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).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT E Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 Yitai H u ( S B N 2 4 8 0 8 5 ) ( y h u @ a k i n g u m p . c o m ) S e a n P. D e B r u i n e ( S B N 1 6 8 0 7 1 ) ( s d e b r u i n e @ a k i n g u m p . c o m ) Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng (SBN 215152) (cfeng@akingump.com) AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 3 0 0 0 EI C a m i n o R e a l , S u i t e 4 0 0 P a l o Alto, California 9 4 3 0 6 Telephone: 650-838-2000 Facsimile: 650-838-2001 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 E L A N T E C H D E V I C E S CORP., Plaintiff, Ys. SYNAPTICS, INC.; AVERATEC, INC, ) Case No. 3:06-CV-01839 CRB 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. -------------) ) ) ELANTECH DEVICES CORP.'S OPENING ) C L A I M C O N S T R U C T I O N B R I E F F O R U.S. ) P A T E N T N O . 5,825,352 ) ) ) ) Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 CASE NO. 3:06-CY-Ol839 CRB Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT D o c u m e n t 65 Filed 01/29/2007 P a g e 2 o f 18 1 2 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 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. INTRODUCTION B A C K G R O U N D OF E L A N T E C H ' S ' 3 5 2 PATENT L A W OF C L A I M C O N S T R U C T I O N C L A I M C O N S T R U C T I O N F O R C L A I M S 1 A N D 18 OF T H E ' 3 5 2 PATENT 1 1 3 .4 5 5 6 IV A. " S c a n n i n g t h e Touch S e n s o r " M e a n s " 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 t h e Touch S e n s o r " 1) 2) 3) T h e Intrinsic E v i d e n c e E x p r e s s l y Contradicts Synaptics' P r o p o s e d C o n s t r u c t i o n o f " S e q u e n t i a l l y M e a s u r i n g t h e Traces " ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t Specification D e s c r i b e s " S c a n n i n g " as E x a m i n i n g o r P r o c e s s i n g Touchpad Information t o Identify F i n g e r P r e s e n c e B. D i c t i o n a r y D e f i n i t i o n from E l a n t e c h a n d Synaptics Similarly C h a r a c t e r i z e s S c a n n i n g as E x a m i n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n a n d C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' Proposed Construction " I d e n t i f y a F i r s t M a x i m a i n a Signal C o r r e s p o n d i n g t o 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 F i r s t P e a k Value 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 t h e Touch S e n s o r " 1) 2) S k i l l e d A r t i s a n s W o u l d U n d e r s t a n d I d e n t i f y i n g a " F i r s t M a x i m a " as I d e n t i f y i n g a F i r s t P e a k Value ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t Specification and P r o s e c u t i o n H i s t o r y D i r e c t l y Contradicts Synaptics' P r o p o s e d Construction 7 8 8 9 C. "Identify a M i n i m a Following the First Maxima" M e a n s "Identify the L o w e s t Value i n t h e F i n g e r P r o f i l e t h a t Occurs after t h e F i r s t P e a k Value, a n d b e f o r e A n o t h e r P e a k Value i s I d e n t i f i e d " 1) 2) The Intrinsic E v i d e n c e M a n d a t e s E l a n t e c h ' s P r o p o s e d Construction ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t Specification Specifically and D i r e c t l y C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' Proposed Construction 10 11 11 D. " I d e n t i f y a S e c o n d 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 t o 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 " M e a n s " a f t e r I d e n t i f y i n g t h e L o w e s t Value i n t h e 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 Value i n t h e F i n g e r P r o f i l e " M e a n s - P l u s - F u n c t i o n C l a i m E l e m e n t s U n d e r 35 U.S.C. 112 1) 2) T h e f u n c t i o n o f " M e a n s for S c a n n i n g t h e Touch S e n s o r " is " 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 t h e Touch S e n s o r " 13 13 14 E. T h e C o r r e s p o n d i n g S t r u c t u r e o f " M e a n s f o r P r o v i d i n g an I n d i c a t i o n o f t h e S i m u l t a n e o u s P r e s e n c e o f Two F i n g e r s i n R e s p o n s e t o Identification o f said F i r s t and S e c o n d M a x i m a " is M i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60 ... 14 14 V CONCLUSION CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 3 of 18 1 2 TABLE O F A U T H O R I T I E S CASES 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hoganas A B v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (Fed. Cir. 1993) InnovalPure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F. 3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Intermatic Inc. v. The Lamson & Sessions Co., 273 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) Philips v. A W H Corp. 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) STATUTES 35U.S.C.112 3 3 3 3 3 3,4 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 11 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 4 of 18 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 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 This patent dispute relates to touchpad or touch-sensing devices, which serve as user-input devices for many consumer electronics products, such as laptop computers, portable music players, and personal digital assistants. Plaintiff Elantech Devices Corp. ("Elantech") is one o f the world's recognized leaders in touchpad and other user-input devices. Elantech currently owns numerous patents relating to touchpad and interface devices, many o f which are implemented in Elantech's products. Founded in 2003, Elantech acquired significant technology from a group within Logitech, Inc. ("Logitech") in California, which had focused on the development o f user-friendly input devices for years. As a result, Logitech pioneered many technical advances in those devices in the early 1990s. Since