ICH Intellectual Capital Holdings, Inc. v. Badger Meter, Inc. et al

Filing 182

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER construing the disputed terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,257 and 7,248,181. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 7/2/13. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ICH INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.

BADGER METER, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

NO. 6:11cv468 LED-JDL
PATENT CASE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This claim construction opinion construes the disputed terms of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,315,257 (“the „257 patent”) and 7,248,181 (“the „181 patent”) (collectively the “patents-insuit”). For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the constructions set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff ICH Intellectual Capital Holdings, Inc. (“ICH”) alleges Defendants1 infringe
several claims of the patents-in-suit. The parties have presented extensive claim construction
briefing. (Doc. Nos. 159, 164, 169, 172).
On May 3, 2013, ICH filed its opening claim construction brief in this case (Doc. No.
159) (“ICH BR.”). All Defendants, except Transparent Technologies, Inc. (“Transparent”) and
Metron-Farnier, LLC (“Metron”), collectively filed a single responsive claim construction brief
(Doc. No. 164) (“DEFS.‟ BR.”). Transparent and Metron filed a separate responsive brief (Doc.

1

Defendants are: Badger Meter, Inc.; Mueller Water Products, Inc.; Transparent Technologies, Inc.; Metron-Farnier,
LLC; Tantalus Systems Corp.; Tantalus Systems, Inc.; ESCO Technologies, Inc.; Aclara Power-Line Systems Inc.;
Landis+Gyr Inc.; Trilliant Networks Inc.; Tropos Networks, Inc.; and the City of Winnsboro, Texas (collectively
“Defendants”).

1

No. 169) (“TRANS-MET BR.”).2 ICH filed a single reply brief addressing both responses (Doc.
No. 172) (“REPLY”).
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
“It is a „bedrock principle‟ of patent law that „the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.‟” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent‟s intrinsic evidence to define
the patented invention‟s scope.

Id. at 1313–14; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad

Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Claim language guides the Court‟s construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
“[C]laims „must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.‟” Id.
(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “[T]he
specification „is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.

2

Usually, it is

Transparent and Metron‟s response addresses disputed terms 7-10, which are found only in claims asserted by
ICH against Transparent and Metron.

2

dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.‟” Id. (quoting Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex. Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own
terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes
terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear
disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own
lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
claim „is rarely, if ever, correct.‟” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362
F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be
read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
construction because a patentee may define a term during prosecution of the patent. Home
Diagnostics Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the

3

specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent”).

The well-

established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through
claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.” Omega Eng’g Inc. v.
Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The prosecution history must show that the
patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during
prosecution to obtain claim allowance. Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir.
2002); see also Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., LP, 323 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (“The disclaimer . . . must be effected with „reasonable clarity and deliberateness.‟”)
(citations omitted). “Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an
applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.” Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d
1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).

“As a basic principle of claim

interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic
evidence and protects the public‟s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”
Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.
Although, “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim

4

term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
DISCUSSION
A. Overview of the Patent-in-Suit
The „181 patent is titled “Automated Meter Reading System” and is a continuation of the
„257 patent titled “Automated Meter Reader Having High Product Delivery Rate Alert
Generator.” Both patents relate to automated meter readers (“AMR”) for utility meters. AMR
products allow for remote monitoring of use, diagnostic, and status data from utility meters, and
are aimed at the reduction or elimination of the need for field personnel (meter readers) to
visually inspect each meter. „181 patent, at 1:40–55. The patents-in-suit cover an AMR device
and system “adapted to couple to utility meters‟ to achieve these technical advantages.
ABSTRACT „181 and „257 patents.
Claim 1 of the „181 patent and Claim 7 of the „257 patent are representative and set forth
below:
1.

