Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 969
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 09-146-RBK-JS
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`JOSEPH NEEV,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ABBOTT MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF JOSEPH NEEV’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`Richard K. Herrmann (#405)
`Mary B. Matterer (#2696)
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 888-6800
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 970
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The State of the Art at the Time of Dr. Neev’s Invention ...................................... 4
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 5
`
`Dr. Neev’s Invention ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Reexamination Proceedings .................................................................................... 6
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Legal Principles .................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Court Construes Claims to Clarify Their Scope; Claim
`Construction Is Not an Exercise in Redundancy ........................................ 7
`
`Claim Terms Mean What a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Would Understand Them to Mean .............................................................. 7
`
`Claim Terms Are Construed by First Looking to Their Plain
`Meaning, Then, if Necessary, to the Intrinsic Evidence, and Then,
`Rarely, to Extrinsic Evidence ..................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Agreed Constructions............................................................................................ 10
`
`Disputed Constructions ......................................................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“operating the source and manipulating the beam parameters”
`(Claims 1, 20, 21, 23, 80, 81, 82, 83)........................................................ 11
`
`“manipulating beam parameters” (Claims 1, 20, 21, 23, 80-83);
`“manipulating parameters of the beam” (Claim 5); “adjusting
`characteristics of the electromagnetic radiation beam” (Claims 85,
`86); “varying at least one of the following beam parameters”
`(Claims 1, 80-83) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`3.
`
`“interaction energy transients” (Claims 1, 80-83, 85, 86) ........................ 12
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 971
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“preparing the target region of the target material by spatially or
`temporally varying at least one of an absorption characteristic of
`the material or a scattering characteristic of the material at the
`target region” (Claim 1) ............................................................................ 13
`
`“material removal by a continuously emitting, continuous wave
`(CW) beam of electromagnetic radiation” (Claim 5 Preamble) ............... 15
`
`“allowing interaction energy transients caused by the
`electromagnetic pulses to substantially decay so that material
`modification is effected” (Claims 1, 80-83); “allow interaction
`energy transients caused by the pulsed electromagnetic radiation
`beam to decay sufficiently such that the material can be modified”
`(Claims 85, 86).......................................................................................... 17
`
`7.
`
`“cumulative residual thermal energy left in the material by a pulse
`train” (Claim 5) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`D.
`
`Claim Terms That Do Not Require Construction ................................................. 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`“controlled, variable rate material modification” (Claims 1, 80-83);
`“highly controllable, variable rate material removal” (Claim 5
`Preamble) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`“target material” (Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 53, 61, 67, 71, 80-83, 85,
`86) ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`“target region” (Claims 1, 2, 25, 51, 53, 61, 67, 71, 80-83, 85, 86) ......... 20
`
`“operating the source at a pulse repetition rate greater than 0.1
`pulses per second until a target volume in the target region has
`been modified” (Claims 1, 80-83) ............................................................ 21
`
`“continuously emitted electromagnetic radiation” (Claim 5) ................... 22
`
`“material ablation” (Claim 5) .................................................................... 22
`
`“redistributing the beam in time and space to form at least one
`modified beam comprising a plurality of pulses” (Claim 5) ..................... 23
`
`“plasma” (Claims 21, 22, 25, 80) .............................................................. 23
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 972
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. and Laserscope v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................... 15
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 15
`
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc.,
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 14
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................... 15, 20
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 24
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 9
`
`DSW Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion Inc.,
`537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 8
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................... 8
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)................................................................................... 7, 20, 22
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................... 8, 14
`
`N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................... 8
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................. passim
`
`Pods, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc.,
`484 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 973
`
`
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.,
`593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 9
`
`SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.,
`594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 9
`
`Std. Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............................................................................................. 5
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................... 7, 13
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................... 20, 21, 22
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 974
`
`
`Pursuant to the December 1, 2010 Scheduling Order, as modified on April 19, 2011,
`
`Plaintiff JOSEPH NEEV (“Dr. Neev”) hereby submits this Opening Markman Brief in support of
`
`his proposed constructions of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,482,199 (“‘199 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘199 patent covers material modification and processing using pulsed
`
`electromagnetic energy having ultrashort pulse durations in order to minimize collateral damage
`
`to regions of the material surrounding a targeted region. By minimizing collateral damage to the
`
`surrounding material regions, precise and controlled material modification may be achieved. The
`
`‘199 patent includes 86 claims, 70 of which were added during a reexamination proceeding in
`
`the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) that concluded in late 2010.
