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 L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
cd

I N T H E U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-<

11

UU

cd

12
13

E L A N T E C H D E V I C E S CORP., a c o r p o r a t i o n e x i s t i n g u n d e r the l a w s o f Taiwan, R.O.C., Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 06-01839 CRE

0 ...C...I....u. . ~.l:: .........

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

~ .~
~
\-;

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

",Q ~ :::
(1)

;\:: Z
~-B
0

oo..s:: " O0t ~

......

S Y N A P T I C S , INC., a D e l a w a r e c o r p o r a t i o n ; a n d A V E R A T E C , INC., a C a l i f o r n i a corporation, Defendants. --------------_/ E1antech Devices Corp. ("E1antech") filed suit against Synaptics, Inc. ("Synaptics") for infringement o f U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 ("the ' 3 5 2 patent"). Synaptics counterclaimed for infringement o f U.S. Patents No. 5,880,411 ( " t h e ' 411 patent"), No. 5,943,052 ("the ' 0 5 2 patent"), No. 5,543,592 ("the ' 5 9 2 patent"), and No. 6,380,931 ("the '931 patent"). The C o u r t w i l l c o n s t r u e e i g h t c l a i m t e r m s s e l e c t e d b y the parties.

=

(1)
\-;

~

BACKGROUND
I.

T h e '411 P a t e n t
T h e ' 411 patent, entitled "Object Position Detector With Edge Motion Feature and

Gesture Recognition," discloses a method to enable a touchpad to recognize finger contact, movement, and drag gestures, and to emulate various mouse functions. The patent was

1
2

i s s u e d M a r c h 9, 1999, a n d b y assignment, S y n a p t i c s is t h e o w n e r o f t h e entire right, title, a n d i n t e r e s t o f t h e ' 411 p a t e n t . T h e ' 411 p a t e n t c o n t a i n s o n l y o n e o f t h e c l a i m t e r m s t o b e c o n s t r u e d : " i n c r e m e n t a l l y m o v e . " T h e r e l e v a n t p a t e n t c l a i m s are d i r e c t e d t o a m e t h o d f o r e x t r a p o l a t i n g c u r s o r m o t i o n o n c e t h e u s e r r e a c h e s t h e e d g e o f a t o u c h p a d . 1 T h e g e n e r a l g o a l o f t h e r e l e v a n t c l a i m s is t o d e t e c t w h e n t h e u s e r w a n t s t o m o v e t h e c u r s o r t o a p o s i t i o n t h a t is b e y o n d t h e l i m i t e d b o u n d s o f t h e t o u c h p a d a n d t o m o v e t h e c u r s o r a c c o r d i n g l y - t h i s is c a l l e d c u r s o r " e d g e m o t i o n . " ' 4 1 1 p a t e n t a t 5:9-10.

3

4
5
6

7
8
9

II.

T h e '931 P a t e n t
The ' 9 3 1 patent, entitled " O b j e c t P o s i t i o n D e t e c t o r W i t h E d g e M o t i o n Feature a n d

10
11

Gesture R e c o g n i t i o n , " discloses a m e t h o d to enable a t o u c h p a d to r e c o g n i z e tap gestures a n d e m u l a t e v a r i o u s m o u s e f u n c t i o n s . T h e p a t e n t w a s i s s u e d A p r i l 30, 2 0 0 2 , a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e ' 4 1 1 p a t e n t , a n d b y a s s i g n m e n t , Sy n a p t i c s i s t h e o w n e r o f t h e e n t i r e r i g h t , t i t l e , a n d i n t e r e s t o f t h e ' 931 p a t e n t . T h e ' 9 3 1 p a t e n t c o n t a i n s t h r e e o f t h e c l a i m t e r m s t o b e c o n s t r u e d : (1) " i n i t i a t i n g a s i g n a l t o t h e h o s t i n d i c a t i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f s a i d t a p g e s t u r e ; " (2) " m a i n t a i n i n g s a i d s i g n a l f o r a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p e r i o d o f t i m e ; " a n d (3) " d e t e c t i n g i n w h i c h o f a t l e a s t o n e c o m e r o f t h e t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d s a i d t a p g e s t u r e o c c u r r e d . " T h e f i r s t t w o c l a i m t e r m s are r e l a t e d a n d are g e n e r a l l y d i r e c t e d t o " a m e t h o d f o r r e c o g n i z i n g a t a p g e s t u r e m a d e o n a t o u c h - s e n s o r pad."2 T h e p a t e n t c l a i m r e l e v a n t t o t h e t h i r d c l a i m t e r m is d i r e c t e d t o d e t e c t i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f a tap gesture i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o m e r . The p a t e n t e e asserts t h a t the i n v e n t i o n allows for g r e a t e r structural d e s i g n flexibility a n d efficiency. T h e p a t e n t e e d e s c r i b e d m e t h o d s o f r e c o g n i z i n g t a p g e s t u r e s t h a t w e r e k n o w n i n t h e p r i o r art, a n d a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e p r i o r a r t s y s t e m s w e r e s l o w e r , l e s s i n t u i t i v e f o r u s e r s , a n d m o r e l i k e l y t o c a u s e u s e r strain.

