Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 43 PageID #: 2379
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:07-CV-0418-DF-CE
`
`PLAINTIFF ROY-G-BIV
`CORPORATION’S OPENING
`MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`Fanuc Ltd., Fanuc Robotics America, Inc., GE
`Fanuc Automation Americas, Inc., and GE
`Fanuc Intelligent Platforms, Inc.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`ABB Inc.
`
`EXHIBIT 1012
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 43 PageID #: 2380
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND.....................................................................................2
`A.
`Generally..................................................................................................................2
`B.
`The RGB Invention..................................................................................................4
`C.
`The RGB Patents......................................................................................................6
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .....................................................6
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................6
`CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS ..........................................................................................6
`A.
`The Fundamental “Motion” Terms (nos. 5, 6, 11, and 34(a)-(b)) ...........................7
`1.
`“motion control operations” (‘897 patent, 17; ‘236 patent, 1) (no.
`5) ..................................................................................................................7
`“primitive operations” (‘897 patent, 17; ‘058 patent, 1;
`‘236 patent, 1) (no. 6) ..................................................................................8
`“motion control” (no. 11) (‘897 patent, claim 17).......................................9
`“motion control component” (nos. 34(a) -(b)) (‘236 patent, 1) ...................9
`a.
`“motion control component” (no. 34(a)) (‘236 patent, 1)..............10
`b.
`“a motion control component for generating the sequence
`of control commands for controlling the selected motion
`control device based on the component functions of the
`application program, the component code associated with
`the component functions, and the driver code associated
`with the selected software driver” (no. 34(b)) (‘236 patent,
`1) ....................................................................................................12
`Additional “Motion Control” Terms Requiring Little-to-No Construction
`(nos. 10, 33(a)-(c), and 13) ....................................................................................13
`1.
`“implementing the motion control operations” (‘897 patent, 17;
`‘236 patent, 1) (no. 10) ..............................................................................13
`“operate the motion control device” (‘543 patent, 5) / “operate the
`motion control device by sending the control commands to the
`motion control device” (‘543 patent, 5) / “operating the selected
`motion control device [in accordance with the control command to
`move the object]” (‘543 patent, 1) (nos. 33(a)-(c))....................................14
`“controlling the selected motion control device”(‘236 patent, 1)
`(no. 13).......................................................................................................14
`“Component Function” and “Component Code” Terms (nos. 2, 3) ......................14
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 3 of 43 PageID #: 2381
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`“component function” (‘058 patent, 1; ‘236 patent, 1;
`‘543 patent, 3, 8; ‘897 patent, 17) (no. 2) ..................................................14
`“component code” (‘058 patent, claim 1; ‘236 patent, claim 1;’897
`patent, claim 17) (no. 3).............................................................................15
`“Driver” Terms ......................................................................................................16
`1.
`“software driver(s)”/ “driver(s)” (‘236 patent, 1, 2, 3; ‘058
`patent, 1; ‘543 patent, 1, 5; ‘897 patent, 17) (no. 4) ..................................16
`“selected software driver is the software driver associated with the
`selected motion control device” (‘236 patent, 1) (no. 19) .........................18
`“developing a set of software drivers”(‘897 patent, 17) (no. 14) ..............19
`“driver functions” (‘236 patent, 1, 2, 3; ‘058 patent, 1; ‘543 patent,
`2, 3, 4, 6, 7; ‘897 patent, 17) (no. 7) ..........................................................20
`“core driver functions” (‘897 patent, 25; ‘058 patent, 1; ‘236
`patent, 1, 3) (no. 8).....................................................................................21
`“driver code”(‘236 patent, 1, 2, 3; ‘058 patent, 1;
`‘543 patent, 1, 5; ‘897 patent, 17) (no. 9) ..................................................22
`The “Stream” Terms ..............................................................................................22
`1.
`“streams” (‘236 patent, 8, 9; ‘897 patent, 24, 25) (no. 18) ........................22
`2.