`
`Dr. Neev accuses Defendant ABBOTT MEDICAL OPTICS INC. (“AMO”) of infringing
`
`claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-15, 20-25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 50-54, 61, 67, 71, 77, 80-83, 85, and 86 of the ‘199
`
`patent by selling and offering to sell the IntraLase FS device, which is used for LASIK eye
`
`surgery. The IntraLase FS device is used to cut the corneal flap. That flap is then folded back and
`
`a different type of laser does the vision correction. The flap is folded back and heals. The
`
`IntraLase FS device competes with a small metal scalpel known as a microkeratome.
`
`Advertisements for “All Laser LASIK” are for LASIK using AMO’s IntraLase FS device. AMO
`
`dominates the market for all laser LASIK surgery.
`
`The parties dispute several terms of the asserted patent claims. Dr. Neev’s proposed
`
`constructions, which are the only constructions supported by the claim language and patent
`
`specification, clarify the meaning of the claim terms. On the other hand, AMO’s proposed
`
`constructions, which find little or no support in the patent specification and claim language,
`
`obfuscate instead of clarify the meaning of the claim terms. AMO’s proposed constructions also
`
`
`
`1
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 975
`
`
`impermissibly add limitations to the claim terms that are not supported by the claim language or
`
`patent specification.
`
`For example, the parties dispute the construction of “material removal by a continuously
`
`emitting, continuous wave (CW) beam of electromagnetic radiation,” which appears only in the
`
`preamble of claim 5. Under controlling authority, because this term appears in only the claim’s
`
`preamble and does not give life, meaning, and vitality to claim 5, the body of which describes a
`
`complete invention, it should not be construed. AMO, on the other hand, contends that this
`
`preamble phrase limits the claim, even though language in the claim itself and the patent
`
`specification demonstrate the exact opposite.
`
`In total, the parties dispute construction of the following seven sets of claim terms: (1)
`
`“operating the source and manipulating the beam parameters” (claims 1, 20, 21, 23, 80, 81, 82,
`
`83); (2) “manipulating beam parameters” (claims 1, 20, 21, 23, 80-83), “manipulating parameters
`
`of the beam” (claim 5), “adjusting characteristics of the electromagnetic radiation beam” (claims
`
`85, 86), “varying at least one of the following beam parameters” (claims 1, 80-83); (3)
`
`“interaction energy transients” (claims 1, 80-83, 85, 86); (4) “preparing the target region of the
`
`target material by spatially or temporally varying at least one of an absorption characteristic of
`
`the material or a scattering characteristic of the material at the target region” (claim 1); (5)
`
`“material removal by a continuously emitting, continuous wave (CW) beam of electromagnetic
`
`radiation” (claim 5 preamble); (6) “allowing interaction energy transients caused by the
`
`electromagnetic pulses to substantially decay so that material modification is effected” (claims 1,
`
`80-83), “allow interaction energy transients caused by the pulsed electromagnetic radiation beam
`
`
`
`2
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 976
`
`
`to decay sufficiently such that the material can be modified” (claims 85, 86); and (7) “cumulative
`
`residual thermal energy left in the material by a pulse train” (claim 5).1
`
`The parties have agreed on constructions for the following seven sets of claim terms: (1)
`
`“[modification] threshold volumetric power density” (claims 1, 80-83); (2) “power density
`
`threshold for material ablation” (claim 5); (3) “deposited volumetric power density” (claims 1,
`
`80-83); (4) “power densities within the region targeted for modification” (claim 5); (5)
`
`“commutative ablation” (claim 5); (6) “absorption characteristic of the material … at the target
`
`region” (claims 1, 80-83), “absorption of the target region” (claims 85, 86); and (7) “scattering
`
`characteristic of the material at the target region” (claims 1, 80-83), “scattering of the target
`
`region” (claims 85, 86).2 Moreover, Dr. Neev believes that the following eight sets of
`
`unambiguous claim terms do not require construction because their plain, ordinary meanings are
`
`clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art: (1) “controlled, variable rate material modification”
`
`(claims 1, 80-83), “highly controllable, variable rate material removal” (claim 5 preamble); (2)
`
`“target material” (claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 53, 61, 67, 71, 80-83, 85, 86); (3) “target region” (claims 1,
`
`2, 25, 51, 53, 61, 67, 71, 80-83, 85, 86); (4) “operating the source at a pulse repetition rate
`
`greater than 0.1 pulses per second until a target volume in the target region has been modified”
`
`(claims 1, 80-83); (5) “continuously emitted electromagnetic radiation” (claim 5); (6) “material
`
`ablation” (claim 5); (7) “redistributing the beam in time and space to form at least one modified
`
`beam comprising a plurality of pulses” (claim 5); and (8) “plasma” (claims 21, 22, 25, 80).
