r i c a l h o l e i n the i n s e r t p i e c e , i t r e m a i n s a c y l i n d r i c a l h o l e . B a s e d o n the f o r e g o i n g , the C o u r t construes "bore" to mean "a cylindrical hole o r passage." 4. Duct "Duct" appears at least forty five times in the claims o f the ' 1 3 0 a p p l i c a t i o n , t h i r t y - o n e t i m e s i n t h e c l a i m s o f the '609 patent, and six times in the claims o f the '958 patent. See '130 application claim 21 a t 40 ("a housing d e f i n i n g a c e n t r a l d u c t w i t h gas i n l e t a n d o u t l e t o p e n i n g s defined a t opposite ends t h e r e o f ' ) ; '609 p a t e n t claim 37 a t 2 3 : 3 4 - 3 5 ("a v a l v e h o u s i n g d e f i n i n g a t u b u l a r i n t e r i o r d u c t h a v i n g g a s i n l e t a n d gas o u t l e t a p e r t u r e s a t o p p o s i t e ends t h e r e o f ' ) , '958 p a t e n t claim 8 at 18:50-51 ("a h o u s i n g d e f i n i n g a d u c t w i t h gas i n l e t a n d gas o u t l e t openings [* 18] defined at opposite ends o f said duct"); see also '130 application claim 38 at 45; '609 p a t e n t claim 1 a t 17:55-56, 17:60-67, 18:5-9, claim 18 a t 21:15-16, 21:21-27, 21:27-30, claim 37 at 23:36-45, 23:54-56; '958 p a t e n t claim 8 a t 18:57-59; 18:63-64. The term does not appear in the claims o f the '674 patents.

Page 6 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *18

Aqua-Lung seeks to have "duct" defined as "a c o n d u i t f o r m e d i n the h o u s i n g t h a t l e a d s gas t h r o u g h the h o u s i n g a n d w h i c h is f i l l e d w i t h p r e s s u r i z e d g a s w h e n t h e housing is connected to a source o f gas." This is the same definition it proposed for "passageway." Two Forty proposes that "duct" be defined as "a passage o r channel." Aqua-Lung argues that "duct" is the same as " p a s s a g e w a y . " T h e h e a r i n g h e l p e d s h e d s o m e l i g h t o n the scope o f "duct" compared to "passageway" and "bore." Two Forty acknowledged that "bore" was the broadest o f the t h r e e t e r m s b e c a u s e i t c o n n o t e d a h o l e , w h i l e p a s s a g e w a y w a s m o r e o f a p a t h . F o r "duct," h o w e v e r , T w o F o r t y c o n t e n d e d t h a t i t w a s s i m i l a r to " p a s s a g e w a y . " C o m p a r i n g the c l a i m s p r e s e n t e d a b o v e w i t h the c l a i m s for "passageway" reveals that the two terms are similar i n t h a t " d u c t " d o e s a p p e a r to s t a n d i n t h e s t e a d o f "passageway" i n c e r t a i n claims. Interestingly, [*19] the term "duct" does n o t appear i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the ' 1 3 0 a p p l i c a t i o n o r a n y o f the p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t o u t s i d e o f t h e claims. N o n e t h e l e s s , looking at the embodiments a n d seeing h o w " p a s s a g e w a y " w a s u s e d i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n l e a d s t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t " d u c t " a n d " p a s s a g e w a y " r e f e r to t h e s a m e d i s c l o s e d s t r u c t u r e . A p e r s o n s k i l l e d i n the a r t w o u l d l o o k a t t h e e m b o d i m e n t s a n d i n t e r p r e t "duct" i n n o o t h e r w a y . W h i l e the p a t e n t e e s e l e c t e d d i f f e r e n t n a m e s t o r e f e r t o t h e s a m e s t r u c t u r e , the c o v e r a g e o f the p a t e n t s cannot be expanded o n that basis alone. Doing so w o u l d e x p a n d t h e c o v e r a g e b e y o n d w h a t the p a t e n t e e i n v e n t e d . B a s e d o n t h e i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d , the C o u r t w i l l a d o p t the same definition for "duct" that it did for "passageway," a n d t h e r e f o r e c o n s t r u e s the t e r m t o m e a n " a c o n d u i t formed in the housing that allows gas to pass through it." 5. Retainer Device A s a n i n i t i a l m a t t e r , A q u a - L u n g m a i n t a i n s t h a t the t e r m " r e t a i n e r device" i n v o k e s m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s . 3 5 U S c . § 1 1 2 ( 6 ) . To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a term should be so construed, the first step is to determine i f the w o r d "means" is used as its presence creates a presumption that 3 5 U S C. § 112(6) applies. Mass. Inst. o f Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F . 3 d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006). [*20] W h e n a claim does n o t use the term "means," as is the case here, treatment as a means-plus-function claim element generally is n o t appropriate. Id. Means-plus-function claims o n l y go to p u r e l y f u n c t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t d o n o t p r o v i d e the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e p e r f o r m i n g t h e function. Phillips,

