ACQIS LLC v. EMC Corporation
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 04/13/15. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ACQIS LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CAUSE NO. 6:13-CV-638
CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE
CONSOLIDATED WITH
6:13CV639
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
7,363,416 (―the ‘416 Patent‖), 7,676,624 (―the ‘624 Patent‖), 7,818,487 (―the ‘487 Patent‖),
8,041,873 (―the ‘873 Patent‖), RE41,294 (―the ‘294 Patent‖), RE41,961 (―the ‘961 Patent‖),
RE42,814 (―the ‘814 Patent‖), RE43,119 (―the ‘119 Patent‖), RE43,171 (―the ‘171 Patent‖),
RE44,468 (―the ‘468 Patent‖), and RE42,984 (―the ‘984 Patent‖) (collectively, ―the patents-insuit‖). On February 12, 2015, the parties presented arguments on the disputed claim terms at a
Markman hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the constructions set forth
below.
Also before the Court is Defendants‘ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity
on the Basis of Indefiniteness (Docket No. 151).
After considering the briefing and oral
argument, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendants‘ Motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff ACQIS LLC (―ACQIS‖) alleges that Defendants Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. and
EMC Corporation infringe the eleven patents-in-suit owned by ACQIS. The patents-in-suit are
directed to using attached computer modules in a peripheral console. The console provides a
platform (e.g., keyboard, mouse, display, and disk drive) adapted to receive a module having
core computing hardware (e.g., CPU, memory, I/O, and hard drive). The module can be inserted
into the console to form a complete PC.
The Court has already construed some of the terms at issue here in a previous case. See
ACQIS LLC v. Appro Int’l, Inc. et al., No. 6:09-cv-148, Docket No. 315 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2,
2010) (―Appro‖). The Appro case involved eight patents, including the ‘416 Patent and a
number of patents related to the patents-in-suit.
APPLICABLE LAW
Claim Construction
―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) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent‘s
intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention‘s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S.
Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes
the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed
meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the
context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
2
The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term‘s context in the asserted claim
can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
claim‘s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term‘s meaning. Id. For
example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
―[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) (en banc)).
―[T]he specification ‗is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
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)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v.
Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may
define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise
possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations,
the inventor‘s lexicography governs. Id.
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. But,
―‗[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim
language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally
be read into the claims.‘‖ Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
3
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 patent applicant may also define a term in
prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (―As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a
patent.‖).
Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is ―‗less significant than the intrinsic record
in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.‘‖ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert‘s conclusory, unsupported
assertions as to a term‘s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
evidence is ―less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
claim terms.‖ Id.
Summary Judgment
―Summary judgment is appropriate in a patent case, as in other cases, when there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.‖ Nike, Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 43 F.3d 644, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1994); FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of ―informing the district court of the basis
for its motion‖ and identifying the matter that ―it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.‖ Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the
4
moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must then set forth ―specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.‖ FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
A party seeking to invalidate a patent must overcome a presumption that the patent is
valid. See 35 U.S.C. § 282; Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2243 (2011);
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Nat’l Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This presumption
places the burden on the challenging party to prove the patent is invalid by clear and convincing
evidence. Microsoft, 131 S. Ct. at 2243; U.S. Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d at 1212.
A claim is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 if it fails to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant regards as the invention. The
party seeking to invalidate a claim as indefinite must show by clear and convincing evidence that
the claim, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, does not ―inform those
skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.‖ Nautilus, Inc. v.
Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129, 2130 n.10 (2014).
5
AGREED CLAIM TERMS
In their Joint Claim Construction Chart (Docket No. 165-1, Ex. A) the parties agreed to
the construction of the following terms:
Claim Term
Agreed Construction
―industry standard computer bus known as the
Peripheral Component Interconnect Local Bus‖
―PCI bus‖
―Peripheral Component Interconnect bus‖
―(PCI) bus‖
―serial bit channel‖
―a path on which units of information are
transferred serially from one component to
another‖
―serial . . . channel‖
―channels . . . to transmit . . . as serial data‖
―serial bit stream‖
―a flow of information in which units of
information are transferred serially from one
component to another‖
DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
A. “low voltage differential signal” or “LVDS”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary.
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―a signal represented by the difference in
voltage between two lines, where the
Alternatively, ―a signal represented by the difference in voltage is low, and not limited to
difference in voltage between two lines, where any particular type of LVDS technology‖
the difference in voltage is low‖
Asserted claims of the ‘624, ‘487, ‘873, ‘961, ‘814, ‘119, ‘171, ‘468, and ‘984 Patents
contain the term ―low voltage differential signal‖ or ―LVDS.‖
The parties agree that ―LVDS‖ refers to ―low voltage differential signal‖ or ―low voltage
differential signaling.‖ Docket No. 165-1, Ex. A at 1. However, the parties dispute whether the
construction must include the phrase ―not limited to any particular type of LVDS technology.‖
6
Id. Defendants argue that the patents expressly define LVDS as not being ―limited to any
particular type of LVDS technology.‖ Docket No. 145 at 27 (quoting ‘873 Patent col.4 ll.1–3).
ACQIS objects to Defendants‘ proposal, arguing that it is circular and would confuse a jury.