`“transmit stream code” (‘236 patent, 8; ‘897 patent, 24) and
`“response stream code” (‘897 patent, 25; ‘236 patent, 9) (nos. 25-
`26) ..............................................................................................................22
`“stream control means” limitations (‘236 patent, claims 8 and 9)
`(nos. 35(a) and 35(b)) ................................................................................23
`a.
`“stream control means for communicating the control
`commands to the selected destination of control commands
`based on the transmit stream code contained by the stream
`associated with the selected destination of control
`commands” (claim 8) (no. 35(a))...................................................23
`“the stream control means processes the response data
`based on the response stream code” (claim 9) (no. 35(b)).............24
`The “Motion Step” Terms......................................................................................24
`1.
`“motion step(s)” (‘897 patent, 17; ‘543 patent, 2, 4, 6, 7) (no. 30) ...........24
`2.
`“incremental motion step(s)” (‘543 patent, 4, 6, 7) (no. 31)......................25
`3.
`“identifies an incremental motion step” (‘543 patent, 4, 7) (no. 32) .........26
`The “Defining” Terms (nos. 20(a), 20(b), and 20(c))............................................27
`The “Providing” Terms means “Making Available” (nos. 21-24) ........................27
`The “Selecting” Terms (nos. 29(a) – 29(g)) ..........................................................28
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`3.
`
`b.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 4 of 43 PageID #: 2382
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`J.
`
`2.
`
`The “selecting” limitations require choosing a driver/control
`command/device at run-time......................................................................28
`The “selecting” terms do not require that a particular user does the
`selecting .....................................................................................................29
`“A” means “one or more,” not “single”.....................................................30
`3.
`“Control” Terms.....................................................................................................30
`1.
`“control commands” (‘236 patent, 1, 8, 9; ‘058 patent, 1;
`‘897 patent, 17, 24, 25; ‘543 patent, 1, 2, 5, 6)..........................................30
`“a control command generating module for generating control
`commands based on the component functions of the application
`program, the component code associated with the component
`functions, and the driver code associated with the software drivers”
`(‘058 patent, 1) (no. 36) .............................................................................30
`The “Network” Terms............................................................................................31
`1.
`“Network” (‘058 patent, 1) (no. 17)...........................................................31
`2.
`“Network Communication Protocol” (‘058 patent, 1) (no. 16) .................32
`The “Response Data” Terms..................................................................................33
`1.
`“generate response data” (‘897 patent, 25; ‘236 patent, 9)........................33
`2.
`“processing the response data” (‘897 patent, 25).......................................34
`M. Miscellaneous Terms .............................................................................................34
`1.
`“application program” (no. 1)....................................................................34
`2.
`“hardware devices” (‘058 patent, 1) ..........................................................35
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................36
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`VI.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 5 of 43 PageID #: 2383
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................... 10
`Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................... 2
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............... 27, 30
`Ballard Medical Prods. v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 268 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) ................................................................................................................................... 2
`Beckson Marine, inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 723 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................... 9
`Biovail Corp. Int’l v. Andrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 239 F.3d 1297, (Fed. Cir. 2001).................. 2
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................... 18, 20
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................. 12, 31
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................ 1, 2, 16, 30
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119-20
`(Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................................. 13
`Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp., 438 F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................ 2
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................. 22
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1359-60, 1362 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................................. 11, 12, 31
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................. 32
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................... 32
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45716, *4-14 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`28, 2005) ............................................................................................................................. 6
`Personalized Media Communications v. International Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 705
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................................. 12
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................. 2, 6
`R.F. Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Tech., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 20, 27
`Resonate Inc. v. Alteon Webssytems, Inc. 338 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 19
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICos Vision Sys. Corp., 365 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....... 26, 30
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) ................................................................................................................................... 2
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................ 9
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6......................................................................................................... 9, 11, 25, 35
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 6 of 43 PageID #: 2384
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is Plaintiff ROY-G-BIV Corporation’s (“RGB”) opening claim construction brief.