An automated meter reading (AMR)
system, comprising:
an interface module adapted to couple to a
meter measuring a quantity of delivered
product and providing a first signal
indicative of the measured quantity, the
module including a wireless transmitter
modulating and transmitting the first signal
as an RF signal at a transmission interval
of less than about every 30 seconds,
adapted to facilitate readings by a field
operator walking or driving in close
proximity to the system, at a power level
no greater than 1 m Wand at a frequency in
an unlicensed frequency band, adapted to
reduce interference in the unlicensed
frequency band; and

5

a profile module operatively coupled to the
interface
module
and
having
a
transceiver and a controller receiving
the first signals, the profile
module
creating and storing usage profile data
as a function of the 10 measured quantity,
wherein the usage
profile data is
generated at a profile data
interval and
is adapted to be obtained by a
remote user via the transceiver.
„181 patent at 10: 61–77; 11: 1–13.

7.
A device for coupling to a meter
measuring product delivery, comprising:
an interface module adapted to couple to
the meter, the interface module adapted to
provide a first signal 45 indicative of the
product delivery; and
a profile module
having a transmitter, and a
controller adapted to receive the first
signal, the profile module adapted to create
and store usage profile data as a function
of the product delivery, wherein the
profile 50 module has a programmable
threshold, the controller adapted to
responsively create at least one alert when
the product delivery exceeds the
programmable thresh-old, wherein the
programmable threshold is remotely
programmable.
B. Disputed Terms
Claim Language

Defendants’
Proposal

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

1. “interface module” and “profile module”
‟181 patent,
Claims 1, 7;

“software or hardware No construction
component”
possible-subject to
indefiniteness
motion as to terms

‟257 patent,
Claims 7, 15

“profile module”
and
6

interface module:
“interface hardware”
profile module: “profile
hardware or profile
hardware combined
with software”

Claim Language

Defendants’
Proposal
“interface
module” (Badger
Meter et al.)

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

The “module” terms are in part the subject of Defendants‟ Motion for Summary
Judgment for Indefiniteness (Doc. No. 167) (“MSJ”). Defendants therefore offer no proposed
construction of the terms, as they contend no construction is possible. MSJ at 9. In its briefing,
ICH proposed the Court construe “module” as “software or hardware component.” ICH. BR. at 4.
For the reasons set forth in the Court‟s Report and Recommendation on the MSJ, the Court finds
that the terms are amenable to construction.
As to ICH‟s proposed construction, Defendants appear to raise concern with this proposal
because there is no “software” disclosed for the interface module. MSJ at 9. At the Markman
hearing, the Court, in agreement with Defendants, proposed the term “interface module” be
construed as “interface hardware.” ICH agreed to this construction, and Defendants raised no
further objections other than their contention the term is not amenable to construction. Therefore,
the Court construes “interface module” as “interface hardware.”
As to profile module, Defendants argue that the only place where software is illustrated
in the patents-in-suit is in Figure 18, which relates to the alert function for excess consumption.
MSJ at 9. Regarding Figure 18, the specification describes a profile algorithm within the
controller. „257 patent, at 9:55–60 (“[a]lgorithm 200 is preferably embodied as a software
algorithm within microcontroller 20 of the water meter device 16 depicted in FIG. 4, although
the algorithm could be embodied in hardware if desired.”). Thus, the disclosure contemplates the

7

algorithm preferably implemented in software, but also “in hardware if desired.” Id.
Accordingly, at the Markman hearing, the Court proposed “profile hardware or profile hardware
combined with software” as the construction for “profile module.” ICH agreed to this
construction, and Defendants raised no objections other than their contention the term is not
amenable to construction. Therefore, the Court construes “profile module” as “profile hardware
or profile hardware combined with software.”

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

Defendants’
Proposal

Court’s Construction

‟181 Patent,
Claim 1

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning

“[A] collection of
meter readings at
selected intervals.”