415 F . 3 d at 1311. For example, i n Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F . 3 d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996), t h e c o u r t c o n s t r u e d " d e t e n t m e c h a n i s m " to r e f e r t o p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r e , e v e n t h o u g h the t e r m h a d f u n c t i o n a l connotations.
That said, "a limitation lacking the term 'means' may overcome the p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t means-plus-function treatment i f i t is shown that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function." Mass. Inst. o f Tech., 462 F . 3 d at 1353 ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . G e n e r i c t e r m s s u c h as " m e c h a n i s m , " "means," "element," a n d "device," typically do n o t connote sufficiently definite structure. Id. at 1354. I n Personalized Media Commc'ns, L L C v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 161 F . 3 d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998), for instance, t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t c o n t r a s t e d t h e t e r m "digital detector" as a whole, [*21] which recited sufficient structure to avoid 3 5 U S c . § 112(6) with "detector" b y i t s e l f a n d other generic structural terms such as "means," " e l e m e n t , " a n d " d e v i c e , " w h i c h d i d not. U n d e r t h i s f r a m e w o r k , A q u a - L u n g s u b m i t s t h a t the use o f the term "device" i n "retainer device" is generic a n d i n v o k e s m e a n - p l u s - f u n c t i o n analysis. T w o F o r t y c o n t e n d s t h a t a d d i n g the t e r m " r e t a i n e r " r e c i t e s a d e q u a t e structure a n d t h e r e b y does n o t i m p l i c a t e 3 5 U S c . § 112(6). While the term "device" standing alone connotes n o m o r e s t r u c t u r e t h a n t h e t e r m "means," t h e a d d i t i o n o f "retainer" takes this claim outside the means-plus-function r e a l m b e c a u s e claim language t h a t further d e f i n e s a g e n e r i c t e r m like "device" c a n a d d sufficient structure to avoid Section 112(6). Mass. Inst. o f Tech., 462 F . 3 d at 1354. Use o f the term in the '130 application and the '609 p a t e n t characterizes "retainer device" as something that s e c u r e s t h e filter w i t h i n the h o u s i n g , t h e r e b y i m p o r t i n g sufficient structure. See '130 application claim 12 at 37 ("said filter element is disposed between said bias e x e r t i n g m e c h a n i s m a n d s a i d r e t a i n e r device p r o x i m a t e said outlet opening"); '609 p a t e n t claim 15 at 20:65-67 ("retainer device disposed [*22] within said passageway a n d c o n f i g u r e d to r e m o v a b l y s e c u r e s a i d f i l t e r w i t h i n s a i d passageway"); see also '130 application claim 1 at 35, claim 13 at 38, claim 21 a t 40. The specifications l i k e w i s e m a k e c l e a r t h a t t h e t e r m " r e t a i n e r " r e f e r s to a particular device (a c-clip) and is not simply a general d e s c r i p t i o n o f a n y structure t h a t w i l l p e r f o r m a p a r t i c u l a r

