Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 307
`
`1 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 308
`
`2 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 309
`
`3 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 310
`
`4 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 311
`
`5 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 312
`
`6 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 313
`
`7 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 314
`
`8 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 315
`
`9 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 316
`
`10 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 317
`
`11 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 318
`
`12 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 319
`
`13 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 320
`
`14 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 321
`
`15 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 322
`
`16 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 323
`
`17 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 18 of 40 PageID #: 324
`
`18 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 19 of 40 PageID #: 325
`
`19 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 20 of 40 PageID #: 326
`
`20 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 21 of 40 PageID #: 327
`
`21 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 22 of 40 PageID #: 328
`
`22 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 23 of 40 PageID #: 329
`
`23 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 24 of 40 PageID #: 330
`
`24 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 25 of 40 PageID #: 331
`
`25 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 26 of 40 PageID #: 332
`
`26 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 27 of 40 PageID #: 333
`
`27 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 28 of 40 PageID #: 334
`
`28 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 29 of 40 PageID #: 335
`
`29 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 30 of 40 PageID #: 336
`
`30 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 31 of 40 PageID #: 337
`
`31 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 32 of 40 PageID #: 338
`
`32 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 33 of 40 PageID #: 339
`
`33 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 34 of 40 PageID #: 340
`
`34 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 35 of 40 PageID #: 341
`
`35 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 36 of 40 PageID #: 342
`
`36 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 37 of 40 PageID #: 343
`
`37 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 38 of 40 PageID #: 344
`
`38 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 39 of 40 PageID #: 345
`
`39 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 40 of 40 PageID #: 346
`
`40 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 1 of 39 PagelD #: 729
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`PAICE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V,
`
`Case No.: 2-04CV-211 (DF)
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a
`Japanese Corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR
`NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA
`MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF PAICE LLC’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REPLY BRIEF
`
`March 29, 2005
`
`Samuel F. Baxter (Bar No. 01938000)
`McKOOL SMITH P.C.
`505 East Travis Street, Suite 105
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`Of counsel:
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (Bar No. 04820550)
`Aluned J. Davis
`Peter J. Sawert
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Robert E. Hillman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`Andrew D. Hirsch, Esquire
`PAICE LLC
`6830 Elm Street
`McLean, VA 22101
`
`41 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 2 of 39 PagelD #: 730
`
`TABLE OFCONTENTS
`
`k
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`RESPONSE TO TOYOTA’S PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
`OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ........................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`’970 Patent ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d
`
`e
`
`Drive torque ..................................................................................... 2
`
`Controllable torque transfer unit ...................................................... 3
`
`Input shafts ....................................................................................... 4
`
`A controller for controlling the operation of... and for
`controlling the relative contributions of ....................................... 5
`
`Output member ................................................................................ 5
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................................... 6
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Controller means .............................................................................. 6
`
`Operating mode ................................................................................ 7
`
`3
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`a.
`
`Solid state switching means.., means for converting
`¯ .. [and] means for rectit}cing ......................................................... 8
`
`4.
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`a.
`
`Solid state switching means ............................................................. 9
`
`5.
`
`Claim 32 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`a.
`
`Means for performing the following functions responsive
`to input commands and monitored operation of said
`vehicle: selecting an appropriate mode of operation .................... 9
`
`b.
`
`Low speed running [mode] ............................................................ 10
`
`42 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 3 of 39 PagelD #: 731
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`£
`
`g.
`
`Steady state running [mode] .......................................................... l 1
`
`Acceleration or hill climbing [mode] ............................................. 11
`
`Battery charging [mode] ................................................................ t 2
`
`Braking [mode] .............................................................................. 12
`
`Engine starting ............................................................................... 13
`
`6.
`
`Claim 38 ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`a.
`
`Solid state switching network ........................................................ 13
`
`g.
`
`’672 Patent ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`I.
`
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Clutch ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Controllable clutch ......................................................................... 15
`
`Directly coupled ............................................................................. 16
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`a.
`
`Instantaneous road load/RL ........................................................... 17
`
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`a.
`
`Monitoring commands provided by the vehicle operator .............. 20
`
`Claim 13 ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`a.
`
`Total torque available at the road wheels from said
`engine ............................................................................................. 20
`
`5.
`
`Claim 15 ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`a.
