Light Guard Systems, Inc vs Spot Devices, Inc.

Filing 145

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim terms and phrases are to be construed consistent with the court's order herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See Order for specifics). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/12/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9
LIGHT GUARD SYSTEMS, INC.,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
SPOT DEVICES, INC.,
13
Defendant.
14
15

3:10-cv-0737-LRH-RAM
ORDER

This is a claim construction order for United States Patent number 6,384,742

16

(“the ‘742 patent”). The parties have submitted seven terms and phrases for construction. A full

17

round of claim construction briefing (Doc. ##45, 46, 55, 561) and a Markman claim construction

18

hearing preceded this order.

19

I.

Facts and Background

20

Plaintiff Light Guard Systems, Inc. (“Light Guard”) is a California corporation that

21

manufactures and distributes in-roadway warning light (“IRWL”) systems. An IRWL system is a

22

traffic warning system within the roadway that alerts approaching traffic to the presence of a

23

pedestrian in a crosswalk. Light Guard is the assignee and sole owner of the ‘742 patent issued on

24

May 7, 2002, to Light Guard founder Michael A. Harrison (“Harrison”). A copy of the patent, titled

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

“Pedestrian Crosswalk Signal Apparatus - Pedestrian Crosswalk,” is attached as Exhibit A to the

2

complaint. Doc. #1, Exhibit A.

3

Defendant Spot Devices, Inc. (“Spot Devices”) is a Nevada corporation that also

4

manufactures and distributes IRWL systems including the RS 200 and RS 320 IRWL systems. See

5

Doc. #3, Harrison Decl., Exhibit E-1 (RS 320); Exhibit I (RS 200).

6

On November 23, 2010, Light Guard filed a complaint against Spot Devices for patent

7

infringement alleging that the RS 200 and RS 320 designs infringe Claim 1 of the ‘742 patent. Doc.

8

#1. Claim 1 describes:

9

A pedestrian crosswalk signal apparatus to alert approaching vehicle traffic to the
presence of a pedestrian in a pedestrian crosswalk, said pedestrian crosswalk signal
apparatus comprising:
a roadway, said roadway having a surface;
a plurality of signal head members mounted on said roadway surface and
extending at least some distance across said roadway and above said roadway surface
to at least partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk, each of said signal head
members conditioned to withstand contact by vehicle traffic, each of said signal head
members including at least one light source adapted to direct a beam of light from
said roadway surface in the direction of the approaching vehicle traffic and away
from the pedestrian crosswalk, and adjacent to and generally parallel to said roadway
surface; and
activation means to selectively illuminate said plurality of signal head members
light sources to warn the drivers of the approaching vehicles that the pedestrian has
entered the pedestrian crosswalk.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 8:2-22.

18

After carefully considering the briefs and other materials submitted by the parties, the

19

record before the court, and the arguments of counsel at the December 16, 2011 Markman claim

20

construction hearing, the court issues this order construing the disputed claim terms.

21

II.

22

Legal Standard
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to

23

which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312

24

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,

25

381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, the purpose of claim construction is to

26

2

1

“determin[e] the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.” Markman v.

2

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370

3

(1996). The court, rather than the jury, must resolve a dispute raised by the parties regarding the

4

proper scope of the claims. O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d

5

1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

6

The “objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation” is “the ordinary and

7

customary meaning of a claim term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. This refers to “the meaning

8

that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the

9

invention.” Id. at 1313. The patent is read “not only in context of the particular claim in which the

10

disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. In

11

certain cases, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art

12

may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little

13

more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at

14

1314. In other cases, the claim term may have a particular meaning in the field of art that is not

15

immediately clear. The court must examine those sources available to the public to show what a

16

person skilled in the art would have understood the disputed claim language to mean. Id. Those

17

sources include “words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the

18

prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of

19

technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.

20

The claim language bears considerable importance to the claim interpretation. Vitronics v.