`
`The four “RGB Patents” are U.S. Patents 5,691,897 (“Ex. 3”); 6,513,058 (“Ex. 4”); 6,516,236
`
`(“Ex. 5”); and 6,941,543 (“Ex. 6”). These patents relate to motion control methods and systems
`
`that include software for communicating with and controlling multiple different motion control
`
`devices. RGB’s patented universal connectivity systems and methods are fast becoming the
`
`industry standard.
`
`The parties submitted their joint claim construction and prehearing statement on October
`
`24, 2008, and supplemented it earlier today, in large part to reflect additional compromises by the
`
`parties that have reduced the number of disputed terms. Exhibit 1 to this brief is a chart filed today
`
`summarizing the parties’ competing constructions. Exhibit 2 is the chart filed today identifying
`RGB’s proposed constructions and supporting evidence.1 Each disputed term is numbered, and
`this brief refers to these numbers for ease of reference.
`
`Not surprisingly, the parties’ claim construction approaches fundamentally differ. RGB’s
`
`claim constructions are consistent with both generally understood definitions and the specific
`
`contexts in which those terms are used in the patents. In an effort to avoid clear infringement of
`
`the claims, Defendants repeatedly—and improperly—attempt to limit claimed features to the
`
`preferred embodiment described in the specification. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483
`
`F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`In aid of this effort, Defendants seek construction of an inordinately large number of terms.
`
`They initially offered constructions for over 240 claim terms, compared to only 12 for RGB. Even
`
`after RGB narrowed the asserted claims to ten, Defendants continued to seek construction for
`
`approximately 78 terms, as compared to seven for RGB. Although the parties then agreed on some
`
`claim constructions, Defendants still seek construction for 40 terms.
`
`Defendants request the Court to engage in a wasteful exercise. Claim construction should
`
`1 Exhibits 1 and 2 do not contain the slip sheets originally attached to the filed documents, but are
`otherwise identical to those filed today.
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 7 of 43 PageID #: 2385
`
`focus only on the material issues in the case.2 Defendants’ blunderbuss approach is an attempt to
`manufacture non-infringement arguments by convincing the Court to limit various terms to
`
`examples in the specification. Although RGB agrees that one may look to the specification to shed
`
`light on the meaning of terms in the context of the patent (as RGB has done), one may not use the
`
`specification to confine terms to the specific embodiments in the patent or to read certain
`
`embodiments out of the claim (as Defendants have done).
`
`The Federal Circuit has “repeatedly noted . . . [that] a narrow disclosure in the specification
`
`does not necessarily limit broader claim language.” Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp., 438
`
`F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Absent some clear intent to the contrary, this court does not
`
`import examples from the specification into the claims.” In re Omeprazole, 483 F.3d at 1372.
`
`Courts must use “extreme care” not to “import into the claims limitations that were unintended by
`
`the patentee.” Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Courts may not incorporate into a claim the unclaimed attributes of the preferred embodiments
`
`described in the specification. Id. at 1328. Even if a patent discloses only a single example, that
`
`fact will not limit the claims to that example. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Court should decline Defendants’ invitation to use the RGB patent
`
`specification to constrict claims at issue here.
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`Generally
`A.
`RGB’s patents relate to “motion control.” For example, many advanced industrial and
`
`medical applications require software-driven fine motor control over motorized mechanical
`
`2 Biovail Corp. Int’l v. Andrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 239 F.3d 1297, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(limitations need not be construed where the outcome of the case does not depend upon the
`limitation); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claim terms only need to be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. . . . It is routine case management to require litigants to identify the aspects of their
`case that are material to the dispute.”); Ballard Medical Prods. v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp.,
`268 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“As long as the trial court construes the claims to the extent
`necessary to determine whether the accused device infringes, the court may approach the task in
`any way that it deems best”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 8 of 43 PageID #: 2386
`
`devices. (Ex. 8, Hooper Decl. ¶ 10). These devices typically include motors, drives, and/or other
`
`moving assemblies. Representative applications include factory robots that paint automobiles on
`
`an assembly line; precision cutting and bending equipment that forms aerospace components; and
`
`robotically controlled lasers that cut tissue in microscopic surgical procedures. (Id.).
