IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN PHILLIP MELLOR, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF CQG’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THE
`’304 AND ’132 PATENTS ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1
`FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTIONCBMR PETITION
`
`Introduction
`
`I, John Phillip Mellor, Ph.D., submit this Declaration in Support of CQG’s Motion for
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Summary Judgment that the ’304 and ’132 patents Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 for
`
`Lack of Written Description.
`
`II.
`
`2.1.
`
`Background
`
`I am a resident of Terre Haute, Indiana and I have more than 18 years of professional
`
`experience in computer science and software engineering. I hold a doctorate in electrical
`
`engineering and computer science and presently work as a professor at Rose-Hulman Institute of
`
`Technology (“Rose-Hulman”) in Computer Science and Software Engineering. In addition to
`
`my academic research in computer science and programming, I have served as a computer
`
`science and programming consultant and engineer to private industry, and an expert witness and
`
`consultant in several patent cases. I also invented and patented a new system for transforming
`
`graphical images. My experience is more fully detailed below and in my Curriculum Vitae
`
`attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`III.II. Scope of Assignment
`
`3.2. CQG Attorneys explained to me that Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”)
`
`brought a lawsuit against CQG for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304 (“the ’304
`
`patent”) and 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”). I understand that the lawsuit is pending in the United
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and was assigned case
`
`number 05-cv-4811.
`
`4.3. CQG Attorneys explained that TT is interpreting the claim terms “common static price
`
`axis” and “static display of prices” (collectively, the “Static Limitation”) of the independent
`
`claims of the ’304 and ’132 patents as covering both a price column where all prices are static
`
`and a price column where only some displayed prices levels in the column are static, and other
`
`displayed price levels are dynamic. I will refer to TT’s interpretation and/or application of the
`
`patents in this manner as “TT’s Static Interpretation.”
`
`5.4. CQG Attorneys also explained to me that the patent law requires the inventor to have
`
`demonstrated at the time of the filing date of the patent application that he was in actual
`
`possession of the invention as claimed or asserted against others. CQG Attorneys referred to this
`
`requirement as the “written description requirement,” and explained that this requirement
`
`prevents the inventor from claiming or asserting more than they actually invented as determined
`
`by the patent disclosure and figures. CQG Attorneys asked me to determine whether the ’304
`
`and ’132 patents disclose written description support for TT’s Static Interpretation.
`
`IV.III. Documents Reviewed in Forming my Opinions
`
`6.5.
`
`I formed my opinions based upon my knowledge, background, education, experience and
`
`review of the following documents and things:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (Ex. 21).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (Ex. 32).
`
`The Prosecution History for the ’304 patent (excerpts included in Ex. 4).
`
`The Prosecution History associated with the Reexamination of the ’304
`
`patent (excerpts included in Ex. 5).
`
`The Prosecution History for the ’132 patent (excerpts included in Ex. 6).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`(f)
`
`The Prosecution History associated with the Reexamination of
`
`the
`
`’132
`
`patent (excerpts included in Ex. 7).
`
`(g(c) Provisional Patent Application No. 60/186,322 (Ex. 83).
`
`(hd) A Memorandum and Opinion dated October 31, 2006 from Judge Moran
`
`for Case No. 04-cv-5312 bearing Document #: 425 (Ex. 94). CQG
`
`Attorneys explained to me that this Memorandum and Opinion represents
`
`the “Claim Construction Order” from the related Trading Technologies v.
`
`eSpeed case regarding the ’304 and ’132 patents. I will call this case the
`
`eSpeed Case.
`
`(ie) A Memorandum and Opinion dated February 21, 2007 from Judge Moran
`
`for Case No. 05-cv-4811 bearing Document #: 120 (Ex. 105). CQG
`
`Attorneys explained to me that this Memorandum and Opinion represents
`
`the “Supplemental Claim Construction Order” from the eSpeed Case.
`
`(jf)
`
`A Westlaw document dated June 20, 2007 bearing citation 507 F.Supp.2d
`
`854 (Ex. 116). CQG Attorneys explained to me that this document
`
`represents Judge Moran’s decision on TT’s motion for summary judgment
`
`of infringement. I will call this document the “eSpeed District Court
`
`Decision”.
