Ex. PGS 1020
`
`EX. PGS 1020
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-01827
`)
`) Jury Trial Demanded
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`WESTERNGECO'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Lee L. Kaplan
`lkaplan@skv.com
`SMYSER KAPLAN
`& VESELKA, L.L.P.
`Bank of America Center
`700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 221-2323
`Fax: (713) 221-2320
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff/
`Counterclaim Defendant
`WesternGeco L.L. C.
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`John M. Desmarais, P.C.
`john.desmarais@kirkland.com
`Timothy K. Gilman
`timothy .gilman@kirkland.com
`Tamir Packin
`tamir.packin@kirkland.com
`Xiaoyan Zhang
`xiaoyan.zhang@kirkland.com
`AmeetModi
`ameet.modi@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington A venue
`New York, New York 10022
`Tel.: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Dated: March 12, 2010
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Page
`
`· Claim Terms Are Properly Construed Based on Their Ordinary Meaning
`in Light of the Patent's Specification ·························~·············································2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`)
`
`Proposed Constructions for the Bittleston Patents ................................................... 3
`d
`• ( )"
`3
`II t
`"t"
`•
`s reamer post to rung evtce s
`................................................................. .
`"global control system" ................................................................................ 6
`"local control system" .................................................................................. 8
`"location information" ................................................................................. 9
`"on or in-line with" ........................ , ............................................................. 9
`"feather angle mode" .................................................................................... 9
`"turn control mode" ................................................................................. ... 1 0
`"streamer separation mode" ...................................................................... .11
`"means for obtaining a predicted position of the streamer
`positioning devices" ................................................................................... 11
`"means for obtaining an estimated velocity of the streamer
`positioning devices" ................................................................................... 12
`"means for calculating desired changes in the orientations of the
`respective wings of at least some of the streamer positioning
`devices using said predicted position and said estimated velocity" ........... 12
`"means for actuating the wing motors to produce said desired
`changes in wing orientation" ...................................................................... 13
`
`(
`
`a
`(b)
`(c)
`(d)
`(e)
`(f)
`(g)
`(h)
`(i)
`
`G)
`
`(k)
`
`(1)
`
`III.
`
`Proposed Constructions for the Zajac '038 Patent ................................................ .13
`
`(a)
`(b)
`(c)
`(d)
`e
`(f)
`
`(
`
`)
`
`(g)
`(h)
`
`II
`
`•
`
`"active streamer positioning device (ASPD)" ............................................ 13
`"a master controller" .................................................................................. 16
`"the master controller" ............................................................................... 16
`"positioning commands" ............................................................................ 17
`"fi d
`try"
`17
`mamtatrung a spect Ie array geome
`................................................. .
`"a streamer behavior prediction processor which predicts array
`behavior" .................................................................................................... 18
`"environmental factors/influences/measurements" .................................... 18
`"maneuverability influences/factor(s)" ...................................................... 19
`
`•
`
`•
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 19
`
`1
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, Inc.,
`474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc.,
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`Colorquick, LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`No. 6:06-CV-390, 2008 WL 5771324 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2008) ........................... 3, 7, 15
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.,
`537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................. -................................................ 4, 6, 14
`
`Halliburton Energy Svcs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 4, 6, 14
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. passim
`
`Inverness Med v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp.,
`309 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 3, 4, 16
`
`Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, Inc.,
`549 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) ........... , ..................................................... passim
`
`Plasmart Inc. v. Wincell Int'l. Inc.,
`No. 05-10745, 2007 WL 3355509 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2007) ........................................ 7, 15
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`11
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 4 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................ 16
`
`Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG,
`318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................... 2, 7
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. !COS Vision Sys. Corp.,
`365 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 14
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 4, 10
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................... 3, 4, 6
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................. passim
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 2
`
`lll
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 5 of 24
`
`Plaintiff WesternGeco L.L.C. ("WestemGeco") respectfully submits its Reply Claim
`
`Construction Brief in further support of WestemGeco's proposed constructions set forth in the
`
`parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (D.I. 39).