Docket No. 129 at 9.
Defendants have not demonstrated that their proposed language is necessary.
The
agreed-upon portion of the parties‘ proposed constructions does not refer to any particular LVDS
technology. Therefore, Defendants‘ proposed limitation would not bring anything new to the
construction. Further, Defendants have failed to establish that the specification contains any
lexicography commensurate with the limitation that Defendants have proposed. The Court
construes ―low voltage differential signal‖ or ―LVDS‖ as “a signal represented by the
difference in voltage between two lines, where the difference in voltage is low.”
B. “differential signal . . . channel”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary.
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―interface channel that uses differential
signaling and operates under a protocol
Alternatively, ―a channel for carrying a signal, different from that used by the PCI bus‖
the signal being represented by the difference
in voltage between two lines‖
Asserted claims of all eleven patents-in-suit contain the term ―differential signal . . .
channel.‖
ACQIS submits that ―differential signaling is a well-known method of transmitting
information where the signal is represented by the voltage differential between two lines.‖ Id. at
10. ACQIS argues that Defendants‘ proposal conflicts with certain claim terms and improperly
relies on a circular definition. Id. at 10–11. Defendants respond that their proposal is ―tied
directly to an express statement of the present invention from the patents‘ specifications.‖
7
Docket No. 145 at 38 (emphasis omitted). According to Defendants, the specification and
ACQIS‘s statements confirm that a key inventive aspect of the differential signal channel is its
―non-PCI‖ nature. Id. (citing patent specifications and reexamination proceedings).
At the hearing, the parties agreed that the differential signal channel operates under a
protocol that is different from a PCI bus protocol. Tr. Feb. 12, 2015, Docket No. 175 (―Hearing
Transcript‖) at 75:16–77:8. Because the parties do not dispute the claim scope, there is no
reason to include Defendants‘ ―non-PCI‖ proposal in the construction. Additionally, ACQIS‘s
proposal avoids confusion that could result from Defendants‘ circular construction.
Accordingly, the Court construes ―differential signal . . . channel‖ as “a channel for carrying a
signal, the signal being represented by the difference in voltage between two lines.”
C. “PCI bus . . . transaction” or “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus
transaction” or “(PCI) bus transaction”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―digital command, address, and data ―signals communicated over a PCI bus‖
information, in accordance with the PCI
standard, for communication with an
interconnected peripheral component‖
Asserted claims of all eleven patents-in-suit contain the term ―PCI bus . . . transaction.‖
In Appro, the Court construed ―PCI bus transaction‖ as ―a data signal communication with an
interconnected peripheral component.‖ Appro, Docket No. 602 at 11.
The parties agree that the construction in Appro should be reconsidered because it did not
account for the PCI standard. Docket No. 129 at 12; Docket No. 145 at 21–22. ACQIS submits
that its proposed construction is consistent with the use of ―PCI‖ in the claims, the specification,
and technical dictionaries. Docket No. 129 at 13. ACQIS urges that whereas Defendants
propose referring to ―signals,‖ ―a person of ordinary skill would understand that the information
8
transmitted in a ‗PCI bus transaction‘ includes the command, address, and data information
required of a PCI-standard based transaction.‖
Id. at 14.
Finally, ACQIS argues that
Defendants‘ proposal of requiring transactions crossing a physical bus would ―render some of
the claims and embodiments described in the specification inoperable.‖ Id. at 15. Defendants
respond that ACQIS‘s proposal suffers from three flaws: ―(1) it does not even require a PCI bus,
or any bus at all; (2) it has nothing to do with a transaction, but would cover mere
‗information . . . for communication,‘ regardless of whether any transaction even takes place; and
(3) it rewrites the claims to cover ‗digital commands, address, and data information‘—instead of
‗signals,‘ as provided for by the claims and specifications as well as this Court‘s prior ruling.‖
Docket No. 145 at 20.
Defendants have failed to show that a PCI bus ―transaction‖ necessarily implies the
presence of a PCI ―bus.‖ Claim 24 of the ‘171 Patent, for example, recites in relevant part
(emphasis added):
24. A method comprising:
providing a computer module, the module comprising
a central processing unit,
a connection program,
an integrated interface controller and bridge unit to output an encoded
serial bit stream of address and data bits of [a] Peripheral
Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction, the integrated
interface controller and bridge unit coupled to the central
processing unit without any intervening PCI bus, and
a low voltage differential signal channel coupled to the integrated
interface controller and bridge unit to convey the encoded serial bit
stream of PCI bus transaction; . . . .
The specification of the ‘873 Patent likewise discloses:
In the present invention, PCI control signals are encoded into control bits and the
control bits, rather than the control signals that they represent, are transmitted on
the interface channel. At the receiving end, the control bits representing control
signals are decoded back into PCI control signals prior to being transmitted to the
intended PCI bus.
9
‘873 Patent col.5 ll.33–39. Thus, information in accordance with the PCI standard can be
encoded and conveyed serially without the existence of an originating PCI bus.
As for the proper construction, the parties agree that ―PCI‖ refers to an industry standard.