its inception in 2003, Elantech has enjoyed healthy growth and its products have gained significant popularity in the market. At issue is whether Defendants Synaptics, Inc. ("Synaptics") and Averatec, Inc. ("Averatec") s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d t o c o n t i n u e t h e i r ongoing, u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e t e c h n i c a l a d v a n c e s a c h i e v e d by Elantech's predecessor as reflected in United States Patent No. 5,825,352 ("the ' 3 5 2 patent") now owned by Elantech. Elantech asks that the Court adopt its common sense claims constructions, constructions that are fully consistent with the patent itself. Synaptics would have this Court adopt claim constructions not supported by and, in many instances, contradicted by the patent and the file history. II. BACKGROUND OF ELANTECH'S '352 PATENT Elantech's ' 3 5 2 patent discloses and claims a significant advance in touchpad devices: the ability to detect the presence o f two or more fingers or objects. Declaration o f Sean P. DeBruine in Support o f Elantech's Opening Claim Construction B r i e f ("DeBruine Decl."), Ex. A ( ' 3 5 2 patent) at 2: 17-20,38-41 Touchpad devices, also known as touch sensing devices, are devices that can sense the touch or presence o f an object or finger and generate signals reflective o f an object- or fingerbased operation, which may be used to operate devices such as computers. Id. Due to its compact size and its ability to receive user operated motions, such as finger or object movements, touchpad Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 1 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 5 of 18 1 2 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 d e v i c e s h a v e b e c o m e p o p u l a r r e p l a c e m e n t s f o r o r a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c o m p u t e r mice, b o t h o f w h i c h s e r v e t o c o n t r o l c u r s o r m o v e m e n t s a n d r e c e i v e u s e r c l i c k s o f d e s k t o p icon. B e f o r e t h e i n v e n t o r s i n v e n t e d t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e ' 3 5 2 patent, t o u c h p a d devices c o u l d d e t e c t t h e c o n t a c t o r p r e s e n c e o f o n l y o n e f i n g e r o r o n e o b j e c t a t a t i m e . S i n g l e - f i n g e r d e t e c t i o n is g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e f o r a c h i e v i n g t h e s i m p l e t a s k o f c u r s o r m o v e m e n t , b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t for achieving other tasks that can b e done by a computer mouse, such as clicking and dragging. Various k i n d s o f s i n g l e f i n g e r m o v e m e n t s o r " g e s t u r e s " w e r e u s e d w i t h t o u c h p a d s t o r e p r e s e n t clicking, dragging, o r o t h e r c o m m a n d s . H o w e v e r , the additional m o v e m e n t s o r g e s t u r e s m a y require additional efforts from a u s e r and become not intuitive to many users. I d at 1:41-59. To provide a touchpad device t h a t is easier to operate, the inventors at Logitech, E l a n t e c h ' s predecessor, p i o n e e r e d the t e c h n i c a l field and i n v e n t e d m e t h o d s t o d i r e c t l y d e t e c t t h e t o u c h o r p r e s e n c e o f t w o o r m o r e f i n g e r s . Various f u n c t i o n s m a y b e a s s o c i a t e d o r c u s t o m i z e d w i t h o n e - , two-, or three-finger presence to simplify the touch-based operation o f users. I d at 2:61-4: 16 The innovation is n o w widely implemented in E l a n t e c h ' s devices and the devices offered by Synaptics a n d Averatec. Figures 1 and 3 b e l o w are reproduced from the ' 3 5 2 patent. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the operative coupling o f t w o fingers to a touch sensor may b e used to operate the touch sensor. The i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d by o r associated w i t h t h e t o u c h sensor may b e e x a m i n e d t o d e t e c t w h e t h e r t w o fingers are simultaneously present. F o r various touchpad devices, the touch or presence o f fingers causes changes in the signals that reflect the presence o f t w o or more objects. As shown in Fig. 3, during the examination o f the information, a touchpad device identifies a first maximum or p e a k 85, a minimum or lowest value 90 following the peak 85, and a second maximum or p e a k 95 following t h e l o w e s t value. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e t w o - f i n g e r p r e s e n c e m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d b y simply i d e n t i f y i n g t w o p e a k v a l u e s a n d o n e l o w e s t v a l u e b e t w e e n t h e t w o p e a k values. I d at 6 : 2 6 - 3 8 20 85..:::.. lOA r08 FIG. L Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 2 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 6 of 18 1 III. LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The infringement analysis entails a two-step process. First determining correct claim scope 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 and then comparing the properly-construed claim to an accused device to determine whether all o f the claim limitations are present. K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Interpreting the proper meaning and scope o f a patent claim is a question o f law exclusively for the Court to decide. I d ; see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The words o f the claims themselves provide the starting point for any claim construction analysis. See InnovalPure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The meanings o f the claim terms are dependent on their usage and context in the patent. See Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1 3 7 4 , 1 3 7 8 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Words o f a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that a term "would have to a person o f ordinary skill in the art in question at the time o f the invention." Phillips v. A W H Corp. 