`
`
`1 Claim numbers referred to throughout this brief are those in which the particular claim term is
`recited.
`
`2 The parties agreed on constructions for sets 6 and 7 subsequent to the filing of the Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 977
`
`
`Dr. Neev respectfully requests that the Court enter the parties’ agreed constructions, enter
`
`Dr. Neev’s proposed constructions for the disputed claim terms, and rule that the plain, ordinary
`
`meanings apply to the remaining terms that AMO seeks to construe.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The State of the Art at the Time of Dr. Neev’s Invention
`
`Dr. Neev’s invention is generally related to laser-tissue interactions, and more
`
`specifically to the field of electromagnetic energy systems for material and biological tissue
`
`modification processing and removal. At the time of the invention, research in this field was
`
`directed to enhancing material removal by increasing the power of the electromagnetic energy or
`
`by increasing the intensity of individual pulses of electromagnetic energy. (See ‘199 patent at
`
`2:25-28.) However, the electromagnetic energy or laser systems in use at the time caused
`
`collateral damage to areas around a target region, plasma decoupling of the beam, and loud
`
`acoustic snaps. (Id. at 2:25-39.) Other systems and methods in use at the time of the invention,
`
`such as excimer laser systems, suffered from a rate of tissue modification per pulse that was very
`
`low and required operating the system at high repetition rates. (Id. at 3:37-47.) However, the
`
`high repetition rates resulted in considerable and unintended thermal and mechanical collateral
`
`damage to areas around a target region. (Id. at 3:48-50.)
`
`At the time of the invention, researchers were investigating the interaction of picosecond
`
`and femtosecond pulses and tissue to provide a system that would reduce the collateral damage
`
`provided by state of the art systems. The interaction of picosecond and femtosecond laser pulses
`
`and biological tissue at the time of the invention was unique and understood by those skilled in
`
`the art to provide advantages over the state of the art systems when properly controlled and
`
`administered. (Id. at 4:20-25.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 978
`
`
`However, at the time of the invention, the availability of picosecond and femtosecond
`
`laser sources was limited to relatively few institutions such as national laboratories and leading
`
`academic universities. (Id. at 4:40-44.) The sources and systems that used them were delicate and
`
`required expert maintenance. (Id. at 4:44-46.) The ultrashort pulses required special delivery
`
`optics and delivery systems. (Id. at 4:50-58.) And, the ultrashort pulse systems required expert
`
`monitoring as the ablation was not selective. (Id. at 4:46-50.) Moreover, at the time of the
`
`invention, ultrashort pulse laser were achieved in the near-infrared region of the electromagnetic
`
`spectrum (wavelengths of about 750nm - 1400nm) which is transparent for most biotissue, and
`
`thus, results in the propagation of at least a portion of the ultrashort pulses into the biotissue,
`
`resulting in further collateral damage below a surface of a target region. (Id. at 4:59-5:2.)
`
`Consequently, at the time of Dr. Neev’s invention, there was a need for a material modification
`
`regime that minimized collateral damage and maximized precision.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in physics and three to five years of experience designing processes
`
`and procedures using lasers to modify tissue.3
`
`C.
`
`Dr. Neev’s Invention
`
`In view of the state of the art at the time of his invention, Dr. Neev recognized that
`
`ultrashort pulse laser systems provided improved precision in material and biological tissue
`
`modification. However, Dr. Neev also understood that such ultrashort pulse laser systems were
`
`expensive, and thus, only found limited institutions. Consequently, Dr. Neev sought to develop a
`
`3 See Std. Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A person of
`ordinary skill in the art is . . . presumed to be one who thinks along the line of conventional
`wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate, whether by patient, and often
`expensive, systematic research or by extraordinary insights, it makes no difference which.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 979
`
`
`method for material modification that allows the use of not only ultrashort pulse laser systems,
`
`but also systems that have pulse durations of up to several milliseconds long, while still
`
`maintaining the improved precision afforded by the ultrashort pulse laser systems. (See ‘199
`
`patent at 5:38-55.) In particular, Dr. Neev understood that the multiple pulse interactions
`
`occurring through the irradiation of pulses of any duration on the target results in the
`
`accumulation over time of energy transients including heat energy. The accumulation over time
`
`of these energy transients results in unintended collateral damage of the material and
`
`uncontrolled material modification. (Id. at 40:13-24.) Dr. Neev understood that a pulse regime
`
`that allowed an energy transient to substantially decay before introducing additional energy
`
`transients would minimize the collateral damage that could occur through temporal accumulation
`
`of the energy transients, and thus, permit controlled material modification at pulse durations
`
`from about 1 femtosecond to about 0.1 millisecond. (Id. at 40:13-24, 44:10-15, 71:5-32.)