21

Conceptornic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The claims themselves can provide

22

substantial guidance to the meaning of a claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15. The “context in

23

which a term is used in the asserted claims can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in

24

other claims.” Id. at 1314. Furthermore, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular

25

limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the

26

3

1
2

independent claim.” Id. at 1315.
The claims must also be read in view of the specification. “[T]he specification ‘is always

3

highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best

4

guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). The

5

specification, as required by statute, describes the process of making and using the invention, and

6

“[t]hus claims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a

7

part.” Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). When

8

scrutinizing the specification, however, a court must distinguish “between using the specification to

9

interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim.”

10
11

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. Only the former is permissible.
Additionally, the court may also consider the prosecution history, which includes the record

12

of proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter “PTO”), including any

13

references to prior art cited during prosecution. Id. at 1317. The prosecution history can

14

demonstrate how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent. Id. In particular, the court should

15

exclude any interpretation disclaimed by the inventor during the patent’s examination. Chimie v.

16

PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The purpose of this rule is to “protect[] the

17

public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution by precluding patentees from

18

recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings [clearly and unmistakably] disclaimed

19

during prosecution.” Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

20

(citations and internal quotations omitted).

21

Finally, a court may also consider extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries, expert and

22

inventor testimony, and learned treaties to construct a claim term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317, 1319.

23

However, their use should be limited to edification purposes: “while extrinsic evidence can shed

24

useful light on the relevant art, the Federal Circuit has explained that it is less significant than the

25

intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1317.

26

4

1

III.

Claim Construction

2

A. Person of Ordinary Skill

3

The only proffered definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art comes from Spot

4

Devices’s retained expert, Dr. Kevan Shafizadeh (“Dr. Shafizadeh”),2 who provided a declaration

5

in support of Spot Devices’s opening claim construction brief. Doc. #47, Shafizadeh Decl.

6

Dr. Shafizadeh opines that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is a person possessing a

7

bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical, or civil engineering, or equivalent work experience, and

8

at least 1-2 years in experience in traffic engineering. Id. For purposes of this claim construction

9

order, the court accepts Dr. Shafizadeh’s definition of a person of ordinary skill.

10
11

B. “Signal Head Member”
Claim 1

12

A pedestrian crosswalk signal apparatus to alert approaching vehicle traffic to the
presence of a pedestrian in a pedestrian crosswalk, said pedestrian crosswalk signal
apparatus comprising:
. . . a plurality of signal head members mounted on said roadway surface and
extending at least some distance across said roadway and above said roadway surface
to at least partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk, each of said signal head
members conditioned to withstand contact by vehicle traffic, each of said signal
head members including at least one light source adapted to direct a beam of light
from said roadway surface in the direction of the approaching vehicle traffic and
away from the pedestrian crosswalk, and adjacent to and generally parallel to said
roadway surface . . .

13
14
15
16
17
18

Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 8:2-22.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
2

25
26

Dr. Shafizadeh is an associate professor at California State University, Sacramento, and both a
licensed professional civil engineer and a registered professional traffic operations engineer in the State of
California.

5

1
2
3
4

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS3
Light
Guard

light module comprising the module housing, one or more lights, and means through
which light exits the module, such as a lens or window

Spot
Devices

self-contained enclosure that includes the light sources and associated electronics

5

In its claim construction brief, Light Guard argues that the term “signal head member”

6

should be construed as a light module which houses the essential parts for light to be emitted from

7

the device. In contrast, Spot Devices argues that one of ordinary skill would understand “signal

8

head member” to be a completely self-contained enclosure housing all associated electronics.

9

The starting point for claim construction is the claim language itself. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d

10

at 1582. Here, there is no claim language that limits the term “signal head member” to a self-

11

contained unit. Rather, the patent makes clear that the entire device is “self-contained,” not just the

12

signal head members. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 1:59-61 (“The pedestrian

13

crosswalk signal apparatus of this invention provides a low-cost traffic warning system which is

14

self-contained”) (emphasis added).

15

Additionally, design figure 10, which is a cross-sectional diagram of a signalhead, shows a

16

device that houses some, but not all of the separate components that make up a “signal head

17

member.” See Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 5:41-42. In particular, the power and activation

18

components are external to the module housing. Id. Therefore, the court finds that Spot Device’s

19

“self-contained” construction is not supported by the plain language of the ‘742 patent.