`
`(kg) A Westlaw document dated February 25, 2010 bearing citation 595 F.3d
`
`1340 (Ex. 127). CQG Attorneys explained to me that this document
`
`represents the appellate decision issued by the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the eSpeed Case regarding claim
`
`construction, direct infringement, infringement under the doctrine of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`equivalents, definiteness, priority date, and prior use. I will call this
`
`document the eSpeed Federal Circuit Decision.
`
`(lh)
`
`The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition having a
`
`copyright date of 1980. Excerpts from the Random House College
`
`Dictionary are attached as Ex. 138.
`
`(mi) Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, having a copyright date of 1988.
`
`Excerpts from Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus are attached as Ex. 149.
`
`(nj)
`
`Electric Circuit Analysis, Third Edition (1999) by David E. Johnson,
`
`Johnny R. Johnson, John L. Hilburn, Peter D. Scott. Excerpts from this
`
`text are attached as Ex. 1510.
`
`(ok) Microelectronic Circuits, Fourth Edition (1998) by Adel S. Sedra, Kenneth
`
`C. Smith. Excerpts from this text are attached as Ex. 1611.
`
`(pl)
`
`Excerpts from TT’s Opening Statement in the eSpeed Case (Ex. 1712).
`
`(qm) Excerpts from Brumfield testimony in the eSpeed Case (Ex. 1813).
`
`V.IV. Understanding of the Patent Law
`
`7.6. While I have some familiarity with general patent law principles from my professional
`
`experiences, I do not consider myself an expert on patent law. So CQG Attorneys provided me
`
`with additional guidance on legal principles relating to those laws and in particular a primer on
`
`the component parts of a patent, claim, construction, and the written description requirement.
`
`8.7.
`
`I understand that a patent is composed of four main parts: (1) an abstract of disclosure;
`
`(2) one or more drawings or figures illustrating the invention, (3) a disclosure of the invention
`
`(sometimes called the specification), and (4) the claims. The abstract is a concise statement of
`
`the technical disclosure of the invention and generally identifies that which is new or improved
`
`to the industry. Drawings or figures of the invention are required when necessary to understand
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`the invention. The disclosure is a textual description of the invention and the figures. The words
`
`of the claims, as interpreted by the court, determine the scope of the invention. The words or
`
`phrases in the claims are sometimes referred to as “elements” or “limitations.”
`
`9.8.
`
`I understand that when a patent application is filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office, it is examined by an Examiner. The Examiner is an employee of the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office who reviews the application to determine if it meets all of the requirements for
`
`patentability as determined by the patent law. I understand that the Examiner and patent
`
`applicant often exchange written correspondence regarding whether the application satisfies the
`
`requirements for patentability. If a patent application meets all of the requirements for
`
`patentability, then it is allowed and ultimately issues as a patent. The collection of written
`
`correspondence between the patent applicant and Examiner is sometimes called the prosecution
`
`history or file wrapper.
`
`10.9.
`
`I understand that claim words are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. I also understand that this ordinary
`
`person should read the claims in view of the rest of the patent, including the disclosure and
`
`figures. I understand that statements made by the patent applicant during prosecution as
`
`recorded in the prosecution history may also be used to interpret the meaning of claim words.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that the claims are generally construed based on their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art and in view of the rest of
`
`the patent and the prosecution history.
`
`11.10. I also understand that a court generally interprets the claims when the parties dispute the
`
`meaning of the claim words (and therefore dispute the scope of the invention). Once a court
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`interprets a particular claim word, that construction is generally used by the parties and the court
`
`to determine if the claims are valid and/or infringed.
`
`12.11. I understand that the written description requirement of the patent law seeks to prevent a
`
`patent owner from overreaching his invention. During prosecution, the written description
`
`requirement prevents the patent applicant from presenting claims or amending claims that cover
`
`an invention different than the invention they actually possessed when the application was filed.
`
`During litigation, the written description requirement could invalidate a patent where the claims
`
`or the patent owner’s interpretation of those claims overreach to cover an invention different than
`
`the invention they actually possessed when the application was filed and disclosed to the public
`
`in the patent application. And, these issues turn on whether the abstract, disclosure, and/or
`
`drawings support the claims or asserted interpretation of the claims as determined by the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`VI.V. Analysis
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’304 and ’132 Patents
`
`13.12. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’304 patent on July 20, 2004
`
`and the ’132 patent on August 3, 2004. I reviewed the ’304 and ’132 patents. The patents look
`
`very similar. While I note that the patents have different claims, they have the same abstract,
`
`disclosure, and figures with one exception. The disclosure of the ’304 patent includes a
`
`statement indicating that it is a divisional application of Ser. No. 09/590,962. (Ex. 21 at col. 1,
`
`ll. 4-6 (CQG014190862).).) Ser. No. 09/590,962 is the application number associated with the
`
`’132 patent. (Ex. 21 at p. 1 (CQG014190854)). 1.)