`
`Operating said controller to control selection of the
`operational mode of said vehicle between a low-speed
`mode I, a cruising mode IV, and an acceleration mode V ............. 21
`i.
`Low -speed operation mode I ............................................ 21
`ii.
`Cruising mode IV ............................................................... 22
`iii.
`Acceleration mode V ......................................................... 23
`
`ii
`
`43 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 4 of 39 PagelD #: 732
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Monitoring the instantaneous torque requirements
`required for propulsion of the vehicle (RL) ................................... 24
`
`Operating mode .............................................................................. 24
`
`6.
`
`Claim 30 ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`a.
`
`b,
`
`e,
`
`At least one traction motor being coupled to road
`wheels of said vehicle .................................................................... 24
`
`A controller for controlling operation.., and controlling
`flow ................................................................................................ 26
`
`Configured as a number of batteries connected
`by normally-open switching devices, such that said
`batteries are electrically isolated from one another in the
`event power is cut off from said switching devices ....................... 28
`
`C.
`
`’088 Patent ............................................................................................................. 28
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d,
`
`Instantaneous torque demands (RL) .............................................. 28
`
`Said microprocessor controls operation...so as to
`operate said vehicle in a selected one of said operating
`modes in response to the instantaneous torque demands
`(RL) of said vehicle ....................................................................... 29
`
`Operating mode .............................................................................. 29
`
`Said selected operating mode being selected such that
`said engine is operated only in response to a load equal
`at least to a predetermined minimum value of its maximum
`torque output .................................................................................. 30
`
`III
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 32
`
`iii
`
`44 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 5 of 39 PagelD #: 733
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Adv. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSA IntT, Inc.,
`
`174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 5, 26
`
`CCS l;)’tness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Cleat~tream Wasterwater SVS. v. Hydro-Action, Inc.
`206 F.3d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................... 25
`
`Cole v. Kimberlv-Clark Corp.,
`102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Frank’s Casin~ Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherl’ord Int 7, Inc.
`389 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Gaming Inc. v. lnt ’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................... 27
`
`GreenbeE~ v. Ethicon Endo-Sur~elw, Inc.,
`91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`lnnova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................... 14
`
`ltron Inc. v. Ben~hiat
`169 F.Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Minn. 2001) ......................................................................... 28
`
`Li@tin~ World, Inc. v. Birehwood Li~htin£, Inc.
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`On-Line Teeh v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer
`386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................... 16
`
`Personalized Media Comm., LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm "n
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`iv
`
`45 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 6 of 39 PagelD #: 734
`
`TI Group Auto. SFs. (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L. C.
`375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`TurboCare Div. of Demag Delava/ Turbomachinerv Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics, Inc.
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Watts" v. XL SVS., Inc.
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35U.S.C.§112 ....................................................................................... 1,3,4,5,6,7,8
`
`V
`
`46 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 7 of 39 PagelD #: 735
`
`PlaintiffPaice LLC ("Paice") hereby submits its reply brief in support of its proposed
`
`construction of certain disputed terms in the asserted patents.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its opening Markman brief, Paice offered proposed constructions for each of the claim
`
`terms that it identified, as well as the over 30 claim terms Toyota claimed required construction.
`
`Paice’s proposed constructions were true to the ordinary meaning of the terms as they would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and, where the intrinsic record compelled a
`
`construction different from the ordinary meaning, Paice scrupulously adhered to the well-known
`
`canons of claim construction.
`
`Toyota, by contrast, did not offer proposed constructions for many of the claim terms for
`
`which it, and not Paice, specifically said construction was necessary. Of the claim
`
`constructions it did propose, many fly in the face of well-established case law. Toyota’s
`
`proposed constructions are flawed because they forsake the plain meaning of terms without
`
`justification, improperly import limitations into the claims, read out disclosed preferred
`
`embodiments, and seek to impose limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 where none are required.
`
`For the few claim terms about which the parties generally agree, Toyota has made them unduly
`
`and unnecessarily complex, when a simpler construction was sufficient.
`
`As a result, for the reasons stated below and in Paice’s opening Markman Brief, Paice’s
`
`proposed constructions set forth the correct interpretations of the disputed terms.1
`
`For the Court’s convenience, Paice has attached hereto as Appendix 1 a table comparing each
`party’s proposed claim construction.