20

Accordingly, the court adopts Light Guard’s construction of the term “signal head member.”

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
25
26

3

The parties’ proposed constructions are taken from their opening Markman claim construction briefs.
Doc. ##45, 46.

6

1
2
3
4

C. [M]ounted on said roadway surface . . .
Claim 1
. . . a plurality of signal head members mounted on said roadway surface and
extending at least some distance across said roadway and above said roadway
surface to at least partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk, . . .

5
6
7
8
9

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
Light
Guard

signal head members mounted on said roadway surface and extending at lease some
distance across, and at least some distance above the roadway surface

Spot
Devices

the signal head members are:
(1) mounted entirely on the roadway surface
(2) mounted along a line perpendicular to the direction of traffic extending part way
across the roadway
(3) above the roadway surface

10
11

The parties proffer substantially different constructions for the phrase “mounted on said

12

roadway surface and extending at lease some distance across said roadway and above said

13

roadway.” The main points of contention arise from the parties’ interpretation of whether the claim

14

language allows for a signal head member to be partially embedded in the roadway surface.

15

Light Guard argues that a partially embedded signal head member is contemplated by the

16

patent specification which states that the mounted lights “are partially embedded in a roadway and

17

placed across the roadway,” and the patent abstract which describes that “the system includes a

18

plurality of surface mounted lights partially embedded in, and placed across a roadway.” Doc. #1,

19

Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 1:64-67.

20

In opposition, Spot Devices argues that Light Guard’s construction is precluded because

21

Light Guard specifically disclaimed the partially embedded claim language during patent

22

prosecution in order to have the ‘742 patent issued over certain prior art references. The court

23

agrees. After reviewing the relevant prosecution history and the parties’ briefs on this issue, the

24

court finds that Light Guard specifically disclaimed the partially embedded claim language during

25

prosecution of the ‘742 patent and is precluded from offering its proposed construction that allows

26

7

1

for partially embedded signal head members. See Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d

2

1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning

3

to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary

4

meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.”).

5

When Light Guard submitted its original application, the claim language stated as follows:

6

“[a] plurality of surface mounted strobe lights partially embedded in said roadway to at least

7

partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk . . ..” Doc. #46, Exhibit F, 275 App. at SPO00080

8

(emphasis added). This claim language was rejected by the Patent Examiner based on the

9

Takahashi prior art reference4 which disclosed a plurality of surface mounted lights partially

10
11

embedded in a roadway. Doc. #46, Exhibit F, 275 App. at SPO00098.
In order to overcome the Patent Examiner’s decision, Light Guard submitted a series of

12

claim amendments disclaiming the partially embedded language to overcome the design disclosed

13

in Takahashi. The claim language was amended as follows:

14

C

“A plurality of surface mounted strobe lights partially embedded in mounted on the

15

surface of said roadway to at least partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk . . ..”

16

Doc. #46, Exhibit F, 275 App. at SPO00107-08 (First Amendment, June 1997).

17

C

“A plurality of strobe lights signal heads mounted on above the surface of said

18

roadway to at least partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk . . ..” Doc. #46,

19

Exhibit G, 275 App. at SPO00155 (Second Amendment, March 1998).

20

C

“A plurality of signal heads mounted in the roadway and at least some distance

21

above the surface of said the roadway to at least partially designate a pedestrian

22

crosswalk . . ..” Doc. #46, Exhibit G, 275 App. at SPO00181-82 (Third Amendment,

23

December 1999).

24
4

25
26

The Takahashi reference is a U.S. Patent, United States Patent no. 4,570,207, which discloses an
IRWL system in which luminous blocks are set within the road surface so that they are flush with the road
surface. A copy of the patent is attached to Dr. Shafizadeh’s initial declaration. Doc. #22, Exhibit K.

8

1

C

“A plurality of signal heads head members mounted in on the roadway and at

2

extending at least some distance above the surface of the roadway to at least

3

partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk . . ..” Doc. #46, Exhibit H, 275 App. at

4

SPO00247 (Fourth Amendment, August 2000).

5

C

“A plurality of signal head members mounted on the said roadway surface and at

6

extending at least some distance above the surface of the across said roadway and

7

above said roadway to at least partially designate a pedestrian crosswalk . . ..”

