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 F

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 1 of 17

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 ) M i n g - T a o Yang ( S B N 2 2 1 2 9 5 ) ( m y a n g @ a k i n g u m p . c o m ) Hsin-Yi Cindy F e n g ( S B N 215152)([e-mail]) AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 3 0 0 0 EI C a m i n o R e a l Two P a l o A l t o Square, Suite 4 0 0 P a l o Alto, C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 3 0 6 Telephone: [phone] 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. S Y N A P T I C S , INC. a n d 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 REPLY ) 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 Reply 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 78

Filed 02/21/2007

P a g e 2 o f 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. II. INTRODUCTION 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 .2

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)

T h e I n t r i n s i c E v i d e n c e D e s c r i b e s " S c a n n i n g " as Examining or Processing Touchpad Information to Identify F i n g e r Presence, which t h e Dictionary Definition also S u p p o r t s The Prosecution History of '352 Patent Directly Contradicts Synaptics' Narrow Reading The Claim Term of "Following" Merely Indicates Relevant L o c a t i o n o f t h e Two M a x i m a a n d O n e M i n i m u m a n d C o n n o t e s No S e q u e n c e o f A s s i g n i n g

3
.4

2) 3)

5

12
13

B.

" F i r s t M a x i m a , " " M i n i m a , " and " S e c o n d M a x i m a " C a n b e Properly and R e s p e c t i v e l y C o n s t r u e d as " F i r s t P e a k V a l u e , " " L o w e s t V a l u e , " a n d " S e c o n d P e a k Value" i n C o r r e s p o n d i n g F i n g e r P r o f i l e s

5

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. C. D.

1) 2)

S y n a p t i c s Uses t h e T e r m s " M a x i m a " a n d " P e a k s " Consistently with Elantech's Proposed Construction S y n a p t i c s F a i l e d t o A d d r e s s Two M a i n F l a w s o f I t s Proposed Construction: Direct Contradictions by Specification Teachings a n d P r o s e c u t i o n H i s t o r y The Claim Term of "Following" Merely Indicates Relevant L o c a t i o n o f t h e Two M a x i m a a n d O n e M i n i m u m a n d C o n n o t e s No P a r t i c u l a r S c a n n i n g O r d e r S y n a p t i c s ' R e l i a n c e o n C l a i m D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n P r i n c i p l e is Misplaced

6

8

3)

11 11 12

4)

T h e P a t e n t C l e a r l y D i s c l o s e s M i c r o p r o c e s s o r 6 0 as t h e S t r u c t u r e C o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e " M e a n s for I n d i c a t i n g " T h e S y n a p t i c s ' M i s l e a d i n g Statements R e g a r d i n g Its O w n P a t e n t ' s Priority O v e r ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t and the ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t ' s P r o s e c u t i o n History Should b e Ignored

13 13

CONCLUSION

Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for

CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB

U.S. P a t e n t No. 5,825,352

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 3 of 17

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
M a r k m a n v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
52 F.3d 9 6 7 , 9 8 1 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en bane), a f f ' d , 517 U.S. 370 (1996) 3

2

3
4

5
6 7 8

Tandon Corp. v. United States International Trade Comm 'n
831 F.2d 1017, 1023-24 (Fed. Cir. 1987) 11

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 3

9
10
11

OTHER AUTHORITIES
The I E E E Standard Dictionary o f Electrical and Electronic Terms, 947 (6th Ed.) 4

12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11

Elantech's Opening Claim Construction Brief for

CASE NO. 3:06-CV-Ol839 CRB

U.S. P a t e n t No. 5,825,352

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 4 of 17

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I.

INTRODUCTION
T h e C o u r t n e e d only r e s o l v e t w o p r i m a r y claim c o n s t r u c t i o n q u e s t i o n s f o r E l a n t e c h ' s U n i t e d

S t a t e s P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 ( " t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t , , ) l . T h e y a r e ( 1 ) w h e t h e r t h e s i m p l e t e r m o f "scanning" should, as proposed by Synaptics, b e construed as "measuring traces" and "assigning t h e m t o a s e q u e n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r p h y s i c a l o r d e r . . . " solely b a s e d on e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y w h e n no intrinsic record supports such a narrow reading; and (2) w h e t h e r the easy-to-understand terms o f " m a x i m a " and " m i n i m a " should, as proposed by Synaptics, b e redefined respectively as " t h e p o i n t at w h i c h t h e m e a s u r e d v a l u e s c e a s e t o i n c r e a s e a n d b e g i n t o d e c r e a s e " a n d " t h e p o i n t at w h i c h t h e m e a s u r e d v a l u e s 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 " w h e n t h e t e a c h i n g s and d r a w i n g s from t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t S y n a p t i c s ' r e - d e f i n i n g o f t h o s e t e r m s . U n d e r the Federal Circuit case law, " n o " is the only answer to both questions. Synaptics' and its e x p e r t ' s overly complicated reading o f the simple term o f "scanning," " m i n i m a " and " m a x i m a " v i o l a t e s f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s o f c l a i m construction. The claim c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s m u s t r e m a i n f o c u s e d on h o w t h e p a t e n t e e u s e d t h e c l a i m t e r m i n t h e claims, s p e c i f i c a t i o n , and p r o s e c u t i o n h i s t o r y - n o t h o w a n e x p e r t d e f i n e s t h e term. I n d e e d , e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y m u s t b e v i e w e d as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining h o w to read claim terms.
II.