`
`14.
`
`CQG Attorneys explained to me that a divisional application is an application that is filed
`
`while a previously-filed application is still pending. CQG Attorneys also explained that a
`
`divisional application and its related, previously-filed application should have the same abstract,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`disclosure, and figures, but different claims. The explanation provided by CQG Attorneys is
`
`consistent with my observation that the only notable difference between the ’304 and ’132
`
`patents is the claims.
`
`15.
`
`The disclosures of both patents include a priority statement. The statements indicate that
`
`the inventors claimed priority to U.S. Provisional Application, entitled “Market Depth Display
`
`Click Based Trading and Mercury Display” filed March 2, 2000, and that the contents of that
`
`provisional application were incorporated by reference. I understand that the provisional
`
`application identified in the priority statement is associated with Application Serial Number
`
`60/186,322. I will call it the “Provisional Application.”
`
`16.
`
`CQG Attorneys explained to me that patent applications may claim priority to a
`
`provisional application. According to CQG Attorneys, a provisional application is not examined
`
`by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for patentability requirements and is used by patent
`
`applicants as a placeholder for an effective filing date. The provisional application allows patent
`
`applicants to file a formal application within a year of the filing date of the provisional
`
`application. If the patent applicant does not add “new matter” to the formal application, I
`
`understand that the formal application may use the filing date of the provisional application as
`
`the effective filing date of the formal application. CQG Attorneys explained that in order to use
`
`the filing date of the provisional application, the formal application must be supported by the
`
`provisional application.
`
`B.
`
`The Independent Claims of the Patents
`
`17.13. The ’304 patent has two independent claims: claim 1 and claim 27. Claim 1 appears to
`
`be directed to a method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a
`
`commodity being traded in an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid
`
`price and a lowest ask price on a graphical user interface. (Ex. 21 at col. 12, line 35-col. 13,
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`line 3 (CQG014190867-68).).) I copied and pasted the text of the entirety of claim 1 of the ’304
`
`patent below with instances of the term “common static price axis” highlighted. Claim 1 of the
`
`’304 patent starts at column 12, line 35 and continues to column 13, line 3. To facilitate
`
`readability, I pasted the three lines from column 13 below the last line of column 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`(a)
`(a)
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent:
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent:
`
`1. Amethod for displaying market information relating to
`and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an
`electronic exchange having an inside marl-tel with a hightst
`bid price and at lowest ask price on a graphical user interface,
`the method comprising:
`dynamically displaying a lion indicator in one of a pltt-
`rality of locations in a bid display region, each location
`in the bid display region corresponding to a price level
`along a“ the first
`indicator
`representing quantity associated with at least one order
`to buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently
`available in the market;
`
`dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a
`plurality of locations in an ask display region, each
`location in the ash display region corresponding to a
`price level along theW the
`second indicator representing quantity associated with
`at least one order to sell the commodity at the lowest
`ask price currently available in the market;
`
`-
`
`so
`
`55
`
`on
`
`displaying the hid and ask display regions in relation to
`fixed price levels positioned along the common static
`price axis such that when the inside market changes, the
`price levels along the—do not
`move and at least one of the first and second indicators
`moves in the hid or ask display regions relative to the
`—
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of
`locations for receiving commands to send trade orders,
`each location corresponding to a price level along the
`es ”and
`in response to a selection of a particular location of the
`order entry region by a single action of a user inpul
`
`device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade
`order relating to the commodity and sending the trade
`order to the electronic exchange.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`18.14. Claim 27 of the ’304 patent appears to be directed to a computer readable medium having
`
`program code recorded thereon for execution on a computer. (Ex. 21 at col. 14, line 47-col. 15,
`
`line 17 (CQG014190868-69).).) Claims 1 and 27 of the ’304 patent are otherwise nearly
`
`identical. Accordingly, I will refer to claim 1 as representative of the independent claims of the
`
`’304 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`19.15. The ’132 patent has three independent claims: claim 1, claim 8, and claim 14. Claim 1
`
`appears to be directed to a method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic
`
`exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price, using a