Page 7 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *22

function. See id. at 26 ("A c-clip 86 is utilized to maintain the position o f all the aforementioned components within the bore 210."); '609 p a t e n t at 7:42 ("A C-clip 44 I S utilized to hold the filter 42 in the opening 38."). Lest there b y any doubt t h a t 3 5 u.s.c. § 112(6) does n o t apply, t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t has p r e s e n t e d n u m e r o u s examples that are similar to the term "retainer device" w h e r e c l a i m l a n g u a g e further d e f i n i n g a g e n e r i c t e r m added sufficient structure to avoid the confines o f Section 112(6). Compare Greenberg, 91 F . 3 d at 1583 (holding that Section 112(6) did not apply to the term "detent mechanism" because "detent" denoted a type o f device with sufficient structure), with Mass. Inst. o f Tech., 462 F . 3 d a t 1354 (determining t h a t the t e r m " c o l o r a n t selection" m o d i f y i n g " m e c h a n i s m " d i d n o t c o n n o t e sufficient structure [*23] as i t was n o t defined i n the specification). "Retainer device," therefore is outside the purview o f the means-plus-function analysis, and will be c o n s t r u e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d r u l e s o f c l a i m construction noted i n Phillips above. The term "retainer device" appears in three claims o f the '130 application, two claims o f the '609 patent, one claim o f the '958 patent, and four claims o f the '674 patent. See '130 application claim 1 at 35 ("a retainer device for removably securing said filter element within said passageway"); '609 p a t e n t claim 15 a t 20:65-67 ("a r e t a i n e r device d i s p o s e d w i t h i n s a i d p a s s a g e w a y a n d configured to removably secure said filter within said passageway"); '958 p a t e n t claim 1 at 18:17-21 ("a r e t a i n e r device d i s p o s e d w i t h i n s a i d p a s s a g e w a y a n d configured to removably secure said filter within said passageway, and said filter is disposed between said bias e x e r t i n g m e c h a n i s m a n d s a i d r e t a i n e r device p r o x i m a t e said outlet opening"); '674 p a t e n t claim 9 a t 27: 11-13 ("the retainer device securing the filter within the passageway is located between the filter and the exit opening"); see also '130 application claim 12 at 37, claim 29 at 43; '609 p a t e n t claim 27 [*24] a t 22:43-45; '674 p a t e n t claim 1 a t 26:53, claim 13 a t 27:38-39, 28:3-4, claim 14 a t 28:5-8. A q u a - L u n g p r o p o s e s t h a t a " r e t a i n e r device" b e defined as: "a c-clip mounted i n an annular internal groove provided within the tubular duct proximate the lower or bottom end portion o f the housing and sized to mount a removable c-clip therein, the c-clip being sized, shaped and positioned so that the spring provides sufficient bias force to close the gas inlet aperture with

the gas flow control element, and so that the c-clip holds all o f the internal components o f the valve in place within the tubular duct." Two Forty proposes that i t be construed as "a mechanism for holding one or more parts i n place." Aqua-Lung's proposed definition operates from the assumption that 35 u.s.c. § 112(6) applies. A s a result, Aqua-Lung maintains that the term "retainer device" should be limited to the c-clip disclosed in the embodiments. See, e.g., '130 application at 21 ("the c-clip 86 holding all the internal components o f the valve 132 i n place within the bore 78"); see also id. at 18, 26, 28-29, 31. The patents-in-suit similarly use "c-clip" i n their specifications to describe a "retainer device." The Federal [*25] Circuit expressly has rejected the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i f a p a t e n t d e s c r i b e s o n l y a single embodiment, the claims o f the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment. Phillips, 415 F . 3 d at 1323 (citing Gemstar-TV Guide Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 383 F . 3 d 1352, 1 3 6 6 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). This is b e c a u s e p e r s o n s o f o r d i n a r y skill i n t h e a r t r a r e l y w o u l d confine their definitions o f terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments. Id. One o f the best ways to teach a person o f ordinary skill i n the art h o w to make and use the invention is to provide a n example o f h o w to practice the invention in a particular case. Id. Here, therefore, the fact that the specifications disclose only a single c-clip embodiment as a "retainer device" does not, b y itself, compel limiting claim scope t o a c - c l i p embodiment. That said, the fact that only a single embodiment is shown is a fact that, w h e n taken into consideration with the patentee's description o f the invention, may show that the inventor only intended to claim a particular feature as his invention. Honeywell Int'l, v. I T T Indus., Inc., 452 F . 3 d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To do so, there must be additional evidence [*26] beyond the disclosure o f a single e m b o d i m e n t t o j u s t i f y n a r r o w i n g a c o n s t r u c t i o n t o that embodiment. A g f a Corp. v. Creo Prods. Inc., 451 F . 3 d 1366, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Without any indication beyond the necessary depiction to suggest limiting the invention to this single embodiment, the broader language o f the claims cannot carry that unexpressed and unintended (at the time o f patent drafting) limitation. "). In Honeywell, for example, the court limited the scope o f "fuel injection system component" to a "fuel filter" for two overriding reasons. 452 F . 3 d at 1318. First,