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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 O F T H E ' 3 5 2 P A T E N T
S y n a p t i c s ' a t t e m p t s t o a l t e r t h e c l a i m s o f t h e ' 552 p a t e n t u s i n g e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y s h o u l d b e

rejected, a n d t h e claim t e r m s s h o u l d b e g i v e n t h e i r o r d i n a r y meaning. T h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t r e l a t e s t o touchpad devices that can detect the presence o f t w o or more fingers (or other obj ects). The i n v e n t i o n o f c l a i m 1 is s i m p l y a m e t h o d o f e x a m i n i n g t o u c h s e n s o r i n f o r m a t i o n t o i d e n t i f y t w o p e a k values with one lowest value in between to determine the presence o f t w o fingers, and providing an indication in response to t h a t identification. Claim 18 also contains similar limitations b u t is directed to an apparatus for detecting t w o fingers. The claim language as written in both claims, a l o n g w i t h t h e i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d , m a k e s i t c l e a r t h a t t h e c l a i m e d m e t h o d for d e t e c t i n g a m u l t i - f i n g e r presence does not require any particular order or manner o f scanning, or any particular nature o f the
1 The ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t is in t h e r e c o r d as E x h i b i t A t o t h e January 29, 2 0 0 7 D e c l a r a t i o n o f Sean P. D e B r u i n e ( " D e B r u i n e Decl.").

26
27 28

1
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 5 of 17

1

first a n d s e c o n d m a x i m a a n d t h e m i n i m u m b e t w e e n them. E l a n t e c h b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s e c l a i m s are clear, a n d could b e u n d e r s t o o d b y the j u r y on t h e i r face. To assist t h e j u r y and t o respond t o S y n a p t i c s ' r e q u e s t for p r o v i d i n g c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n s , E l a n t e c h p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t are b a s e d o n t h e i n t r i n s i c r e c o r d , n o t an e x p e r t ' s 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 i e s a n d c o n s t a n t l y e v o l v i n g definitions. I n c o n t r a s t , 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 t u m t h e s i m p l e w o r d s o f " s c a n n i n g , " " m a x i m a , " a n d " m i n i m a " i n t o p e c u l i a r d e f i n i t i o n s t h a t are n o t l i k e l y t o b e d e c i p h e r a b l e b y t h e j u r y a n d are i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e patent.

2
3
4

5
6

7
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 "
A s E l a n t e c h ' s O p e n i n g B r i e f e x p l a i n e d , its c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " s c a n n i n g " 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 a n d s h o u l d b e a d o p t e d b e c a u s e (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 c o n t r a d i c t s S y n a p t i c s ' initial 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 . . . ;" (2) t h e ' 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 t o i d e n t i f y f i n g e r p r e s e n c e ; a n d (3) t h e d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s f r o m E l a n t e c h and Synaptics similarly characterize scanning 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 ontr a dic t S y n a p t i c s ' initial construction. R a t h e r t h a n c o n c e d e t h a t i t s i n i t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n w a s i m p r o p e r , S y n a p t i c s n o w p r o p o s e s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s term: " m e a s u r i n g t h e 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 t o a s e q u e n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r physical order on t h e t o u c h sensor." S y n a p t i c s ' Opp. a t 3,
211212007 Wolfe Dec!. at 4. However, this re-ordering o f t h e w o r d s does n o t c h a n g e t h e effect.

10
11

12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

S y n a p t i c s i s still a t t e m p t i n g t o i m p o s e t h e a d d i t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n o f a s e q u e n c e . T h a t r e a d i n g i s still c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e p a t e n t w h i c h says a scan m a y b e sequential o r concurrent. ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t a t 7 : 3 6 40. Thus, S y n a p t i c s ' n e w construction u n d u l y i m p o s e s a n a r r o w reading o f t h e simple term o f " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h sensors" f o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n s E l a n t e c h has p r e v i o u s l y discussed. I n essence, 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 b r o a d t e a c h i n g a n d m u l t i p l e e m b o d i m e n t s d i s c l o s e d i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d c o n s t r u e t h e t e r m b a s e d s o l e l y o n S y n a p t i c s ' e x p e r t testimony. T h e only s p e c i f i c a t i o n l a n g u a g e c i t e d b y S y n a p t i c s does n o t e v e n s u p p o r t its position. I t m e r e l y says t h a t " [ t ] h e scan p r o c e s s m e a s u r e s t h e v a l u e s o f f i n g e r - i n d u c e d c a p a c i t a n c e f o r e a c h o f
2
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 6 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13

the conductors, and stores the values in R A M . . . . " Synaptics' Opp. at 4. Synaptics identified no instance where its proposed construction o f "assigning [the measured traces] to a sequence corresponding to their physical order on the touch sensor" can be found in the '352 patent specification or prosecution history. The only support for Synaptics' position is the allegedly "uncontested testimony o f Dr. Wolfe," the same expert who was forced to re-write his construction o f this term after Elantech pointed out that it contradicted the patent disclosure. Synaptics Opp. at
5,211212007 Wolfe Dec!. at 4. Again, the sentence immediately preceding the passage relied on by