12
13 14 15

16
17

18 19 20

21
22

23 24
25

II

26
27 28

l T h e term to be construed is present in claims 4 0 , 4 6 , 53, and 59. 2The first two terms to be construed are present in claims 1 and 7. The third term is present in claim 5.
2

1 III.
2

T h e '352 P a t e n t
The ' 3 5 2 patent, e n t i t l e d " M u l t i p l e F i n g e r s C o n t a c t S e n s i n g M e t h o d for E m u l a t i n g

3
4

M o u s e B u t t o n s a n d M o u s e O p e r a t i o n s o n a T o u c h S e n s o r P a d , " d i s c l o s e s a m e t h o d for r e c o g n i z i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f m u l t i p l e fingers o n a t o u c h p a d a n d e m u l a t i n g v a r i o u s m o u s e f u n c t i o n ; t h e p a t e n t also d i s c l o s e s a t o u c h p a d w i t h s u c h c a p a b i l i t i e s . T h e p a t e n t w a s i s s u e d October 20, 1998, and b y assignment, Elantech is the owner o f the entire right, title, and i n t e r e s t o f t h e ' 3 5 2 patent. T h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t c o n t a i n s f o u r o f t h e c l a i m t e r m s t o b e c o n s t r u e d : (1) " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h sensor" or " m e a n s for scanning the t o u c h sensor to . . . ;" (2) "scanning the touch

5
6

7
8
9
10

sensor to . . . identify a first m a x i m a i n a signal corresponding to a first finger;" (3) "scanning the touch sensor to . . . identify a minima following the first maxima;" and (4) "scanning the touch sensor to . . . identify a second m a x i m a i n a signal corresponding to a
s e c o n d f i n g e r f o l l o w i n g s a i d m i n i m a . " T h e c l a i m s are d i r e c t e d t o " a m e t h o d f o r d e t e c t i n g t h e operative coupling o f multiple fingers to a t o u c h sensor.,,3 Generally, the goal o f the m e t h o d is to detect the presence o f multiple fingers o n a t o u c h sensor and emulate mouse functions . The p a t e n t e e d e s c r i b e d m e t h o d s o f e m u l a t i n g m o u s e functions u s i n g a t o u c h p a d t h a t w e r e k n o w n i n the prior art, and asserted that these systems were more stressful and less intuitive t h a n u s i n g a mouse.
DISCUSSION

·8
t:r.8
UU
-C t )
",Q ~ :::
~

cd

11
12
13

g~

ti

'0

... ......

~.l::

~ .~

14 15

oo..s::
"0

.;s

~

t

;\:: Z
~-B

0

16
17

=

<l)
\-;

&;

18 19 20
21
22

I.

Legal S t a n d a r d f o r Claim C o n s t r u c t i o n
Claim construction is a matter o f l a w for the court to decide. M a r k m a n v. W e s t v i e w

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 9 6 7 , 9 7 9 (Fed. Cir. 1995), a f f d , 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). W h e n c o n s t r u i n g c l a i m s , a c o u r t f i r s t l o o k s to i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d , a n d t h e r e a f t e r , i f appropriate, to extrinsic evidence. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F . 3 d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Intrinsic evidence comprises the patent claims, the specification, and, i f entered into evidence, the prosecution history. Id. Intrinsic evidence also comprises the prior art cited i n a patent or during the prosecution. K u m a r v. Ovonic Battel)' Co., 351 F . 3 d 3The terms to be construed are present i n claims 1 and 18.
3

23 24 25

26
27

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In most cases, the intrinsic evidence alone will determine the proper meaning o f the claim terms. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. W h e n construing claims, the analysis begins with, and must focus on, the language o f the claims themselves. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). I f the claim language is clear on its face, then the rest o f the intrinsic evidence is considered only for whether any deviation from the plain meaning is specified. Id. Deviation may be warranted if, for example, the patentee has "chosen to be his own l e x i c o g r a p h e r , " o r i f t h e p a t e n t e e h a s d i s c l a i m e d a c e r t a i n p o r t i o n o f t h e c l a i m scope t h a t would otherwise be afforded b y the plain meaning. Id. (citations omitted). Where the claim language is not clear, other intrinsic evidence is used to resolve the lack o f clarity. Id. G e n e r a l l y , a c o u r t g i v e s the w o r d s o f a c l a i m t h e i r o r d i n a r y a n d c u s t o m a r y meaning. Phillips v. A W H Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The "ordinary and customary meaning o f a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person o f ordinary skill in the art in question at the time o f the invention, i.e., as o f the effective filing date o f the patent application." Id. at 1313. The context in which a word appears in a claim informs the construction o f that word. Id. at 1314. Where there are several common meanings, the patent disclosure "serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings." Brookhill-Wilk L LLC v. Intuitive SurgicaL Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). I f more than one definition is consistent with the usage o f a term in the claims, the term m a y be construed to encompass all consistent meamngs. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Other claims o f the patent in question " c a n also be valuable sources o f enlightenment as to the meaning o f a claim term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, "the usage o f a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning o f the same term in other claims." Id. The presence o f a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim. Id. at 1315.
4

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-<

cd

11 12
13

UU

cd

0 ...C...I....u. . ~.l:: .........