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Such a person "is deemed to read 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 the claim term not only in the context o f the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context o f the entire patent, including the specification." Phillips at 1313. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[i]t is improper for a court to add extraneous limitations to a claim, that is, limitations added wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim." Hoganas A B v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, "when the meaning o f a term used in a claim is sufficiently clear from its definition in the patent specification, that meaning shall apply." Intermatic Inc. v. The Lamson & Sessions Co., 273 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips made clear that Courts are not to use dictionary definitions as the starting point o f claim construction, referring " t o the specification [only when] determining whether the specification excludes one o f the meanings" or when the inventor has "disavowed or disclaimed scope o f coverage." Phillips at 1321. The approach o f using the specification only " a s a check on the dictionary meaning" can result in incorrect or unduly expansive claim construction. I d Rather, Phillips held that the Court should "instead focus at the Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 3 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 7 of 18 1 2 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 outset on " h o w the patentee used the claim term in the claims, specification, and prosecution history, rather than starting with a broad definition and whittling it down." I d Indeed, a Court must look to "those sources available to the public that show what a person o f skill in the art could have understood disputed claim language to mean," including the specification and the prosecution history and "cannot look at the ordinary meaning o f the term . . . in a vacuum." Phillips at 1313-14. F o r this reason, the Federal Circuit has "viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms." Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Indeed, extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, should not be relied upon to construe a claim term unless an ambiguity in the claim exists after considering the intrinsic evidence. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Furthermore, it is improper to allow the public record to be altered or changed by extrinsic evidence. I d At 1583. All o f the disputed claim terms o f the '352 patent can be, and should be, readily construed without the need for extrinsic expert testimony. IV. C L A I M C O N S T R U C T I O N F O R C L A I M S 1 AND 18 O F T H E ' 3 5 2 P A T E N T As noted above, the ' 3 5 2 patent relates to touchpad devices that can detect the presence o f two or more fingers or objects. The claims at issue include claims 1 and 18. Elantech did not see a need to construe those claims, as the claims language as written can be well understood. However, Defendant Synaptics, joined by Defendant Averatec, proposed many terms for construction and attempts to limit the claim language not to any particular embodiments in the specification o f the ' 3 5 2 patent but to peculiar meanings sponsored by Synaptics' expert and Synaptics' selective reading o f dictionary definitions. See DeBruine Decl., Ex. B (1t. CC Stmt). To respond to Synaptics' request for construction and to better assist the Court and the j u r y in infringement determination, E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e s claim c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t follow t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l a n g u a g e o f the claims and are entirely supported by the intrinsic evidence. The subject matter o f the claimed invention the '352 patent involves examining touch sensor information to identify two peak values with one lowest value therebetween and providing an indication in response to the identification. Claim 1 states (with the disputed terms underlined): Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 4 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 8 of 18 1 2 3 4 1. A m e t h o d f o r d e t e c t i n g t h e o p e r a t i v e c o u p l i n g o f m u l t i p l e f i n g e r s t o a t o u c h s e n s o r i n v o l v i n g t h e steps o f 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 first m a x i m a i n a signal c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a first finger, ( b ) i d e n t i f y a m i n i m a f o l l o w i n g t h e first m a x i m a , ( c) 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 t o a s e c o n d finger following said minima, and providing an indication o f t h e simultaneous presence o f t w o fingers i n r e s p o n s e t o identification o f said first a n d s e c o n d maxima. D e B r u i n e Decl., E x h . A ( ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t ) a t 16: 14-23. A s t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n will illustrate, t h e intrinsic e v i d e n c e c o m p l e t e l y s u p p o r t s E l a n t e c h 5 6 7 p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d b e l o w a n d t h e C o u r t s h o u l d c o n s t r u e t h e m accordingly. 