Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 26 PageID.361
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC, D/B/A NARTRON,
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
`
`v.
`
`
` Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00146-JTN
`
`
`HON. JANET T. NEFF
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants/Counter-
`Claimants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF UUSI, LLC D/B/A NARTRON’S OPENING BRIEF
`ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1014
`
`Page 1 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 26 PageID.362
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’183 PATENT .................................................................................2
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...............................................4
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ............................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`F.
`
`
`
`G.
`
`
`
`H.
`
`
`
`“Responsive to . . . a presence of an operator’s body
`capacitance to ground” .............................................................................................6
`
`“Input touch terminals” ............................................................................................9
`
`“Keypad”................................................................................................................12
`
`“Detector circuit” ...................................................................................................14
`
`“Control output signal” ..........................................................................................15
`
`“First and second touch terminals” ........................................................................17
`
`“Defining . . . areas [. . . for an operator to provide input by
`proximity an touch]” ..............................................................................................18
`
`“Small sized input touch terminals of the keypad” ................................................20
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 26 PageID.363
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Am. Med. Sys. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................8
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................8, 17
`
`Bissell Homecare, Inc. v. Dyson, Inc.,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57603 (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2010) ........................................... passim
`
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg.,
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................9
`
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Promos Techs., Inc.,
`561 F. Supp. 2d 732 (E.D. Tex. 2008) .......................................................................................9
`
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ passim
`
`JuxtaComm Techs., Inc. v. Ascential Software Corp.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59857 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2009)........................................................15
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)..................................................................................4
`
`PolyVision Corp. v. Smart Techs., Inc.,
`501 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007) .................................................................................7
`
`SAF-Holland, Inc. v. Hendrickson USA, L.L.C.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27539 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2016) ...........................................8, 14, 19
`
`Scholle Custom Packaging, Inc. v. Grayling Indus.,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55414 (W.D. Mich. June 3, 2010) .......................................................6
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148005 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2015) ........................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 26 PageID.364
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................5
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................4
`
`York Prods. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 26 PageID.365
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff UUSI, LLC D/B/A Nartron (“Nartron”) filed this action against Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) on February
`
`13, 2015, alleging the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (“the ’183 patent”).1
`
`(PagelD.1-9.) On March 17, 2016, the parties filed a Comprehensive Chart of Claim
`
`Construction Issues. (PageID.348-57.) Pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order,
`
`Nartron hereby submits its opening claim construction brief concerning the ’183 patent.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Today, touchscreens can be found everywhere. The proliferation of handheld mobile
`
`devices, like smartphones and tablets, have ushered in an era where it is now unthinkable to go
`
`about daily tasks without a smartphone or tablet nearby. The presence of touchscreens, however,
`
`is not limited to smartphones and tablets. They can be found on laptops, ATMs, kiosks, and
`
`vending machines in everyday locations like homes, cars, restaurants, and stores.
`
`The touchscreen’s path to preeminence did not happen overnight. Nartron was an early
`
`pioneer in touchscreen technology. Indeed, Nartron developed much of the early touchscreen
`
`technology upon which smartphone and tablet touchscreens are based today. Nartron
`
`implemented its research and development efforts in, for example, designing touchscreens for
`
`appliances and vehicle navigation systems. The ’183 patent, issued in 1998, is exemplary of the
`
`efforts Nartron undertook as a pioneer in touchscreen technology.
`
`
`1 References to the ’183 patent includes Reexamination Certificates C1 and C2. The asserted
`claims of the ’183 patent are as follows: claims 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
`69, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 99, 101, and 102. (PagelD.178-79.) The ’183 patent is
`attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Phillip J. Lee In Support of Nartron’s Opening Brief
`on Claim Construction Issues (“Lee Decl.”).
`
`1
`
`Page 5 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 26 PageID.366
`
`
`
`III.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ’183 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ’183 patent is directed generally to the circuitry underlying the basic principles of
`
`touchscreen technology—the circuitry that senses an operator’s proximity or touch by detecting a
`
`change in electrical charge on the touchscreen. In particular, the ’183 patent describes a
`
`capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit for a touch terminal in which an operator
`
`provides an input by proximity or touch. ’183, Abstract. The ’183 patent discusses the circuit as
`
`comprising input lines driven by an oscillator providing a periodic signal with a frequency of 50
`
`kHz or greater, and a detector circuit that receives periodic output signals from the touch
`
`terminal generated by a change in frequency caused by the effect of the operator’s body
`
`capacitance to ground when touching or in close proximity to the touch terminal. Id.