Synaptics states that touch sensors "may be scanned sequentially o r concurrently, depending on the hardware implementation." ' 3 5 2 patent at 7:36-37 (emphasis added). In other words, i f the scanning as claimed required a separate "assigning" operation as Synaptics suggested, a concurrent scanning would not necessarily result in assigning scanning results to any particular sequence. Synaptics' attempt to vary the meaning o f claim term based solely on expert testimony should be rejected. Indeed, extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, "is to be used for the c o u r t ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e patent, n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f v a r y i n g o r c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e t e r m s o f t h e claims." M a r k m a n v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 9 6 7 , 9 8 1 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Additionally, the Federal Circuit has held that construing a claim to exclude a preferred embodiment " i s rarely, i f ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Synaptics fails to offer any evidentiary support to justify its proposed attention o f the claim language.
1)

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

T h e I n t r i n s i c E v i d e n c e 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 Processing 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 Presence, w h i c h t h e D i c t i o n a r y D e f i n i t i o n also S u p p o r t s

As illustrated by the '352 patent specification and Figures 1 and 3 reproduced below, the two-finger presence may be identified by simply identifying two peak values and one lowest value between the two peak values.
85.:::-.....

FIG. L

3
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 7 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Sensing the proximity o f multiple fingers to a touch sensor, as illustrated in Figure 1, " m a y be implemented based on any conventional touch sensing technology," such as capacitive, resistive, surface wave, strain, pressure, and optical sensing. ' 3 5 2 patent at 2: 18-22, 1: 18-32. Accordingly, the specification does not limit the invention to any particular "scanning." F o r example, scanning a touch sensor to identify the high and l o w values as illustrated in Figure 3 includes having " t h e values o f finger-induced capacitance . . . processed" to " d e t e c t whether one or more fingers is in operative contact" with a touchpad. I d at 6: 14-17. In addition to the specification, an authoritative dictionary cited by both Elantech and Synaptics also defines scanning as " t h e 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 E d . ) ) . H o w e v e r , d e s p i t e t h e c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d t h e m o s t r e l e v a n t dictionary, S y n a p t i c s s e e k s t o i m p o s e a n a r r o w r e a d i n g o f " m e a s u r i n g t h e t r a c e s " and " a s s i g n i n g t h e m t o a s e q u e n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r p h y s i c a l o r d e r . . . " on t h e e a s y - t o - u n d e r s t a n d t e r m " s c a n n i n g . " Synaptics' Opp. at 3. Synaptics' only justification for its peculiar definition is its expert's selfserving testimony in combination with two other dictionary definitions not aligned with the intrinsic record. 211212007 Wolfe Decl. at 5. None o f those definitions equates scanning with "measuring."

I d Thus, Synaptics is left with nothing b u t unsupported testimony o f its expert to support it
construction. 2)

T h e Prosecution H i s t o r y o f '352 P a t e n t Directly C o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' Na r r o w R e a d i n g

In addition to the lack o f support from the ' 3 5 2 specification and file history, Synaptics' t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f a s i n g l e t e r m o f " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r " i n t o t w o s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t 22 l i m i t a t i o n s o f " m e a s u r i n g t h e t r a c e s in t h e t o u c h sensor" a n d " a s s i g n i n g t h e m t o a s e q u e n c e 23 corresponding to their physical order on the touch sensor" is directly contradicted by the 24 prosecution history. Synaptics' Opp. at 3. Specifically, the file history contradicts the inclusion o f 25 " t r a c e v a l u e s " i n 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 . The p r o s e c u t i o n h i s t o r y s t a t e s t h a t m u l t i p l e 26 fingers are detected by "detecting the multiple maxima in the [finger] profile on the touchpad," not 27 by measuring the traces as narrowly defined by Synaptics. DeBruine Decl., Ex. C a t 3 , 4 . (Amd. B, 28
4
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 8 of 17

1 2 3 4
5
6

April 6, 1998.) This language clearly supports E l a n t e c h ' s proposed construction that " s c a n n i n g the t o u c h 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 t o u c h sensor." T h e r e f e r e n c e t o " t r a c e v a l u e s " a n d " a s s i g n i n g t h e m t o a sequence c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r physical o r d e r . . . " in Synaptics' definition, on the other hand, finds no support in the file history.

3)

The Claim Term of "Following" Merely Indicates Relevant Location of t h e Two M a x i m a a n d O n e M i n i m u m a n d C o n n o t e s N o S e q u e n c e o f Assigning