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`WestemGeco filed its Complaint on June 12, 2009 to halt ION Geophysical Corp.'s
`
`("ION's") willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,932,017 ("the '0 17 patent"); 7,080,607 ("the
`
`'607 patent"); 7,162,967 ("the '967 patent") and 7,293,520 ("the '520 patent") (collectively, "the
`
`Bittleston patents"); and 6,691,038 ("the Zajac '038 patent"). (D.I. 1) ION filed a counterclaim
`
`for alleged infringement of one ION patent. (D.I. 6) This Reply addresses the parties' proposed
`
`constructions for the five WesternGeco patents.
`
`The Federal Circuit's 2005 en bane decision in Phillips sets forth the proper framework
`
`for claim construction. It holds that disputed claim terms are properly construed based on their
`
`ordinary meanings in the context of the patent. As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief
`
`("WGOB"), WestemGeco's proposed constructions for the Bittleston and Zajac patents are based
`
`on this intrinsic record. They are properly adopted by the Court.
`
`As also set forth
`
`in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, however, ION's proposed
`
`constructions commit the "cardinal sin of claim construction" by improperly limiting
`
`WestemGeco's patents to their preferred embodiments. They violate the requirements of Phillips
`
`by: (1) reading limitations into the claims; (2) ignoring the ordinary meaning ofthe claim terms;
`
`(3) relying heavily on extrinsic evidence; (4) excluding disclosed embodiments; (5) rendering
`
`claim terms superfluous; and (6) rendering claims duplicative. As discussed below, any of these
`
`flaws would be improper. Many ofiON's proposed constructions suffer them all.
`
`ION's Response Brief ("IRB") concedes that many of its proposed constructions were
`
`improper. For some, ION now agrees with WestemGeco's proposed constructions. For others,
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 6 of 24
`
`however, ION offers "revised" proposed constructions that merely repeat the same flaws. They
`
`still ignore the ordinary meaning of claim terms and read limitations into the claims. They still
`
`restrict the patents to preferred embodiments and exclude other embodiments. And they still
`
`render claim terms superfluous and render claims duplicative. As discussed below, ION's
`
`Response fails to even address the applicable case law cited in WestemGeco's Opening Brief.
`
`Even as "revised," ION's proposed constructions remain properly rejected.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM TERMS ARE PROPERLY CONSTRUED BASED ON THEIR
`ORDINARY MEANING IN LIGHT OF THE PATENT'S SPECIFICATION
`
`"[T]he words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning' ... in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). Unless unusual or technical terms are recited, claim
`
`construction can "involve little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`
`commonly understood words." Id at 1314.
`
`"[W]hen the preferred embodiment is described in the specification as the invention
`
`itself, the claims are not necessarily entitled to a scope broader than that embodiment." Watts v.
`
`XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage
`
`Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing claims in light of a description
`
`of "the present invention"); Honeywell lnt'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (same). However, the "use of the phrase 'the present invention' does not
`
`'automatically' limit the meaning of claim terms in all circumstances." Netcraft Corp. v. eBay,
`
`Inc., 549 F.3d 1394, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081,
`
`1094 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("such language must be read in context of the entire specification"). For
`
`example, it is improper to rely on descriptions of "the present invention" to exclude other
`
`2
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 7 of 24
`
`disclosed embodiments. Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1305 ("We normally do not interpret claim terms
`
`in a way that excludes disclosed examples in the specification."); Colorquick, LLC v. Eastman
`
`Kodak Co., No. 6:06-CV-390, 2008 WL 5771324, at *7 n.9 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2008)
`
`(distinguishing Honeywell on this basis).
`
`In fact, it is the "cardinal sin of claim construction" to limit claims terms to a preferred
`
`embodiment. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is
`
`also generally improper for a proposed construction to render superfluous other terms in the
`
`claim. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`And a proposed construction that would render two claims identical in scope violates the
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15. Extrinsic evidence is "less
`
`significant than the intrinsic record" and cannot override these rules. /d. at 1317.
`
`II.