`
`Independent claim 83 is representative and it recites:
`
`83. A capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit for a controlled
`keypad device comprising:
`
`an oscillator providing a periodic output signal having a predefined
`frequency;
`
` a
`
` microcontroller using the periodic output signal from the oscillator, the
`microcontroller selectively providing signal output frequencies to a closely
`spaced array of input touch terminals of a keypad, the input touch terminals
`comprising first and second input touch terminals, wherein a peak voltage
`of the signal output frequencies is greater than a supply voltage;
`
`the first and second input touch terminals defining areas for an operator to
`provide an input by proximity and touch; and
`
` a
`
` detector circuit coupled to said oscillator for receiving said periodic output
`signal from said oscillator, and coupled to said first and second touch
`terminals, said detector circuit being responsive to signals from said
`oscillator via said microcontroller and a presence of an operator’s body
`capacitance to ground coupled to said first and second touch terminals when
`proximal or touched by the operator to provide a control output signal for
`actuation of the controlled keypad device, said detector circuit being
`configured to generate said control output signal when the operator is
`
`2
`
`Page 6 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 26 PageID.367
`
`
`
`proximal or touches said second touch terminal after the operator is
`proximal or touches said first touch terminal.
`
`
`Id., Claim 83.
`
`
`
`Among other things, the specification of the ’183 patent describes a “multiple touch pad
`
`circuit” embodiment. Id., 18:34-35. In this embodiment, the multiple touch pad includes an
`
`array of touch circuits (9001 to 900nm) as illustrated in Figure 11:
`
`
`
`A microcontroller “selects each row of the touch circuits . . . by providing the signal from the
`
`oscillator 200 to selected rows of the touch circuits.” Id., 18:43-46. “In this manner,
`
`microcontroller 500 can sequentially activate the touch circuit rows and associate the received
`
`inputs from the columns of the array with the activated touch circuit(s).” Id., 18:46-49. These
`
`detection circuits are located directly beneath the touch pads. Id., 18:51-52. By sequentially
`
`activating the touch circuits, the precise location of the operator’s input (by proximal or touch)
`
`on the touchscreen can be determined though a change in impedance. Id., 7:1-5, 12:24-27.
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 8 of 26 PageID.368
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). In interpreting claim language, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of
`
`record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the
`
`prosecution history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Specifically,
`
`First, we look to the words of the claims themselves, . . . [, and a]lthough
`words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a
`manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition
`of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history. Thus,
`second, it is always necessary to review the specification to determine
`whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their
`ordinary meaning. . . . Third, the court may also consider the prosecution
`history of the patent, if in evidence. This history contains the complete
`record of all the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office,
`including any express representations made by the applicant regarding the
`scope of the claims. . . . In most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic
`evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such
`circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.
`
`Id. at 1582-83 (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`“[T]he ordinary meaning of claim 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.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. For extrinsic evidence, courts have observed the help that technical
`
`dictionaries may provide to a court to better understand the underlying technology and the way
`
`in which one of skill in the art might use the claim terms. Id. at 1318 (citations and internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, “‘[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language
`
`4
`
`Page 8 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 9 of 26 PageID.369
`
`
`
`and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the
`
`correct construction.’” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158
`
`F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`Not every term in a patent claim need be construed to comply with the Supreme Court’s
`
`Markman decision:
`
`The Markman decisions do not hold that the trial judge must repeat or
`restate every claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim
`construction is for the court. Claim construction is a matter of resolution of
`disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
`explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the
`determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in
`redundancy.
`
`
`United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
`
`The parties dispute eight claim terms, several of which include overlapping words and
`
`phrases. (PageID.351-357.) In general, the disputed terms do not require construction, in part,
`
`because the claim language surrounding the terms either provide a definition or make clear that
`
`the terms are used in their plain and ordinary sense. Further, the specification and the
`
`prosecution history do not afford any special meaning to the otherwise ordinary use of the
`
`disputed terms. To the extent applicable, relevant technical dictionaries also confirm that the
`
`disputed terms are used in their ordinary sense. Samsung’s proposed constructions are legally
`
`incorrect because (among other reasons) they import limitations into the claims. Nartron
`
`discusses the disputed terms seriatim.
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-CV-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 10 of 26 Page|D.37O
`
`A.
`
`“Responsive to . . . a presence of an operator’s body capacitance to ground”
`
`Nartron’s Proposal
`“detector circuit being responsive to signals No construction
`from said oscillator via said microcontroller necessary. Plain
`and a presence of an operator’s body
`capacitance to ground coupled to said touch meaning.
`terminals when proximal or
`touched by the
`operator to provide a control output signal”
`
`Claims 37, 40, 61, 83, and 94
`
`Samsung’-s Proposal
`“responsive to an
`increase in capacitance
`caused by the
`operator’s body”
`
`No construction is necessary for this claim term. The portion of the claim language
`
`Samsung seeks to construe consists of words commonly understood by laypersons and skilled
`
`artisans alike. For example, the claim language simply recites that the “detector circuit” is
`
`“responsive” to two things: (1) “signals” from an “oscillator”; and (2) “signal[s]” provided by the
`
`“presence” of an “operator’s body capacitance to ground” when “touch tenninals” are “proximal
`
`or touched” by the “operator.” See, e.g., ’ 183, Claim 40. Jurors will understand the meaning of
`
`these words. See Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148005, at *l3-14
`
`(W.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2015) (“The disputed phrase does not need construction.
