Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 88

Declaration of Sean P. DeBruine in Support Elan Microelectronics Corporation's Opening Claim Construction Brief (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) filed by Elan Microelectronics Corporation. (DeBruine, Sean) (Filed on 5/7/2010) Modified on 5/10/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT K Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELANTECH DEVICES CORP., a corporation existing under the laws of 12 Taiwan, R.O.C., 13 14 15 No. C 06-01839 CRB Plaintiff, CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER SYNAPTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AVERATEC, INC., a California 16 corporation, 17 18 19 Defendants. Elantech Devices Corp. ("Elantech") filed suit against Synaptics, Inc. ("Synaptics") 2O for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 ("the '352 patent"). Synaptics counterclaimed 21 for infringement of U.S. Patents No. 5,880,411 ("the '411 patent"), No. 5,943,052 ("the '052 22 patent"), No. 5,543,592 ("the '592 patent"), and No. 6,380,931 ("the '931 patent"). The 23 24 25 I. 26 Court will construe eight claim terms selected by the parties. BACKGROUND The '411 Patent The '411 patent, entitled "Object Position Detector With Edge Motion Feature and 27 Gesture Recognition," discloses a method to enable a touchpad to recognize finger contact, 28 movement, and drag gestures, and to emulate various mouse functions. The patent was ELN028531 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 2 of 15 1 2 3 issued March 9, 1999, and by assignment, Synaptics is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest of the '411 patent. The '411 patent contains only one of the claim terms to be construed: "incrementally once the user reaches the edge of a touchpad.1 The general goal of the relevant claims is to detect when the user wants to move the cursor to a position that is beyond the limited bounds of the touchpad and to move the cursor accordingly-this is called cursor "edge motion." '411 patent at 5:9-10. The '931 Patent The '931 patent, entitled "Object Position Detector With Edge Motion Feature and Gesture Recognition," discloses a method to enable a touchpad to recognize tap gestures and 4 move." The relevant patent claims are directed to a method for extrapolating cursor motion 5 6 7 8 9 II. 10 11 12 emulate various mouse functions. The patent was issued April 30, 2002, approximately three 13 years after the '411 patent, and by assignment, Synaptics is the owner of the entire right, title, 14 and interest of the '931 patent. 15 The '931 patent contains three of the claim terms to be construed: (1) "initiating a 16 signal to the host indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture;" (2) "maintaining said signal 17 for a predetermined period of time;" and (3) "detecting in which of at least one coruer of the 18 touch-sensor pad said tap gesture occurred." The first two claim terms are related and are 19 generally directed to "a method for recognizing a tap gesture made on a touch-sensor pad.''2 2O The patent claim relevant to the third claim term is directed to detecting the occurrence of a 21 tap gesture in a particular coruer. The patentee asserts that the invention allows for greater 22 structural design flexibility and efficiency. The patentee described methods of recognizing 23 tap gestures that were known in the prior art, and asserted that the prior art systems were 24 slower, less intuitive for users, and more likely to cause user strain. 25 // 26 27 28 ZThe term to be construed is present in claims 40, 46, 53, and 59. 2The first two terms to be construed are present in claims 1 and 7. The third term is present in claim 5. 2 ELN028532 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 3 of 15 1 2 3 III. The '352 Patent The '352 patent, entitled "Multiple Fingers Contact Sensing Method for Emulating Mouse Buttons and Mouse Operations on a Touch Sensor Pad," discloses a method for 4 recognizing the presence of multiple fingers on a touchpad and emulating various mouse 5 function; the patent also discloses a touchpad with such capabilities. The patent was issued 6 October 20, 1998, and by assignment, Elantech is the owner of the entire right, title, and 7 interest of the '352 patent. 8 The '352 patent contains four of the claim terms to be construed: (1) "scanning the 9 touch sensor" or "means for scanning the touch sensor to... ;" (2) "scanning the touch 10 sensor to... identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger;" (3) 11 "scanning the touch sensor to... identify a minima following the first maxima;" and (4) 12 "scanning the touch sensor to... identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a 13 second finger following said minima." The claims are directed to "a method for detecting the 14 operative coupling of multiple fingers to a touch sensor.''3 Generally, the goal of the method 15 is to detect the presence of multiple fingers on a touch sensor and emulate mouse functions. 16 The patentee described methods of emulating mouse functions using a touchpad that were 17 known in the prior art, and asserted that these systems were more stressful and less intuitive 18 than using a mouse. 19 2O I. 21 DISCUSSION Legal Standard for Claim Construction Claim construction is a matter of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview 22 Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). When 23 construing claims, a court first looks to intrinsic evidence of record, and thereafter, if 24 appropriate, to extrinsic evidence. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 25 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Intrinsic evidence comprises the patent claims, the specification, and, if 26 entered into evidence, the prosecution history. Id~ Intrinsic evidence also comprises the 27 prior art cited in a patent or during the prosecution. Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d 28 3The terms to be construed are present in claims 1 and 18. ELN028533 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 4 of 15 1 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In most cases, the intrinsic evidence alone will determine the 2 proper meaning of the claim terms. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. 3 When construing claims, the analysis begins with, and must focus on, the language of 4 the claims themselves. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 5 6 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If the claim language is clear on its face, then the rest of the intrinsic evidence is considered only for whether any deviation from the plain meaning is specified. 7 Id. Deviation may be warranted if, for example, the patentee has "chosen to be his own 8 lexicographer," or if the patentee has disclaimed a certain portion of the claim scope that 9 would otherwise be afforded by the plain meaning. Id~ (citations omitted). Where the claim 10 language is not clear, other intrinsic evidence is used to resolve the lack of clarity. Id~ 11 Generally, a court gives the words of a claim their ordinary and customary meaning. 12 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The "ordinary and 13 customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of 14 ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing 15 date of the patent application." Id. at 1313. The context in which a word appears in a claim 16 informs the construction of that word. Id~ at 1314. Where there are several common 17 meanings, the patent disclosure "serves to point away from the improper meanings and 18 toward the proper meanings." Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 19 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). If more than one definition is consistent with 2O the usage of a term in the claims, the term may be construed to encompass all consistent 21 meanings. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 22 2002). 23 Other claims of the patent in question "can also be valuable sources of enlightenment 24 as to the meaning of a claim term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Because claim terms are 25 normally used consistently throughout the patent, "the usage of a term in one claim can often 26 illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims." Id~ The presence of a dependent 27 claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in 28 question is not present in the independent claim. Id~ at 1315. 4 ELN028534 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 5 of 15 1 2 3 Claims must be read in light of the specification. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification "is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Where a claim term has multiple yet potentially consistent, definitions, the rest of 4 the intrinsic record, beginning with the specification, provides further guidance. Brookhill5 Wilk, 334 F.3d at 1300. If the patentee explicitly defined a claim in the specification, that 6 definition trumps the ordinary meaning of the term. CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 7 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification may define a term by implication. 8 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. The specification may also reveal a disclaimer of the claim scope 9 by indicating that the invention and all of its embodiments only occupy part of the broad 10 meaning of a claim term. SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 242 F.3d 11 12 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is error, however, to import a limitation from the specification into the claim. 13 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Standing alone, 14 an embodiment disclosed in the specification does not limit the claims. Id~ at 906. Even 15 when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent are not to 16 be construed as restricted to that embodiment unless the patentee demonstrates a clear 17 intention to limit the claim scope using "words or expressions of manifest exclusion or 18 restriction." Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 19 Absent clear statements of scope, courts are constrained to follow the language of the claims 2O and not that of the written description provided by the specification. Id~ at 1328; see also 21 Special _ty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981,987 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (stating a limitation 22 should not be read into the claims unless a specification so requires). 23 Conversely, a construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, 24 correct." Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 25 (quoting Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 26 Courts require highly persuasive evidence that the claims do not encompass a preferred 27 embodiment. Vitronics., 90 F.3d at 1583. 