Page 8 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *26

because the specification repeatedly described the fuel filter as "this invention" a n d "the present invention," the " p u b l i c w a s e n t i t l e d t o take the p a t e n t e e a t h i s w o r d a n d the word was that the invention [was] a fuel filter." Id. Second, t h e w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n ' s d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f the p r o b l e m w i t h t h e p r i o r a r t t h a t t h e p a t e n t e d i n v e n t i o n addressed supported the conclusion that the fuel filter u s e d i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n w a s n o t a p r e f e r r e d e m b o d i m e n t , b u t the only embodiment. Id. Similarly, i n Inpro I I Licensing, S A . R . L . v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F . 3 d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the court affirmed the [*27] narrow construction o f "host interface" as "direct p a r a l l e l b u s i n t e r f a c e " b e c a u s e the o n l y e m b o d i m e n t d i s c l o s e d w a s a d i r e c t p a r a l l e l b u s i n t e r f a c e w i t h the s p e c i f i c a t i o n e m p h a s i z i n g the i m p o r t a n c e o f a p a r a l l e l c o n n e c t i o n i n solving t h e p r o b l e m s identified. T h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s here, b y c o n t r a s t , n e i t h e r r e p e a t e d l y u s e d a c - c l i p as "this i n v e n t i o n " n o r i n d i c a t e d any particular importance o f using a c-clip as a retainer device i n solving t h e p r o b l e m o f k e e p i n g w a t e r o u t o f a s c u b a r e g u l a t o r w h e n t h e d i v e r f o r g e t s to r e p l a c e t h e d u s t c a p a f t e r u s e . I n a n y e v e n t , i n t h e end, t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e p a t e n t e e uses a t e r m w i t h i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n and claims will demonstrate whether the example is l i m i t i n g o r t o b e r e a d j u s t as a n e x a m p l e o f the i n v e n t i o n . Phillips, 4 1 5 F . 3 d a t 1 3 2 3 . A r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e intrinsic r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t w h i l e c e r t a i n e m b o d i m e n t s may disclose the particular structure o f a c-clip for the retainer device, there is no limitation restricting the c l a i m s to s u c h a s t r u c t u r e . T h e p a t e n t e e k n e w t h e t e r m " c - c l i p " a n d h a d h e i n t e n d e d t o l i m i t t h e p a t e n t to s u c h a n embodiment, he c o u l d h a v e done so i n t h e claims. I n s t e a d , the a b s t r a c t s , the s u m m a r i e s , a n d t h e c l a i m s i n [*28] t h e ' 130 application a n d all three patents-in-suit use the broader term "retainer device." See, e.g., '609 p a t e n t summary at 4:12-14 ("a retainer device is positioned for r e m o v a b l y s e c u r i n g the filter e l e m e n t w i t h i n the p a s s a g e w a y " ) . O n l y w h e n d e s c r i b i n g the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n o n - b i n d i n g e m b o d i m e n t s d i d t h e p a t e n t e e u s e the t e r m "c-clip." A q u a - L u n g ' s p r e f e r r e d c o n s t r u c t i o n reads n u m e r o u s limitations from the embodiments into its proposed definition. I n contrast, T w o F o r t y ' s p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n ignores the intrinsic record; that is, it does not take into the a c c o u n t the a c t u a l c l a i m l a n g u a g e a n d o t h e r p a r t s o f the i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d o u t l i n e d a b o v e . T h e Court, t h e r e f o r e , construes "retaining device" as "a mechanism configured r e m o v a b l y to s e c u r e t h e f i l t e r a n d o t h e r p a r t s w i t h i n t h e