~ .~
~
\-;

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

",Q ~ :::
(1)

;\:: Z

oo..s:: " O0t ~
~-B
\-;

......

=

(1)

~

0

1
2

Claims must be read in light o f the specification. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification "is the single best guide to the meaning o f a disputed term." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Where a claim term has multiple yet potentially consistent, definitions, the rest o f the i n t r i n s i c record, b e g i n n i n g w i t h the s p e c i f i c a t i o n , p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r guidance. B r o o k h i l l Wilk, 334 F.3d at 1300. I f the patentee explicitly defined a claim in the specification, that definition trumps the ordinary meaning o f the term. CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification m a y define a term b y implication. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. The specification may also reveal a disclaimer o f the claim scope b y indicating that the invention and all o f its embodiments only occupy part o f the broad meaning o f a claim term. SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
I t is error, however, to import a limitation from the specification into the claim.

3
4

5
6

7
8
9

10

·8
t:r.8
UU
-C t )
",Q ~ :::
~

cd

11

g~

12
13

ti

'0

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Standing alone, an embodiment disclosed in the specification does not limit the claims. Id. at 906. Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims o f the patent are not to be construed as restricted to that embodiment unless the patentee demonstrates a clear intention to limit the claim scope using "words or expressions o f manifest exclusion or restriction." Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Absent clear statements o f scope, courts are constrained to follow the language o f the claims and n o t that o f the written description provided b y the specification. Id. at 1328; see also Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (stating a limitation should not be read into the claims unless a specification so requires). Conversely, a construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is "rarely, i f ever, correct." Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Courts require highly persuasive evidence that the claims do not encompass a preferred embodiment. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
II
5

... ......
~ .~

~.l::

14 15

oo..s::
"0

.;s

~

t

;\:: Z
~-B

0

16
17

=

<l)
\-;

&;

18 19 20
21
22

23 24 25

26
27
28

1 II.
2

Construction of the Disputed Terms The following analysis considers as intrinsic evidence the claims, the specification,

3
4

a n d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n history.

A.

T h e '411 P a t e n t

5
6

T h e p a r t i e s h a v e r e q u e s t e d t h e C o u r t to c o n s t r u e t h e t e r m " i n c r e m e n t a l l y m o v e . "

1.

"Incrementally move"

7
8
9

Claims 40, 46, 53, a n d 59 o f t h e ' 411 p a t e n t contain the t e r m " i n c r e m e n t a l l y m o v e . " F o r e x a m p l e , c l a i m 4 0 r e c i t e s , i n r e l e v a n t part: . . . g e n e r a t i n g s e c o n d c u r s o r m o t i o n signals d i f f e r e n t f r o m s a i d first c u r s o r m o t i o n signals i f said object has m o v e d into Said outer r e g i o n o f said sensing plane, said s e c o n d c u r s o r m o t i o n s i g n a l s f o r c a u s i n g s a i d c u r s o r to i n c r e m e n t a l l v m o v e o n t h e d i s p l a y s c r e e n a s e l e c t e d distance i n a dIrection r e p r e s e n t i n g the difference b e t w e e n a fixed reference p o i n t o n said sensing plane a n d Said p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n o f said object o n said sensing p l a n e . . . . ' 4 1 1 p a t e n t a t 6 2 : 5 3 - 6 0 ( e m p h a s i s added). E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " m o v e m e n t defined b y the s e c o n d c o m p o n e n t o f Equations 12 a n d 13 i n t h e ' 411 patent, namely, S(Xcur-Xcenter) a n d S ( Ycur-Ycenter)." Limitations i n n a r r o w claims d e p e n d e n t from c l a i m 40 m a y n o t b e i m p o r t e d into the b r o a d l a n g u a g e o f claim 40. The limitation i n dependent claim 44 sets the " f i x e d reference point" o f claim 40 as the center o f the sensing plane. D e p e n d e n t claim 45 includes a speed variable i n the calculation o f the incremental m o t i o n o f claim 40. A construction o f " m o v e m e n t defined b y

10
11 12
13

14 15

16
17

18 19

20 the second c o m p o n e n t o f Equations 12 a n d 13 i n the ' 4 1 1 patent, namely, S(Xcur-Xcenter) a n d

21
22

S ( Ycur-YcenterY' w o u l d impermissibly import limitations from dependent claims into a b r o a d
claim. M o r e o v e r , E l a n t e c h ' s v e r y n a r r o w c o n s t r u c t i o n l i m i t i n g t h e c l a i m s to o n e e m b o d i m e n t i g n o r e s t h e e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e ' 4 1 1 patent: " [t ] h o s e o f o r d i n a r y skill i n the art will recognize t h a t a linear proportionality is described b y the above equation. A s u s e d herein, ' p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y ' m e a n s t h a t the signal g e n e r a t e d is a monotonic function. Those o f o r d i n a r y skill i n t h e a r t w i l l r e c o g n i z e t h a t o t h e r m o n o t o n i c functions, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t limited to inverse proportionality, a n d non-linear proportionality such as logarithmic o r