“a collection of meter
readings at selected
intervals”

‟257 Patent,
Claims 7, 15

Alternatively, “a
collection of meter
readings”

Claim Language
2. “usage profile data”

At the Markman hearing on June 13, 2013, the Court proposed the following construction
to which the parties agreed: “a collection of meter readings at selected intervals.”
Defendants’
Court’s Construction
Proposal
3. “meter measuring a quantity of delivered product;” “a meter measuring product
delivery;” “a meter measuring a quantity and time of delivered product”
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

‟181 Patent,
Claim 1

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning

‟257 Patent
Claim 7

“A flow responsive
device plus a
register for
indicating the
measured
quantity to a human
observer.”
(Does not mean
only a flow
responsive device.)

Alternatively, a
“meter” is “a device
that measures”

‟257 Patent
Claim 15

8

No construction
necessary

ICH contends that the term “meter” is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art and therefore requires no construction. ICH BR. at 7. Defendants argue a construction is
necessary because most lay persons do not know meter components or how they work, and
ICH‟s interpretation of “meter” in its infringement contentions does not include well known
parts of water meter equipment. DEFS.‟ BR. at 14–15. Accordingly, Defendants propose the meter
terms to be construed as “a flow responsive device plus a register for indicating the measured
quantity to a human observer.” Id. at 13. ICH raises concern with Defendants‟ construction
because it imports terms such as “meter flow responsive device” and “meter register” that are not
used in the patent claims. ICH BR. at 8. Further, ICH contends that “human observer” is an
unnecessary limitation. Id.
The basis for Defendants‟ construction appears to stem from Defendants‟ position that
because water meters are the only devices accused in the present case, the Court should construe
the claim terms with respect to water meters only. DEFS.‟ BR. 13–15. However, the patents-insuit clearly contemplate the application of the invention as it relates to “electric, gas and water”
meters, including preferred embodiments related to all three types. „181, „257 patents at 1:15–40;
„257 patent at 8:29 – 30 (“whether it be a water meter, gas meter or electric meter.”). Thus, if the
Court were to construe the term “meter” to apply only to water meters as Defendants request, it
would unnecessarily and erroneously exclude portions of the patents-in-suit as a matter of law.
The Court therefore declines to import Defendants‟ water meter limitations into the claims.
Ultimately, the term “meter” is easily understandable in the context of the patents-in-suit, and it
requires no construction from the Court to resolve a legitimate claim scope dispute.

9

Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

Defendants’
Proposal

Court’s Construction

4. “adapted to couple to the meter”
‟181 Patent,
Claim 1
‟257 Patent
Claim 7, 15

“[T]o fasten, attach,
join to a meter
register or to
connect to terminals
Alternatively, “couple on a meter register.”
to the meter” means
(Does not
“attach or connect to
mean “built-in” to a
the meter” (May be
meter register)
“built-in” or “part of”
to the meter).
No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning

No construction
necessary

Regarding the phrase “adapted to couple to the meter,” the parties primarily dispute
whether the interface module can be built into the meter. ICH contends that the term “couple” is
common and requires no construction. ICH BR. at 10. ICH argues that “couple” means two
things can be “part of” or “built-in” to one another. Id. ICH points to Figure 1 in support of this
contention, as well as a portion of the specification that states “a household meter unit generally
shown at 10 having adapted therewith an electric meter reading unit 12 according to a first
preferred embodiment of the present invention coupled to a sense black spot 13 on the rotating
meter disk generally shown at 14.” Id. citing „257 patent at 2:52–57. ICH also cites to a portion
of the specification that states “[a]ll AMR technologies employ a device attached to the meter,
retrofitted inside the meter or built into/onto the meter.” Id. citing „257 patent at 1:61–63.
Finally, ICH argues that Figure 1 shows the embodiment 12 as “built-in” or “part of” the meter
unit 10. Id.
In support of their construction, Defendants cite to several portions of the specification
that disclose an “add on” component. DEFS.‟ BR. at 16–17, citing „257 patent at 4:54–56 (“water
meter unit 16 has an optical sensor 60 adapted to be positioned proximate to a water meter face