7
8
9

T h e u s e o f t h e term " f o l l o w i n g " according t o t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e i t s e l f merely e x p l a i n s t h e r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s o f t h e m a x i m a a n d m i n i m u m , as h a v 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 m a x i m a " and " a second maxima . . . f o l l o w i n g said minima." ' 3 5 2 patent at 16: 17-20. Synaptics nevertheless argues t h a t t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e o f " f o l l o w i n g " requires t h e r e t o b e " a n o r d e r e d s e q u e n c e " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the claimed " s c a n n i n g " and therefore " s c a n n i n g " requires " a s s i g n i n g the measured trace values from t h e t o u c h s e n s o r t o a s e q u e n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r p h y s i c a l o r d e r o n t h e t o u c h s e n s o r . " Synaptics' Opp at 7. Synaptics provides no intrinsic evidence to support this position b u t relies solely on its expert declaration. I d In fact, there is no intrinsic evidence to support this argument. I n e s s e n c e , S y n a p t i c s is a s k i n g t h e C o u r t n o t t o f o l l o w t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e i t s e l f o r t h e i n t r i n s i c record b u t to rewrite the claim so the term "following" is somehow connected to a remotely located t e r m o f " s c a n n i n g . " S y n a p t i c s r e l i e d on t h a t a t t e n u a t e d c o n n e c t i o n t o t r a n s f o r m t h e t e r m " s c a n n i n g " i n t o " m e a s u r i n g t h e t r a c e s " a n d " a s s i g n i n g t h e m t o a s e q u e n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r physical o r d e r " T h e C o u r t s h o u l d r e j e c t S y n a p t i c s ' a t t e m p t s t o r e w r i t e t h e claims. B. " F i r s t M a x i m a , " " M i n i m a , " a n d " S e c o n d M a x i m a " C a n b e P r o p e r l y a n d R e s p e c t i v e l y C o n s t r u e d as " F i r s t P e a k V a l u e , " " L o w e s t V a l u e , " a n d " S e c o n d P e a k Value" in C o r r e s p o n d i n g F i n g e r Profiles T h e t h r e e c l a i m p h r a s e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e m a x i m a a n d m i n i m a l i m i t a t i o n s are s i m i l a r a n d c a n b e discussed jointly. Elantech proposed three parallel constructions: (1) " s c a n n i n g the touch sensor t o . . . 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 f i r s t 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 from s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r ; " (2) " 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 " m e a n s " i d e n t i f y t h e l o w e s t v a l u e 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 v a l u e , a n d b e f o r e a n o t h e r p e a k v a l u e is i d e n t i f i e d ; " a n d ( 3 ) " i d e n t i f y a s e c o n d m a x i m a i n a

10
11

12
13

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

5
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 9 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

signal 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 v a l u e 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 v a l u e in t h e f i n g e r p r o f i l e . " A s E l a n t e c h ' s O p e n i n g B r i e f e x p l a i n e d , E l a n t e c h ' s 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 a n d s h o u l d b e a d o p t e d b e c a u s e (1) s k i l l e d artisans w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h e " m a x i m a " and " m i n i m a " t e r m s as E l a n t e c h ' s p r o p o s e d construction; (2) 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 a n d p r o s e c u t i o n h i s t o r y s u p p o r t E l a n t e c h ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n ; (3) t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t specification and p r o s e c u t i o n history directly c o n t r a d i c t S y n a p t i c s ' proposals. A s p a r t o f S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s a l s , m a x i m a is d e f i n e d as " 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 v a l u e s c e a s e t o i n c r e a s e and b e g i n to decrease" and m i n i m a is defined as " 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 c e a s e t o d e c r e a s e a n d b e g i n t o i n c r e a s e " solely b a s e d o n e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y a n d 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. T h o s e d e f i n i t i o n s a g a i n i m p o s e 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 t h e c l a i m e d " m a x i m a " a n d " m i n i m a " terms that, as written, can b e easily 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 c o n s t r u e t h e t e r m s o l e l y b a s e d o n e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y a n d S y n a p t i c s ' s e l e c t i v e r e a d i n g o f a dictionary.
1)

S y n a p t i c s Uses t h e T e r m s " M a x i m a " a n d " P e a k s " C o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h Elantech's Proposed Construction

T h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t specification a n d F i g u r e s 3 and 4 r e p r o d u c e d b e l o w b o t h s u g g e s t t h a t t h e c l a i m e d " f i r s t m a x i m a " s i m p l y m e a n s a first p e a k value, 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 18 f i n g e r profile. 19 20 21 22 23 24 A s illustrated i n F i g u r e 3, t h e " f i r s t m a x i m a " as claimed, o r m o r e correctly (grammatically 25 speaking) " f i r s t m a x i m u m , " simply m e a n s a first p e a k v a l u e 85, w h i c h exists i n a p e a k area o f t h e 26 f i n g e r p r o f i l e a n d m a y b e f o l l o w e d b y a m i n i m u m o r l o w e s t v a l u e 90 a n d a n o t h e r m a x i m u m o r 27 second p e a k v a l u e 95. ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t at Fig. 3, 6:27-38. F i g u r e 4 similarly illustrates a first p e a k v a l u e 28
6
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

852\..

105J.. _

_ 1 110
-

-_~OO_ -

FIG.

3.