28 II 5 ELN028535 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 6 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II. Construction of the Disputed Terms The following analysis considers as intrinsic evidence the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. A. The '411 Patent The parties have requested the Court to construe the term "incrementally move." 1. "Incrementally move" Claims 40, 46, 53, and 59 of the '411 patent contain the term "incrementally move." 8 For example, claim 40 recites, in relevant part: 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. generating second cursor motion signals different from said first cursor motion signals if saidobject has moved into said outer region of said sensing plane, said second cursor motion signals for causing said cursor to incrementally move on the display screen a selected distance in a direction representing the difference between a fixed reference point on said sensing plane and said present position of said object on said sensing plane .... '411 patent at 62:53-60 (emphasis added) Elantech proposes a construction of"movement defined by the second component of 15 Equations 12 and 13 in the '411 patent, namely, S(Xc.~-Xce.,e~) and S(Yc.~-Y~e.,~)." Limitations 16 in narrow claims dependent from claim 40 may not be imported into the broad language of 17 claim 40. The limitation in dependent claim 44 sets the "fixed reference point" of claim 40 18 as the center of the sensing plane. Dependent claim 45 includes a speed variable in the 19 calculation of the incremental motion of claim 40. A construction of"movement defined by 2O the second component of Equations 12 and 13 in the '411 patent, namely, S(Xc.~-X~.,~) and 21 S(Y~.~-Y~.,e~)" would impermissibly import limitations from dependent claims into a broad 22 claim. 23 Moreover, Elantech's very narrow construction limiting the claims to one embodiment 24 ignores the explicit statement in the specification of the '411 patent: "[t]hose of ordinary skill 25 in the art will recognize that a linear proportionality is described by the above equation. As 26 used herein, 'proportionality' means that the signal generated is a monotonic function. Those 27 of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that other monotonic functions, including but not 28 limited to inverse proportionality, and non-linear proportionality such as logarithmic or 6 ELN028536 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 7 of 15 1 exponential functions, could be employed in the present invention without departing from the 2 principles disclosed herein." '411 patent at 31:29-38. This statement immediately follows an 3 explanation of how Equations 12 and 13 might be applied within an algorithm in the 4 preferred embodiment. '411 patent at 30:65-67-31:1-29. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The term "incrementally move" means "move in calculated increments." B. The '931 Patent The parties have requested the Court to construe the following three terms: (1) "initiating a signal to the host indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture;" (2) "maintaining said signal for a predetermined period of time;" and (3) "detecting in which of at least one corner of the touch-sensor pad said tap gesture occurred." The first and second terms appear together in the claims, and both are used to describe 13 steps concerned with transmission of a signal; these terms will be analyzed together. 14 15 16 17 1. "Initiating a signal to the host indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture" and "Maintaining said signal for a predetermined period of time" Claims 1 and 7 of the '931 patent both contain the term "initiating a signal to the host 18 indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture" and the term "maintaining said signal for a 19 predetermined period of time." Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: 2O 21 22 23 24 .... initiating a signal to the host indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture if the amount of time said conductive object is present on said touch pad is less than said reference amount of time and if the amount of motion made by said conductive object while it is present on said touch pad is less than said reference amount of motion; and maintaining said signal for a predetermined period of time. '931 patent at 53:4-12 (emphasis added). For the term "initiating a signal to the host indicating the occurrence of said tap 25 gesture," Synaptics proposes a construction of"initiating the transmission of a set of data to a 26 computer, or other device that can take as input the output of a touch-sensor pad, that 27 indicates that a tap gesture has occurred on the touch-sensor pad." Elantech proposes a 28 7 ELN028537 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 8 of 15 1 construction of"outputting to the host a high state of a signal that has a low and a high state, 2 where the high signal state represents that a tap gesture occurred on the touch-sensor pad." 3 For the term "maintaining said signal for a predetermined period of time," Synaptics 4 proposes a construction of"to continue, retain, or repeat the signal for a period of time that 5 was determined before." Elantech proposes a construction of"continuously outputting the 6 high state of the signal only for a predetermined time period (i.e., changing the signal state 7 from high to low at the end of the predetermined time period)." In other words, Elantech 8 asserts that a "signal" has only two states and that "maintaining" the signal can only be 9 accomplished by continuous output of the signal, while Synaptics asserts a flexible 10 construction of the word "signal" as "the transmission of a set of data" and that 11 "maintaining" a signal may be accomplished in several ways. 12 The claims and the specification do not support a construction where