8

Doc. #46, Exhibit H, 275 App. at SPO00284-85 (Final Amendment, July 2001).

9

After the last amendment, the Patent Examiner allowed the ‘742 patent over Takahashi

10

finding that Light Guard’s claim disclosed a “novel and unobvious arrangement of a plurality of

11

strobe lights mounted on the surface of the roadway.” Doc. #46, Exhibit F, 275 App. at SPO00110

12

(emphasis added). Further, Light Guard, in its responses to the Patent Examiner, focused on the

13

mounting of its signal heads above the roadway to differentiate its design from the embedded

14

design of Takahashi. See Doc. #46, Exhibit I, 275 App. at SPO00381 (“Takahashi’s luminous

15

block is buried in a road surface so that its radiating surface is flush with the road surface. In

16

contrast, the claim requires that signal head members be mounted on the roadway surface and

17

above the roadway surface.”) (emphasis added). Thus, in distinguishing the prior art, Light Guard

18

unambiguously surrendered the scope of the claim that would include a signal head member

19

partially embedded in the roadway surface and narrowed the claim to require that the signal head

20

members are mounted on the surface of the roadway. See Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator

21

Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A]n amendment that clearly narrows the scope of a

22

claim, such as the addition of a new claim limitation, constitutes a disclaimer of any claim

23

interpretation that would effectively eliminate the limitation or that would otherwise recapture the

24

claim’s original scope.”); see also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535

25

U.S. 722, 740 (2002). Accordingly, the court adopts Spot Devices’s construction because that

26

9

1

construction clearly and unequivocally provides that the signal head members are mounted on and

2

above the roadway surface.

3
4
5
6

D. Direct a beam of light from said roadway surface . . .
Claim 1
. . . each of said signal head members including at least one light source adapted
to direct a beam of light from said roadway surface in the direction of the
approaching vehicle traffic and away from the pedestrian crosswalk, and
adjacent to and generally parallel to said roadway surface . . .

7
8
9
10
11

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
Light
Guard

direct a beam of light from said signal head toward approaching vehicle traffic

Spot
Devices

a beam of light emanating from a light source above the roadway towards oncoming
traffic and away from the pedestrian crosswalk

12

According to the plain claim language, the beam of light must be (1) above the roadway

13

surface, and (2) only in the direction of the approaching traffic. The design figures in the claim

14

specification supports these limitations and show that the light emanates from above the roadway

15

surface and is only in the direction of traffic. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Figure 3;

16

Figure 10. Light Guard’s proposed construction does not meet these two limitations because it does

17

not require the light to be above the roadway surface and does not limit the direction of the light.

18

Therefore, the court agrees with and adopts Spot Devices construction as the construction in line

19

with the plain claim language.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

E. Activation means . . .
Claim 1
A pedestrian crosswalk signal apparatus to alert approaching vehicle traffic to the
presence of a pedestrian in a pedestrian crosswalk, said pedestrian crosswalk signal
apparatus comprising . . .
activation means to selectively illuminate said plurality of signal head
members light sources to warn the drivers of the approaching vehicles that the
pedestrian has entered the pedestrian crosswalk.

10

1
2
3
4

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
Light
Guard

a mechanical switch or a proximity-type sensor switch

Spot
Devices

the corresponding structure is a pair of switches mounted on poles on each side of the
roadway consisting of either simple mechanical switches or proximity type sensor
switches

5
6

Both parties agree that this is a means plus function governed by 35 U.S.C. § 122. To

7

construe a means-plus-function claim, the court must identify the recited function of the claim and

8

then the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that performs the recited function.

9

See Med. Instrumentation and Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir.

10

2003). Here, it is undisputed that the recited function is to selectively illuminate the signal head

11

members to warn the drivers of approaching vehicles that a pedestrian has entered the crosswalk.

12

The parties dispute the corresponding structure of the patent claim.