`
`graphical user interface and a user input device. (Ex. 32 at col. 12, ll. 2-5 (CQG014190889).).) I
`
`copied and pasted the text of the entirety of claim 1 of the ’132 patent below with instances of
`
`the term “static display of prices” highlighted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`(a)
`(a)
`
`Claim 1 of the ’132 patent:
`Claim 1 of the ’ 132 patent:
`
`U:
`
`10'
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`1. A method of placing a trade order for a commodity on
`an electronic exchange having an inside market with a
`highest bid price and a lowest ask price, using a graphical
`user interface and a user input device, said method com-
`prising:
`
`setting a preset parameter for the trade order
`
`through a
`displaying market depth of the commodity,
`dynamic display of a plurality of bids and a plurality of
`asks in the market for the commodity, including at least
`a portion of the bid and ask quantities of the
`commodity, the dynamic display being aligned with a
`h“corresponding thereto, wherein
`lie—does not move in response
`to a change in the inside market,
`
`displaying an order entry region aligned with the;-
`“comprising a plurality of areas for
`receiving commands from the user input devices to
`send trade orders, each area corresponding to a price of
`them and
`
`selecting a particular area in the order entry region
`through single action of the user input device with a
`pointer of the user input device positioned over the
`particular area to set a plurality of additional param-
`eters for the trade order and send the trade order to the
`
`electronic exchange.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`20.16. Claim 8 of the ’132 patent appears to be directed to a computer readable medium having
`
`program code recorded on it for execution on a computer. (Ex. 32 at col. 12, line 57-col. 13,
`
`line 17 (CQG014190889-90).).) Claim 14 of the ’132 patent appears to be directed to a client
`
`system for placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange. (Id. at col. 13, line
`
`55-col. 14, line 14 (CQG014190890).).) Claims 1, 8, and 14 of the ’132 patent are otherwise
`
`nearly identical. Accordingly, I will refer to claim 1 as representative of the independent claims
`
`of the ’132 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction of the Static Limitation
`
`21.17. CQG Attorneys provided me with copies of Judge Moran’s Claim Construction Order
`
`and Supplemental Claim Construction Order from the eSpeed Case. (Exs. 9-10.) They also
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`provided me with copies of the eSpeed District Court Decision from Judge Moran and the
`
`eSpeed Federal Circuit Decision. (Exs. 11-126-7.) I reviewed each of these documents and
`
`learned that the Static Limitation has been interpreted by both Judge Moran and the Federal
`
`Circuit.
`
`22.18. CQG Attorneys informed me that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is the specialized appellate court that decides most patent appeals.
`
`Regarding claim interpretation, CQG Attorneys informed me that the Federal Circuit reviews
`
`district court claim constructions without any deference to the lower court. I understand this
`
`means that the Federal Circuit’s construction of the Static Limitation is more authoritative than
`
`Judge Moran’s construction of the Static Limitation.
`
`23.19. The eSpeed Federal Circuit Decision interpreted the “static display of prices” term from
`
`the ’304 patent as: “a line comprising price levels that do no change positions unless a manual
`
`re-centering command is received and where the line of prices corresponds to at least one bid
`
`value and one ask value.” (Ex. 127 at p. 14 (CQG014202185), col. 2.) The Federal Circuit also
`
`stated that “[a] static condition—requires permanency and thus, the price axis never changes
`
`positions unless by manual re-centering or re-positioning.” (Id.) The Federal Circuit also
`
`interpreted
`
`the claims
`
`to require a manual re-centering command.
`
` (Id. at p. 15
`
`(CQG014202186), col. 2.)
`
`24.20. The eSpeed Federal Circuit Decision interpreted the “static display of prices” term from
`
`the ’132 patent as: “a display of prices comprising price levels that do not change positions
`
`unless a manual re-centering command is received.” Id. at p. 14 (CQG014202185), col. 1-2.
`
`The Federal Circuit also stated that “[a] static condition—requires permanency and thus, the
`
`price axis never changes positions unless by manual re-centering or re-positioning.” Id. at p. 14
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`(CQG014202185), col. 2. The Federal Circuit also interpreted the claims to require a manual re-
`
`centering command. Id. at p. 15 (CQG014202186), col. 2.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art
`
`25.21. In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art (“PHOSITA”) is a person
`
`having (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical
`
`engineering or equivalent experience, (2) two years of experience programming GUIs, and
`
`(3) general knowledge of trading and electronic trading. Under my definition, I possess more
`
`than the level of ordinary skill in the art and can offer helpful testimony in this case regarding the
`
`perspective of this hypothetical person. My analysis regarding the definition of the PHOSITA
`
`and my qualifications to opine as to the perspective of the PHOSITAPHGSITA is in Sections
`
`VI(F) and VI(G), respectively.