23

24
25

26
27

28

6

1 e x p o n e n t i a l functions, c o u l d b e e m p l o y e d i n t h e p r e s e n t i n v e n t i o n w i t h o u t d e p a r t i n g f r o m t h e 2 principles disclosed herein." ' 4 1 1 p a t e n t at 31 :29-38. This statement immediately follows a n
3

explanation o f h o w Equations 12 a n d 13 m i g h t b e applied w i t h i n a n algorithm i n the

4 p r e f e r r e d embodiment. ' 4 1 1 p a t e n t at 3 0 : 6 5 - 6 7 - 3 1 : 1 - 2 9 . 5 6 7 8 9 10
cd

The t e r m " i n c r e m e n t a l l y m o v e " m e a n s " m o v e i n c a l c u l a t e d i n c r e m e n t s . "

B.

T h e '931 P a t e n t

T h e p a r t i e s h a v e r e q u e s t e d t h e C o u r t t o c o n s t r u e t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e terms: (1) " i n i t i a t i n g a s i g n a l t o t h e h o s t i n d i c a t i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f s a i d t a p g e s t u r e ; " (2) " m a i n t a i n i n g s a i d s i g n a l f o r a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p e r i o d o f t i m e ; " a n d (3) " d e t e c t i n g i n w h i c h o f a t l e a s t o n e c o m e r o f t h e t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d s a i d t a p g e s t u r e occurred. " T h e f i r s t a n d s e c o n d t e r m s a p p e a r t o g e t h e r i n t h e c l a i m s , a n d b o t h are u s e d t o d e s c r i b e steps c o n c e r n e d w i t h t r a n s m i s s i o n o f a signal; t h e s e t e r m s w i l l b e a n a l y z e d t o g e t h e r .

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-<

11

UU

cd

12
13

0 ...C...I....u. . ~.l:: .........

~ .~
~
\-;

14 15 16 17 18

1.

" I n i t i a t i n g a s i g n a l to t h e h o s t i n d i c a t i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f s a i d t a p g e s t u r e " a n d " M a i n t a i n i n g said signal f o r a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p e r i o d of time"

",Q ~ :::
(1)

;\:: Z
~-B
0

oo..s:: " O0t ~

......

=

(1)
\-;

C l a i m s 1 a n d 7 o f t h e ' 9 3 1 p a t e n t b o t h c o n t a i n t h e t e r m " i n i t i a t i n g a s i g n a l to t h e h o s t i n d i c a t i n g the o c c u r r e n c e o f s a i d tap g e s t u r e " a n d the t e r m " m a i n t a i n i n g s a i d signal for a

~

19 p r e d e t e r m i n e d p e r i o d o f time." Claim 1 recites, i n relevant part: 20 21 22
23 . . . . initiating a signal to the h o s t indicating the occurrence o f said taT gesture i f t h e a m o u n t o f time Said conductive object is p r e s e n t o n said t o u c h p a d is ess t h a n said reference a m o u n t o f time a n d i f the a m o u n t o f m o t i o n m a d e b y said conductive o b j e c t while i t is p r e s e n t o n said t o u c h p a d is less t h a n said reference amount o f motion; a n d m a i n t a i n i n g s a i d s i g n a l f o r a p r e a e t e r m i n e d p e r i o d o f time. ' 9 3 1 patent at 53 :4-12 (emphasis added). F o r t h e t e r m " i n i t i a t i n g a s i g n a l to t h e h o s t i n d i c a t i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f s a i d t a p g e s t u r e , " S y n a p t i c s p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " i n i t i a t i n g t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f a s e t o f d a t a to a computer, o r other device t h a t c a n take as i n p u t the output o f a touch-sensor pad, t h a t indicates t h a t a tap gesture has o c c u r r e d o n the t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d . " E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a

24 25 26 27 28

7

1 construction o f "outputting to the host a high state o f a signal that has a low and a high state, 2 w h e r e t h e h i g h s i g n a l state r e p r e s e n t s t h a t a t a p g e s t u r e o c c u r r e d o n t h e t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d . " 3

F o r t h e t e r m " m a i n t a i n i n g s a i d s i g n a l for a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p e r i o d o f t i m e , " S y n a p t i c s

4 p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " t o c o n t i n u e , r e t a i n , o r r e p e a t t h e s i g n a l for a p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t 5 w a s d e t e r m i n e d b e f o r e . " E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " c o n t i n u o u s l y o u t p u t t i n g the 6 high state o f the signal only for a predetermined time period (i.e., changing the signal state 7 from high to low at the end o f the predetermined time period)." In other words, Elantech 8 a s s e r t s t h a t a " s i g n a l " h a s o n l y t w o states a n d t h a t " m a i n t a i n i n g " t h e s i g n a l c a n o n l y b e 9 a c c o m p l i s h e d b y c o n t i n u o u s o u t p u t o f t h e signal, w h i l e S y n a p t i c s a s s e r t s a f l e x i b l e 10

construction o f the word "signal" as "the transmission o f a set o f data" and that " m a i n t a i n i n g " a s i g n a l m a y b e a c c o m p l i s h e d i n s e v e r a l ways. The claims and the specification do not support a construction where a "signal" can only represent a low state and a high state. The word "signal" is used broadly throughout the '931 patent. As used in claim five, a "signal" is able to indicate both that a tap gesture occurred and where the tap gesture occurred. This type o f complex data communication is

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-<

cd

11

UU

cd

12
13

0 ...C...I....u. . ~.l:: .........