`
`Moreover, Dr. Neev developed a parameter regime of material modification wherein the
`
`residual thermal energy deposited by the pulses could be removed by the combined effect of
`
`successive pulses. In particular, Dr. Neev understood that when operating according to this
`
`material modification regime, the cumulative modification of the material would actually remove
`
`the cumulative residual thermal energy left in the material by the pulses, permitting the use of
`
`high repetition rate lasers. (Id. at 35:53-60.) Consequently, Dr. Neev proposed a material
`
`modification regime that minimizes collateral damage to the material, thus providing precise and
`
`controlled material modification. (Id.)
`
`D.
`
`Reexamination Proceedings
`
`In 2009, Neev filed the present action for infringement. On October 28, 2009, AMO filed
`
`a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination in the PTO requesting the reexamination of claims 1 and
`
`2 of the ‘199 patent. Following conclusion of the reexamination proceedings, the PTO issued a
`
`
`
`6
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 980
`
`
`Reexamination Certificate on October 26, 2010, confirming the patentability of amended claims
`
`1 and 2 and new claims 17-86.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Legal Principles
`
`1.
`
`The Court Construes Claims to Clarify Their Scope;
`Claim Construction Is Not an Exercise in Redundancy
`
`“The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and scope of the patent
`
`claims asserted to be infringed.’” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
`
`1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1999)). Claim construction is a matter of law for
`
`the Court. Id. (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). When the scope of a claim is actually in dispute,
`
`the Court must resolve the dispute by construing the claims. Id.
`
`Only terms whose meanings are legitimately in dispute need to be construed. See id. at
`
`1362. The Court “is not obligated to construe terms with ordinary meanings, lest trial courts be
`
`inundated with requests to parse the meaning of every word” in the claim. Id. at 1360 n.2. Claim
`
`construction “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy”; it is meant “to clarify and when
`
`necessary explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of
`
`infringement.” Id. at 1362 (quoting U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`2.
`
`Claim Terms Mean What a Person of Ordinary Skill
`in the Art Would Understand Them to Mean
`
`The terms of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning”; i.e.,
`
`they mean what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to mean at the time
`
`of invention, when read in the context of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim
`
`
`
`7
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 981
`
`
`language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges,
`
`and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. In other cases, however, the
`
`claim language may have a particular meaning in the relevant field of art. Id.
`
`3.
`
`Claim Terms Are Construed by First Looking to Their Plain
`Meaning, Then, if Necessary, to the Intrinsic Evidence, and
`Then, Rarely, to Extrinsic Evidence
`
`The intrinsic evidence, i.e., the patent specification (including the claims themselves) and
`
`prosecution history, is the most significant evidence in determining the “legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1317. The patent specification is “the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315. The prosecution history is less useful, being a record of
`
`the “ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant” rather than the final product of that
`
`negotiation. Id. at 1317.
`
`The claim itself “provides substantial guidance” in construing a claim term. Id. In fact,
`
`“absent contravening evidence from the specification or prosecution history, plain and
`
`unambiguous claim language controls the construction analysis.” DSW Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion Inc.,
`
`537 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 215 F.3d
`
`1281, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Construing a claim term as less than its “full ordinary and
`
`customary meaning” requires a showing that the applicant clearly and expressly relinquished
`
`claim scope. Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Further, the description of the invention is important in construing claims. Claims should
`
`be construed to include the embodiments of the invention described in the specification. MBO
`
`Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A] claim
`
`interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.”). Indeed, construing a claim term to exclude a described embodiment requires “highly
`
`
`
`8
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 982
`
`
`persuasive evidentiary support." SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)).