10

62.”); „257 patent at 9:40–52 (“the water meter unit of the present invention can be fitted to
virtually any water meter”… “wire attachment points that allow attachments to the manufactures
proprietary AMR device…the sensor cable 66 being coupled directly to the terminals on the
encoder of this type of device.”). Defendants argue that ICH‟s support found in Figure 1 is
based on an electric meter that should not be considered for a water meter, distinguishing the two
types of meters. Id. at 18.
Defendants have not pointed to any clear disavowal of a “built-in” feature in the patentsin-suit. While Defendants have identified portions of the specification that disclose “add on”
components, Defendants have not pointed to anywhere in either patent that states the interface
modules cannot be “built-in.” Further, ICH has cited to a portion of the specification, Figure 1,
that depicts a “built in” embodiment. While Figure 1 illustrates an electric meter, it does support
a finding that “an interface that is adapted to couple” may be within the meter. However, as
Defendants‟ cited portions of the specification demonstrate, the use of the term “couple” is not
meaningless. See, e.g., „257 patent at 9:40–52 (“wire attachment points that allow attachments to
the manufacturers proprietary AMR device…the sensor cable 66 being coupled directly to the
terminals on the encoder of this type of device.”). The use of the term “couple” in the patents-insuit indicates attachment through certain points point of connectivity. Accordingly, the Court
finds no construction is necessary, but clarifies that while an interface may be within the meter, it
must be attached through certain points of connectivity.
Defendants’
Court’s Construction
Proposal
5. “a wireless transmitter modulating and transmitting the first signal as an RF signal;” “a
wireless transmitter, responsively coupled to the interface module, modulating and
transmitting the first signal as an RF signal”
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

11

Defendants’
Court’s Construction
Proposal
‟181 Patent,
No construction
“[A] transmitter
“a wireless transmitter
Claim 1
necessary-ordinary
circuit for
that transmits an RF
meaning
superimposing a
signal, a characteristic
‟257 Patent
first electrical
of the RF signal being
Claim 15
signal representing
varied in accordance
data onto a
with the first signal.”
radio frequency
carrier electrical
signal.”
(Transmitter in this
context
is independent of
the claimed
transceiver and does
not mean an
entire AMR device;
modulating
does not mean
simply adjusting a
signal; signal does
mean just a
number)
While the parties in large part agreed with the Court‟s proposed construction of “a
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

wireless transmitter that transmits an RF signal, a characteristic of the RF signal being varied in
accordance with the first signal,” a claim scope dispute still remains as to whether the transmitter
must be independent from the transceiver. Defendants argue the transmitter, as used in the
context of the claim limitation, must be separate from the transceiver. DEFS.‟ BR. at 21.
Defendants argue that these are “two different devices with different functions and purposes in
both the claims and the specifications.” Id. ICH maintains that there is no requirement in the
specification that the devices be independent, and therefore no such requirement should be
inserted by the Court. REPLY at 6.
Here, Defendants have failed to point to any disavowal by the patentee that would require
the devices be separate. Claim 1 of the „181 patent claims an interface module “including” the

12

transmitter and a “profile module operatively coupled to the interface module and having a
transceiver.” „181 patent at 10:66–67-11: 1–8. Similarly, claim 15 of the „257 patent recites an
interface module including “a wireless transmitter responsively coupled to the interface module,”
and “a profile module having a transceiver.” „257 patent at 12: 23–31. While the claims identify
both devices, the specification contains no clear disavowal regarding independence of the
devices. Moreover, a transceiver is a transmitter plus a receiver, which carries out the function of
a transmitter (i.e. transmit), plus the ability to receive. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER‟S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2426 (3d ed. 1981) (“[transmitter + receiver]: a radio transmitterreceiver that uses many of the same components for both transmission and reception.”). Thus,
through their ordinary meaning and understood functions, a transmitter and a transceiver could
potentially be one in the same. With no clear disavowal as to the structures disclosed in the
patents-in-suit, the Court declines to require that the transceiver must be independent of the
transmitter. Accordingly, with the remaining disputes agreed upon, the Court construes “a
wireless transmitter modulating and transmitting the first signal as an RF signal;” “a wireless
transmitter, responsively coupled to the interface module, modulating and transmitting the first
signal as an RF signal” as “a wireless transmitter that transmits an RF signal, a characteristic of
the RF signal being varied in accordance with the first signal.”
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