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BITTLESTON PATENTS
`
`(a)
`
`"streamer positioning device(s)"
`
`"streamer
`'017-1, 3-5,7-8, 16;
`positioning
`'967-1-9, 15; '607-1,
`4-6, 8-9, 15;
`device(s)"; "the
`positioning device"
`'520-1, 9, 18,26
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, there is no contention that "streamer,"
`
`device(s) used to steer/position the
`streamer both vertically and
`horizontally 1
`
`a device that controls the position of a
`streamer as it is towed (e.g., a "bird")
`
`"positioning" or "device" have any unusual meanings or would be confusing for a jury. (WGOB
`
`at 10-11) Therefore, this term is properly construed by "the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. WestemGeco's proposed
`
`construction tracks the ordinary meaning of the term, and is based on the specification's broad
`
`disclosure of various streamer positioning devices which control only vertical position, control
`
`ION's Response Brief deletes any requirement of vertical and horizontal steering for its "revised" proposed
`constructions of "global control system" and "local control system." (IRB at 7-8 & 7 n.4) However, ION has
`not similarly corrected its proposed construction of "streamer positioning device."
`
`3
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 8 of 24
`
`only horizontal position, or control both. (WGOB at 11-12; Ex. 1 at 1:24-27; 1:34-36; 1:47-52;
`
`2:5-6; 1 0:23-30)2 ION does not dispute these facts. (IRB at 4-6)
`
`ION's proposed construction improperly excludes some of these embodiments. See
`
`WGOB at 11-12; Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1305 (rejecting construction "that excludes disclosed
`
`examples in the specification"). It is additionally improper because it would render other claim
`
`language superfluous, e.g., "to steer the streamer positioning device laterally." See WGOB at 11;
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Merck, 395 F.3d at
`
`1372; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. And it commits the "cardinal sin of claim construction" by
`
`limiting the claim term to a preferred embodiment. See WGOB at 11-12; Ex. 1 at 3:29-30
`
`("Preferably the birds 18 are both vertically and horizontally steerable. ");3 Halliburton Energy
`
`Svcs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the use of "preferably"
`
`"strongly suggests that ... [it] is simply a preferred embodiment"); Telejlex, 299 F.3d at 1324;
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[I]t is well-settled that
`
`claims are not to be confined to [a preferred] embodiment.").
`
`ION's Response Brief fails to address these flaws, or to even cite Phillips, Stumbo,
`
`Merck, DSW or Teleflex.
`
`(IRB at 4-6) The only purported evidence ION raises is:
`
`(1) a
`
`description of "the invention" that discusses lateral steering; (2) a disclosure of preferred
`
`"modes" purportedly including vertical and horizontal steering; and (3) extrinsic evidence. None
`
`of this supports ION's proposed construction.
`
`First, ION's purported reliance on Verizon and Honeywell for construing claim terms in
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Exs. 1-45 refer to exhibits submitted with WestemGeco's Opening Brief.
`
`Unless otherwise indicated, all emphases are added.
`
`4
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 9 of 24
`
`light of descriptions of "the present invention" is inapposite- the passage cited by ION does not
`
`mention, much less require, vertical steering. See Ex. 1 at 2:47-60; Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1303
`
`(refusing to limit a claim where the description of "the present invention" was unrelated to the
`
`feature defendant proposed reading into the claim). It fails to support ION's argument.
`
`Second, the various "modes" recited in the Bittleston patents represent, at most, preferred
`
`or alternate embodiments. None are described as "the present invention." And, in any event,
`
`most if not all of the disclosed control modes do not require vertical steering. (Ex. 1 at 9:53-
`
`10:11; see also §II(h), infra) They fail to provide any support for ION's proposed construction.
`
`Third, ION's purported reliance on extrinsic evidence is improper because it cannot be
`
`used to contradict the intrinsic record. Phi/lips, 415 F .3d at 1317. Moreover, the testimony of
`
`Peter Canter which ION cites merely confirms that vertical and horizontal steering is a preferred
`
`embodiment: "It's my view that they can do depth and/or lateral positioning." (IRB Ex. A at
`
`126:22-23) The testimony of Jeffrey Wendt, also cited by ION, is similar: "the streamer
`
`steering device could -- could be laterally controlled or vertically controlled or both, depending
`
`on a client's needs."
`
`(Ex. 41 at 52:19-53 :2) So is the testimony of Simon Bittleston: "It
`
`describes [depth control] as one thing that might be done, but it doesn't say that it has to be
`
`done." (IRB Ex. Cat 160:4-12) ION's extrinsic evidence merely confirms that ION's proposed
`
`construction is improper. None of ION's purported evidence overcomes the flaws of ION's
`
`proposed construction, e.g., excluding disclosed embodiments, rendering claim language
`
`superfluous and limiting the claims to a preferred embodiment. For all of these reasons - which
`
`stand unrebutted- ION's proposed construction is still properly rejected.