FIG. 4

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 10 o f 17

1 2

105, which is followed by a local minimum or lowest value 100 and a second p e a k value 110. I d at 6:39-47. The specification's use o f X p e a k l as a "variable to store the value o f the f i r s t p e a k X

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

v a l u e " a n d X p e a k 2 as a " v a r i a b l e t o s t o r e t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e c o n d p e a k X v a l u e . " a l s o s u g g e s t s t h e
consistent use o f a local p e a k to represent a maximum. I d at 8:64, 9:4. Therefore, 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 o f t h e claim t e r m " s c a n n i n g t h e t o u c h s e n s o r t o . . . identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger" as "identify a first peak 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 from 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 a s i m i l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h e c l a i m t e r m o f " 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 " is fully s u p p o r t e d b y the i n t r i n s i c evidence. Indeed, S y n a p t i c s ' o w n s t a t e m e n t s i n its O p p o s i t i o n B r i e f m a k e i t c l e a r t h a t a m a x i m u m i s g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d as a p e a k a n d t h e t w o t e r m s o f m a x i m u m a n d p e a k a r e u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . Specifically, S y n a p t i c s s t a t e d t h a t o t h e r t h a n M o u n t E v e r e s t , " e v e r y o t h e r ' p e a k ' or ' p l a t e a u ' around M o u n t Everest, or anywhere else, is a ' l o c a l ' m a x i m u m . " Synaptics Opp. at 8 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) T h e r e f o r e , E l a n t e c h and S y n a p t i c s a p p e a r t o b e i n a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e " f i r s t maxima" can b e ordinarily and appropriately defined as a " f i r s t peak" or a "first p e a k value." D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t S y n a p t i c s u s e s t h e t e r m s " m a x i m u m " and " p e a k " i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y , it n e v e r t h e l e s s c h a l l e n g e d E l a n t e c h ' s p o s i t i o n n o t b y t a k i n g on 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 , b u t by redefining " f i r s t peak value" or " s e c o n d peak value" as a "global peak" and then arguing that a d e f i n i t i o n o f " m a x i m a " as " g l o b a l p e a k " i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p l u r a l m a x i m a i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e ' 3 5 2 patent. I d at 11. Synaptics' self-serving redefinition o f E l a n t e c h ' s proposed construction is n o t acceptable. N o w h e r e i n 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 d o e s i t u s e t h e t e r m " g l o b a l " o r c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " f i r s t p e a k v a l u e " o r " s e c o n d p e a k v a l u e " as a g l o b a l p e a k v a l u e . I n d e e d , 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 o f " f i r s t m a x i m a " as " f i r s t p e a k v a l u e " a n d " s e c o n d maxima" as " s e c o n d peak value" show that there are at least t w o p e a k values as required by the plain language o f the claims, and that E l a n t e c h ' s constructions do not require a single, global peak value. DeBruine Decl., Ex. B (1t. CC Stmt.) at Ex. C, Claim Terms 16 and 18. Therefore, Synaptics' attacks on E l a n t e c h ' s proposed construction are meritless. In fact, the Court need not c o n s i d e r t h o s e attacks, b e c a u s e S y n a p t i c s ' o w n s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t p e a k s d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t S y n a p t i c s ' 7
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 11 o f 17

1 2 3
4

o w n u s e o f t h e s a m e w o r d does n o t l i m i t a " p e a k " to a global p e a k and a l l o w s m u l t i p l e p e a k s to coexist. Synaptics Opp. a t 8. ( O t h e r t h a n M o u n t Everest, "every other ' p e a k ' o r ' p l a t e a u ' around M o u n t E v e r e s t , o r a n y w h e r e else, i s a ' l o c a l ' m a x i m u m . " ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 2)

5

S y n a p t i c s F a i l e d to A d d r e s s Two M a i n Flaws o f I t s P r o p o s e d C o n s t r u c t i o n : D i r e c t C o n t r a d i c t i o n s by S p e c i f i c a t i o n T e a c h i n g s a n d Prosecution History

6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13

E l a n t e c h , i n its O p e n i n g Brief, d i s c u s s e d w h y 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 touch se nsor c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a first finger and determining the

p o i n t a t which the m e a s u r e d values cease to increase a n d begin to decrease" and Synaptics' similar
d e f i n i t i o n f o r t h e s e c o n d m a x i m a i m p o s e u n w a r r a n t e d r e s t r i c t i o n s and a r e d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n , t h e d r a w i n g s , a n d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n history. E l a n t e c h u s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d r a w i n g s t o illustrate t w o m a i n flaws o f S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d construction.

85~

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

FIG.

3.

Upside-down version o f Figure 3

First, t h e first m a x i m u m 85 as illustrated i n F i g u r e 3 m a y b e t h e p o i n t at w h i c h v a l u e s begin

to decrease, b u t n o t the p o i n t at w h i c h v a l u e s cease to increase, w h i c h occurs at a separate location,
i.e., a p o i n t t o t h e l e f t o f first m a x i m u m 85 and o f t h e same level as first m a x i m u m 85. Similarly, t h e second m a x i m u m 95 m a y b e t h e p o i n t at w h i c h v a l u e s begin to decrease, b u t n o t t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h v a l u e s cease to increase, w h i c h occurs at a separate location, i.e., a p o i n t t o t h e l e f t o f second m a x i m u m 95 and o f t h e same level as second m a x i m u m 95. S y n a p t i c s ' definition o f t h e c l a i m e d " m i n i m a " as " 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 v a l u e s c e a s e t o d e c r e a s e a n d b e g i n t o i n c r e a s e " is also flawed for t h e s a m e r e a s o n - t h e m i n i m u m 90 as illustrated i n Fig. 3 simply does n o t qualify. Second, t h e f a c t t h a t a m a x i m u m c o u l d b e a m a x i m u m n e g a t i v e level o r a n e g a t i v e p e a k d i r e c t l y contradicts S y n a p t i c s ' construction as " 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
8
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