`
`There are numerous “motion control operations” used to operate motion control devices,
`
`including those that result in the acquisition of information from a motion control device. (Ex. 8,
`
`Hooper Decl. ¶¶ 11-12). For example, one motion control operation is determining the current
`
`position of a motor. (‘897 patent, col. 7:7-8 (“GET POSITION”), col. 16:24 (“querying the system
`
`for the current position.”)). Based on control commands issued by the software system, a
`
`hardware “controller” collects real time information relating to a mechanical device (e.g., the
`
`position of a motor) and passes this information back to the software system. This is an example
`
`of a “read” operation. (Ex. 8, Hooper Decl. ¶ 11). The controller also receives from the software
`
`system control commands dictating the motion control device’s future activities (e.g., instructing a
`
`particular motor to move). (’897 patent, col. 7:7-14 (e.g., “MOVE RELATIVE” and “CONTOUR
`
`MOVE”), col. 16:24 (“moving to a specific location”)). This is an example of a “write” operation.
`
`(Ex. 8, Hooper Decl. ¶ 12).
`
`One fundamental objective of the motion control industry has been interoperability among
`
`different motion control devices because such interoperability would offer centralized monitoring
`
`and control over an entire factory operation through a single software system. (Ex. 8, Hooper
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 6-8). For example, an automobile manufacturing plant would prefer to use a single
`
`software application program to integrate seamlessly and control a variety of motion control
`
`devices made by different manufacturers. But in practice, this goal has been elusive. Mechanical
`
`devices typically use different controllers that understand only their own hardware-specific or
`
`vendor-specific commands. Specifically, each hardware controller understands and can
`
`communicate with only the control commands that correspond to the basic “read” and “write”
`
`functions that it performs, such as “reading” a current motor position or “writing” a desired target
`
`motor position. Because hardware controllers do not share a uniform computer “language” or set
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 9 of 43 PageID #: 2387
`
`of computer-generated control commands,
`
`historically software system application
`
`programs have been tailored to particular
`
`controllers on a factory floor, requiring different
`
`application programs for different motion
`
`control devices. (Id.) (See the schematic on the
`
`right).
`
`To solve these and other problems, the motion control industry attempted to develop
`
`standards and uniform codes requiring all hardware controllers to use the same computer language
`
`and control commands. (Id. at ¶ 7). The inventors of the RGB patents— RGB’s founders, Dave
`
`Brown and Jay Clark—correctly recognized that a uniform standard was unlikely to be adopted by
`
`the industry. They solved the problem in a very different way. (Id. at ¶ 8).
`
`The RGB Invention
`B.
`In the early 1990s, Brown and Clark conceived of an alternative approach that allowed for
`
`interoperability under a single application program
`
`despite the different “languages” and control
`
`commands utilized by different hardware. Their
`
`epiphany stemmed from their recognition that
`
`although hardware controllers use different,
`
`hardware-dependent command codes, they
`
`generally implement many of the same, hardware-
`
`independent motion control operations (i.e., read
`
`and write operations). The inventors conceived and
`
`developed a unique software architecture in which
`
`an intermediate software layer (the “motion control component”) and a set of controller-specific
`
`software drivers (software modules used to translate instructions) work together to convert
`
`hardware independent motion control operations from the application program into hardware-
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 10 of 43 PageID #: 2388
`
`dependent control commands that can be understood by a selected motion control device. When
`
`the operator of an application program requests a desired motion control operation, the inventors’
`
`software system transparently converts that request into the specific commands appropriate for the
`
`selected hardware controller. (See schematics above and below to the right).