ACQIS cites a PCI Local Bus Specification to support its proposed construction involving digital
command, address, and data information. See Docket No. 129 at 15. Although a PCI bus
transaction must include all information required by the PCI standard, ACQIS‘s extrinsic
evidence does not clearly define a ―transaction‖ as digital command, address, and data
information. Accordingly, the Court construes ―PCI bus . . . transaction‖ as “information, in
accordance with the PCI standard, for communication with an interconnected peripheral
component.”
D. “encoded PCI bus transaction” or “encoded . . . Peripheral Component Interconnect
(PCI) bus transaction” or “encoded . . . (PCI) bus transaction”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary.
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―PCI bus transaction translated into bits for
parallel to serial conversion‖
Alternatively, ―assigning code to represent data
for a bus transaction‖
Asserted claims of all eleven patents-in-suit contain the term ―encoded PCI bus
transaction.‖
ACQIS argues that the Court should adopt the plain and ordinary meaning of the word
―encoded‖ in its construction. Id. at 17. ACQIS argues that Defendants‘ proposal should be
rejected because ―[t]he claim language, while expressly discussing the encoded nature of the PCI
bus transaction, does not claim parallel to serial conversion.‖ Id. at 19. Defendants respond that
discussion of ―the present invention‖ in the specification and ACQIS‘s statements in
reexaminations confirm that ―encoding‖ requires using bits for parallel to serial conversion.
10
Docket No. 145 at 28–31. Defendants also emphasize that ACQIS‘s proposal reads ―PCI‖ out of
the claim. Id. at 33.
As discussed above for the term ―PCI bus transaction,‖ the claim language suggests that
an encoded PCI bus transaction does not require any parallel-to-serial conversion at all. See ‘468
Patent Claim 37 (―A computer comprising: a central processing unit directly connected to a first
[LVDS] channel to convey a first encoded serial bit stream of address and data bits of a [PCI]
bus transaction.‖). Such a reading is supported by the specification, which discloses ―encoding‖
in a context that is not tethered to parallel-to-serial conversion. See ‘873 Patent col.5 ll.34–48.
Further, nowhere in the reexamination proceedings cited by Defendants did ACQIS state that
parallel-to-serial conversion is always necessary.
Although ACQIS proposes that no construction is necessary, construction will assist a
finder of fact in understanding the significance of the term ―encoded‖ in the context of the
communications set forth in the claims. Accordingly, the Court construes ―encoded PCI bus
transaction‖ as “code representing a PCI bus transaction.”1
1
The Court‘s construction amends ACQIS‘s proposed construction by changing the tense to
match the surrounding claim language.
11
E. “Ethernet hub controller”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―Ethernet device joining communication lines ―a console component providing a central
at a central location, providing a common connection between Ethernet communication
connection to all devices on the network‖
devices in which a transmission from any one
device is received by all other devices‖2
Asserted claims of the ‘416 and ‘873 Patents contain the term ―Ethernet hub controller.‖
In Appro, the Court construed the term ―hub‖ as ―a device joining communication lines at a
central location, providing a common connection to all devices on the network.‖ Appro, Docket
No. 602 at 7.
ACQIS asks the Court to adopt its construction of ―hub‖ from Appro with minor
variations. Docket No. 129 at 20. ACQIS argues that Defendants‘ proposed construction is
inconsistent with prosecution history of a related patent that identifies a ―switching hub‖ as an
example of an Ethernet hub controller. Id. Defendants respond that ―‗Ethernet hub controller‘ is
different from ‗hub,‘ . . . and the record establishes that an ‗Ethernet hub controller‘ provides a
central connection between Ethernet devices in which a transmission from any one device is
received by all other devices.‖ Docket No. 145 at 34. Further, Defendants argue that the claims,
specifications, and extrinsic evidence all recognize that ―hub controllers‖ and ―switches‖ are
different. Id. at 35. In support, Defendants submit evidence that under the Ethernet standard,
whereas a ―switch‖ passes transmissions to only the destination device or devices, a ―hub‖
rebroadcasts every transmission to all devices. See Docket No. 146, Ex. 33 at 108 & Ex. 34 at
38–39.
2
Defendants‘ briefing omits the word ―communication‖ from their proposed construction.
Compare Docket No. 145 at 34, with Docket No. 165-1, Ex. A at 3. This discrepancy is
immaterial to the Court‘s analysis.
12
In Appro, defendant IBM proposed construing the term ―hub‖ to mean ―a computer
networking device for collecting output data signals from two or more devices and
rebroadcasting them to every other devices [sic] on the network.‖ Appro, Docket No. 602 at 5.
IBM argued that the plain meaning of ―hub‖ does not include a switch. Id. at 6. The Court
expressly rejected IBM‘s argument and IBM‘s proposed construction. See id. at 6–7. The Appro
opinion also cited prosecution history of a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,328,297) that
referred to ―various types of Ethernet hub controllers (e.g. switching hub, passive hub or
intelligent hub).‖ Id. at 7 (emphasis added).
Defendants have not justified setting aside the findings in Appro. The Court construes
―Ethernet hub controller‖ as “Ethernet device joining communication lines at a central
location, providing a common connection to all devices on the network.”