`
`E.
`
`Review of the ’304 and ’132 Patents and Prosecution Histories Regarding
`TT’s Static Interpretation
`
`26.22. In my opinion the ’132 and ’304 patents do not provide written description support for
`
`TT’s Static Interpretation. In other words, the inventors at the time of the filing date were not in
`
`possession of a graphical user interface having a price column where some displayed price levels
`
`are static, and other displayed price levels are dynamic. Instead, the inventors were in possession
`
`of a graphical user interface with only a single price column where all displayed prices in the
`
`graphical user interface are static, other than in response to a manual re-centering command.
`
`27.
`
`Although CQG Attorneys informed me that the written description requirement does not
`
`require a review of the prosecution histories, I reviewed the prosecution histories associated with
`
`the patents to determine whether any statements by the inventors influenced my opinion. It is
`
`my opinion that the prosecution histories confirm that there is no written description support for
`
`TT’s Static Interpretation.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`1.
`
`The Claims of the ’304 Patent Suggest That the Inventors Were Only
`in Possession of a Line Where All Displayed Prices Are “Static”
`
`28.23. I started my analysis with the ’304 patent because it issued first, and with the exception
`
`of its claims, the ’304 patent is identical to the ’132 patent. The claim term “common static price
`
`axis” is representative of the Static Limitation in the ’304 patent. The plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the word “axis” is a line. This is confirmed by the contemporaneous dictionary
`
`definition of the word “axis.”
`
`(a)
`
`From the Random House College Dictionary (1980):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`A PHOSITA would agree that an axis is a line. With a strong background in mathematics
`
`including Euclidean geometry, algebra, and calculus, the PHOSITA would have a preconceived
`
`understanding of the term “axis” as a line from negative infinity to positive infinity. Anyone
`
`who has taken high school algebra would recognize that a line, unlike a line segment, is
`
`unbounded and goes on in both directions forever. A classic example of axes in algebra are the
`
`x- and y-axes depicted below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`q
`
`1
`'
`
`(‘h-igin
`{If}~ [I]
`
`
`
`
`
`js" — axis
`
`1A
`
`$.-
`
`fwl3-5.Wm~meumrmm1m-m?~uumy
`
`
`Qflgm
`((1, 6)
`
`Fa)
`
`M >\
`
`-
`
`A” m axis
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`18
`
`

`

`Collectively, both the dictionary definition, and the mathematical definition known to both high
`
`school students and the PHOSITA suggests that the inventors were only in possession of a
`
`graphical user interface that included all visible prices along the line or axis.
`
`29.24. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word “common” also suggests that the inventors
`
`were only in possession of a graphical user interface having a universal static price axis or line.
`
`In other words, all prices displayed along the axis are static. While the Claim Construction
`
`Order suggests that the terms “common,” “corresponding to,” and “aligned” are synonyms and
`
`mean “in relationship with,” this appears to be an oversight because substitution of the phrase “in
`
`relationship with” for the terms “common,” and “corresponding to,” renders either (a) the claims
`
`of the ’304 patent unreadable or (b) the term “common” redundant. For example, substituting
`
`the phrase “in relationship with” for the term “common” and “corresponding to” in the phrase:
`
`(a)
`
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations in
`
`a bid display region, each location in the bid display region corresponding
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`to a price level along a common static price axis,
`
`results in the following awkward claim element:
`
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations in
`
`a bid display region, each location in the bid display region in relationship
`
`with a price level along a in relationship with static price axis.
`
`30.
`
`The term “aligned” is only used in the ’132 patent and is not juxtaposed with the term
`
`“common.” Substitution of “in relationship with” for the term “aligned” in the ’132 patent does
`
`not create the same awkward claim element as the above substitution created in the ’304 patent.