`
`5
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 10 of 24
`
`(b)
`
`"global control system"
`
`'0 17-7, 8;
`'607-7, 8;
`. '967-1, 4,
`5 8 9
`'
`'
`'
`15
`
`"global
`control
`system"
`
`system that monitors the position of
`system that monitors the positioning of
`a control system that
`the streamers and provides the
`the streamers and provides the desired
`sends commands to other
`d
`.
`.
`(
`desired forces or desired positioning
`vertical and horizontal forces or
`ev1ces m a system e.g.,
`information to the local control
`vertical and horizontal positioning
`local control systems)
`systems
`information to the local control systems
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, the Bittleston patents teach a variety of
`
`distributions of streamer array control, including between a global control system and local
`
`control systems. (WGOB at 12-13) WestemGeco's proposed construction of a "global control
`
`system" is based on the term's ordinary meaning in this context. (!d) ION does not dispute this
`
`fact. (IRB at 7) WestemGeco's proposed construction is proper under Phillips.
`
`ION's proposed construction, however, improperly restricts the patent to preferred
`
`embodiments. See, e.g., WGOB at 13; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. There is nothing in the
`
`ordinary meaning of "global control system" that limits the commands sent or the recipients of
`
`those commands. In fact, the Bittleston patents teach that the global control system can issue
`
`many types of commands, such as a desired force, a desired location, a desired displacement or a
`
`desired wing angle. (Ex. 1 at 5:54-58, 5:63-67, 6:11-14, 6:17-21, Cl. 7) And while some claims
`
`explicitly recite "local control systems" as the recipients of these commands, other claims are
`
`broader. Compare Ex. 3 at Cls. 1, 15 with Ex. 1 at Cls. 7, 8; see also Praxair, Inc. v. ATML Inc.,
`
`543 F.3d 1306, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[T]he structure of the claims confirms that [a proposed
`
`restriction] was not intended to be a feature of the invention as a whole."). ION's proposed
`
`construction- even as "revised"- improperly limits the claims to preferred embodiments and
`
`excludes other embodiments. See WGOB at 12-13; Telejlex, 299 F.3d at 1324; Halliburton, 514
`
`F.3d at 1251; DSW, 537 F.3d at 1348; Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1305.
`
`In its Response, ION argues that:
`
`(1) a description of "the inventive control system"
`
`should be used to limit "a global control system"; and (2) ION's "revised" proposed construction
`
`6
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 11 of 24
`
`no longer excludes disclosed embodiments. (IRB at 6-7) Neither argument has merit.
`
`First, ION's purported reliance on a description of "the inventive control system" is
`
`misplaced. (IRB at 6) Unlike the language at issue in Verizon and Honeywell, the language
`
`cited by ION merely discusses what "the inventive control system is based on," not what "the
`
`present invention is." See Verizon, 503 F .3d at 1308; Honeywell, 452 F .3d at 1318. In fact, the
`
`specification earlier teaches that this description is merely a preferred embodiment:
`
`In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the control system for the
`birds 18 is distributed between a global control ... and a local control system ...
`
`(Ex. 1 at 3:36-40). The context of the specification confirms that the claims are not limited to the
`
`one embodiment ION cites. See Praxair, 543 F.3d at 1326 ("Although these statements appear
`
`to pertain to the invention overall, rather than a specific embodiment of the invention, they are
`
`contradicted by a number of express statements in the [patent's] specification ... ").
`
`Second, ION's "revised" proposed construction still improperly excludes disclosed
`
`embodiments. Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1305. This would be improper even if the specification had
`
`discussed "the present invention." Rambus, 318 F.3d at 1094-95; Colorquick, 2008 WL
`
`5771324, at *7 n.9; Plasmart Inc. v. Wincell Int'l Inc., No. 05-10745, 2007 WL 3355509, at *8
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2007) ("I do not read Verizon to mean that, when presented with magic words
`
`such as 'present invention' or 'the invention herein,' district courts should disregard contrary
`
`indications in the language of the claims, as well as other language of the specifications.").