F. “computer module” or “module”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―an assembly for providing a computing ―a removable, user-portable computing
function within a computer system as recited in package‖
a particular claim‖
Asserted claims of the eleven patents-in-suit contain the term ―computer module.‖ In
Appro, the Court construed ―computer module‖ as ―an assembly for providing a computing
function within a computer system as recited in a particular claim.‖ Appro, Docket No. 315 at 8.
ACQIS submits that here, like in Appro, the Court should reject any size limitation such
as ―user-portable.‖ Docket No. 129 at 22. Defendants respond that their proposal of ―userportable‖ is different from the physical size restriction rejected in Appro. Docket No. 145 at 3–4.
Defendants also emphasize that ―[t]hrough hundreds of columns of specifications across all the
13
patents, through the original prosecution and then the reissue prosecution, there is no
embodiment in which the module is not removable and portable.‖ Id. at 7.
Whereas Appro addressed whether a size limitation should be imported into the claims,
the parties here dispute whether a module must be ―removable‖ and ―user-portable.‖ See Appro,
Docket No. 315 at 6–7. The specification of the ‘487 Patent, as an example, discloses various
―drawback[s] to having two separate computers,‖ such as the cost of duplicate hardware and
software and the inconvenience of transferring data between the two computers. See ‘487 Patent
col.2 ll.14–39; id. at col.2 ll.15–39. Also, the ―attached computer module‖ is disclosed in the
specification as ―facilitat[ing] the movement of the user‘s core computing power and
environment to different work settings, which is a further advantage of the present invention.‖
Id. at col.26 ll.63–67; id. at col.27 ll.38–41 (―Such connectors have specifically been designed to
stand up to the rigors of repeated insertion and withdrawal.‖).
Defendants‘ proposed limitations are not easily defined and may introduce a fact question
for the jury. In particular, the ―user-portable‖ limitation introduces unnecessary ambiguity and
will not be included. See Hearing Transcript at 54:20–23. Nevertheless, the patents‘ consistent
emphasis that a module is ―removable‖ warrants including that limitation in the claim
construction. See VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting
that the patentee ―has not identified even a single embodiment that provides data security but not
anonymity‖ and that ―[t]he fact that anonymity is repeatedly and consistently used to
characterize the invention strongly suggests that it should be read as part of the claim‖) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a module is ―removable‖ depends on the level
of ordinary skill among a particular class of users. Anything can be considered removable
depending on the user. For example, whereas a driver may consider a car key to be removable
14
from the ignition, a mechanic might consider the ignition itself to be removable. The question of
removability is appropriate for a jury and need not be addressed as a matter of claim scope. See
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 387 (1996) (recognizing a distinction
between claim construction by a court and application of a construction by a jury); PPG Indus. v.
Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (―[A]fter the court has defined the
claim with whatever specificity and precision is warranted by the language of the claim and the
evidence bearing on the proper construction, the task of determining whether the construed claim
reads on the accused product is for the finder of fact.‖).
The Court construes ―computer module‖ or ―module‖ as “a removable computing
package for providing a computing function within a computer system as recited in a
particular claim.”
G. “console”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―a chassis that connects several components of ―a device that supplies a module with a
the computer system‖
primary input, display, and power supply to
form an operating computer system‖
Asserted claims of the ‘416, ‘624, ‘487, ‘873, ‘961, ‘814, ‘119, ‘171, ‘468, and ‘984
Patents contain the term ―console.‖ In Appro, the Court construed ―console‖ as ―a chassis that
connects several components of the computer system.‖ Appro, Docket No. 315 at 9.
ACQIS argues that Defendants‘ proposal ―reads limitations from preferred embodiments
into the claims and renders language of other claims superfluous.‖ Docket No. 129 at 26.
Defendants respond that intrinsic and extrinsic evidence confirm that the console supplies
components that are needed in combination with the module to form an operating computer
system. Docket No. 145 at 8–9. Defendants also submit that a console need not ―include an
15
input, display, or power supply.‖ Id. at 8 n.9. Rather, Defendants contend, ―the console must
supply these elements (which may be external to the console) to the module.‖ Id. (emphasis
added).
In Appro, the defendants argued that a ―console‖ must be ―capable of operation as a
computer only upon connection to a computer module.‖ Appro, Docket No. 315 at 9. The
Appro opinion concluded that ―[b]ecause there is nothing in the claims that limits the
functionality of a console, Defendants‘ proposal which imports a negative limitation into the
claims is improper.‖ Id.
Although the instant dispute was not before the Court in Appro, that construction remains
correct. Defendants‘ proposed construction would render certain claim terms superfluous, and is
therefore disfavored.
See ‘873 Patent Claim 11 (requiring, among other things, ―a power
supply‖); id. at col.4 ll.13–20 (discussing ―multi-processing‖). Additionally, the statements
which Defendants suggest are limiting, Docket No. 145 at 10–13, are neither universal nor
tethered to the claims at issue. Defendants provide no reason to deviate from the construction
given in Appro. Accordingly, the Court construes ―console‖ as “a chassis that connects several
components of the computer system.”