8 9 A. " S c a n n i n g t h e Touch S e n s o r " M e a n s " 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 t h e Touch S e n s o r " E l a n t e c h ' s p r o p o s e d construction is b a s e d o n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e ' 3 5 2 patent, w h i c h discloses v a r i o u s m e t h o d s o f s c a n n i n g a n d p o i n t s o u t t h e flexibility o f u s i n g v a r i o u s t y p e s o f devices w i t h the c l a i m e d invention. I n contrast, S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d construction, " s e q u e n t i a l l y m e a s u r i n g t h e traces i n t h e t o u c h sensor," u n d u l y i m p o s e s a n a r r o w reading o f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 "sequentially m e a s u r i n g t h e t r a c e s " o n t h e s i m p l e t e r m o f " s c a n n i n g . " I n e s s e n c e , S y n a p t i c s i s asking the Court to disregard the broad teaching and multiple embodiments disclosed in the specification and construe t h e t e r m solely b a s e d o n Synpatics' selective reading o f dictionary definitions a n d S y n a p t i c s ' e x p e r t testimony. T h a t a p p r o a c h is clearly erroneous. 1) T h e I n t r i n s i c Evidence Expressly C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' P r o p o s e d C o n s t r u c t i o n o f " S e q u e n t i a l l y M e a s u r i n g t h e Traces . . ." 19 20 21 I n imposing the "sequentially measuring the traces . . . " limitation on "scanning," Synaptics f a i l e d t o c i t e t o a n y s p e c i f i c a t i o n d i s c l o s u r e t h a t u s e s s c a n n i n g i n s u c h l i m i t e d manner. D e B r u i n e D e c l . , E x . B a t E x . C, C l a i m T e r m 15. I n fact, t h e r e is n o n e . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t specification, " s c a n n i n g " refers t o t h e process o f e x a m i n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r i n f o r m a t i o n i n general - a p r o c e s s t h a t o c c u r s b e f o r e t h e f i n g e r - o r o b j e c t - i n d u c e d m a x i m a a n d m i n i m u m are i d e n t i f i e d . D e B r u i n e D e c l . , E x h . A ( ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t ) a t 6: 14-34. T h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n d o e s n o t l i m i t t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t o u c h s e n s o r i n f o r m a t i o n t o a n y p a r t i c u l a r s c a n n i n g t e c h n i q u e s o r s c a n n i n g devices. I d a t 2: 1827. A s s u c h , t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 5 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 9 of 18 1 T h e p a t e n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n e x p r e s s l y states t o u c h sensors " m a y b e s c a n n e d sequentially o r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 c o n c u r r e n t l y , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e h a r d w a r e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . " I d at 7 : 3 6 - 3 7 ( e m p h a s i s added). 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 also refers t o a r e l a t e d p a t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n e n t i t l e d " T o u c h P a d S e n s o r with S i m u l t a n e o u s Sensing" w h e n discussing a touchpad and part o f its operation. I d at 5: 19-28 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n m a k e s p e r f e c t l y c l e a r t o s k i l l e d a r t i s a n s t h a t s c a n n i n g n e e d n o t b e d o n e o n l y sequentially, i t m a y a l s o b e d o n e c o n c u r r e n t l y o r simultaneously. S y n a p t i c s is t h e r e f o r e a s k i n g t h e C o u r t t o c o m m i t t h e v e r y e r r o r i n t h a t t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t h a s c a u t i o n e d s h o u l d b e a v o i d e d - t h e " h e a v y r e l i a n c e o n t h e d i c t i o n a r y d i v o r c e d from t h e i n t r i n s i c evidence." Phillips at 1321. Such reliance "risks transforming the meaning o f the claim term to the artisan into the meaning o f the term in the abstract, out o f its particular context, which is the specification." I d T h e i n t r i n s i c evidence also contradicts t h e " m e a s u r i n g " portion o f S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d construction. T h e ' 3 52 patent specification states t h a t " ... the cycle begins by scanning the traces a n d m e a s u r i n g t h e c a p a c i t a n c e o n e a c h t r a c e . " I d a t 5 :60-61. S c a n n i n g a n d m e a s u r i n g a r e t h u s s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t operations. Since the c l a i m s r e f e r only t o " s c a n n i n g , " S y n a p t i c s ' a t t e m p t t o r e a d " m e a s u r i n g " i n t o t h e c l a i m d e f i n i t i o n o f " s c a n n i n g " is c o n t r a r y t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n . Finally, t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e a l s o c o n t r a d i c t s t h e i n c l u s i o n o f " t r a c e v a l u e s " i n E l a n t e c h ' s proposed construction. P a g e 3 o f A m e n d m e n t B dated April 6, 1998 o f the ' 3 5 2 prosecution history states that multiple fingers are detected by "detecting the multiple maxima in the [finger] profile on the touchpad." DeBruine Decl., Ex. C. A similar statement also appears on page 4 o f this amendment. I d This l a n g u a g e clearly supports E l a n t e c h ' s p r o p o s e d claim construction. T h e reference to " t r a c e values" in Synaptics' definition, on the other hand, finds n o support in the file history. 2) ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t Specification Describes " S c a n n i n g " as E x a m i n i n g o r P r o c e s s i n g T o u c h p a d I n f o r m a t i o n to I d e n t i f y F i n g e r P r e s e n c e As illustrated by the ' 3 5 2 patent specification and Figures 1 and 3 reproduced below, the t w o - f i n g e r p r e s e n c e may b e i d e n t i f i e d b y simply i d e n t i f y i n g t w o p e a k v a l u e s a n d one l o w e s t v a l u e 27 b e t w e e n t h e t w o p e a k values. 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 6 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 10 o f 18 1 2 3 4 FIG. I. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sensing the proximity o f multiple fingers to a touch sensor, as illustrated in Figure 1, "may be implemented based on any conventional touch sensing technology," such as capacitive, resistive, surface wave, strain, pressure, and optical sensing. DeBruine Decl., Exh. A ( ' 3 5 2 Patent) at 2: 1822, 1: 18-32. Accordingly, the specification does not limit the invention to any particular "scanning" but broadly recites that various technology may be used to obtain and examine touch sensor information. F o r example, scanning a touch sensor to identify the high and low values as illustrated in Figure 3 includes having "the values o f finger-induced capacitance . . . processed" to "detect whether one or more fingers is in operative contact" with a touchpad." I d at 6: 14-17. In addition, as discussed above, any method o f scanning, including concurrent or sequential scanning, is included in the patents use o f this term. 3) D i c t i o n a r y Definition f r o m E l a n t e c h a n d Synaptics Similarly C h a r a c t e r i z e s S c a n n i n g as E x a m i n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n a n d C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' Proposed Construction In addition to the specification, a dictionary cited by both Elantech and Synaptics also defines scanning as "the process o f examining information in a systematic manner." DeBruine Decl., Ex. D (The IEEE Standard Dictionary o f Electrical and Electronic Terms, 947 (6th Ed.)). However, despite the consistency from the specification and the dictionary, Synaptics seeks to impose a narrow reading o f "sequentially measuring" on the easy-to-understand term "scanning." DeBruine Decl., Ex. B at Ex. A, pg. 2. Synaptics' justification for its narrow reading does not come from the context o f the specification or similarly-consistent dictionary definition, but from Synaptics' expert testimony in combination with a dictionary definition o f " [ t ] o examine sequentially using a part-by-part technique." DeBruine Decl., Ex. C a t 5 (citing The Illustrated Dictionary o f Microcomputers, 345 (3rd Ed., 1998)). Furthermore, none o f the dictionary Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 7 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 11 o f 18 1 2 3 4 5 definitions e v e n e q u a t e s c a n n i n g w i t h " m e a s u r i n g . " D e B r u i n e Decl., Ex. B at Ex. E. Thus, Synaptics' attempt t o introduce t h e concepts o f " m e a s u r i n g " and " t r a c e values" into a process o f s c a n n i n g i s n o t e v e n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e i r a s s e r t e d d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n . Thus, S y n a p t i c s i s l e f t w i t h n o t h i n g b u t u n s u p p o r t e d t e s t i m o n y o f its e x p e r t t o s u p p o r t i t construction. B e c a u s e t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n is at o d d s w i t h t h e p a t e n t a n d o t h e r o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e , i t m u s t b e rejected. B. " 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 t o 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 F i r s t P e a k Value 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 t h e T o u c h Sensor" E l a n t e c h ' s p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n a b o v e is b a s e d o n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t , w h i c h r e f e r s t o F i g u r e s 3 a n d 4 b e l o w as e x a m p l e s o f f i n g e r p r o f i l e s a n d d e s c r i b e s d e t e c t i n g a f i r s t p e a k v a l u e i n t h e f i n g e r profile. I n contrast, S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " m e a s u r i n g t h e t r a c e v a l u e s o f t h e t o u c h s e n s o r c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a first f i n g e r a n d d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p o i n t at w h i c h the m e a s u r e d v a l u e s cease t o i n c r e a s e and b e g i n t o decrease" again i m p o s e s u n w a r r a n t e d r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d o v e r c o m p l i c a t e s a s i m p l e t e r m t h a t , as w r i t t e n , c a n b e e a s i l y u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e C o u r t a n d t h e jury. A g a i n , S y n a p t i c s is a s k i n g t h e C o u r t t o d i s r e g a r d t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e a n d construe t h e term solely b a s e d o n e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and S y n a p t i c s ' selective r e a d i n g o f a dictionary. 1) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 S k i l l e d A r t i s a n s W o u l d U n d e r s t a n d I d e n t i f y i n g a " F i r s t M a x i m a " as I d e n t i f y i n g a F i r s t P e a k Value A s i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n and F i g u r e s 3 a n d 4 r e p r o d u c e d below, t h e c l a i m e d " F i r s t M a x i m a " simply m e a n s a first p e a k value, w h i c h can b e d e r i v e d b y e x a m i n i n g a 20 f i n g e r profile. 21 22 23 24 25 85.:-:... 105J.. _ _ 1 110 - -_~OO_ - FIG. 3. FIG. 4. 26 I n d i s c u s s i n g a f i n g e r p r o f i l e i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t w o fingers, t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n 27 p r o v i d e s t h a t a circuitry, s o f t w a r e o r f i r m w a r e " d e t e c t s a first m a x i m a [sic] 85 i n d i c a t i v e o f a first 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 8 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 12 o f 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 finger in operative proximity to the touchpad . . . " DeBruine Decl., Exh. A ( ' 3 5 2 Patent) at 6:27-32. As illustrated in Figure 3, the " f i r s t maxima" as claimed, or more correctly (grammatically s p e a k i n g ) " f i r s t m a x i m u m , " simply m e a n s a f i r s t p e a k v a l u e , w h i c h e x i s t s i n a p e a k a r e a o f t h e finger profile and may be followed by a minima and another maxima. I d at Fig. 3, 6:27-38. Figure 4 similarly illustrates a first peak value 105, which