`
`In one example, shown in Figure 2 of the RGB patents, multiple discrete software layers
`
`interact with one another. (See drawing at right, which
`
`has been modified to clarify layering). The application
`
`layer offers various motion control operations through
`
`hardware independent “component functions” that can be
`
`“called” on the motion control component software layer
`
`(the intermediate software layer). The motion control
`
`component, in turn, associates those component functions
`
`with corresponding driver functions in the different
`
`software drivers. The drivers include hardware-
`
`dependent code corresponding to the different driver
`
`functions for generating the appropriate control
`
`commands. Thus, once the appropriate driver for the hardware controller is selected, the operator
`
`can interact with the hardware controller using hardware-independent motion control operations,
`
`without regard to the hardware-dependent control command codes. Brown and Clark rejected
`
`conventional wisdom and elegantly solved the long-standing problem of hardware incompatibility
`
`among motion control devices.
`
`To further exploit the inherent flexibility of their software architecture, Brown and Clark
`
`sought to optimize the exchange of information between the application program and the selected
`
`motion control device. They conceived of software that offers multiple protocols for
`
`communicating command codes and response data. The code defining these protocols and
`
`facilitating these exchanges is embodied in software known as “streams.” The streams include
`
`“transmit stream code” that specifies the protocol for transmitting control commands from the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 11 of 43 PageID #: 2389
`
`computer to the hardware controllers and “response stream code” that specifies the protocol for
`
`transferring response data from the hardware controller to the computer.
`
`The RGB Patents
`C.
`Recognizing the significance of their discovery, Brown and Clark began filing patent
`
`applications in May 1995. Today, RGB has more than thirty patents and a commercially product,
`
`which RGB currently markets under the registered trade name XMC®. The four RGB patents at
`
`issue here—the ‘897, ‘058, ‘236, and ‘543 patents—arise from an application filed in May 1995
`
`and largely share a common specification. For simplicity sake, most evidentiary citations below
`
`are to the ‘897 specification.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`This Court is very familiar with the general tenets of claim construction, which we do not
`
`repeat here. See Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45716, *4-14 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 28, 2005); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The patents must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`May 30, 1995 (the filing date of the ‘897 patent, which the other patents-in-suit rely upon for
`
`priority). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in electrical,
`
`mechanical, or computer engineering and one to two years experience developing motion control
`
`software. (Ex. 8, Hooper Decl. ¶ 9).
`
`V.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS
`There are actually only a few key phrases that need to be construed (e.g., “motion control
`
`operations,” “driver,” “component code,” “component functions,” etc.). Although the Defendants
`
`seek construction of over forty terms, many of those terms represent only slight modifications of
`
`other terms (e.g., “defining a set of motion control operations” and “motion control operations,”
`
`respectively). In most cases, RGB believes that the Court need not construe anything beyond the
`
`core terms; the additional claim language is actually more succinct and descriptive than the
`
`“definitions” Defendants offer.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 12 of 43 PageID #: 2390
`
`RGB discusses its proposed claim constructions below. It has grouped similar terms
`
`together. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the claim construction chart that is Exhibit 1.
`
`A.
`
`The Fundamental “Motion” Terms (nos. 5, 6, 11, and 34(a)-(b))
`
`1.
`
`“motion control operations” (‘897 patent, 17; ‘236 patent, 1)
`(no. 5)
`The Parties generally agree that “motion control operations” are “operations used to
`
`perform motion control.” For clarity, RGB’s construction additionally specifies that both “read”
`
`and “write” operations are “operations.” This construction is consistent with the patent
`
`specification and the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. (Ex. 8, Hooper Decl. ¶¶ 11-
`
`12). Indeed, the RGB patents explicitly state that the motion control operations can include “GET
`
`POSITION” operations (a “read” operation) and “MOVE RELATIVE” operations (a “write”
`
`operation). (‘897 patent, col. 7:3-14; col. 16:24 (a “standard motion control operation” includes
`
`“querying the system for the current position”); Ex. 8, Hooper Decl. ¶¶ 11-12).