26
27 28

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 12 o f 17

1 2 3 4

b e g i n t o d e c r e a s e , " w h i c h only o c c u r s w h e n a f i n g e r p r o f i l e r e m a i n s p o s i t i v e a n d does n o t o c c u r a t n e g a t i v e p e a k s f o r a f i n g e r p r o f i l e h a v i n g t w o n e g a t i v e m a x i m a o r peaks. Synaptics failed to provide any response regarding the first flaw, because Synaptics' definition o f " f i r s t maxima" as a single point " a t which the measured values cease to increase a n d

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

begin to decrease" is clearly not reconcilable with the teachings in the specification and the
drawings. The very specific "point" as required by Synaptics' proposed construction, which is b a s e d n o t o n t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e b u t o n a s e l e c t e d d e f i n i t i o n from m a n y d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s , simply does not exist in the embodiments as illustrated by the drawings o f the ' 3 5 2 patent. Indeed, neither point 85 nor point 95 qualifies as a maximum u n d e r Synaptics' construction, b u t they both are m a x i m a a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n . ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t at 6 : 2 9 - 3 5 . Synaptics appeared to j u s t i f y its construction using the algorithm in Fig. 6-1. Synaptics' Opp. at 9-10. However, the algorithm in Fig. 6-1, which Synaptics characterized as "exactly c o r r e s p o n d [ i n g ] " t o S y n a p t i c s ' definition, does n o t m a t c h o r c o r r e s p o n d t o S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d construction at all. I d F o r example, as the portion o f Fig. 6-1 b e l o w illustrates, in identifying a first m a x i m u m o r first p e a k v a l u e X p e a k i n t h e specific e m b o d i m e n t t h a t S y n a p t i c s r e l i e d upon, t h e algorithm identifies Xpeak only as a p e a k value that occurs before the value stops increasing, i.e., w h e r e X ( N ) is n o l o n g e r l a r g e r t h a n X ( N - l ) .

Portion o f Fig. 6-1 o f ' 3 5 2 patent Accordingly, e v e n w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c and n a r r o w i n g e m b o d i m e n t S y n a p t i c s i d e n t i f i e d t o s u p p o r t its position, t h e a l g o r i t h m d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a p o i n t " a t w h i c h t h e m e a s u r e d v a l u e s c e a s e t o i n c r e a s e a n d begin to decrease." The algorithm therefore does not, as presented by Synaptics, " e x a c t l y correspond" to Synaptics' proposed construction o f " m e a s u r i n g the trace values o f the touch sensor corresponding to a first finger and determining the p o i n t a t which the m e a s u r e d values

9
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 13 o f 17

1 2 3 4

cease to increase a n d begin to decrease." DeBruine Decl., Ex. B at Ex. C, Claim Term 16 (1t. CC
Stmt.) As another example, referring to a different portion o f Fig. 6-1 reproduced below, in identifying a minimum or lowest value Xvalley, the algorithm identifies Xvalley only as a lowest

5
6 7
8
9

value that occurs when the value starts to increase, i.e. where X(N) is no longer equal to or smaller
than X ( N - l ) . ' 3 5 2 patent, Fig. 6-1.

./'

10 11

Another Portion o f Fig. 6-1 o f ' 3 5 2 patent Again, the algorithm does not require a point " a t w h i c h the measured values cease to

12
13 14

decrease a n d begin to increase." The algorithm does not, as presented by Synaptics, "exactly
correspond" to Synaptics' proposed construction o f " m e a s u r i n g the trace values o f the touch sensor following, in scan order, after the first maxima and determining the p o i n t a t which the measured

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

values cease to decrease a n d begin to increase." DeBruine Decl., Ex. B at Ex. C, Claim Term 17
(1t. CC Stmt.) R e g a r d i n g t h e s e c o n d f l a w E l a n t e c h identified, S y n a p t i c s ' r e s p o n s e w a s t h a t " t h e ' m a x i m a ' and ' m i n i m a ' c o u l d b e n e g a t i v e ' m a x i m a ' a n d ' m i n i m a ' and S y n a p t i c s ' p r o p o s e d d e f i n i t i o n s b e c o m e applicable w h e n a signal is examined using its "absolute value." Synaptics' Opp. at 10, 211212007 W o l f D e c i . at 14. However, Synaptics' proposed construction o f " m a x i m a " as " t h e point at which the measured values cease to increase a n d begin to decrease," with or without Synaptics' further explanation, simply does not apply to a negative maximum as illustrated above. A negative m a x i m u m is a t b e s t a p o i n t w h e r e t h e m e a s u r e d v a l u e s " c e a s e t o d e c r e a s e a n d b e g i n t o i n c r e a s e . " T h e f a c t t h a t a m a x i m u m c o u l d b e a m a x i m u m n e g a t i v e level o r n e g a t i v e p e a k directly c o n t r a d i c t s Synaptics' construction as " t h e point at w h i c h the measured values cease to increase and begin to d e c r e a s e , " w h i c h only o c c u r s w h e n a f i n g e r p r o f i l e r e m a i n s positive. I n contrast, E l a n t e c h ' s proposed constructions o f " f i r s t maxima" as " f i r s t peak value" and " s e c o n d maxima" as " s e c o n d 10
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 14 o f 17

1 2 3
4

p e a k v a l u e " are e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e p e a k s w i t h o u t t h e n e e d f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . I n d e e d , S y n a p t i c s ' e x p e r t c o n c e d e d t h a t 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 is " c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the i n v e n t o r s ' statement during prosecution." 2/12/2007 W o l f Decl. at 15.