passageway." 6. Bias Exerting Mechanism As it did for "retainer device," Aqua-Lung proposes that "bias exerting mechanism" invokes 3 5 U S c . § 112(6) because i t fails to recite adequate structure to those skilled in the art. Two Forty counters that the claims describe "bias exerting mechanism" as various spring o r l e v e r structures t h a t w o u l d n o t implicate a n y m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n analysis. Despite A q u a - L u n g ' s argument [*29] to the contrary, "bias exerting m e c h a n i s m " c o n n o t e s s u f f i c i e n t s t r u c t u r e i n the c l a i m s . J u s t l i k e the a d d i t i o n o f "detent" t o " m e c h a n i s m " i n G r e e n b e r g o r t h e c o m b i n i n g o f "retainer" w i t h "device" a b o v e to p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t r u c t u r e , " m e c h a n i s m " b e c o m e s a s t r u c t u r a l t e r m w h e n p l a c e d w i t h "bias exerting." See Mass. Inst. o f Tech., 462 F . 3 d at 1354 (finding t h a t t h e g e n e r i c t e r m " m e c h a n i s m " t y p i c a l l y does n o t c o n n o t e s u f f i c i e n t definite structure). B a s e d o n t h e claims, one p u r e l y functional t e r m ("mechanism") is being modified b y a second structural t e r m ("bias e x e r t i n g " ) . C l a i m t e n o f the ' 1 3 0 a p p l i c a t i o n and claim thirteen o f the '609 p a t e n t provide that the "bias e x e r t i n g m e c h a n i s m c o m p r i s e s a r e s i l i e n t member." '130 application claim 10 a t 37; '609 p a t e n t claim 13 a t 2 0 : 5 7 - 5 8 . C l a i m e l e v e n o f t h e '130 a p p l i c a t i o n a n d c l a i m fourteen o f the '609 p a t e n t add that "said bias exerting mechanism comprises a coil spring a n d a spring c o n t a i n m e n t s l e e v e , s a i d c o i l s p r i n g h a v i n g one e n d p o r t i o n e n g a g e d w i t h s a i d pressure responsive e l e m e n t a n d a n opposite e n d p o r t i o n m o u n t e d i n said c o n t a i n m e n t sleeve." '130 application claim 11 at 37; '609 p a t e n t claim 14 a t 20:59-63. A slight change in claim [*30] five o f the '958 p a t e n t states that "said bias exerting mechanism c o m p r i s e s a c o i l s p r i n g a n d a s p r i n g c o n t a i n m e n t sleeve, s a i d c o i l spring h a v i n g o n e e n d p o r t i o n e n g a g e d w i t h s a i d valve m e m b e r a n d a n opposite end p o r t i o n m o u n t e d i n s a i d c o n t a i n m e n t sleeve." C l a i m 5 a t 1 8 : 3 4 - 3 8 . One skilled in the art, therefore, w o u l d understand t h a t a spring, a s p r i n g w i t h a s p r i n g c o n t a i n m e n t sleeve, o r r e s i l i e n t m e m b e r is t h e d e r i v e d s t r u c t u r a l c o n n o t a t i o n for the generally claimed "bias exerting mechanism." See Welker v. Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F . 3 d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, because the inventor did n o t choose to express this claim element as "a means o r step for performing a specified function without the r e c i t a l o f s t r u c t u r e , m a t e r i a l , o r acts i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f , " 35 U S c . § I I 2(6) , means-plus-function analysis does

Page 9 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *30

n o t apply to "bias exerting mechanism." Having determined that Section 112(6) does n o t apply, the next step is to construe the term. As noted above, "bias exerting mechanism" is mentioned in the claims o f the '130 application and two o f the patents-in-suit as a spring, a spring with a spring containment sleeve, or resilient member. See '130 application claims [*31] 10-11 at 37; '609 p a t e n t claim 13 at 20:58-59, claim 14 at 20:60-61; '958 p a t e n t claim 5 at 18:34-38. The term further occurs in one other claim o f the '130 application, two other claims in the '609 patent, and two additional times i n claim one o f the '958 patent. See '130 application claim 12 a t 37 ("said filter element is d i s p o s e d b e t w e e n said b i a s exerting m e c h a n i s m a n d s a i d retainer device proximate said outlet opening"); '958 p a t e n t claim 1 at 18:13-15, 19-21 ("said valve member b e i n g b i a s e d t o w a r d said c l o s e d p o s i t i o n w i t h a b i a s exerting mechanism; and . . . said filter is disposed b e t w e e n s a i d b i a s exerting m e c h a n i s m a n d s a i d r e t a i n e r device proximate said outlet opening"); see also '609 p a t e n t claim 12 a t 20:55-57, claim 16 at 21:5-7). The term does not appear in the claims o f the '674 patent. A q u a - L u n g s e e k s t o h a v e "bias e x e r t i n g m e c h a n i s m " defined as: "A spring whose downstream end bears o n the gas filter either directly or via a sleeve or spacer, whose upstream end is connected to or received within the filter cover and whose spring force is selected to urge the filter cover to its closed position absent gas pressure sufficient to overcome the spring force, and to permit [*32] the filter cover to open i n response to gas pressure applied to the filter cover." Two Forty proposes that it be construed as "a portion o f the device which exerts a force against the filter cover." Similar to their proposed definition o f " r e t a i n e r device," A q u a - L u n g ' s p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n operates from the assumption that 35 U s . c . 112(6) applies, and thus, is too narrow. The specifications repeatedly identify various different springs as the "bias exerting mechanism." Referring to figure eight o f the '609 patent, for example, the specification states: "The bias mechanism in the preferred form o f the coil spring 102 creates a bias force against the piston 90 and the bottom o f the containment sleeve 108 so as to press the upper surface 94 against the internal lip 82." 9:59-63. The spring's shape and configuration differs somewhat from embodiment to embodiment, b u t they all have the same basic characteristics. See '674 p a t e n t at 20:6-11 ("The