`
`Accordingly, the term “in relationship with” should only be considered a synonym of the terms
`
`“corresponding to” and “aligned.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`31.25. A PHOSITA would therefore expect that the term “common” as a modifier for the term
`
`“static price axis” must have some unique meaning. And, a PHOSITA, with an appropriate
`
`technical background, would necessarily understand that “common” means “universal.” This
`
`understanding is confirmed by the contemporaneous dictionary definition of the word
`
`“common.”
`
`(a)
`
`From the Random House College Dictionary (1980):
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Hm
`mudghu-annlaoraimye: ILMmh-eartnza
`mmmtwarmnnm mmmtemm
`nMfilnndawmdormdjamu bywnmlmbertnr:
`right mil-t,
`1 ”I" fiM‘
`lfimnfiufi
`fll'
`.nmmnnnm
`11!].
`man“ ‘3: “manual: it
`at
`t
`comm
`: mum-zines.
`.
`burly
`no
`otnublu
`urn-at. mmhkd.ummt¢d in%1ud
`mam nIGmnmans. u.{m¥.]the mafimd
`body.
`lini-EEPJ'FMHGHIEQ Gammon; mum-p
`mm. Hg. “attain-rut: at college. LEI-fl {and
`in
`admins-mm. gluudurpmmtm-
`aural-mp. mtmtmfimp. Ecclfl.l.anafflmurfann
`olmfionnndonntuflvfl
`iparflfluh-I'Hnd. Int]:
`19 mlowcmmunfly'"p'
`um”: hm'b’mc '
`.
`.1.
`at u
`.
`columnar:
`311.111an injulntpuli’adnn
`an???
`
`mm pupal-r. Bee m1. ll. mil-
`tmnarr. W
`1. 10. Connor, mu. nun-um mm;
`flan with mum-r Ila-annotation: of dampne- or interior-
`g. to Whit i! umflwmnflaflm unmanned. Damn IP-
`
`I
`rflmbthnflnltuthapm-
`mmmflmdmn.
`:1t—mnnutaslmr
`hm. mun-111 Miami-hm time thiamwl-
`nor in mum amt mum Gunman manna
`5 in to be
`exrochndjnthn mummtflnngaruulr swim
`hurl“:
`:Twuammfwmflhluafmcnw-
`Mayan . «L1.tnd11flnal.n1nta.pmml
`II.
`WWW-
`.
`...
`.._........
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`32.26. Adjective Definitions 2, 4 and 6-14 are inapplicable here because they are directed to
`
`among other things, a community or culture, notoriety, frequency, use, quality (e.g., average or
`
`low quality), vulgarity, rank and distinction, anatomy, grammar, and mathematics. Definition 1
`
`refers to belonging equally or being shared alike by two or more or all in question. This
`
`definition is also inapplicable here because it would render redundant the “corresponding to”
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`term for the same reasons as described above. Definitions 3 and 5, in addition to the synonym
`
`for Definition 5, confirm that “common” in the claims of the ’304 patent must mean universal.
`
`33.27. A contemporaneous thesaurus also supports this understanding. In particular, Webster’s
`
`Collegiate Thesaurus from 1988 confirms that “common” is synonymous with “universal.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`(a)
`
`From Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus (1988):
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`34.28. The layperson’s definition of the term “common” is supported by the accepted
`
`engineering definition of the same term. Because a PHOSITA would likely hold a bachelor’s
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, this person would
`
`have a basic understanding of electrical circuits and electronics through their physics or
`
`introductory sequence courses to electric circuits. And, contemporaneous course books in
`25
`
`
`
`

`

`electric circuits from 1998 and 1999 demonstrate that the ground terminal—a feature of all
`
`properly-designed electric circuits—is often called the “common ground” because it is a
`
`reference node against which voltages can be measured. The ground or common ground
`
`terminal is a universal reference node, which in real-life systems may be grounded to the earth
`
`itself. Excerpts from Johnson, Johnson, Hilburn, Scott, Electrical Circuit Analysis, Third Edition
`
`(1999) (Ex. 1510) and Sedra and Smith, Microelectronic Circuits, Fourth Edition (1998) (Ex.
`
`1611) demonstrate these fundamental principles of electronics:
`
`(a)
`
`From Electrical Circuit Analysis (1999) (Ex. 1510 at pp. 127-128):
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`

`

`ibi‘
`In titiR Section w:- tiCVcii'lvp it gattcrztl method of circuit. analysis in which voltages are.