H. “enclosure”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary.
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―a surrounding case that protects internal
components
from
mechanical
and
environmental exposure‖
Asserted claims of the ‘416, ‘624, ‘487, ‘873, ‘961, ‘814, and ‘119 Patents contain the
term ―enclosure.‖
16
ACQIS argues that ―enclosure‖ is a ―plain and ordinary term that a lay jury will easily be
familiar with from everyday knowledge.‖ Docket No. 129 at 27. Defendants respond that the
specifications ―uniformly disclose that the enclosure provides protection for the internal
components from mechanical and environmental exposure.‖ Docket No. 145 at 14.
Nothing in the claim language nor the specification demands that all enclosures have the
characteristics identified by Defendants. Having rejected Defendants‘ argument, the Court finds
that no further construction is necessary. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d
1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (―Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings
and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the
claims, for use in the determination of infringement.
It is not an obligatory exercise in
redundancy.‖). The Court construes ―enclosure‖ to have its plain meaning.
I. “slot”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
―a space for receiving a computer module‖
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―a space that receives a module and guides the
module into place‖
Asserted claims of the ‘416, ‘624, ‘487, and ‘873 Patents contain the term ―slot.‖ In
Appro, the Court construed this term as ―a space for receiving a computer module.‖ Appro,
Docket No. 315 at 11.
ACQIS argues that ―Defendants‘ construction improperly defines claim language based
on one embodiment of the invention and should be rejected.‖ Docket No. 129 at 29. Defendants
emphasize that their proposed construction is consistent with the proposal and arguments
presented by ACQIS in Appro. Docket No. 145 at 16. Defendants also submit that Appro
addressed a different dispute, specifically, whether a ―slot‖ is limited to receiving only a single
computer module. Id.
17
In Appro, ACQIS stated that ―to give full effect to the invention, a ‗slot‘ both receives a
module and guides the module into place.‖ Appro, Docket No. 261 at 22; see Docket No. 146,
Ex. 4 at 22; see id., Ex. 16, Tr. July 8, 2010 at 61:10–13 (―A slot is a space for receiving a
module and providing guidance to a connector. That definition is supported by all of the
embodiments that are described in the specification.‖); see also id. at 61:21–24 (similar).
However, the Court in Appro neither adopted nor relied upon ACQIS‘s statements in that case.
Thus, ACQIS‘s previous position does not bind ACQIS here. Instead, the function of guiding
the module into place is a preferred feature of a ―slot‖ in some embodiments and should not be
imported as a limitation into the claims. Accordingly, the Court construes ―slot‖ as “a space for
receiving a computer module.”
J. “hard disk drive”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary.
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
―a device that stores data on one or more
spinning, rigid magnetic disks‖
ACQIS submits that ―hard disk drive‖ ―is a plain and ordinary term that a lay jury will
easily be familiar with from everyday use of a computer system.‖ Docket No. 129 at 29.
ACQIS argues that Defendants‘ proposal ―only serves to add additional terms, such as rigid and
spinning, that could be interpreted differently by different members of the jury.‖ Id. at 30.
Defendants respond that their proposal is confirmed by the prosecution history and by ACQIS‘s
own extrinsic evidence. Docket No. 145 at 18. ACQIS replies: ―The jury will be more certain of
these plain words, than the Defendants‘ proposed construction, which is not how an ordinary
person would refer to a simple ‗hard disk drive.‘‖ Docket No. 155 at 20.
The parties do not appear to dispute the meaning of the term ―hard disk drive.‖ Instead,
ACQIS‘s primary contention is that Defendants‘ proposal will increase juror confusion by
18
introducing a number of new terms for the jury to interpret. The Court agrees. ―Hard disk drive‖
is a term known to a person skilled in the art, and Defendants‘ construction does not add clarity
to its plain and ordinary meaning. The Court construes ―hard disk drive‖ to have its plain
meaning.
INDEFINITENESS OF CLAIM TERMS
Defendants contend that five terms in the patents-in-suit render claims invalid for
indefiniteness.
A. “similar in design”
Claims 6 and 26 of the ‘624 Patent and Claim 36 of the ‘873 Patent contain the term
―similar in design.‖ In Appro, the Court found that this term did not render the claims indefinite.
Appro, Docket No. 315 at 13–16.
Defendants argue: ―(a) the claims and specifications do not provide guidance as to
specifically which aspects of the ‗design‘ of a module should be evaluated; and (b) ‗similar‘ in
the context of the claims introduces a question of degree and subjectivity with no clear metric or
guidepost to enable a person of skill in the art to judge what degree of difference falls inside the
claims and what falls outside.‖ Docket No. 151 at 3. Defendants submit that although Appro
rejected an indefiniteness challenge as to this term, ―the then-prevailing ‗insolubly ambiguous‘
standard‖ relied upon by the Court ―has since been abrogated.‖ Id. at 3 n.4 (citing Nautilus, Inc.
v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014)).
ACQIS responds that: (1) its argument is that ―the scope of ‗similar in design‘ is limited
by the common architecture of each module, not that design refers to a common architecture‖;
(2) Appro found ―[t]he meaning of ‗design‘ would be understood by one of skill in the art to refer
to the ‗electronic circuit configuration‘ operative to implement the processing operations of the
19
computer system‖; and (3) ―[f]or computer modules to maintain compatibility with a shared
console and provide the functions discussed in the specification, they must share a similar
design, i.e., an electronic circuit configuration operative to implement the processing operations
of the computer system.‖ Docket No. 157 at 3–4. ACQIS urges that ―‗[s]imilar in design‘ is a
simple term that Defendants go to great lengths to make complicated.‖ Id. at 5 (citing Abstrax,
Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 2:14-cv-158, 2015 WL 156555, at *15 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12,
2015)). ACQIS also submits a declaration by its expert, Thomas A. Gafford. See Docket No.