embodiment o f FIG. 49, or for that matter any other e m b o d i m e n t i l l u s t r a t e d herein, m a y b e m o d i f i e d further to provide an alternative bias exerting mechanism 102. This modification is illustrated in FIG. 49k. In this particular embodiment, the bias [*33] exerting mechanism is in the form o f a Schraede valve 414 . . . . ") ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; s e e also ' 1 3 0 a p p l i c a t i o n a t 2 4 (referencing FIG. 32); '958 p a t e n t at 15:4-8, 44-47 (referencing FIG. 36 & 40). While none o f the specific embodiments suggest any other structure as the "bias exerting mechanism," that does n o t s u p p o r t A q u a - L u n g ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t a n y resulting construction must include a spring. Despite all the embodiments showcasing a spring, persons o f ordinary skill in the art rarely confine their definitions o f terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments. Phillips, 415 F . 3 d at 1323. The fact that only a spring is shown i n the embodiments is taken into consideration w h e n examining the patentee's entire invention. Honeywell, 452 F . 3 d at 1318. Based o n the intrinsic record, and similar to "retainer device," there is no additional evidence beyond the use o f a spring i n the embodiments to justify narrowing any definition to a spring. Agfa, 451 F . 3 d at 1376-77. To the contrary, r e a d i n g t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e claims demonstrates that the embodiment is n o t so limited. Phillips, 415 F . 3 d at 1323. First, j u s t like "retainer device," while the embodiments disclose various [*34] springs for the "bias exerting mechanism," the inventor knew the term "spring" and could have used that term i n the claims instead o f the much broader term, "bias e x e r t i n g mechanism." Second, the doctrine o f claim differentiation supports a construction that is not limited solely to a spring. That doctrine creates a p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t w o u l d r e n d e r a c l a i m m e a n i n g l e s s i n its e n t i r e t y b y making i t identical i n scope to another claim. Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 511 F . 3 d 1132, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In other words, claim d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n c r e a t e s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t each c l a i m in a patent has a different scope. Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int'l Trading Co., 203 F . 3 d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, as noted above, dependent claim ten o f the '130 application and dependent claim thirteen o f the '609 p a t e n t recite a "resilient member," while all o f the other claims with "bias exerting mechanism" do not. A n y r e s u l t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , therefore, m u s t take into

Page 10 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *34

c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t a s p r i n g w a s n o t t h e o n l y "bias e x e r t i n g m e c h a n i s m " i n t e n d e d b y the i n v e n t o r . T o h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d r e n d e r these d e p e n d e n t c l a i m s meaningless. B a s e d o n the foregoing, the Court adopts [*35] Two Forty's proposed construction o f "bias exerting mechanism" to mean "a portion o f the device which exerts a force a g a i n s t t h e filter c o v e r . " 7. Fluid Flow Control Valve The term "fluid flow control valve" only appears i n one independent claim in the '130 application (claim 1) and the '674 p a t e n t (claim 13). 3 The preamble o f b o t h t h o s e c l a i m s reads: " A f l u i d f l o w c o n t r o l v a l v e c o m p r i s i n g : [ b o d y o f c l a i m ] . " '130 a p p l i c a t i o n c l a i m 1 a t 35; '674 p a t e n t claim 13 a t 27:30-35, 40-41. Because the phrase "fluid flow control valve" appears i n the preamble, a preliminary question exists as to whether the preamble is, i n fact, a separate limitation. See Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 522 F . 3 d 1279, 1 2 8 8 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that w h e n evaluating the significance o f a preamble, the first step is to determine whether the d i s p u t e d l a n g u a g e is a c l a i m l i m i t a t i o n ) . 3 T h e t e r m does a p p e a r i n t w o d e p e n d e n t c l a i m s o f the '674 patent. See '674 p a t e n t claim 5 at 28:9-12, c l a i m 2 0 a t 28:32-34. There is no bright-line rule that determines w h e n p r e a m b l e language s h o u l d b e d e e m e d t o constitute a l i m i t a t i o n o f the c l a i m . T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e q u i r e s a review o f the entire "patent to gain an [*36] u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t the i n v e n t o r s a c t u a l l y i n v e n t e d a n d intended to encompass b y the claim." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. US.A., Inc., 868 F . 2 d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see B e l l Commc'ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc'ns Corp., 55 F . 3 d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( " [ W ] h e n t h e c l a i m d r a f t e r c h o o s e s t o u s e both t h e p r e a m b l e a n d t h e b o d y to d e f i n e t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some o t h e r , is t h e o n e t h e p a t e n t p r o t e c t s . " ) . L a n g u a g e w i t h i n a p r e a m b l e g e n e r a l l y does n o t l i m i t the scope o f the claim. See, e.g., Symantec, 522 F . 3 d at 1 2 8 9 . I n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , h o w e v e r , the l a n g u a g e o f a preamble may act as a limitation i f it is "necessary to g i v e life, m e a n i n g , a n d v i t a l i t y " t o t h e c l a i m . P i t n e y Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F . 3 d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 4 1 8 F . 3 d 1282, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[I]f the p r e a m b l e h e l p s to d e t e r m i n e t h e s c o p e o f t h e p a t e n t