`
`47 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 8 of 39 PagelD #: 736
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOYOTA’S PROPOSED INTERPRETATION OF DISPUTED
`CLAIM TERMS
`
`Paice offers below its response to Toyota’s proposed claim constructions. For uniformity
`
`and clarity, Paice has maintained the format of its opening Markman brief and addressed the
`
`disputed terms in the order in which they appear in the asserted claims.
`
`A.
`
`’970 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`"Drive torque"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: the torque transmitted to the wheels to propel the vehicle
`
`Toyota’s proposed construction: the rotary force generated by the power unit of a hybrid
`electric vehicle for use in moving the drive wheels of that vehicle
`
`As explained in Paice’s initial brief, Paice’s construction of the term "drive torque"
`
`represents the ordinary meaning of the term. Although Toyota’s construction is similar, it is less
`
`precise and incorporates unsupported limitations outside of the ordinary meaning.
`
`In particular, the term "drive torque" is not unique to hybrid vehicles. In a traditional
`
`automobile with only an internal combustion engine, tbr example, some of the engine’s torque
`
`powers the alternator and air conditioning compressor, so not all engine torque becomes drive
`
`torque. Accordingly, Toyota’s inclusion of"generated by the power unit of a hybrid electric
`
`vehicle" in its proposed definition is unnecessarily limiting and therefore inappropriate.
`
`Moreover, it is unnecessary to further define the word torque within the term "drive
`
`torque" because torque has an exact and well-understood meaning. While the use of the term
`
`"rotary force" is generally correct, it is unnecessary since "rotary force" is torque. See Paice’s
`
`2
`
`48 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 9 of 39 PagelD #: 737
`
`Opening Mar#man Brief (hereafter Paice Opening Br.) at 1 n. 1. Therefore, Paice respectfully
`
`requests that the Court adopt its proposed construction of"drive torque."
`
`b.
`
`"Controllable torque transfer unit"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: a multi-input device or component that is controlled to
`transfer variable amounts of torque
`
`Tovota’s proposed construction: means plus function (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6) applies, four
`constantly-meshing bevel gears, housing having teeth tbrmed on its outer circumference, and
`locking devices of Fig. 1 t of the ’970 patent when used to controllably transfer torque
`
`Toyota argues, unpersuasively, that this claim term should be construed as a means-plus-
`
`function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. ’"[A] claim term that does not use ’means’ will
`
`trigger lhe rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.’" Lighting World, Inc. v.
`
`BirchwoodLighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting CCSFitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). "The presumption that a limitation
`
`lacking the term ’means’ is not subject to section 112 ¶ 6 can be overcome if it is demonstrated
`
`that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without
`
`reciting sufficient structure for performing that function [but] the presumption.., is a strong one
`
`that is not readily overcome." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Toyota’s
`
`conclusory statement that the claim "does not recite sufficient structure adequate to interpret the
`
`limitation for use in the hybrid electric vehicle" is not sufficient to carry Toyota’s heavy burden.2
`
`To the contrary, the phrase "controllable torque transfer unit" calls to mind substantial
`structure. A brief search of automaker websites reveals numerous examples of controllable
`torque transfer units which are described and treated as structural elements. For example,
`Acura describes its controllable torque transfer unit as a "VTM-4 torque transfer unit" which
`is "a compact cast-aluminum housing bolted directly to MDX’s transaxle." See Exhibit J
`(http://www.hondanews.com/CatlD3025?mid=2004083154264&mime=asc) at 2. Similarly,
`a Mitsubishi sold in Europe is described as "featur[ing] a constant mesh torque transfer unit
`and centre differential with planetary gears and a... Viscous Coupling Unit." See Exhibit K
`(http://www.carpages.co.uk/mitsubishi/mitsubishi_2003_shogun part 5 22 12 02.asp)at2.
`
`49 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 10 of 39 PagelD #: 738
`
`Lighting World supports Paice’s position. In that case, the Federal Circuit described its
`
`treatment of this issue in Greenberg v. Ethieon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996), where the term "detent mechanism" was not treated as a term covered by § 112 ¶l 6:
`
`[In Greenberg, we] explained that the fact that a particular mechanism ... is
`defined in functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing
`that term into a means for performing a specified function within the meaning of
`section 112(6). We noted that the definitions made clear that the noun ’detent’
`denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical
`arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms. Moreover, we
`rejected the claim that because a term does not bring to mind a particular
`structure, it invokes section 112 ¶ 6. Specifically, we said, ’It is true that the term
`’detent’ does not call to mind a single well-defined structure, but the same could
`be said of other commonplace structural terms such as ’clamp’ or ’container.’