~ .~
~
\-;

14 15

",Q ~ :::
(1)

;\:: Z
~-B
0

oo..s:: " O0t ~

......

16 beyond the capacity o f a signal that only has a low state and a high state, and there is nothing 17 in the claims to indicate that the word "signal" in claim five should be construed differently 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8

=

(1)
\-;

~

than the word "signal" in claims one or seven. The word "signal" is also used in other c o n t e x t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e ' 9 3 1 p a t e n t : a p a c k e t i z e d " 1 0 - b i t w i d e d i g i t a l s i g n a l , " ' 9 3 1 p a t e n t at 13 :64-65, and " a monotonic function." '931 patent at 31 :59-60. In their opposition brief, Elantech argues that every reference to the word "signal" that relates to gesture recognition refers only to the " O U T " signal described in Fig. 15a-e. However, the " O U T " signal described in Fig. 15a-e o f the specification is the output o f tap unit 280, which is only one component in the circuitry. Id. at 34:23-29. The " O U T " signal is not the ultimate signal which is sent to the host, as described in the relevant claims; it is only used to convey information about (1) the fact that a tap gesture occurred, and (2) which button click should be emulated-left, middle, or right. Id. at 35:26-27.

1

There is little in the intrinsic evidence that describes exactly h o w a "signal" is "maintained." Nothing in the claims addresses this point, but one clue arises in the description o f the flowchart that illustrates the operation o f the tap unit: "[s]tep 334 also sets the Suppress flag to True to cause the virtual button signal to stay low for a short period." '931 patent at 43: 1-2; Fig. 17B. The fact that setting a flag to a value o f True could cause a signal to " s t a y low" - t o maintain a particular v a l u e - " f o r a short period o f time" indicates that there is more than one w a y o f "maintaining" a signal. There is no evidence to support E l a n t e c h ' s construction that a signal is "maintained" only b y continuously outputting the signal. The term "initiating a signal to the host indicating the occurrence o f said tap gesture" means "initiating the transmission o f a set o f data to a computer, or other device that can take as input the output o f a touch-sensor pad, that indicates that a tap gesture has occurred on the touch-sensor pad." The term "maintaining said signal for a predetermined period o f time" m e a n s " t o c o n t i n u e , r e t a i n , o r r e p e a t t h e s i g n a l for a p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t w a s d e t e r m i n e d before."

2
3
4

5
6

7
8
9

10
11

12
13

14 15

16

2.

" D e t e c t i n g in which o f a t least one c o r n e r o f t h e t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d said t a p g e s t u r e o c c u r r e d "

17
18 19 20

Claim 5 o f the '931 patent recites, in relevant part:
. . . detecting in which o f at least one c o m e r o f the touch-sensor p a d said tap gesture occurred . . .

Id. at 53 :29-30 (emphasis added).
21

S y n a p t i c s p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " d e t e c t i n g t h a t a t a p g e s t u r e h a s o c c u r r e d i n at
22

least one comer, the identity o f which is distinguished in some w a y from other comers o f the
23

t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d . " E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " a f t e r d e t e c t i n g the o c c u r r e n c e o f the
24

tap gesture, separately detecting in which o f at least one comer o f the touch-sensor p a d the
25

tap g e s t u r e o c c u r r e d . " I n o t h e r w o r d s , S y n a p t i c s asserts t h a t the s i n g l e e v e n t o f the d e t e c t i o n
26

o f the occurrence o f the tap gesture also provides information on where the tap gesture
27

occurred, while Elantech asserts that the detection o f where the tap gesture occurred is a
28

s e p a r a t e e v e n t from t h e d e t e c t i o n o f t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e t a p gesture.
9

1 2 3 4

C l a i m five r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e f i r s t t w o d e t e c t i o n s t e p s b e c o m p l e t e b y t h e t i m e t h e l a s t s t e p o f t h e m e t h o d is e x e c u t e d , s i n c e i t is n o t p o s s i b l e t o s e n d a s i g n a l " i n d i c a t i n g t h e occurrence o f said t a p gesture a n d i n w h i c h o f at least one c o m e r o f said t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d said tap gesture occurred" unless one has already detected the occurrence o f said tap gesture

5 a n d detected i n w h i c h o f at least one c o m e r o f said touch-sensor p a d said tap gesture 6 7 8 o c c u r r e d . H o w e v e r , t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t w o d e t e c t i o n steps c o u l d n o t o c c u r simultaneously.4 E l a n t e c h a r g u e s t h a t " [ i ] t w o u l d b e i m p o s s i b l e t o detect i n w h i c h o f at least one c o m e r o f the t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d said tap gesture o c c u r r e d i f the