`
`Jurors can
`
`understand the meaning of the word ‘support.’ Zimmer’s proposed construction, in contrast, is
`
`confusing.”); see also Scholle Custom Packaging, Inc. v. Grayling Ina'us., 2010 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 55414, at *41 (W.D. Mich. June 3, 2010) (“The disputed phrase does not need
`
`construction. .
`
`.
`
`. The controversial portion of [the] phrase is ‘without the liner being withdrawn
`
`from said bag by said discharge.’ The meaning of this phrase is also obvious. The phrase means
`
`when the stuff in the bag and liner exits through the openings, the liner remains in place. Persons
`
`of ordinary skill of this art would understand what
`
`this phrase means without
`
`further
`
`construction”).
`
`Page 10 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 11 of 26 PageID.371
`
`
`
`
`
`Like the claim language, the specification discusses the “presence of an operator’s body
`
`capacitance” in broad terms: “The detector circuit being responsive to signals from the oscillator
`
`and the presence of an operator’s body capacitance to ground coupled to the touch terminal when
`
`touched by an operator to provide a control output signal.” ’183, 7:1-5. The specification also
`
`discusses “[t]ouch circuit 400 [that] senses capacitance from a touch pad 450 via line 451 and
`
`outputs a signal to microcontroller 500 via line 401 upon detecting a capacitance to ground at
`
`touch pad 450 that exceeds a threshold value.” Id., 12:24-27. Because the specification is
`
`consistent with the claim language, no construction is necessary.
`
`
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction is wrong for three reasons. First, Samsung’s
`
`construction imports the notion that an “increase in capacitance” is caused by the operator’s
`
`body. No such limitation is in the claim language. Rather, the claim language more broadly
`
`recites that the “detector circuit” is “responsive to . . . a presence of an operator’s body
`
`capacitance to ground”—a response to the “presence” of an operator’s body capacitance does
`
`not require an “increase in capacitance.” E.g., ’183, Claim 40 (emphasis added). Likewise,
`
`“[t]here is no disavowal or lexicography in this specification that requires [the Court] to import
`
`[the ‘increase in capacitance’] . . . limitation into the claims in which it does not appear.” Hill-
`
`Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014); PolyVision Corp. v. Smart
`
`Techs., Inc., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1055 (W.D. Mich. 2007) (“[T]he prosecution history does not
`
`constitute a clear disavowal, as is required to limit the scope of the claim to the disclosed
`
`embodiments.”). Even if there were some discussions related to “increase in capacitance caused
`
`by the operator’s body” in the ’183 patent, importing such a limitation from the written
`
`description into the claims would be contrary to law. See Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F.3d at 1377
`
`(“The specification discloses embodiments in which the interface board receives messages from
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 12 of 26 PageID.372
`
`
`
`a remote location. . . . But there is nothing in the specification that requires that the interface
`
`board include this functionality.”); see also SAF-Holland, Inc. v. Hendrickson USA, L.L.C., 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27539, at *20 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2016) (“Limiting the claim limitation in its
`
`entirety to a particular type of actuation, ‘through a vertical expansion between a horizontal plate
`
`and the trailing arm,’ as Defendant urges, is improper.”).
`
`
`
`Second, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a
`
`presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim.” Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claims of the
`
`’183 patent reciting “a presence of an operator’s body capacitance to ground” have dependent
`
`claims that contemplate a decrease of capacitance caused by the operator: “wherein said detector
`
`circuit compares a sensed body capacitance change caused by the body capacitance decreasing a
`
`second touch terminal signal on the detector to ground when proximate to the second touch
`
`terminal to a threshold level to generate the control output signal . . . .” E.g., id., Claim 39
`
`(emphasis added). “Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, those dependent claims give rise
`
`to a presumption that the broader independent claims are not confined to” the effect (i.e.,
`
`increase or decrease) of the presence of an operator’s body capacitance to ground. Am. Med. Sys.
`
`v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Stryker Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`148005, at *20 (“Stryker opines that ‘because independent claim 15 recites a ‘duct structure’
`
`while dependent claim 18 recites that the duct structure can include ‘nozzles,’ under principles of
`
`claim differentiation, ‘duct structure’ should be interpreted differently from ‘nozzles.’”). Thus,
`
`importing the effect of the presence of an operator’s body capacitance to ground into the
`
`independent claims as Samsung proposes would be improper. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[I]n relying on the dependent claims to
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-CV-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 13 of 26 Page|D.373
`
`inform the meaning of ‘reduced air content cleaning fabric’ in claims 1 and 14, the district court
`
`effectively imported limitations it saw in dependent claims into the independent claims, contrary
`
`to basic claim construction principles.”).2
`
`Third, Samsung’s proposed construction reads out a limitation from the claim language.