3)

5

The Claim Term of "Following" Merely Indicates Relevant Location of t h e Two M a x i m a a n d O n e M i n i m u m a n d C o n n o t e s N o P a r t i c u l a r Scanning Order

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

As d i s c u s s e d u n d e r Section II-A-(3), t h e u s e o f t h e t e r m " f o l l o w i n g " a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e i t s e l f m e r e l y e x p l a i n s t h e r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s o f t h e m a x i m a a n d m i n i m u m , as h a v i n g " 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 " and " a s e c o n d m a x i m a . . . f o l l o w i n g said m i n i m a . " D e B r u i n e Decl., Ex. A a t 16: 17-20 ( ' 3 5 2 patent). Synaptics again argued t h a t the claim language o f " f o l l o w i n g " r e q u i r e s t h e r e t o b e a " s c a n o r d e r " w h e n t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e i t s e l f h a s none. S y n a p t i c s ' Opp. at 12. The C o u r t should reject Synaptics' attempts t o rewrite the claims for similar reasons d i s c u s s e d u n d e r S e c t i o n II-A-(3). F u r t h e r m o r e , the ' 3 5 2 s p e c i f i c a t i o n m a k e s i t c l e a r t h a t t h e t o u c h s e n s o r m a y b e c o n c u r r e n t l y s c a n n e d and t h e f i n g e r - i n d u c e d c a p a c i t a n c e v a l u e s c a n t h e n b e l o a d e d i n t o a memory. ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t a t 7 : 3 4 - 4 0 . Then, t h e m a x i m a a n d m i n i m a c a n b e i d e n t i f i e d . I d a t 6: 14-37. Accordingly, the specification descriptions require no particular o r d e r and suggest t h a t t h o s e v a l u e s m a y b e o b t a i n e d c o n c u r r e n t l y , r a t h e r t h a n sequentially. T h e c l a i m i t s e l f a n d t h e specification therefore do n o t require any " s c a n order" as suggested by Synaptics. 4)

S y n a p t i c s ' R e l i a n c e o n C l a i m D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n P r i n c i p l e is M i s p l a c e d

Synaptics argues t h a t the d o c t r i n e o f claim differentiation renders E l a n t e c h ' s claim construction as improper. Synaptics' Opp. at 12. However, the doctrine o f claim differentiation is m e r e l y a g u i d e , n o t a rule, a n d a c l a i m i s t o b e c o n s t r u e d b a s e d o n t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e a n d n o t s o l e l y b y l o o k i n g a t h o w d e p e n d e n t c l a i m s d i f f e r f r o m i n d e p e n d e n t ones. A l t h o u g h t h e d o c t r i n e o f c l a i m d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n m e a n s t h a t d i f f e r e n t c l a i m s are p r e s u m e d t o b e o f d i f f e r e n t scope, d e s c r i b i n g c l a i m e l e m e n t s o r l i m i t a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t w o r d s d o e s n o t i n v a r i a b l y c h a n g e t h e s c o p e o f t h e claim.

25
26 27 28

Tandon Corp. v. United States I n t ' l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023-24 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Therefore, the fact t h a t dependent claims 7 and 21 o f the ' 3 5 2 patent describe m a x i m a as peaks do n o t preclude the C o u r t from construing m a x i m a as p e a k values b a s e d o n the intrinsic evidence.
11
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 15 o f 17

1

C. T h e P a t e n t C l e a r l y Discloses M i c r o p r o c e s s o r 60 as t h e S t r u c t u r e C o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e " M e a n s f o r I n d i c a t i n g . . . ."
While this claim term was not elected by the parties as among the eight terms the Court will initially construe pursuant to its Order o f February 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , Elantech will address Synaptics' erroneous arguments so that the record is complete. Consistent with its tendency to ignore aspects o f the patent specification t h a t do not support its litigation positions, Synaptics and its expert claim that there is no teaching in the patent that microcontroller 60 is the structure that performs the function o f "providing an indication o f the simultaneous presence o f two fingers in response to identification o f said first and second maxima." Syn. Opp. Br. at 13. In particular, Synaptics claims that one o f ordinary skill would have to "guess" to determine what structure performs this function.

2
3
4

5
6

7
8
9

10
11

I d That is simply not the case.
One o f ordinary skill in the art is defined by Synaptics as having a degree in electrical engineering and three years or so o f experience in touchpad design. 2112/2007 Wolfe Decl.,
~

12 13 14 15 16 17
18

4.