`
`382 F.3d at 1360 (interval citations and quotations omitted).
`
`The Federal Circuit has similarly held that such broad terms as "digital detector,"
`
`"eyeglass hanger member," "sealingly connected [joints]" and "reciprocating member" do not
`
`trigger section 112 ¶ 6. Personalized Media Comm., LLC v. lnt "l Trade Comm ’n, 16 t F.3d 696,
`
`704 (Fed. Cir. 1998); ALSite Corp. v. VSA Int’l, Inc., 174 F. 3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877,881 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and CCS Fimess v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, Toyota’s attorney argument that the term
`
`"controllable torque transfer unit" recites inadequate structure is not factually correct and
`
`misstates the law.
`
`Toyota has not overcome the strong presumption that the term "controllable torque
`
`transfer unit" is not subject to § 112 ¶F 6. Accordingly, Paice respectfully requests that the Court
`
`adopt its proposed construction.
`
`c.
`
`"Input shafts"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: the mechanical components that transfer torque between
`the engine and motor, respectively, and the controllable torque transfer unit
`
`4
`
`50 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 11 of 39 PagelD #: 739
`
`Togota’s proposed construction: NONE
`
`Although Toyota is the party that identified this claim term as one requiring construction,
`
`it failed to offer a construction in its opening Markman brief. Therefore, Paice respectfully
`
`requests that the Court adopt its proposed construction.
`
`do
`
`"A controller for controlling the operation of... and for
`controlling the relative contributions of .... "
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: a computerized control device
`
`Togota’s proposed construction: means plus function (35 U.S.C. § 1 t2, ¶ 6) applies, a
`microprocessor programmed to receive operating commands and data input, and to be responsive
`to a determined mode of operation of the hybrid electric vehicle, for controlling operation of the
`engine, the electric motor, and the torque transfer unit
`
`Like the term "controllable torque transfer unit," Toyota argues that this claim term
`
`should be subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Again, however, this phrase does not use the term
`
`"means" and Toyota has not presented any persuasive argument to rebut the presumption that §
`
`112, ¶[ 6 does not apply. The fact that the term may have a functional aspect does not mean that
`
`it lacks sufficient structure. SeeApex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). To the contrary, a "controller" has a generally understood meaning to one of skill in
`
`the art. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Co.,
`
`2000, 4th Ed. (Exhibit L) at 400 ("Controller [def. #3]: a regulating mechanism, as in a vehicle
`
`or electric device"). Therefore, Paice respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed
`
`construction.
`
`e.
`
`"Output member"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: a mechanical component that transfers the drive torque
`out of the controllable torque transfer unit
`
`To,/ota’s proposed construction: NONE
`
`5
`
`51 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 12 of 39 PagelD #: 740
`
`Although Toyota is the party that identified this claim term as one requiring construction,
`
`it failed to offer a construction in its opening Markman brief. Therefore, Paice respectfully
`
`requests that the Court adopt its proposed construction.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2
`
`a.
`
`"Controller means"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: a computerized control device
`
`Toyota’s proposed construction: means plus function (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6) applies, a
`microprocessor programmed to receive operating commands and data input, and to be responsive
`to a determined mode of operation of the hybrid electric vehicle, for controlling operation of the
`engine, the electric motor, and the torque transfer unit
`
`Toyota’s argument that the word "means" invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is unsupported.
`
`The "controller means" ofdcpendent claim 2 refers back to the controller identified in claim 1.
`
`See ’970 patent, col. 22:35-36 ("The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said controller means controls
`
`flow .... "). As a canon of claim construction, these terms should be construed consistently.
`
`Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, lnc. v. Weathe~Jbrd lnt’l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004). Because the controller of claim 1 is not subject to § 1 t2 ¶ 6, the use of"means" in
`
`dependent claim 2 is surplusage.