is followed by a local minimum or lowest value a n d a s e c o n d p e a k v a l u e . I d at 6 : 3 9 - 4 7 . O t h e r p a r t s o f t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n also u s e t h e t e r m c o n s i s t e n t l y . Specifically, t h e specification uses X p e a k l - " a variable to store the value o f the f i r s t p e a k X value" to represent the first maximum when discussing one way o f computing or detecting finger presence. I d at 8:64. E v e n t h e v e r y d i c t i o n a r y S y n a p t i c s a n d its e x p e r t c i t e d t o s u p p o r t S y n a p t i c s ' n a r r o w r e a d i n g o f " f i r s t m a x i m a " offers o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e , w h i c h i n c l u d e " [ t ] h e g r e a t e s t v a l u e w h i c h a v a r i a b l e may h a v e " a n d " t h e h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e m a g n i t u d e o r q u a n t i t y o f something attained, attainable, or customary." DeBruine Decl., Ex. E (The N e w Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on History Principles, Volume 1, 1720 (1993)). 2) ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t Specification a n d P r o s e c u t i o n H i s t o r y Directly C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' Proposed Construction As illustrated by Figures 3 and 4 above, the signal corresponding to a first finger is illustrated as a finger profile - and the first curve at the left can be recognized as the finger profile 18 corresponding to a first finger. The specification provides that " a finger profile is shown indicative 19 o f the presence o f two fingers, spaced apart from one another" in one embodiment and similarly 20 uses " X PROFILE" and " Y PROFILE" in Figures 7B through 7F -2 to indicate the signals 21 c o r r e s p o n d t o o n e o r m o r e fingers. D e B r u i n e D e c l . , E x h . A ( ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t ) a t 6 : 2 6 - 2 8 . 22 Synaptics' seeks to construe " a first maxima" as " t h e point at which the measured values 23 cease to increase and begin to decrease." DeBruine Dec;. Ex. B at Exh. A, pg. 2. The Court should 24 rej ect it because the specification and prosecution history o f t h e ' 3 52 patent directly contradicts it. 25 Specifically, on page 8 o f Amendment A dated August 18, 1997, Applicants stated that claimed 26 m a x i m a are " p e a k s " a n d a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e c l a i m e d m a x i m a " c o u l d b e m a x i m u m n e g a t i v e l e v e l s , 27 or troughs, depending upon the circuitry used." DeBruine Decl., Ex. F. 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 9 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 13 o f 18 1 2 3 4 rIG 3. Upside-down version o f Figure 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Turning Figure 3 upside down solely as an illustrative example, a maximum negative level or trough, unlike a maximum positive level, may be near an area o f a curve where it previously decreases to a local low and later on starts to increase. In other words, the fact that a maximum could be a maximum negative level or negative peak directly contradicts Synaptics' construction as "the point at which the measured values cease to increase and begin to decrease," which only occurs when a finger profile remains positive. Therefore, Applicants own statements in the prosecution history contradict Synaptics' narrow reading o f the term "first maxima." Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 3, a finger profile may have a flat or nearly flat area at its local peak, which makes Synaptics construction o f "the p o i n t at which the measured values cease 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to increase a n d begin to decrease" inapplicable. F o r example, the first maximum 85 as illustrated in Figure 3 above may be the point at which values begin to decrease, but is first maximum 85 is also the point at which values ceases to increase. A point where values "cease to increase" occurs at an area to the left o f first maximum 85, which is o f the same level as first maximum 85. The values associated with the finger profile cease to increase at a point indicated by an arrow above, not at first maximum 85. The specification teaching therefore contradicts Synaptics' construction. Accordingly, the Court should adopt Elantech's construction and reject Synaptics' attempt to deviate from the specification and prosecution history and Synaptics' construction that is solely based on expert testimony and a selective reading o f Synaptics' cited dictionary. C. " I d e n t i f y a M i n i m a F o l l o w i n g t h e F i r s t M a x i m a " M e a n s " I d e n t i f y t h e L o w e s t Value i n t h e 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 t h e F i r s t P e a k Value, a n d b e f o r e A n o t h e r P e a k Value is I d e n t i f i e d " 26 27 28 F o r similar reasons, the Court should adopt Elantech's proposed construction as above and r e j e c t S y n a p t i c s ' construction, w h i c h c o n s t r u e s t h e phrase o f " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r to . . . Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 10 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 14 o f 18 1 2 3 4 identify a minima following the first maxima" as "measuring the trace values o f the touch sensor following, in scan order, after the first maxima and determining the point at which the measured values cease to decrease and begin to increase." 