`21215231th15 in be fomtti. A convenient choice of voltages for many nut-works is tin: set at"
`winch» t'alt’agt’x. Sinceti Vintage is: defined as existing between WJO i’lOCiCS. it is convenient
`to select one antic it] the network to ha 21 reference :10th and then associate :1 voltage at
`each of lilo oihet' nodes. The mirage ofeach af‘thcnmzrgfemncr mums with respect to tilt
`tzfifiirzzmve Marie :29 4:321:65! m be a nadwwfltage.
`It is common practice to select i'fiiiii'flilc;
`directions for these wititges SO that tho pins ends an: ail at 1hr: uom‘cfm‘cnce most. and
`the minus emits all at tin; rcfemncc nude. For a circuit containing iv nudges. than: will he
`.t‘v’ w I nottt'efzzt‘cnctt nodes and tints N” «A l node Vi-Eitflgt’jSi Nodal nnttiysix if-i a mother}. in
`which M: will brqztk lilo Circuit. that is. 5:0in for 2: E3}; got oft
`tit wrtahlcx. by limit-rig
`
`filo node Millage}: lilClllSCiVCS'. An); Uii‘icr current. or voltngc wili i'oiinw i‘flhii}: (mm the
`circuit is broken.
`
`The 'réféféhcé'fibi‘ic.‘
`branches are .caiméétetl; "‘ Many fprri‘cticzti . GE
`
`antitlsuali maximum
`in
`'n
`
`
`cit-153133 mm,
`anoint?
`
`
`.tt'ctite'd-itttat‘
`'E-aiéiirtfi
`damn.
`
`
`Sm 126m in}
`\éit-Jn; :15;
`
`
`this rhino“?
`The raffle;
`
`
`model voltages-i
`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`(b)
`
`From Microelectronic Circuits (1998) (Ex. 1611 at p. 10):
`From Microelectronic Circuits (1998) (EX. iéfl at p. 10):
`
`Amplifier Circuit Symbol
`
`Th: signal ampiificr is obviously rt two-port network. Its function is conveniently repre-
`sented by Lin: circuit symbol of Fig. 1.1m a}. This symbol cit-urly distinguittltes [ht-1 input tutti
`output ports tint] indicates til-3 direction of signal flow. Thus. in subsequent diagrams: it will
`not bi.- nmcssary to label the: two ports "input“ and “output.“ For generality we have shown
`the amplifier to have two input Lenninals that are distinct from the twn output tcrminaln. A
`more common situation is illustrated in Fig. limb}, when: u cnrnmnn terminal exists bi:—
`lween the.
`input and output ports of the amplifier.w
`m
`
`
`lnpuL
`l)‘.li;‘_l|
`
`
`
`--—cr
`
`input
`
`'1-
`
`i,]:l||'l'.ii
`
`ta}
`
`tin
`
`FE". 1.10 {ill Circuitttymbol for amplifier. I:_
`m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`27
`
`

`

`fittiwli‘iier Circuit Symboé
`
`its i‘unction is com'cnicxitiy repre-
`The signai umpiifmr is obviously a two—port network.
`sented by the circuii symbol of Fig. MGM). This symbol Clearly distioguéshes the 9‘1ng and
`output ports :md indicates the direction of signal flow. Thus. in subsequent diagrams it wiii
`not be necessary to labci the two ports "input" and “output." For generaiity we; htwc ehowu
`the amplifier to have two input reminals that are disuuct from the two output mammals. A
`more common situation is illustrated in Fig. 1.1mm, when: a common terminal exists be—
`tween the input and output [)OIES of the amplifier."3‘l}i$"cemmén--{enamalZ-is'fisfidi'aSj'Bi»
`‘séfereiiééfidifit aria: ié. mimemeetreatmreafiez
`
`9.....- WW. hep.“
`
`{
`E
`
`(smug;
`
`Iripui
`
`warm:
`
`input
`
`(2!)
`
`lb)
`
`(a) Circuit syz-ubci for amplifier.
`Fig. 153%}
`{i'eiwaes' {he iri'ptxtmfi ‘outpiaésiibi’ts';
`
`!;E3}"Afi'-ampl§fier with a cozxtmon'temtinal l-gmuttd)
`
`
`
`(c)
`(c)
`
`From Microelectronic Circuits (1998) (Ex. 1611 at p. 915):
`From Microelectronic Circuits (1998) (EX. iéfl at p. 915):
`
`
`
`- -T—
`.—
`
`L
`
`.