a "signal" can 13 only represent a low state and a high state. The word "signal" is used broadly throughout the 14 '931 patent. As used in claim five, a "signal" is able to indicate both that a tap gesture 15 occurred and where the tap gesture occurred. This type of complex data communication is 16 beyond the capacity of a signal that only has a low state and a high state, and there is nothing 17 in the claims to indicate that the word "signal" in claim five should be construed differently 18 than the word "signal" in claims one or seven. The word "signal" is also used in other 19 contexts throughout the '931 patent: a packetized "10-bit wide digital signal," '931 patent at 2O 13:64-65, and "a monotonic function." '931 patent at 31:59-60. In their opposition brief, 21 Elantech argues that every reference to the word "signal" that relates to gesture recognition 22 refers only to the "OUT" signal described in Fig. 15a-e. However, the "OUT" signal 23 described in Fig. 15a-e of the specification is the output of tap unit 280, which is only one 24 component in the circuitry. Id. at 34:23-29. The "OUT" signal is not the ultimate signal 25 which is sent to the host, as described in the relevant claims; it is only used to convey 26 information about (1) the fact that a tap gesture occurred, and (2) which button click should 27 be emulated-left, middle, or right. Id~ at 35:26-27. 28 8 ELN028538 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 9 of 15 1 There is little in the intrinsic evidence that describes exactly how a "signal" is 2 "maintained." Nothing in the claims addresses this point, but one clue arises in the 3 description of the flowchart that illustrates the operation of the tap unit: "[s]tep 334 also sets 4 the Suppress flag to True to cause the virtual button signal to stay low for a short period." 5 6 '931 patent at 43:1-2; Fig. 17B. The fact that setting a flag to a value of True could cause a signal to "stay low"-to maintain a particular value-"for a short period of time" indicates that 7 there is more than one way of"maintaining" a signal. There is no evidence to support 8 Elantech's construction that a signal is "maintained" only by continuously outputting the 9 10 signal. The term "initiating a signal to the host indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture" 11 means "initiating the transmission of a set of data to a computer, or other device that can take 12 as input the output of a touch-sensor pad, that indicates that a tap gesture has occurred on the 13 touch-sensor pad." The term "maintaining said signal for a predetermined period of time" 14 means "to continue, retain, or repeat the signal for a period of time that was determined 15 before." 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2. "Detecting in which of at least one corner of the touch-sensor pad said tap gesture occurred" Claim 5 of the '931 patent recites, in relevant part: ... detecting in which of at least one coruer of the touch-sensor pad said tap gesture occurred... Id. at 53:29-30 (emphasis added). Synaptics proposes a construction of"detecting that a tap gesture has occurred in at least one coruer, the identity of which is distinguished in some way from other coruers of the touch-sensor pad." Elantech proposes a construction of"after detecting the occurrence of the 24 25 26 27 28 tap gesture, separately detecting in which of at least one coruer of the touch-sensor pad the tap gesture occurred." In other words, Synaptics asserts that the single event of the detection of the occurrence of the tap gesture also provides information on where the tap gesture occurred, while Elantech asserts that the detection of where the tap gesture occurred is a separate event from the detection of the occurrence of the tap gesture. 9 ELN028539 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 10 of 15 1 2 3 4 Claim five requires that the first two detection steps be complete by the time the last step of the method is executed, since it is not possible to send a signal "indicating the occurrence of said tap gesture and in which of at least one corner of said touch-sensor pad said tap gesture occurred" unless one has already detected the occurrence of said tap gesture 5 and detected in which of at least one corner of said touch-sensor pad said tap gesture 6 occurred. However, there is nothing in the claim language to indicate that the two detection 7 8 steps could not occur simultaneously.4 Elantech argues that "[i]t would be impossible to detect in which of at least one corner of the touch-sensor pad said tap gesture occurred if the 9 tap gesture has not previously been detected," and cites cases where an order has been 10 imposed upon steps in a method. However, in all the cases cited there is a modifying 11 adjective present in one step of the method that refers to an action taken in a previous step-an 12 explicit link that requires the imposition of an order as between the two steps.