Such a p e r s o n a c t u a l l y r e a d i n g t h e ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t w o u l d c l e a r l y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure is microcontroller 60 running appropriate software or firmware. First, the patent explains that microcontroller 60 operates to determine a finger profile for one or more fingers. ' 3 5 2 patent at 5 :49-51. The output o f microcontroller 60 is supplied to the host computer, such as a PS/2 interface, RS-232 interface or an Apple Desktop Bus interface. I d at 5:53-55; Fig 2 (output o f microcontroller 60 is "interface to PC or other device.") The patent also explains that the operation o f the touchpad o f Fig. 2 is controlled in either firmware, software or hardware. I d 5:32-35 and 7: 1-3. The function o f detecting the simultaneous presence o f two fingers and reporting that presence to the host is described as being carried out with firmware or software generally consistent with the flow diagram in Fig. 5 and algorithm in Fig. 6. I d at 7:3-6. At various points in the flow chart diagram "reports" are made when two fingers are detected. See, e.g. Fig. 5, steps 540 and 555. A "report" means information transmitted to the host, I d at 7:27-29, which again is the province o f microcontroller 60. I d at 5:52-55. Thus, the patent clearly teaches that microcontroller 60 is programmed to detect the presence o f two fingers and provide an indication o f that fact to the host

19 20 21
22

23 24 25 26 27
28

12
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 16 o f 17

1

computer. Synaptics uses unsupported expert testimony in an attempt to create a claim construction i s s u e w h e r e n o n e exists.

2
3
4

D. T h e S y n a p t i c s ' M i s l e a d i n g S t a t e m e n t s R e g a r d i n g I t s O w n P a t e n t ' s P r i o r i t y O v e r ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t a n d t h e '352 P a t e n t ' s P r o s e c u t i o n H i s t o r y Should be I g n o r e d
Finally, E l a n t e c h w i l l a d d r e s s t w o e x t r a n e o u s a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d b y S y n a p t i c s w h i c h h a v e n o b e a r i n g w h a t s o e v e r o n t h e C o u r t s ' c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n analysis. R a t h e r , t h o s e a r g u m e n t s a p p e a r t o have been raised in an attempt to unduly bias the Court. First, Synaptics asserts bragging rights for allegedly being the first to invent multiple finger detection by pointing to its newly issued u.s. P a t e n t N o . 7 , 109,978 ("the ' 9 7 8 patent"). Synaptics alleges that its patent has a priority date earlier than that o f the ' 3 5 2 patent. Synaptics Opp. Br. at 2:1-13. The Court should ignore this discussion b e c a u s e i t is c o m p l e t e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s u e s b e i n g b r i e f e d . N o w h e r e d o e s Synaptics offer any discussion o f h o w or why its ' 9 7 8 patent supports Synaptics' claim construction p o s i t i o n o r r e f u t e s E l a n t e c h ' s c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n position. F u r t h e r m o r e , S y n a p t i c s ' d i s c u s s i o n o f its ' 3 5 2 p a t e n t r a i s e s i s s u e s o f v a l i d i t y a n d n o n - i n f r i n g e m e n t t h a t are c o m p l e t e l y o u t s i d e o f t h e s c o p e o f a claim construction hearing. As such, this argument should b e dismissed for w h a t i t is: an a t t e m p t t o m u d d y t h e waters. S y n a p t i c s a l s o s u g g e s t e d , w i t h o u t s t a t i n g h o w i t is r e l e v a n t t o t h e C o u r t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h a t E l a n t e c h ' s predecessor somehow " a b a ndoned its original application." K r a m e r Decl. at 3. The C o u r t s h o u l d i g n o r e this statement, n o t only b e c a u s e i t b e a r s no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u t because Synaptics failed to explain to the Court that such an abandonment is part o f p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s c o m m o n practice w h e n applicants c o n t i n u e t o prosecute p a t e n t applications u s i n g a c o n t i n u a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . S e e K r a m e r D e c l . , Ex. C ( n o t i c e o f a b a n d o n m e n t f r o m t h e f i l e h i s t o r y ) . Indeed, Synaptics' ' 9 7 8 patent originated from an abandoned application. See K r a m e r Decl., Ex. E, ( ' 9 7 8 p a t e n t c o v e r page).

5
6

7
8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15
16

17
18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25

III.

CONCLUSION
A s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , 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

26
27
28

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 e v i d e n c e . In contrast, Synaptics' proposed constructions limit the claim language not to any particular 13
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 78

Filed 02/21/2007

Page 17 o f 17

1 2
3

e m b o d i m e n t s i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e ' 3 5 2 patent, b u t t o p e c u l i a r m e a n i n g s s p o n s o r e d 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 scope, a p p e a r i n 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 i n 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. 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 a l s o h a v e s e v e r a l flaws, m a k i n g t h e m n o t r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e . Accordingly, 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 its 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 offered b y Synaptics.

4
5
6

7 8 9 10
11

Dated: F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 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

12
13

By:

/s/ S E A N P. D E B R U I N E Attorney 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 DEVICES CORPORATION

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14
Elantech's Reply Claim Construction Brief for U . S . P a t e n t No. 5 , 8 2 5 , 3 5 2 C A S E NO. 3 : 0 6 - C V - O l 8 3 9 C R B

6045046