claim, then i t is construed as part o f the claimed i n v e n t i o n . " ) . G i v i n g "life, m e a n i n g , a n d v i t a l i t y " t o t h e claim m a y o c c u r where the preamble provides a n antecedent basis for elements in the b o d y o f the claim. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F . 3 d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) [*37] ("When limitations i n the b o d y o f t h e c l a i m r e l y u p o n a n d derive a n t e c e d e n t b a s i s from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component o f the claimed invention."); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 1 5 7 F . 3 d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (determining that i f a preamble provides antecedents for ensuing claim terms then the preamble l i m i t s t h e scope o f t h e c l a i m ) . I n NTP, for example, the phrases "to at least one o f the p l u r a l i t y o f d e s t i n a t i o n p r o c e s s o r s " a n d " e l e c t r o n i c mail system" occurred i n the preamble as well as the b o d y o f the claim. 4 1 8 F . 3 d at 1305. The Federal Circuit h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e t h e a n t e c e d e n t use w a s n e c e s s a r y t o provide context for the rest o f the claim limitations, the terms i n the preamble were limiting. Id. at 1305-06. U n d e r t h i s framework, A q u a - L u n g c o n t e n d s t h a t " f l u i d flow c o n t r o l valve" a p p e a r s i n t h e p r e a m b l e t o p r o v i d e a n t e c e d e n t b a s i s to c l a i m l a n g u a g e t h a t f u n c t i o n s as a limitation. Two Forty counters that the term is n o t h i n g more t h a n i n t r o d u c t o r y a n d t h e C o u r t s h o u l d n o t a t t e m p t to r e a d i t a s a l i m i t a t i o n , b u t i n s t e a d a d o p t a b r o a d meaning. B e g i n n i n g the analysis w i t h the words o f the claim, Aqua-Lung points to claim thirteen o f the '674 p a t e n t [*38] as evidence o f the use o f the term as a n a n t e c e d e n t . T h a t c l a i m r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t part: a f l u i d f l o w control valve, comprising: a housing defining an internal passageway, where the p a s s a g e w a y h a s a gas inlet opening n e a r a n u p s t r e a m end o f s a i d housing a n d a gas outlet opening n e a r a downstream end o f said h o u s i n g a n d spaced from the gas inlet opemng; . . . w h e r e i n the h o u s i n g o f t h e f l u i d f l o w c o n t r o l valve includes a p o r t i o n t h r e a d e d i n t o t h e bore[.]

Page 11 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *38

Claim 13 at 27:30-35, 40-41 (emphasis added). Aqua-Lung is correct that the term does not only appear i n the preamble o f the claim, b u t also within the body. Consequently, at first glance this subsequent use o f the introductory term in the body o f the claim appears to be exactly what occurred i n NTP. "Fluid flow control valve," however, does n o t rely upon and derive any antecedent basis from the preamble. In NTP, i f "electronic mail system" is removed from the body o f the claim, then the entire claim falls apart as the antecedent connection is severed. By contrast here, "fluid flow control valve" appears to provide nothing more than context for the body o f the claim and can be excised without any resulting collapse i n the understanding [*39] o f it. See Symantec, 522 F . 3 d a t 1289 (stating that it is assumed that the preamble language merely provides context for the claims, absent any indication to the contrary i n the claims, the specification or the prosecution history). That is, the body o f the claim is n o t dependent o n the preamble term to act as a n antecedent to a n y l a n g u a g e i n t h e claim. 4 4 To hold that the term is a preamble term that limits the claim additionally would lead to a superfluous definition. A review o f the entire patent provides understanding o f what the inventor actually invented and intended t o encompass b y the claim. The body o f the claim sets out the complete invention, and thus, importing all the words to the right o f the word "comprising" w o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e a d e f i n i t i o n i n t o the preamble term followed b y different limitations i n the claim body rendering the set meaningless. Having determined that "fluid flow control valve" is a p r e a m b l e t e r m a n d n o t a c l a i m limitation, t h e r e m a i n i n g step is to construe it. As noted above, "fluid flow control valve" is mentioned i n one independent claim o f t h e ' 130 application and '674 p a t e n t and i n two dependent claims o f the '674 patent. See '130 application claim [*40] 1 at 35; '674 p a t e n t claim 13 a t 2 7 : 3 0 - 3 5 , 4 0 - 4 1 ; claim 15 a t 28:9-12, c l a i m 2 0 a t 28:32-34. Aqua-Lung proposes that "fluid flow control valve" be construed as: "A valve including a housing which defines a c e n t r a l p a s s a g e w a y h a v i n g gas i n l e t a n d o u t l e t