`
`Although ION argues that "'desired positioning information' would encompass both desired
`
`location and displacement," IRB at 7, the term "positioning information" is not used in the
`
`specification, lacks intrinsic support, and is of unclear scope. And even if ION were correct as to
`
`this argument, ION's proposed construction appears to still exclude disclosed embodiments
`
`where the global controller "calculat[es] a desired change in the wing orientation," Ex. 1 at Cl. 7,
`
`7
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 12 of 24
`
`or where the global controller monitors the positions of birds, rather than the streamers, Ex. 1 at
`
`3:61-63. Therefore, ION's "revised" proposed construction remains improper.
`
`"local control system"
`
`.
`
`(c)
`~~~jril',: ;,::t efllf:'"'
`
`..
`
`.. .
`
`'967-1,
`2, 4, 5,
`7, 15
`
`"local
`control
`system"
`
`a control system located
`on or near the streamer
`positioning devices (e.g.,
`birds)
`
`system located within each
`system located within each streamer
`streamer positioning device that
`positioning device that uses the desired
`uses the desired forces or desired
`forces or desired position information
`position information from the
`from the global control system to control
`the movement of the wings by calculating global control system to control
`the movement of the win s
`a desired chan e in the an le of the win s
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, the Bittleston patents teach local control
`
`systems "located within or near the birds." (WGOB at 14) These local control systems can
`
`interact with the global control system in a number of ways, adding flexibility to the overall
`
`control system- one of the strengths of the Bittleston patents. (!d. at 13-14) WestemGeco's
`
`proposed construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term in light of this intrinsic
`
`evidence. ION does not dispute this fact. (IRB at 8)
`
`ION's proposed construction, however, is flawed for excluding disclosed embodiments
`
`such as local control systems "near the birds" (WGOB at 14; Ex. 1 at 3:36-40); for limiting the
`
`signals the local control systems can receive (WGOB at 13-14, § II(b), supra); and for excluding
`
`embodiments where the global controller "calculat[es] a desired change in the orientation of the
`
`wings." (WGOB at 14) ION fails to address these flaws in its Response. (IRB at 8)
`
`In its single paragraph, ION instead focuses on the statement regarding "the inventive
`
`control system," discussed above.
`
`(IRB at 8) As with the global control system, however:
`
`(1) this is not a description of "the present invention"; (2) this is not the "Summary of the
`
`Invention"; (3) this is merely a preferred embodiment, as explained by other portions of the
`
`specification; and ( 4) ION's proposed revised proposed construction still excludes the disclosed
`
`embodiments discussed above. ION's "revised" proposed construction is still properly rejected.
`
`8
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 13 of 24
`
`(d)
`
`"location information"
`
`'967-1,8, 15
`
`desired vertical depth and horizontal
`"location
`osition
`information regarding location
`information"
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, the Bittleston patents teach a variety of
`
`types of "location information." (WGOB at 15) In its Response Brief, ION concedes this fact
`
`and accepts that WestemGeco's proposed construction is proper. (IRB at 8) However, ION
`
`requests "clarification" that this term does not include "force information." (IRB at 8-9) It is
`
`unclear that the intrinsic record draws a rigid line between location and force information or, in
`
`any event, how ION proposes to incorporate this distinction into the claim construction.
`
`.· ·, .. ,
`
`.:··
`
`................
`
`;: :claini
`'607-15;
`'967-15
`
`·-::
`
`:,
`
`(e)
`
`"on or in-line with"
`'i·:•::.west~t~.~~~#1:~ ~~2Jl6~ · '
`',:·.·'lo~~s.~evis~)J: pf-bp&~ed .