~ The cited 13 cases are therefore distinguishable because in the second detection step here there is no 14 adjective modifying the phrase "tap gesture" that refers to an action taken in the first 15 detection step. 16 The term "detecting in which of at least one corner of the touch-sensor pad said tap 17 gesture occurred" means "detecting that a tap gesture has occurred in at least one corner, the 18 identity of which is distinguished in some way from other corners of the touch-sensor pad." 19 // 2O 4The specification and the figures illustrate in meticulous detail the steps involved in detecting 21 the occurrence of a tap gesture and (assuming that it was a corner tap) detecting in which corner the tap gesture occurred. '931 patent at 42:34-44:33; Fig. 17B-C. Step 326 is where the tests are performed 22 to determine whether a tap gesture has occurred, and step 348 is where the tests are performed to determine whether a corner tap has occurred. As described in the specification and figures, there are 23 many interleaving steps, however, there is no way to arrive at step 348 without first proceeding through step 326. Nevertheless, an order cannot be imposed as between the two detection steps since there is 24 no law to support such a ruling where the plain words of the claim impose no such order. 25 SElantech cites Combined Sys., Inc. v. Def. Tech. Corp. of Am. and Fed. Labs., 350 F.3d 1207, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim 1 of the '562 patent recites a step of"forming folds in said tubular sock26 like projectile body" and then a step of"inserting said formed folds of said tubular sock-like projectile body") (emphasis added); see also Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1368, 27 1376 n. 13 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (where claim 1 of the '483 patent recites a step of"providing a treating flow of acetic acid.., into said groundwater region" and then a step of"introducing.., an aqueous solution 28 of ferrous ion into said groundwater region, for mixing with said acidified groundwater") (emphasis added). 10 ELN028540 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 11 of 15 1 2 3 4 C. The '352 Patent The parties have requested the Court to construe the following four terms: (1) "scanning the touch sensor" or "means for scanning the touch sensor to ...;" (2) "scanning the touch sensor to ... identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding 5 to a first finger;" 6 7 and 8 (3) "scanning the touch sensor to ... identify a minima following the first maxima;" (4) "scanning the touch sensor to ... identify a second maxima in a signal 9 corresponding to a second finger following said minima." 10 The latter three terms are used in the context of scanning the touch sensor and together 11 describe the process of recognizing the presence of one or more fingers on the touch sensor; 12 these three terms will be analyzed together. 13 14 1. "Scanning the touch sensor" Claims 1 and 18 of the '352 patent both contain the term "scanning the touch sensor." 15 Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: 16 17 18 .... 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 finger following said minima .... '352 patent at 16:16-20 (emphasis added). 19 2O Elantech proposes a construction of"examining information associated with the touch sensor." Synaptics contends that the phrase should be construed to mean "measuring the 21 22 23 24 25 traces in the touch sensor and assigning them to a sequence corresponding to their physical order on the touch sensor." In other words, Elantech asserts a broad construction of "scanning the touch sensor" that is not tied to any particular touch sensor technology and that the data obtained from scanning the touch sensor need not be structured or ordered in any way. By contrast, Synaptics asserts that the "touch sensor" must be limited to capacitive 26 27 28 devices using traces and that each capacitance value obtained from scanning the touch sensor must be associated with information representing the particular position on the touch sensor where the value was detected; Synaptics does not argue that the traces must be sensed in a 11 ELN028541 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 12 of 15 1 2 3 sequential fashion and agrees that, as disclosed by the '352 patent, all traces may be sensed simultaneously. There is nothing in the language of claims 1 or 18 that require a construction of a 4 "touch sensor" that includes traces. In fact, claim 6, which is dependent from (and thus 5 narrower than) claim 1, includes a limitation on the touch sensor "wherein said touch sensor 6 includes a plurality of lines." Furthermore, the specification explicitly states that "[t]he 7 present invention may be implemented based on any conventional touch sensing technology, 8 although an exemplary embodiment involves the use of a capacitive touch sensing device." 9 '352 patent at 2:20-24. Synaptics argues that because the parties have agreed on a 10 construction of the term "operative coupling" to mean "electrical finger-induced effect," the 11 claims must then be limited to methods and systems that measure such an electrical 12 phenomenon. Although this may be true, there is no evidence that methods and systems that 13 detect electrical finger-induced effect necessarily require traces. 14 Elantech's construction of"examining information associated with the touch sensor," 15 by contrast, is far too broad, as such words could be interpreted to include determining the 16 chemical composition of the surface of the touch sensor, the manufacture date of the touch 17 sensor, or the power consumption metrics of the touch sensor. The term "scanning the touch 18 sensor" only appears in claims 1 and 18, and the term only appears in conjunction with the 19 purpose of seeking to detect operative coupling. '352 patent at 16:16-20, 17:29-34. As 2O stated in Elantech's own reply brief, the purpose of"scanning the touch sensor" is "to 21 identify finger presence." 22 The term "scanning the touch sensor" means "measuring the values generated by a 23 touch sensor to detect operative coupling and determining the corresponding positions at 24 which measurements are made." 