157-1 (―Gafford Decl.‖) at ¶ 10. ACQIS concludes that ―when considered in light of the
specification the meaning of ‗similar in design‘ is objectively bounded by the common
architecture of each module, the processing requirements set forth in the specification, the
compatibility with the console, and the components required by each claim.‖ Docket No. 157
at 5.
Claim 26 of the ‘624 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):
26. A computer system comprising:
a console comprising a first coupling site and a second coupling site, each
coupling site comprising a connector and a slot, the console being an enclosure
housing the coupling sites;
a plurality of computer modules, each computer module coupled to one of
the coupling sites through the connector and the slot, comprising
a processing unit,
a main memory coupled to the processing unit,
a low voltage differential signal (LVDS) channel comprising two sets
of unidirectional multiple serial bit channels which transmit data in
opposite directions,
an Ethernet controller coupled to the connector of the coupling site for
communication to an external network through the console, and
a first interface controller coupled [to] the LVDS channel for
communicating an encoded serial bit stream of Peripheral
Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction;
wherein each of the computer modules is similar in design to each other
and operates fully independent of each other.
20
In Appro, the Court applied the ―insolubly ambiguous‖ standard to find that the term
―similar in design‖ did not render the claims indefinite. Appro, Docket No. 315 at 13–16. The
Supreme Court of the United States abrogated the ―insolubly ambiguous‖ standard in Nautilus,
stating that ―a patent‘s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [must]
inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.‖
Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129.
At the hearing, ACQIS suggested that ―similar in design‖ is objectively anchored by
similarity in module components or circuit design. Hearing Transcript at 84:7–15. However,
ACQIS was unable to articulate any point at which components or circuitry would cease to be
―similar.‖ Instead, ACQIS‘s arguments suggest that the only base reference for similarity is
actually ―identity.‖ See, e.g., id. at 84:14–15 (―The circuit design in those figures is the same. It
is similar.‖); id. at 85:5–8 (―And then, finally, if you go to Figure 18 again, it is different
components and different design. The things are connected fundamentally differently. They
work differently there.‖).
The term ―similar in design,‖ as it appears in the claims identified by Defendants (Claims
6 and 26 of the ‘624 Patent and Claim 36 of the ‘873 Patent), fails to meet the ―reasonable
certainty‖ standard and renders those claims indefinite. See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC v.
AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371–74 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding ―unobtrusive manner‖ indefinite
under Nautilus because the term had ―too uncertain a relationship to the patents‘ embodiments‖
and because the embodiment cited by the plaintiff did not ―provide a reasonably clear and
exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective
boundary‖). In other words, the claims fail to ―provide objective boundaries for those of skill in
the art.‖ Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 1371. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants‘ Motion for
21
Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Indefiniteness (Docket No. 151) with respect to
―similar in design‖ and finds that Claims 6 and 26 of the ‘624 Patent and Claim 36 of the ‘873
Patent are INVALID for failing to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
B. “fully independent”
Asserted claims of the ‘624, ‘487, and ‘416 Patents contain the term ―fully independent.‖
Defendants argue that ―there is no disclosure anywhere in the Asserted Patents of modules being
‗fully independent,‘ let alone any way to determine what the term ‗fully independent‘—as
opposed to just ‗independent‘—could possibly mean.‖ Docket No. 151 at 7. Thus, Defendants
submit, ―[t]he word ‗fully‘ either adds nothing, which cannot be the case as a matter of law, or it
is impossible to know what meaning the word adds.‖ Id. at 8 (citing Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo
Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
ACQIS responds that ―‗fully‘ is an absolute adjective whose meaning is easily
understood by anyone, including a person of ordinary skill.‖ Docket No. 157 at 6; see also id. at
7–8 (citing dictionaries defining ―fully‖ as ―to the full; completely; entirely; thoroughly,‖ or
―totally or completely‖). ACQIS argues that the specification distinguishes between modules
that are fully independent and modules that are not, and ―[o]ne example of this interdependence
is automatic file backup.‖ Id. at 7. ACQIS concludes that ―‗fully independent‘ means there is
absolutely no interdependent relationship between computers operating ‗fully independent of
each other.‘‖ Id. (citing Gafford Decl. at ¶¶ 11–14).
Claim 26 of the ‘624 Patent, for example, is reproduced above in the discussion of the
term ―similar in design.‖ It recites in relevant part (emphasis added): ―wherein each of the
computer modules is similar in design to each other and operates fully independent of each
other.‖
22
The specification discloses:
In an exemplary embodiment, the present invention provides a system including a
plurality of computer modules that can independently operate to provide backup
capability, dual processing, and the like.
‘624 Patent col.8 ll.42–45 (emphasis added).