`•:·. .· ·;) ::·z.• ·c<mstr~tti'o'li
`:CJ2'~r
`.·· ·'· <::o.-'$trlletioll.'•:;
`..::
`attached externally to or in-
`"on or in-
`attached to or inline with
`line with"
`with
`line with
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening and Response Briefs, two types of streamer
`
`devices were known at the time of the Bittleston patents: (1) devices attached externally to the
`
`streamer; and (2) devices in-line with the streamer. (WGOB at 6; WestemGeco Response Brief
`
`at 3 & n.2) WestemGeco's proposed construction is based on the ordinary meaning of the
`
`prepositions "on" and "in-line with" in this context. ION, in contrast, fails to provide any support
`
`for its "revised" proposed construction of "on" as "attached to." (IRB at 9)
`
`(f)
`
`"feather angle mode"
`
`'017-7;
`'607-7;
`'967-8;
`'520-1,
`2, 18-19
`
`"feather
`angle
`mode"
`
`mode wherein the global control
`a control mode that attempts to
`mode wherein the global control
`system directs each streamer
`set and maintain each streamer
`system attempts to keep each
`positioning device to keep each
`in a straight line offset from
`streamer in a straight line offset
`streamer in a straight line offset
`the towing direction by a
`from the towing direction by a
`from the towing direction by a
`certain feather angle
`certain feather angle
`certain feather an le
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, a "feather angle" is the angle formed
`
`between a streamer and the direction the ship is traveling, and a "feather angle mode" is a control
`
`9
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 14 of 24
`
`mode that attempts to control this feather angle. (WGOB at 16) ION does not dispute that
`
`WestemGeco's proposed construction is consistent with this ordinary meaning. (IRB at 9-10)
`
`Even as "revised," however, ION's proposed construction still improperly reads a "global
`
`control system" into the claims. This renders superfluous separate language in some claims that
`
`the global control system implements the control mode. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at Cl. 7, Ex. 2 at Cl. 7;
`
`Stumbo, 508 F .3d at 1362. And it ignores the context of the claims for those claims that do not
`
`recite a global controller. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at Cis. 1, 2; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15. ION fails to
`
`address these facts in its Response. (IRB at 10) Notably, ION has deleted any requirement of a
`
`global control system in its "revised" proposed construction of "tum control mode." (IRB at 1 0)
`
`(g)
`
`"turn control mode"
`
`'017-7;
`'607-7;
`'967-8;
`'520-1,
`5, 18,
`23
`
`?JON's R~vised P'ropose(f.<t · ·
`Constructioii. :·,;y,-.;;·
`· ··
`mode wherein the global control system mode wherein streamer
`a control mode in which the
`first directs each streamer positioning
`positioning device(s) generate a
`streamer positioning devices
`device(s) to generate force in the
`force in the opposite direction
`first generate force in the
`opposite direction of a tum and then
`of a tum and then directing each
`opposite direction of the
`directing each streamer positioning
`streamer positioning device to
`tum and then are directed
`device to the position defined in the
`the position defined in the
`back into position
`feather an le mode
`feather an le mode
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, a "tum control mode" is a mode to control
`
`"tum
`control
`mode"
`
`the turning of the seismic array. (WGOB at 17) The only dispute is whether the "tum control
`
`mode" is limited to what mode is selected after the tum is completed.
`
`Even as "revised," ION's proposed construction still improperly reads a "feather angle
`
`mode" into the end of a tum control mode. This renders language superfluous in those claims
`
`that recite a feather angle mode after completing the tum control mode. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at Cl. 6;
`
`Stumbo, 508 F.3d at 1362. It ignores the context of those claims that explicitly do not. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 4 at Cl. 9; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15. And it violates the doctrine of claim differentiation
`
`by conflating the scope of Claims 6 and 9 ofthe Bittleston '520 patent. See, e.g., WGOB at 17-
`
`18; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 ("[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`
`10
`
`Ex. PGS 1020
`
`

`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 15 of 24
`
`limitation gtves rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
`
`independent claim.") ION fails to address any of these facts in its Response. (IRB at 10)
`
`(h)
`
`"streamer separation mode"
`
`'0 17-8; '607-8;
`'967-9; '520-1,
`13, 18, 30
`
`mode wherein the global
`mode wherein the global control
`"streamer
`control system attempts to
`system directs each streamer
`attempts to set and
`separation
`positioning device to maximize the maximize the distance
`maintain the spacing
`mode"
`between ad'acent streamers distance between ad'acent streamers between ad'acent streamers
`As set forth in WestemGeco's Opening Brief, a "streamer separation mode" controls the
`
`separation or spacing between adjacent streamers. (WGOB at 18) While some embodiments
`
`attempt to maximize the distance between adjacent streamers (e.g., Ex. 1 at 10:14-16; Ex. 4 at Cl.
`
`14), others do not (e.g., Ex. 4 at