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 12 ELN028542 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 13 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 2. "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 finger following said minima" Claims 1 and 18 of the '352 patent both contain the three terms "identify a first 6 maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger," "identify a minima following the first 7 maxima," and "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger 8 following said minima." Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: 9 10 11 12 13 .... scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a tlrst finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, (c) id.en.tify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima .... Id~ at 16:16-20 (emphasis added). For the term "identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger," Elantech proposes a construction of"identify a first peak value in a finger profile obtained 14 15 from scanning the touch sensor." Synaptics proposes a construction of"measuring the trace values of the touch sensor corresponding to a first finger and determining the point at which 16 17 18 the measured values cease to increase and begin to decrease." For the term "identify a minima following the first maxima," Elantech proposes a construction of "identify the lowest value in the finger profile that occurs after the first peak 19 2O value, and before another peak value is identified." Synaptics proposes a construction of "measuring the trace values of the touch sensor following, in scan order, said minima and 21 22 23 determining the point at which the measured values cease to decrease and begin to increase." For the term "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima," Elantech proposes a construction of"after identifying the lowest 24 25 value in the finger profile, identify a second peak value in the finger profile." Synaptics proposes a construction of"measuring the trace values corresponding to a second finger 26 27 28 following, in scan order, said minima and determining the point at which the measured values cease to decrease and begin to increase." 13 ELN028543 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 14 of 15 1 In other words, Elantech asserts that a "maxima" or "minima" represents only the 2 maximum or minimum capacitance value measured across a finger profile; a "maxima" or 3 "minima" does not refer in any way to the particular position[s] on the touch sensor where 4 the maximum or minimum capacitance values appear. Synaptics asserts that a "maxima" or 5 "minima" represents not only the capacitance measured at that one trace, but also the 6 particular position on the touch sensor where that maximum or minimum level of capacitance 7 was detected across the finger profile. Synaptics also asserts that within a finger profile, a 8 "maxima" or "minima" can only appear at one precise point on the touch sensor, and so when 9 a maximum or minimum capacitance value, as measured across a finger profile, appears at 10 multiple traces (a plateau), the "maxima" or "minima" appears at the last trace that is 11 included within that plateau region. Finally, Synaptics asserts that, in accordance with its 12 construction of"scanning the touch sensor," a limitation must be imposed upon the location 13 in which a minima following a first maxima or a second maxima following a minima may 14 appear. 15 Synaptics bases its argument on the detailed mechanics of the embodiment described 16 in the specification and in Fig. 5-6. There is support in the claims for a construction of the 17 terms "maxima" and "minima" as data objects that have position information, as well as a 18 capacitance value;6 however, there is no support in the intrinsic evidence for a construction of 19 either the term "maxima" or the term "minima" wherein the position information can only 2O relate to a precise point-a single X axis value and a single Y axis value. Such a construction 21 could twist the ordinary meaning of a "maxima" or a "minima" so as to exclude a plateau 22 maxima, where the maximum capacitance value appears over a range of X axis values and/or 23 24 25 26 Y axis values. ~Claim 8 adds a step to the method of claim 1 of "comparing a distance between said first maxima and said second maxima to a predefined threshold." '352 patent at 16:41-43. Claim 10 adds 27 the step of"detecting a distance between said first and second maxima." '352 patent at 16:57-59. c Claim 15 adds the step of "determining if said first and second maxima are within 28 entimeters." '352 patent at 17:17-18-43. Claim 13 also adds a step of"detecting a movement of said first maxima." '352 patent at 17:2. 14 ELN028544 Case 3:06-cv-01839-CRB Document 91 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 15 of 15 1 The term "identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger" means 2 "identify a first peak value in a finger profile obtained from scanning the touch sensor." The 3 term "identify a minima following the first maxima" means "identify the lowest value in the 4 finger profile that occurs after the first peak value, and before another peak value is 5 identified." The term "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second 6 finger following said minima" means "after identifying the lowest value in the finger profile, 7 identify a second peak value in the finger profile." 8 9 10 Dated: April 6, 2007 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\ORDERreClaimConstr'nt~pd ELN028545

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?