1) The Intrinsic Evidence Mandates Elantech's Proposed Construction 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 E l a n t e c h ' s construction is based on the meaning o f the term in the context o f the ' 3 5 2 patent, which refers to Figures 3 and 4 below as examples o f finger profiles. DeBruine Decl., Ex. A ( ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t ) at 4 : 5 5 - 5 9 . S k i l l e d a r t i s a n s w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i d e n t i f y i n g " a m i n i m a f o l l o w i n g t h e f i r s t maxima" as meaning identifying the lowest value in the finger profile that occurs after the first peak value and before another peak value is identified. As illustrated b y the ' 3 5 2 patent specification and Figures 3 and 4, the claimed "minima" s i m p l y m e a n s t h e l o w e s t v a l u e , w h i c h c a n b e d e r i v e d b y e x a m i n i n g a f i n g e r profile. T h e d i s p u t e d claim term should be read in the context o f claim 1, which recites among others "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) identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second 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 s p e c i f i c a t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a t a circuitry, s o f t w a r e o r f i r m w a r e "detects a first maxima [sic] 85 indicative o f a first finger in operative proximity to the touchpad 30, followed by a minima [sic] 90 indicative o f a space between the fingers, and further followed by another maxima [sic] 95 indicative o f a second finger operatively coupled to the touchpad 30." I d at 6:27-35. As illustrated in Figure 3 and the specification, the minimum 90 is the lowest value in the finger profile between the two peak values 85 and 95. Therefore, the claim term "identify a minima following the first maxima" can be properly construed as "identify the lowest value in the finger profile that occurs after the first peak value, and before another peak value is identified." Figure 4 similarly illustrates a local minimum 100 between two first peak values 105 and 110. I d at 6:42-45. 2) ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t Specification Specifically a n d D i r e c t l y C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' Proposed Construction Once again, the very dictionary Synaptics and its expert cited to support Synaptics' narrow r e a d i n g o f " m i n i m a " offers o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e , w h i c h i n c l u d e 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 11 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 15 o f 18 1 2 "[t]he least value which a variable or a function may have" and "the smallest amount or quantity possible, usual, attainable, etc." DeBruine Decl., Ex. E. Additionally, Synaptics' narrow reading o f "minima" as "the point at which the measured values cease to decrease and begin to increase" contradicts the specification's teaching o f maxima. 852\.. _ t 95 1051 _ _1'10 3 4 5 6 -_ ~oo_ - - 7 8 FIG. 9 rIG. 4. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, a finger profile may have a flat or nearly flat area at or near a local minimum, which makes Synaptics construction o f "the point at which the measured values cease to decrease and begin to increase" inapplicable. F o r example, the minimum 90 as illustrated in Figure 3 and disclosed in the specification is neither "the point at which the values begin to decrease" nor "the point at which . . . the values begin to increase." In fact, "the point at which the values begin to decrease" occurs not at minimum 90, but at an area to the left o f minimum 90, at which the curve level decrease to a level the same as that o f minimum 90. Likewise, "the point at which . . . the values begin to increase" occurs not at minimum 90, but at an area to the right o f minimum 90, at which the curve level begins to increase from a level the same as that o f minimum 90. The specification teaching therefore contradicts Synaptics' construction o f "minima." The specification also contradicts Synaptics' construction o f "measuring the trace values o f the touch sensor following, in scan order . . . . " DeBruine Decl., Ex. B. at Exh. A, pg. 2 (1t. C C Stmt). As discussed above, the specification discloses various touchpad devices and various scanning techniques, including both concurrent and sequential scanning, as part o f the invention. DeBruine Decl., Ex. A ( ' 3 5 2 Patent) at 7:36-37. The clear and unambiguous language o f the claim itself also imposes no particular scanning order limitation in contrast to Synaptics' narrow reading. Referring to Synaptics' proposed claim construction, it is unclear as to what it means to "measure trace values following, in scan order, after the first maxima ... " Specifically, it is not clear Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 12 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 16 o f 18 1 2 as to what i s f o l l o w i n g what. Since the purpose o f claim construction is to determine what a claim means to the person skilled in the art, a claim construction that adds confusion to this process s h o u l d n o t b e adopted. D. " 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 t o 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 " M e a n s " a f t e r I d e n t i f y i n g t h e L o w e s t Value i n t h e 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 Value i n t h e F i n g e r P r o f i l e " 3 4 5 6 F o r similar reasons as discussed u n d e r Section IV-B, the Court should adopt E l a n t e c h ' s proposed construction as above. First, skilled artisans would understand "second maxima" as being a second peak value from the discussion o f Figures 3 and 4, the second peak values 95 and 110 illustrated therein, and the use o f Xpeak2 as " a variable to store the value o f the second p e a k X 7 8 9 10 v a l u e . " I d at 6 : 2 6 - 4 7 , 9 : 4 . S e c o n d , t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e s t h e c l a i m e d " s i g n a l c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a second finger" as being a finger profile. Third, the specification illustration in Figures 3 and 4, as well as the Applicants' prosecution history statement regarding maxima, directly contradicts Synaptics' proposed construction o f reading "maxima" as " t h e point at which the measured values c e a s e t o d e c r e a s e and b e g i n t o i n c r e a s e . " Furthermore, Synaptics proposed construction o f this phrase suffers from the same c o n f u s i o n h i g h l i g h t e d a b o v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d " f o l l o w i n g " and t h u s s h o u l d n o t b e a d o p t e d f o r t h i s a d d i t i o n a l reason. E . M e a n s - P l u s - F u n c t i o n C l a i m E l e m e n t s U n d e r 3 5 U . S . c . 