The meaning of ―independent,‖ particularly in light of this context in the specification, is
not ―purely subjective,‖ Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1351, but rather is ―reasonabl[y] certain[],‖
Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129. Defendants‘ indefiniteness argument is therefore rejected as to this
disputed term. No further construction is necessary. See U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants‘ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
with respect to ―fully independent.‖ The Court construes ―fully independent‖ to have its plain
meaning.
C. “connection program”
ACQIS’s Proposed Construction
Not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
Term is indefinite.
No construction necessary.
Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Function: ―to adapt to the connection
Alternatively, ―a program that connects one
information‖
piece of hardware or software to another‖
Structure: not disclosed
Claim 24 of the ‘171 Patent contains the term ―connection program.‖ ACQIS submits
that ―[t]he ‗connection program‘ is not limited to a specific type; rather, it describes a class of
programs that will be able to receive information regarding what type of connection is
appropriate and connect one piece of hardware or software to another according to that
information.‖ Docket No. 129 at 23. Defendants argue that ACQIS‘s proposal ―adds nothing‖
and ―illustrates the point that the specification does not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to
understand the claim‘s scope with ‗reasonable certainty.‘‖
23
Docket No. 151 at 11 (citing
Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124). Defendants argue that ―the term refers to a purely functional
element in the claim‖ such that the presumption against means-plus-function treatment is
overcome, ―and since there is no corresponding structural support in the specification, the term is
indefinite.‖ Id.
ACQIS responds that in a recent Inter Partes Review proceeding, Defendant EMC
submitted a declaration by its expert opining on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the term ―connection program.‖ Docket No. 157 at 9–10. ACQIS also urges that
―Defendant‘s assertion that the claimed ‗connection program‘ performs the function of
‗adapt[ing] to the connection information‘ is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption
against applying § 112 ¶ 6 to a term that does not recite ‗means for.‘‖ Id. at 10.
Essentially, the parties dispute whether reciting a ―connection program‖ is tantamount to
reciting
a
connection
―means,‖
such
that
means-plus-function
treatment
under
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is appropriate.
The disputed term appears in only Claim 24 of the ‘171 Patent, which recites (emphasis
added):
24. A method comprising:
providing a computer module, the module comprising
a central processing unit,
a connection program,
an integrated interface controller and bridge unit to output an encoded
serial bit stream of address and data bits of Peripheral Component
Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction, the integrated interface
controller and bridge unit coupled to the central processing unit
without any intervening PCI bus, and
a low voltage differential signal channel coupled to the integrated
interface controller and bridge unit to convey the encoded serial bit
stream of PCI bus transaction;
inserting the computer module into a computer console, the computer
console having access to a network;
24
receiving connection information from the computer console;
configuring the connection program to adapt to the connection
information; and
establishing a connection between the computer module and a server
coupled to the network,
wherein the low voltage differential signal channel further comprises two
sets of unidirectional serial bit channels which transmit data in opposite
directions.
The term ―connection program‖ does not appear outside of the claims.
―[A] claim term that does not use ‗means‘ will trigger [a] rebuttable presumption that
[35 U.S.C.] § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.‖ Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382
F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The presumption that a limitation lacking the term ―means‖ is not subject to
section 112 ¶ 6 can be overcome if it is demonstrated that the claim term fails to
recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting
sufficient structure for performing that function. Our cases make clear, however,
that the presumption flowing from the absence of the term ―means‖ is a strong
one that is not readily overcome.
Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 1359–60 (―[I]t is sufficient if the
claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate
structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the
structures by their function.‖); see also id. at 1360 (noting that claim language need not
necessarily ―bring to mind a particular structure‖).
Defendants have failed to overcome the presumption against applying means-plusfunction treatment to a term that does not recite a ―means.‖ See, e.g., Williamson v. Citrix
Online, LLC, 770 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (―To rebut this strong presumption, it must
be demonstrated that skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that the claim
limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function
25
claiming.‖) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court therefore rejects
Defendants‘ indefiniteness argument. No further construction is necessary. The Court DENIES
Defendants‘ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 151) with respect to this term
and construes ―connection program‖ to have its plain meaning.
D. “the coupling site” or “the connector” or “the connector and the slot”
Asserted claims of the ‘416, ‘624, and ‘487 Patents contain the terms ―the coupling site,‖
―the connector,‖ or ―the connector and the slot.‖
Defendants have cited, as an example, Claim 6 of the ‘624 Patent, which recites
(emphasis added):
6. A computer system comprising:
a console comprising a power supply, a first coupling site and a second
coupling site, each coupling site comprising a connector and a slot, the console
being an enclosure housing the coupling sites and the power supply,
a plurality of computer modules; each computer module coupled to one of
the coupling site through the connector and the slot, comprising
a processing unit,
a serial communication controller coupled to the connector of the
coupling site for communication to an external network,
a main memory coupled to the processing unit, and
a first interface controller coupled to a low voltage differential signal
(LVDS) channel comprises two sets of unidirectional serial bit
channels in opposite directions communicating an encoded serial
bit stream of Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus
transaction;
wherein each of the computer modules is similar in design to each other,
and each set of unidirectional serial bit channels comprise a plurality of pairs of
differential signal lines.