openings, a gas pressure-responsive closure element disposed within the passageway for selectively opening and closing o f the inlet opening to gas flow i n response to gas pressure exerted thereon at the inlet opening, a spring t h a t urges the gas pressure responsive closure e l e m e n t toward its closed position, a filter disposed within the passageway and a c-clip that holds the closure element, spring and filter within the passageway against the spring force." Two Forty seeks to have the term defined as "a mechanism which controls the flow o f fluid." A q u a - L u n g ' s definition attempts t o t r a c k the s u m m a r y o f the invention. Two Forty argues that since the phrase is used i n the preamble, with specific elements o f the valve c l a i m e d i n d i v i d u a l l y , a n y r e s u l t i n g d e f i n i t i o n s h o u l d be d e f i n e d broadly. Two Forty is correct that the term should be interpreted broadly because a "fluid flow control valve" is what the inventor is claiming was his invention. [*41] See '609, '958, '674 p a t e n t abstract ("A fluid flow control valve is disclosed."). Two Forty's proposed broad construction is therefore preferable because the inventor specifically set forth that the purpose o f the "fluid flow control valve" was to control the flow o f fluid flowing into a s c u b a r e g u l a t o r t o stop d u s t a n d o t h e r p a r t i c u l a r s from entering it. See '609 p a t e n t summary at 3:66-4:2 ("To achieve the foregoing and other objects and i n accordance with the purpose o f the present invention, as embodied and broadly described herein, a fluid flow control valve is disclosed."). Based o n the foregoing, the C o u r t c o n s t r u e s a " f l u i d flow c o n t r o l valve" t o m e a n " a mechanism which controls the flow o f fluid." 8. Filter Assembly The term "filter assembly" only appears i n one independent claim in the '609 patent, the '958 patent, and the '674 patent. See '609 p a t e n t claim 5 at 20:6-7; '958 p a t e n t claim 1 a t 17:60-61; '674 p a t e n t claim 1 a t 26:43-44. Looking a t claim one o f the '958 patent, which is illustrative o f the other patents, i t states in pertinent part:
A f i l t e r assembly for use with a regulator device, said f i l t e r a s s e m b l y comprising:

a h o u s i n g defining a n internal passageway having [*42] a gas inlet o p e n i n g n e a r a n u p s t r e a m end o f s a i d housing, a n d a gas o u t l e t o p e n i n g s p a c e d from said gas inlet opening, said housing

Page 12 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18172, *42

having a first attachment portion configured for connection o f an upstream end o f s a i d f i l t e r a s s e m b l y t o a p r e s s u r i z e d source o f b r e a t h a b l e g a s a n d a s e c o n d attachment portion configured for c o n n e c t i o n o f a d o w n s t r e a m end o f s a i d f i l t e r assembly to said regulator device, said gas inlet opening defining a n upstream rim which is substantially flush w i t h o r u p s t r e a m o f an u p s t r e a m e n d o f said first attachment portion[.] Claim 1 at 17:60-18:6 (emphasis added). Thus, "filter assembly" appears i n the preamble o f those claims and a preliminary question arises again as to whether the preamble is a separate limitation. As it did for "fluid flow c o n t r o l valve," A q u a - L u n g a r g u e s t h a t " f i l t e r assembly" i n the body o f the claims is a limitation and its use in the preamble acts as the antecedent basis. For the same reasons mentioned above for "fluid flow control valve," however, Aqua-Lung's argument similarly fails here. "Filter assembly" is not a claim l i m i t a t i o n , b u t i n s t e a d p r o v i d e s n o t h i n g more t h a n context for the body o f the claim. "Filter assembly" can be excised [*43] from the body o f the claims without any r e s u l t i n g c o l l a p s e i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g them. Having determined that th