112 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In addition to claim 1, the parties also ask the Court to construe claim 18, which recites the two elements o f claim 1 using "means for" language. Claim 18 provides: 18. A touch sensor for detecting the operative coupling o f multiple fingers comprising: 22 23 24 25 means for 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, and (c) identify a second 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 m i n i m a , and means for providing an indication o f the simultaneous presence o f t w o f i n g e r s i n r e s p o n s e t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f said f i r s t a n d s e c o n d m a x i m a . I d at 1 7 : 2 7 - 3 7 . 26 27 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 13 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT D o c u m e n t 65 Filed 01/29/2007 P a g e 17 o f 18 1 2 3 4 T h e parties do n o t dispute t h a t b o t h elements should b e g o v e r n e d b y 35 U.S.C. 112, b u t ask t h e C o u r t t o resolve t w o issues: (1) t h e function o f " m e a n s for scanning . . . ;" and (2) t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e o f " m e a n s f o r p r o v i d i n g . . . . " D e B r u i n e D e c l . , Ex. B . 1) 5 6 T h e f u n c t i o n o f " M e a n s f o r S c a n n i n g t h e Touch S e n s o r . . . " is " 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 t h e Touch S e n s o r " Claim 18 shares the same " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h sensor" limitation as claim 1 discussed above. Therefore, t h e C o u r t should r e a c h t h e same construction for t h e reasons discussed u n d e r Section IV7 A. S y n a p t i c s ' again seeks t o impose t h e n a r r o w reading o f " s e q u e n t i a l l y m e a s u r i n g t h e traces i n t h e 8 t o u c h sensor" c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e i n t r i n s i c evidence. T h e C o u r t s h o u l d a d o p t E l a n t e c h ' s c l a i m 9 c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d n o t e r r t h r o u g h " h e a v y r e l i a n c e o n t h e d i c t i o n a r y d i v o r c e d from t h e i n t r i n s i c 10 e v i d e n c e . " P h i l l i p s a t 1321. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2) The Corresponding Structure of "Means for Providing an Indication of t h e S i m u l t a n e o u s P r e s e n c e o f Two F i n g e r s in R e s p o n s e to I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s a i d F i r s t a n d Second M a x i m a " is M i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60 T h e c l a i m e d " m e a n s " serves t o p r o v i d e t h e i n d i c a t i o n o f t w o - f i n g e r presence. T h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y p r o v i d e s t h a t m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60 r e c e i v e s t o u c h s e n s o r s i g n a l s a n d h a s its o u t p u t " s u p p l i e d t o a n i n t e r f a c e t o a P C o r o t h e r d e v i c e . . . . " ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t , 5:44-55. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C o u r t s h o u l d find t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e o f " m e a n s f o r p r o v i d i n g an indication . . . " as m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60, w h i c h is illustrated i n t h e specification and F i g u r e 2. v. CONCLUSION A s d i s c u s s e d above, E l a n t e c h ' s p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s for t h e d i s p u t e d t e r m s o f t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t f o l l o w t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l a n g u a g e o f t h e c l a i m s a n d are s u p p o r t e d b y t h e i n t r i n s i c evidence. I n c o n t r a s t , S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s l i m i t t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e n o t t o any p a r t i c u l a r embodiments in the specification o f the ' 3 5 2 patent b u t t o peculiar meanings sponsored b y S y n a p t i c s ' e x p e r t s u p p o r t e d only b y his s e l e c t i v e r e a d i n g o f d i c t i o n a r y definitions, a n a p p r o a c h s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d b y t h e F e d e r a l Circuit. N o e x p l i c i t o r d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s , o r d i s a v o w a l o r d i s c l a i m e r o f c l a i m s c o p e , a p p e a r s in e i t h e r t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t i t s e l f o r in i t s p r o s e c u t i o n h i s t o r y t h a t w o u l d w a r r a n t t h e u n d u l y n a r r o w c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n s p r o p o s e d b y Synaptics. Accordingly, 26 27 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 14 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 65 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 18 o f 18 1 E l a n t e c h r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e C o u r t a d o p t i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n s and r e j e c t t h o s e o f f e r e d b y Synaptics. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 A K I N G U M P STRAUSS H A U E R & F E L D L L P By: /s/ SEAN P. D E B R U I N E A t t o r n e y F o r P l a i n t i f f and C o u n t e r d e f e n d a n t E L A N T E C H D E V I C E S CORPORATION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB 15

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?