The plain language of the claim is sufficiently clear that in the phrase ―each computer
module coupled to one of the coupling site through the connector and the slot,‖ the phrase ―one
of the coupling site[s]‖ refers to one of ―a first coupling site and a second coupling site.‖ To
whatever extent Defendants maintain that ―the coupling site‖ is unclear, the doctrine of judicial
26
correction can be applied so that this phrase refers to ―the coupling sites,‖ plural. See Novo
Indus. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (judicial correction of an
error in a patent may be available ―if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based
on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does
not suggest a different interpretation of the claims‖).
Once ―one of the coupling site[s]‖ is understood, the recital of ―the connector and the
slot‖ naturally refers to the ―connector‖ and ―slot‖ associated with the ―coupling site‖ to which
the module is coupled. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants‘ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 151) with respect to these terms.
E. “encoded . . . [PCI] bus transaction”
Asserted claims of the eleven patents-in-suit contain the term ―encoded . . . [PCI] bus
transaction.‖ A related term, ―[PCI] bus transaction in an encoded . . . form,‖ appears in claims
of the ‘119, ‘416, ‘873, and ‘294 Patents.
Defendants argue that ―encoded‖ is indefinite because ―[t]he claims provide no
guideposts to differentiate between encoded PCI bus transaction data versus unencoded PCI bus
transaction data. At best, it simply provides what encoded cannot be—‗serializ[ation],‘ which is
a separate limitation.‖ Docket No. 151 at 14. Defendants also argue that ACQIS‘s proposed
construction is based on an extrinsic dictionary definition that ―is likewise generic‖ and is
―completely devoid of context to the Asserted Patents.‖
Id.
ACQIS responds that ―[t]he
specification provides sufficient guidance to a person of ordinary skill as to the meaning of
‗encoded.‘‖ Docket No. 157 at 13 (citing Gafford Decl. at ¶¶ 19–22).
Defendants have also cited testimony by the named inventor that ―by itself, encoded PCI
doesn‘t have a significant meaning. I mean, it‘s -- it can be many different forms of encoding.‖
27
Docket No. 146, Ex. 27, Chu Dep. at 175:3–6. ACQIS responds that ―[t]he fact that different
encoding types may be used does not mean that there is an unclear difference between encoded
data and unencoded data.‖ Docket No. 157 at 14. Regardless, inventor testimony is of limited, if
any, relevance during claim construction proceedings.
See Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v.
Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that inventor
testimony carries limited weight because ―an inventor understands the invention but may not
understand the claims, which are typically drafted by the attorney prosecuting the patent
application‖).
Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the meaning of ―encoded‖ in the context of
the claims at issue is not ―reasonabl[y] certain[].‖ Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129. For example, the
specification discloses: ―In the present invention, PCI control signals are encoded into control
bits and the control bits rather than the control signals they represent are transmitted on the
interface channel.‖ ‘624 Patent col.5 ll.30–35 (emphasis added); see also id. at col.16 ll.52–55
(―Encoders 1022 and 1023 format the PCI address/data bits to a form more suitable for parallel
to serial conversion.‖).
The Court therefore DENIES Defendants‘ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 151) with respect to this term and construes ―encoded . . . [PCI] bus transaction‖ as
“code representing a PCI bus transaction” for the reasons explained above.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the
manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court‘s claim interpretations are set forth in a
table in Appendix A and the parties‘ agreed constructions are set forth in a table in Appendix B.
28
Further, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendants‘ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity on the Basis of Indefiniteness (Docket No. 151).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to ―similar in
design‖ and DENIES the Motion with respect to all other terms.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of April, 2015.
__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
29
APPENDIX A
Claim Term
low voltage differential signal
LVDS
differential signal . . . channel
Court’s Construction
a signal represented by the difference in
voltage between two lines, where the
difference in voltage is low
a channel for carrying a signal, the signal being
represented by the difference in voltage
between two lines
PCI bus . . . transaction
information, in accordance with the PCI
standard, for communication with an
Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus interconnected peripheral component
transaction
(PCI) bus transaction
encoded PCI bus transaction
code representing a PCI bus transaction
encoded . . . Peripheral Component
Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction
Not indefinite
encoded . . . PCI bus transaction
Ethernet hub controller
Ethernet device joining communication lines at
a central location, providing a common
connection to all devices on the network
computer module
a removable computing package for providing
a computing function within a computer
system as recited in a particular claim
module
console
a chassis that connects several components of
the computer system
enclosure
Plain meaning / No construction necessary
slot
a space for receiving a computer module
hard disk drive
Plain meaning / No construction necessary
similar in design
Indefinite
30
Claim Term
fully independent
Court’s Construction
Plain meaning / No construction necessary
Not indefinite
connection program
Plain meaning / No construction necessary
Not indefinite
the coupling site
Not indefinite
the connector
the connector and the slot
31
APPENDIX B
Claim Term
PCI bus
Agreed Construction
industry standard computer bus known as the
Peripheral Component Interconnect Local Bus
Peripheral Component Interconnect bus
(PCI) bus
serial bit channel
serial . . . channel
a path on which units of information are
transferred serially from one component to
another
channels . . . to transmit . . . as serial data
serial bit stream
a flow of information in which units of
information are transferred serially from one
component to another
32
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?