Defendants’
Proposal
6. “programmable threshold is remotely programmable”

Court’s Construction

‟257 Patent
Claim 7

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning
Alternatively, ICH
proposes
“programmable
threshold is capable
of

No construction
necessary

“Programmed by a
field technician,
or by any wireless
signal via a
suitable receiver.”
(Programmable
in this context
excludes firmware
13

Claim Language

Defendants’
Proposal
upgrades.).

Plaintiffs’ Proposal
being reprogrammed
after initially
programmed”

Court’s Construction

At the Markman hearing, the Court proposed no construction was necessary for the term
“programmable threshold is remotely programmable.” ICH agreed that no construction was
necessary and Defendants agreed that if the Court rejected ICH‟s alternative proposal no
construction was necessary. The Court finds that ICH‟s alternative construction does not cover
“remotely programmable” as used in the patents-in-suit. Remotely in this context refers to the
distance from which a threshold can be programmed, not the time at which it is reprogrammed.
Accordingly, the Court rejects ICH‟s alternative construction and finds no construction is
necessary.

Claim Language

Defendants’
Proposal

Court’s Construction

“Transmission of
the meter
reading.”

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

“signal indicative of the
amount of product
delivered”

7. “signal indicative of the product delivery”
‟257 Patent
Claim 7

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning

As to the remaining four terms, the parties‟ dispute surrounded the term “product
delivery” in each of the claim limitations. At the Markman hearing, the Court questioned the
parties regarding this dispute, and suggested the Court construe “product delivery” if the
remaining portion of the limitations were agreed. The parties agreed to this approach with the
modifications set forth in the Court‟s constructions below. The Court therefore construes
14

“product delivery” as “amount of product delivered.” Further, in light of the parties‟ agreement
with respect to this term, the Court construes “signal indicative of the product delivery” as
“signal indicative of the amount of product delivered.”
Defendants’
Court’s Construction
Proposal
8. “create at least one alert when the product delivery exceeds the programmable
threshold”
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

‟257 Patent,
Claim 7

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning

“creates an alert
when the meter
reading indicates
consumption
greater than the
applicable
threshold
programmed for the
time
of the reading”

No construction
necessary (product
delivery as construed
herein)

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds no construction necessary (product
delivery as construed herein).
Defendants’
Court’s Construction
Proposal
9. “transmitter is adapted to send data representative of a product delivery parameter”
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

‟257 Patent,
Claim 10

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning

“The meter reading
is sent as an RF
signal.”

No construction
necessary (product
delivery as construed
herein)

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds no construction necessary (product
delivery as construed herein).

15

Defendants’
Court’s Construction
Proposal
10. “transmits the alert at a frequency and data representative of product delivery
parameter at a second frequency”
Claim Language

Plaintiffs’ Proposal

‟257 Patent,
Claim 12

No construction
necessary-ordinary
meaning.

.

Alternatively, ICH
proposes that the
phrase means
“transmits the alert at
a
first time frequency
and
data representative of
product delivery
parameter at a second
time frequency.”

“The alert for
excess product
delivery is sent by
the transmitter
on one radio
frequency and the
meter reading is
sent on a second
radio frequency.”

No construction
necessary (product
delivery as construed
herein)
*frequency in this
context does not refer
to a time interval, but
the wavelength
characteristic of the
signal

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds no construction necessary (product
delivery as construed herein), with the explanation that frequency in this context does not refer to
a time interval, but the wavelength characteristic of the signal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the constructions set forth above.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of July, 2013.

16