13

Light Guard argues that the corresponding structure is simply a “mechanical switch or a

14

proximity-type sensor switch” because that is the simplest way to explain the function of triggering

15

the system. However, that construction does not contain the appropriate corresponding structure as

16

designated by the specification. The patent specification specifically discloses a pair of switches

17

mounted on poles on each side of the roadway. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col 2:17-21;

18

Col. 3:61-67; Col. 4:35-40. Further, the court finds that a construction that does not require the

19

activation means on both sides of the street would be impractical to operate the device for the

20

pedestrian on the opposite side of the road from Light Guard’s single switch. Therefore, the court

21

agrees with and adopts Spot Devices’s construction.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

11

1
2

F. Dynamically compensate for poor visibility and night operating conditions
Claim 4

3

The pedestrian crosswalk signal apparatus of claim 1 including an ambient light
sensing circuit to adjust light intensity to dynamically compensate for poor
visibility and night operating conditions.

4
5

Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 8:29-32.

6
7
8
9

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
Light
Guard

compensate according to poor visibility conditions (such as fog, smoke, or blowing
dust), or the lack of sun at night, or both

Spot
Devices

continuously compensating for both weather conditions and time of day

10

Light Guard argues that its construction should be adopted because it is the plain and

11

ordinary meaning of the claim terms. Light Guard contends that the claim language does not require

12

adjustments to both poor visibility and night conditions, but just one of those conditions. The court

13

disagrees. The court finds that Light Guard is attempting to impermissibly rewrite the claim by

14

turning the conjunction “and” into the term “or.”

15

The court finds that Spot Devices’s construction is also inappropriate because it replaces the

16

term “poor visibility” with “weather conditions” which is not used anywhere within the

17

‘742 patent. However, the court agrees that the term “dynamically” means continuously changing.

18

See Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 6:35-37 (“ambient light is continuously monitored and

19

the lights are dynamically adjusted to provide the optimum brightness based on current lighting

20

conditions”). As such, the court finds that an appropriate construction of this disputed phrase is

21

“continuously compensate according to poor visibility conditions and night operating conditions.”

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

12

1
2

G. Additional data related to the activation of said apparatus
Claim 5

3

The pedestrian crosswalk signal apparatus of claim 1 including data storage circuitry
connected to said activation means to collect additional data related to the
activation of said apparatus.

4
5

Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 8:33-36.

6
7
8
9

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
Light
Guard

data related to the activation of said apparatus

Spot
Devices

the number of pedestrians activating the apparatus, the direction of travel by the
pedestrian, and the number of vehicles approaching or passing over the apparatus by
time of day

10
11

Spot Devices’s construction seeks to import additional limitations into the claim by

12

defining the additional data that must be collected. Spot Devices’s construction is improper

13

because it takes examples from the specification, which uses the term “such as,” to be actual

14

requirements of the type of data collected. See Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises, Inc., 358

15

F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A particular embodiment appearing in the written description may

16

not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”); see also

17

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (holding that a court cannot import limitations from the specification

18

into the claim). Therefore, the court accepts and adopts Light Guard’s construction.

19
20

H. Said signal head light source is directed in a beam . . .
Claim 10

21

The pedestrian crosswalk signal apparatus of claim 1 wherein said signal head light
source is directed in a beam having a vertical angular range of 0 to 5 degrees.

22
23

Doc. #1, Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 8:48-50.

24

///

25

///

26

13

1
2
3
4
5

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
Light
Guard

said signal head light source is directed in a beam having a vertical angular range of
0 to 5 degrees from said roadway surface

Spot
Devices

wherein the beam has a divergence in the vertical direction of between 0 and 5
degrees

The court finds that Light Guard’s construction is appropriate because it comports to the

6

way the specification uses the term “vertical angular range” which requires the range of the vertical

7

angle formed by the light beam and the roadway surface to be less than 5 degrees. See Doc. #1,

8

Exhibit A, ‘742 Patent, Col. 5:65-68 (“. . . enabling the light beam to be directed generally parallel

9

to the road surface”). Spot Devices’s construction introduces a new term, “divergence,” which is

10

unsupported by the patent and would require additional claim construction. Therefore, the court

11

accepts and adopts Light Guard’s proposed construction.

12
13
14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the disputed claim terms and phrases are to be construed
consistent with the court’s order herewith.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED this 12th day of June, 2012.

17
18

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

14