9 t a p g e s t u r e h a s n o t p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d e t e c t e d , " a n d cites cases w h e r e a n o r d e r h a s b e e n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

i m p o s e d u p o n s t e p s i n a m e t h o d . H o w e v e r , i n a l l t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e is a m o d i f y i n g a d j e c t i v e p r e s e n t i n o n e step o f t h e m e t h o d t h a t r e f e r s t o a n a c t i o n t a k e n i n a p r e v i o u s s t e p - a n e x p l i c i t l i n k t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a n o r d e r as b e t w e e n t h e t w o steps.5 T h e c i t e d c a s e s a r e t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e i n t h e s e c o n d d e t e c t i o n s t e p h e r e t h e r e is n o adjective m o d i f y i n g t h e p h r a s e " t a p g e s t u r e " t h a t refers to a n a c t i o n t a k e n i n t h e first d e t e c t i o n step. The t e r m " d e t e c t i n g i n w h i c h o f at least one c o m e r o f the t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d said tap gesture occurred" m e a n s " d e t e c t i n g t h a t a tap gesture has o c c u r r e d i n at least one c o m e r , the i d e n t i t y o f w h i c h is d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n s o m e w a y f r o m o t h e r c o m e r s o f t h e t o u c h - s e n s o r p a d . "

II
4The specification and the figures illustrate in meticulous detail the steps involved in detecting the occurrence o f a tap gesture and (assuming that it was a corner tap) detecting in which corner the tap gesture occurred. '931 patent at 42:34-44:33; Fig. 17B-C. Step 326 is where the tests are performed to determine whether a tap gesture has occurred, and step 348 is where the tests are performed to determine whether a corner tap has occurred. As described in the specification and figures, there are many interleaving steps, however, there is no way to arrive at step 348 without first proceeding through step 326. Nevertheless, an order cannot be imposed as between the two detection steps since there is no law to support such a ruling where the plain words o f the claim impose no such order. 5Elantech cites Combined Sys., Inc. v. DeŁ. Tech. Corp. o f Am. and Fed. Labs., 350 F.3d 1207, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim 1 o f the '562 patent recites a step o f ''farmingfaids in said tubular socklike projectile body" and then a step o f "inserting saidfarmedfaids o f said tubular sock-like projectile body") (emphasis added); see also Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1368, 1376 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (where claim 1 o f the ' 483 patent recites a step o f "providing a treating flow o f acetic a c i d . . . into said groundwater region" and then a step o f "introducing . . . an aqueous solution o f ferrous ion into said groundwater region, for mixing with said acidified graundwater") (emphasis added). 10

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1

c.

The '352 Patent

2
3
4

T h e p a r t i e s h a v e r e q u e s t e d t h e C o u r t t o c o n s t r u e t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r terms: (1) " s c a n n i n g the t o u c h sensor" o r " m e a n s for scanning the t o u c h sensor to ... ;" (2) "scanning the touch sensor to ... identify a first m a x i m a i n a signal corresponding to a f i r s t f i n g e r ; " (3) "scanning the touch sensor to ... identify a m i n i m a following the first m a x i m a ; "

5
6

7 and
8
9

(4) "scanning the touch sensor to ... identify a second m a x i m a i n a signal c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a s e c o n d f i n g e r f o l l o w i n g s a i d m i n i m a . " T h e l a t t e r t h r e e t e r m s are u s e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r a n d t o g e t h e r d e s c r i b e t h e p r o c e s s o f r e c o g n i z i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f one o r m o r e fingers o n t h e t o u c h sensor; t h e s e t h r e e t e r m s w i l l b e a n a l y z e d together.

10
11

12
13

1.

"Scanning the touch sensor"

14
15

Claims 1 a n d 18 o f the ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t b o t h contain the t e r m " s c a n n i n g the t o u c h sensor." C l a i m 1 r e c i t e s , i n r e l e v a n t part: . . . . scanning the t o u c h sensor to (a) identifY a f i r s t maxima in a signal corresponding to a f i r s t finger, (b) identifY a minima follow ing the f i r s t maxima, (c) identify a s e c o n d maxima in a signal corresponding to a s e c o n d f i n g e r f o l l o w i n g s a i d minima . . . . ' 3 5 2 patent at 16: 16-20 (emphasis added).

16
17

18 19

E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " e x a m i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n associated w i t h the t o u c h
20

s e n s o r . " S y n a p t i c s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p h r a s e s h o u l d b e c o n s t r u e d to m e a n " m e a s u r i n g t h e
21

t r a c e s i n t h e t o u c h s e n s o r a n d a s s i g n i n g t h e m to a s e q u e n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e i r p h y s i c a l
22

o r d e r o n the t o u c h s e n s o r . " I n o t h e r words, E l a n t e c h asserts a b r o a d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
23