`
`Defendants’ construction has multiple problems. First, it omits the clarifying language that
`
`both “read” and “write” operations are included. Second, its construction excludes certain
`
`operations that the patents deem to be “motion control operations.” Relying on a single sentence in
`
`the specification, Defendants contend that “motion control operations” are limited to those
`
`operations that motion control devices “must perform in order to function.” Although true for
`
`some motion control operations such as “GET POSITION,” Defendants’ restrictive construction is
`
`contrary to the patent specification with regard to others. For example, the RGB Patents disclose
`
`that “motion control operations” fall into two categories, “primitive” and “non-primitive,” and that
`
`these two types of operations correspond to core and extended driver functions, respectively:
`
`Motion control operations may either be primitive operations or
`non-primitive operations….Driver functions may be either core
`driver functions or extended driver functions. Core driver
`functions are associated with primitive operations, while extended
`driver functions are associated with non-primitive operations.
`
`(’897 patent, col. 7:3-21). The RGB Patents further disclose that some extended driver functions –
`
`and therefore their corresponding non-primitive operations – may not be available on certain
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 13 of 43 PageID #: 2391
`
`hardware devices: “In some cases, the functionality of an extended driver function cannot be
`
`emulated using core driver functions, and this functionality is simply unavailable to the
`
`programmer.” (’897 patent, col. 4:13-16). In other words, some “motion control operations” (the
`
`“non-primitive” operations) may not be performed by all motion control devices. Consequently,
`
`Defendants’ request to construe “motion control operations that “all” motion control devices
`
`“must perform in order to function” is irreconcilable with the specification.
`
`
`
`Third, Defendants’ definition is wrong because it produces nonsensical results. Different
`
`motion control devices may move differently and, therefore, perform different write “operations.”
`
`But under Defendants’ construction these write “operations” related to motion would not be
`
`“motion control operations” because they are not performed by “all motion control hardware.”
`
`Defendants’ limitations should not be adopted.
`
`2.
`
`“primitive operations” (‘897 patent, 17; ‘058 patent, 1;
`‘236 patent, 1) (no. 6)
`A “primitive operation” is a type of “motion control operation.” (‘897 patent, col. 7:3-4).
`
`The parties agree on the construction of “primitive operation” except in one respect: RGB’s
`
`construction makes clear that “primitive operations” can include “GET POSITION” and “MOVE
`
`RELATIVE” operations. This clarification is important for two reasons.
`
`First, the specification explicitly supports the inclusion of these terms in the definition:
`
`Primitive operations are operations that are necessary for motion
`control and cannot be simulated using a combination of other
`motion control operations. Examples of primitive operations
`include GET POSITION and MOVE RELATIVE, which are
`necessary for motion control and cannot be emulated using other
`motion control operations.
`
`(‘897 patent, col. 7:4-10 (emphasis added)).
`
`Second, the parties agree that a “primitive operation” is “necessary for motion control and
`
`cannot be simulated using a combination of other motion control operations.” But this definition
`
`begs the question of what a “necessary” operation is. RGB is concerned that Defendants will
`
`improperly attempt to argue that only “write” operations are “necessary” operations. But the quote
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 100 Filed 11/21/08 Page 14 of 43 PageID #: 2392
`
`above makes clear that RGB intended “necessary” operations to encompass read operations such as
`
`“GET POSITION.”
`
`“motion control” (no. 11) (‘897 patent, claim 17)
`3.
`The common thread among the Parties’ respective constructions of “motion control” is that
`
`the term relates to the control of movement. The Court should adopt this common ground—
`
`“controlled movement”—as its construction. This construction is consistent with the plain
`
`meaning and with the specification, which generally notes that the “purpose of a motion control
`
`device is to move an object in a desired manner.” (‘897 patent, col. 1:11-12).
`
`Defendants ask that the Court further restrict this term to require that the “controlled
`
`movement” occur “in base incremental steps,” such as by “controlling individual stepper motors,”
`
`and that it occur expressly within a “system.” Once again, Defendants choose one example of
`
`motion