`
`In any event, Toyota’s position is untenable because, like the term controller, the term
`
`"controller means" calls to the mind of one of ordinary skill in the art a specific structure. See,
`
`e.g., TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elee. Co., 264 F.3d 1111,
`
`1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Paice respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed
`
`construction.
`
`6
`
`52 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 13 of 39 PagelD #: 741
`
`b.
`
`"Operating mode"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: mode or state of operation
`
`To,/ota’s proposed construction: mode of operation that is determined by the selection of
`torque needed to propel the (claimed) vehicle
`
`As explained in Paice’s initial brief, Paice’s construction of the term "operating mode"
`
`represents the ordinary meaning of the term. In contrast, Toyota’s proposed construction
`
`includes not only the operating mode, but how that mode is determined. This is yet another
`
`improper attempt to import limitations from other claim language and the specification.
`
`"[O]perating modes" in claim 2 are "selected dependent on desired vehicle performance." ’970
`
`patent, col. 22:38-39. IfToyota’s proposed construction was correct, the additional language
`
`describing how the operating mode is selected would be completely redundant.
`
`Furthermore, even ifa narrower construction of the term than Paice’s proposed
`
`construction were called tbr, Toyota’s proposed construction contradicts the specification.
`
`Describing the battery charging mode in a preferred embodiment, for example, the specification
`
`teaches that "[i]nternal combustion engine 40 charges battery 22 by rotating motor 20, providing
`
`AC rectified by switching unit 44 to DC suitable fur charging battery 22. lfthis mode is entered
`
`during driving, internal combustion engine 40 also supplies torque to road wheels 34 .... " ’970
`
`patent, col. 15:5-10. In this case, the mode of operation is determined by the selection of torque
`
`needed to propel the vehicle and by the torque needed to power the motor to charge the battery.
`
`Toyota’s proposed construction would therefore read out a preferred embodiment.
`
`Accordingly, Paice respectfully requests that the Court adopt the ordinary meaning of this
`
`term in accordance with Paice’s proposed construction.
`
`7
`
`53 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 14 of 39 PagelD #: 742
`
`3.
`
`Claim 9
`
`a,
`
`"Solid state switching means...means for converting... [and]
`means for rectifying"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: a solid-state circuit for converting DC to AC and
`rectifying AC to DC
`
`Toyota’s proposed construction: means plus function (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶] 6) applies, a
`solid-state switching AC/DC converter/motor controller, which consists of a three-phase bridge
`circuit comprising six solid state devices connected in parallel with six flyback diodes and a
`microprocessor for controlling operation ofAC/DC converter/microcontroller
`
`As explained in Paice’s initial brief, 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply here because the
`
`term recites sufficient structure to pertbrm the claimed function. See 77 GroupAuto. Sys. (3/.
`
`Am.), lnc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126, 1135 (Fed. Cir, 2004); Cole v. Kimberly-Clark
`
`Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("perforation means.., for tearing" not subject to §
`
`112 ¶ 6 because it described the structure supporting the tearing function (i.e., perforations).").
`
`Similarly the term "solid state switching" device sufficiently describes to those of ordinary skill
`
`the structure to perform the functions of converting and rectifying. Accordingly, Paice
`
`respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed construction.
`
`Even should the Court decide to extend means plus function treatment to this term, the
`
`construction proposed by Toyota is incorrect. The structure corresponding to this term disclosed
`
`in the specification is simply a solid state AC to DC and DC to AC converter. See, e.g., ’970
`
`patent, col. 5:60-69. Toyota’s proposed construction attempts to import additional structure and
`
`even functions beyond that recited by the claim. This is plain error.
`
`8
`
`54 of 220
`
`FORD 1413
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 27 Filed 03/29/05 Page 15 of 39 PagelD #: 743
`
`4.
`
`Claim 11
`
`a.
`
`"Solid state switching means"
`
`Paice’s proposed construction: a solid-state circuit for converting DC to AC and
`rectifying AC to DC
`
`Toyota’s proposed construction: means plus function (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies) a
`solid-state switching AC/DC converter/motor controller, which consists of a three-phase bridge
`circuit comprising six solid state devices connected in parallel with six flyback diodes and a
`microprocessor for controlling operation of AC/DC converter/microcontroller
`
`The parties agree that this term from claim 11 should be construed consistently with the