" s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h sensor" t h a t is n o t t i e d to a n y particular t o u c h sensor t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h a t
24

t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d from s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r n e e d n o t b e s t r u c t u r e d o r o r d e r e d i n a n y
25

way. B y c o n t r a s t , S y n a p t i c s a s s e r t s t h a t t h e " t o u c h s e n s o r " m u s t b e l i m i t e d to c a p a c i t i v e
26

devices using traces a n d t h a t e a c h capacitance value o b t a i n e d from scanning the t o u c h sensor
27

m u s t b e associated w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n representing the p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n o n the t o u c h sensor
28

w h e r e t h e v a l u e w a s detected; S y n a p t i c s does n o t argue t h a t t h e t r a c e s m u s t b e s e n s e d i n a
11

1 sequential fashion a n d agrees that, as disclosed b y the ' 3 5 2 patent, all traces m a y b e sensed
2

simultaneously. There is nothing i n the language o f claims 1 o r 18 t h a t require a construction o f a

3

4 " t o u c h sensor" t h a t includes traces. I n fact, claim 6, w h i c h is dependent from ( a n d thus 5 n a r r o w e r than) claim 1, includes a limitation o n the t o u c h sensor " w h e r e i n said t o u c h sensor 6 i n c l u d e s a p l u r a l i t y o f l i n e s . " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y states t h a t " [ t ] h e 7 p r e s e n t i n v e n t i o n m a y b e i m p l e m e n t e d b a s e d o n a n y c o n v e n t i o n a l t o u c h sensing technology, 8 a l t h o u g h a n e x e m p l a r y e m b o d i m e n t involves the use o f a capacitive t o u c h sensing device." 9 10
cd

' 3 5 2 p a t e n t at 2:20-24. S y n a p t i c s argues t h a t b e c a u s e the p a r t i e s h a v e a g r e e d o n a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e t e r m " o p e r a t i v e c o u p l i n g " to m e a n " e l e c t r i c a l f i n g e r - i n d u c e d e f f e c t , " t h e c l a i m s m u s t t h e n b e l i m i t e d to m e t h o d s a n d s y s t e m s t h a t m e a s u r e s u c h a n e l e c t r i c a l phenomenon. A l t h o u g h this m a y b e true, there is no evidence t h a t methods a n d systems t h a t d e t e c t e l e c t r i c a l f i n g e r - i n d u c e d e f f e c t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e traces. E l a n t e c h ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " e x a m i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the t o u c h sensor," b y contrast, is far too broad, as such words c o u l d b e interpreted to include determining the c h e m i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e s u r f a c e o f t h e t o u c h sensor, t h e m a n u f a c t u r e date o f t h e t o u c h s e n s o r , o r t h e p o w e r c o n s u m p t i o n m e t r i c s o f t h e t o u c h sensor. T h e t e r m " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h sensor" o n l y appears i n claims 1 a n d 18, a n d t h e t e r m o n l y appears i n conjunction w i t h the purpose o f seeking to detect operative coupling. ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t at 16: 16-20, 17:29-34. A s stated i n E l a n t e c h ' s o w n r e p l y brief, the purpose o f " s c a n n i n g the t o u c h sensor" is " t o identify finger presence." The t e r m " s c a n n i n g the t o u c h sensor" m e a n s " m e a s u r i n g the v a l u e s g e n e r a t e d b y a t o u c h s e n s o r to d e t e c t o p e r a t i v e c o u p l i n g a n d d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o s i t i o n s a t w h i c h m e a s u r e m e n t s are m a d e . "

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-<

11

UU

cd

12
13

0 ...C...I....u. . ~.l:: .........

~ .~
~
\-;

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

",Q ~ :::
(1)

;\:: Z
~-B
0

oo..s:: " O0t ~

......

=

(1)
\-;

~

23

24
25 26 27
28

II II II II
12

1 2 3 4 5

2.

" S c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r t o ( a ) i d e n t i f y a f i r s t m a x i m a in a s i g n a l
c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a f i r s t f i n g e r , (b) i d e n t i f y a m i n i m a following t h e f i r s t m a x i m a , (c) i d e n t i f y a second m a x i m a in a signal c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a second f i n g e r following s a i d m i n i m a "

Claims 1 and 18 o f the ' 3 5 2 patent both contain the three terms "identify a first

6 maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger," "identify a minima following the first 7 maxima," and "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger 8 following said minima." Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: 9 10
cd

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-< C.I 0

. . . . scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, (c) id~~tity a second maxima i n a sIgnal corresponding to a second finger following said mlllima . . . . Id. at 16:16-20 (emphasis added).