`
`The prosecution history, although lacking the clarity of the specification, may be useful
`
`in determining how the applicant represented the claim to the PTO. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`For example, the prosecution history may reveal that the applicant limited the scope of the claim,
`
`making it narrower than it would be otherwise. Id. Such disavowal or disclaimer of a claim
`
`scope, however, must be unequivocal—it must be “clear and unmistakable.” Schindler Elevator
`
`Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added).
`
`The intrinsic evidence may be supplemented with supporting extrinsic evidence, i.e.,
`
`evidence outside of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`Extrinsic evidence is less reliable than the intrinsic evidence and should not be considered
`
`outside the context of the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1319. For example, when the ordinary
`
`meaning of a claim term as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art is readily apparent
`
`to a lay person, a general purpose dictionary may be helpful to determine and apply the widely
`
`accepted meaning of that term. Id. at 1314. In contrast, extrinsic evidence that contradicts the
`
`intrinsic evidence should be disregarded. Id. at 1318.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 983
`
`
`B.
`
`Agreed Constructions
`
`The parties agree that the following claim terms should be construed in the following
`
`manner:
`
`Claim Term
`
`“[modification] threshold
`volumetric power density”
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 80-83
`
`“power density threshold for
`material ablation”
`
`5
`
`“deposited volumetric power
`density”
`
`1, 80-83
`
`“power densities within the
`region targeted for
`modification”
`
`“commutative ablation”
`
`5
`
`5
`
`“absorption characteristic of
`the material … at the target
`region”
`
`
`1, 80-83
`
`“absorption of the target
`region”
`
`85, 86
`
`“scattering characteristic of
`the material at the target
`region”
`
`1, 80-83
`
`“scattering of the target
`region”
`
`85, 86
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`The minimum energy per unit time per
`unit volume necessary for material
`modification.
`
`Deposited energy per unit time per unit
`volume.
`
`The combined effect of successive
`ablation.
`
`A characteristic of the target material
`that determines the absorption of the
`electromagnetic energy by the target
`material at the target region.
`
`A characteristic of the target material
`that determines the scattering of the
`electromagnetic energy by the target
`material at the target region.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 984
`
`
`C.
`
`Disputed Constructions
`
`1.
`
`“operating the source and manipulating the beam
`parameters” (Claims 1, 20, 21, 23, 80, 81, 82, 83)
`
`The only correct construction of this term is “operating the source and setting or adjusting
`
`the beam parameters prior to or during the operation of the source.” For example, the patent
`
`specification states, “This exemplary laser system 380 of the present invention is thus able to
`
`produce a continuously tunable output by changes in optics and adjustments.” (‘199 patent at
`
`48:43-45 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the intrinsic evidence makes clear that the beam
`
`parameters are continuously tunable, and thus, can be manipulated at any time before, during, or
`
`after operation of the pulse source.
`
`AMO’s proposed construction is “varying the wavelength, energy, power, spot size, focal
`
`volume, duration, or repetition rate of an electromagnetic beam while irradiating the target
`
`material.” AMO’s proposed construction is incorrect for at least the following reasons.
`
`First, AMO’s proposed construction is redundant and unnecessary. Specifically, it
`
`includes limitations that are already present in the claim language itself. Indeed, claim 1 recites
`
`“varying at least one of the following beam parameters: a beam spot size at the target region, a
`
`duration of the electromagnetic pulses, an energy of the electromagnetic pulses, or a wavelength
`
`of the electromagnetic pulses.”
`
`Second, AMO’s proposed construction limits the varying step as occurring only while the
`
`target material is being irradiated. This construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence.
`
`As discussed above, the intrinsic evidence indicates that the beam parameters can be manipulated
`
`at any time before, during, or after the pulse source is operated. The patent specification does not
`
`place any temporal limitation on manipulation of the beam parameters. AMO cannot meet its
`
`burden of showing that Dr. Neev clearly and expressly relinquished claim scope.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1015 - Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 1:09-cv-00146-RBK -JS Document 113 Filed 08/23/11 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 985
`
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Neev’s proposed construction should be adopted.
`
`2.
`
`“manipulating beam parameters” (Claims 1, 20, 21, 23, 80-83);
`“manipulating parameters of the beam” (Claim 5); “adjusting
`characteristics of the electromagnetic radiation beam” (Claims
`85, 86); “varying at least one of the following beam
`parameters” (Claims 1, 80-83)
`
`This set of claim terms contains an element (“manipulating beam parameters” and similar
`
`phrases) found in the claim term (“operating the source and ma