11

UU

cd

12

For the term "identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger,"
13

.........u. . ~.l:: .........
~ .~
~
\-;

E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " i d e n t i f y a first p e a k v a l u e i n a f i n g e r p r o f i l e o b t a i n e d
14

",Q ~ :::
(1)

from s c a n n i n g the t o u c h s e n s o r . " S y n a p t i c s p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " m e a s u r i n g the t r a c e
15

;\:: Z
~-B
0

oo..s:: " O0t ~

......

values o f the touch sensor corresponding to a first finger and determining the point at which
16

=

the measured values cease to increase and begin to decrease."
17

(1)
\-;

F o r the t e r m " i d e n t i f y a m i n i m a f o l l o w i n g the first m a x i m a , " E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a
18

~

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " i d e n t i f y the l o w e s t v a l u e i n the f i n g e r p r o f i l e t h a t o c c u r s a f t e r the first p e a k
19

value, and before another peak value is identified." Synaptics proposes a construction o f
20

"measuring the trace values o f the touch sensor following, in scan order, said minima and
21

determining the point at which the measured values cease to decrease and begin to increase."
22

F or the term "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger
23

f o l l o w i n g s a i d m i n i m a , " E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " a f t e r i d e n t i f y i n g the l o w e s t
24

v a l u e i n the f i n g e r p r o f i l e , i d e n t i f y a s e c o n d p e a k v a l u e i n the f i n g e r p r o f i l e . " S y n a p t i c s
25

proposes a construction o f "measuring the trace values corresponding to a second finger
26

f o l l o w i n g , i n s c a n order, s a i d m i n i m a a n d d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h t h e m e a s u r e d
27

values cease to decrease and begin to increase."
28
13

1
2

I n o t h e r w o r d s , E l a n t e c h asserts t h a t a " m a x i m a " o r " m i n i m a " r e p r e s e n t s o n l y the m a x i m u m o r m i n i m u m c a p a c i t a n c e v a l u e m e a s u r e d across a f i n g e r p r o f i l e ; a " m a x i m a " o r "minima" does not refer in any w a y to the particular position[ s] on the touch sensor where the maximum or minimum capacitance values appear. Synaptics asserts that a "maxima" or "minima" represents not only the capacitance measured at that one trace, but also the p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n o n the t o u c h s e n s o r w h e r e t h a t m a x i m u m o r m i n i m u m l e v e l o f c a p a c i t a n c e was detected across the finger profile. Synaptics also asserts that within a finger profile, a "maxima" or "minima" can only appear at one precise point on the touch sensor, and so when a maximum or minimum capacitance value, as measured across a finger profile, appears at multiple traces (a plateau), the "maxima" or "minima" appears at the last trace that is included within that plateau region. Finally, Synaptics asserts that, in accordance with its c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " s c a n n i n g the t o u c h s e n s o r , " a l i m i t a t i o n m u s t b e i m p o s e d u p o n the l o c a t i o n i n w h i c h a m i n i m a f o l l o w i n g a first m a x i m a o r a s e c o n d m a x i m a f o l l o w i n g a m i n i m a m a y appear. Synaptics bases its argument on the detailed mechanics o f the embodiment described in the specification and in Fig. 5 - 6 . There is support in the claims for a construction o f the terms "maxima" and "minima" as data objects that have position information, as well as a capacitance value;6 however, there is no support in the intrinsic evidence for a construction o f e i t h e r the t e r m " m a x i m a " o r the t e r m " m i n i m a " w h e r e i n the p o s i t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n c a n o n l y relate to a precise p o i n t - a single X axis value and a single Y axis value. Such a construction could twist the ordinary meaning o f a "maxima" or a "minima" so as to exclude a plateau maxima, where the maximum capacitance value appears over a range o f X axis values and/or Y axis values.

3
4

5
6

7
8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

23 24 25 26 27 28

6Claim 8 adds a step to the method o f claim 1 o f "comparing a distance between said first maxima and said second maxima to a predefined threshold." ' 3 5 2 patent at 16:41-43. Claim 10 adds the step o f "detecting a distance between said first and second maxima." ' 3 5 2 patent at 16:57-59. Claim 15 adds the step o f "determining i f said first and second maxima are within 5 centimeters." ' 3 5 2 patent at 17: 17-18-43. Claim 13 also adds a step o f "detecting a movement o f said first maxima." ' 3 5 2 patent at 17:2.
14

1
2

T h e t e r m " i d e n t i f y a f i r s t m a x i m a i n a s i g n a l c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a f i r s t f i n g e r " m e a n s " i d e n t i f y a first p e a k v a l u e i n a f i n g e r p r o f i l e o b t a i n e d f r o m s c a n n i n g the t o u c h sensor." The t e r m " i d e n t i f y a m i n i m a f o l l o w i n g the first m a x i m a " m e a n s " i d e n t i f y the l o w e s t v a l u e i n the finger profile that occurs after the first p e a k value, and before another p e a k value is i d e n t i f i e d . " T h e t e r m " i d e n t i f y a s e c o n d m a x i m a i n a s i g n a l c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a s e c o n d finger following said m i n i m a " m e a n s " a f t e r i d e n t i f y i n g the l o w e s t v a l u e i n the finger profile, i d e n t i f y a s e c o n d p e a k v a l u e i n the finger p r o f i l e . "

3
4

5
6

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 10

~
Dated: April 6, 2007

y----

·8
t=;r.:.:8 : ::
o
...... 4-<

e<:l

CHARLES R. B R E Y E R U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T J U D G E

11 12
13

UU
0 ...C...I....u. . ~.l:: .........

e<:l

~ .~
~
\-;

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

",Q ~ :::
(1)

;\:: Z

oo..s:: " O0t ~
~-B
\-;

......

=

(1)

~

0

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\ORDERreClaimConstr'nLwpd