`
`For example, claim 40 recites that the “detector circuit” is responsive to “signals from said
`
`oscillator via said microcontroller” as well as the presence of an operator’s body capacitance to
`
`ground. But Samsung’s proposed construction reads out the detector circuit’s responsiveness to
`
`the oscillator. For this independent reason, Samsung’s proposed construction is incorrect and
`
`should be rejected. See Callicrare v. Wadsworth Mfg., 427 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(holding the proposed construction as too broad and improper because it reads limitations out of
`
`the claims).
`
`B.
`
`“Input touch terminals”
`
`Claims 37, 40, 45, 61, 66, 83, 94,
`and 96
`
`If the Court detemrines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“terminal(s) used to accept
`touch inpu .”
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`“a plurality of distinct touch
`pads of pennanent and fixed
`location configured to allow
`detection of an operator’s
`input only by a detector
`circuit or circuits uniquely
`associated with the touch pad
`
`Nar1ron’s Proposal
`“the first and second input touch No construction necessary.
`terminals defining areas for an
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`operator to provide an input by
`proximity and touch”
`
`being touched”
`
`No construction is necessary for this claim term.
`
`In the context of the claim language,
`
`2 Indeed, Samsung’s construction requiring independent claims to “increase” in capacitance
`would directly conflict with the dependent claims reciting a “decrease” in capacitance. Claim
`constructions that place independent claims in conflict with their dependent claims cannot be
`correct. See Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Promos Techs., Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 732, 750
`(E.D. Tex. 2008) (“If_, as ProMOS argues, the tenn ‘memory operation’ was limited to read and
`write operations, the claim language qualifying the type of first memory operation in claim 9
`would be superfluous. Such a construction would also vitiate the claim’s distinction between the
`first memory operation (which is limited to a read or write operation) and the second memory
`operation (which is not so limited).’’).
`
`Page 13 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 14 of 26 PageID.374
`
`
`
`“input touch terminals” simply means “terminal(s) used to accept touch input.” The claim
`
`language supports this plain meaning construction: “the first and second input touch terminals
`
`defining areas for an operator to provide an input by proximity and touch. . . .” E.g., ’183, Claim
`
`94. Indeed, the dictionary definition of “input terminal” is consistent with the ordinary use of
`
`this term. See Lee Decl. Ex. B, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
`
`526 (6th ed. 1996) (“input terminal” – A terminal used to accept input.).
`
`
`
`The specification does not require a different construction. To the contrary, the
`
`specification repeatedly describes “input touch terminals” as terminals used to accept touch
`
`input: “The first method involves detecting RF or other high frequency noise that a human
`
`operator can capacitively couple to a touch terminal when the operator makes contact . . . ,” id.,
`
`3:15-18; “In such instances, the operator may touch one touch terminal, but end up inadvertently
`
`activating others through the path of conduction caused by the moisture contamination. . . ,” id.,
`
`3:29-32; “The touch of an operator then provides a capacitive short to ground . . . . A major
`
`advantage of this methodology is that the operator need not come in conductive contact with the
`
`touch terminal but rather only in close proximity to it. . . ,” id., 3:53-59; “Through the use of a
`
`dielectric cover, a large metallic touch terminal can be used that differentiates between the touch
`
`of a finger or partial touch and the full touch of a palm. . . ,” id., 6:52-55; “Thus, if one of touch
`
`circuits 1400a and 1400b does not detect a touch of touch terminal 1450, one of switching
`
`transistors 1700 and 1710 will not conduct and power will not be supplied to relay switch 1800. .
`
`. ,” id., 19:33-36. Accordingly, no construction is necessary for “input touch terminals.” If the
`
`Court determines that a construction is necessary, the term should be construed as “terminal(s)
`
`used to accept touch input.”
`
`10
`
`Page 14 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 15 of 26 PageID.375
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction is wrong for several reasons. First, when the ’183
`
`patent discusses “input touch terminals,” it does not require that terminals be “distinct” and
`
`“permanent and fixed.” The introduction of such narrowing terms is not supported in the
`
`intrinsic record. See Bissell Homecare, Inc. v. Dyson, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57603, at *20
`
`(W.D. Mich. June 10, 2010) (“By restricting the shape of the separator plate, Dyson’s proposed
`
`construction seeks to add concepts not present in the claim language.”); see also Hill-Rom Servs.,
`
`755 F.3d at 1377 (holding as improper the importation of limitations from the specification to the
`
`claims). Second, the “input touch terminals” are not “configured to allow detection of an
`
`operator’s input only by a detector circuit or circuits uniquely associated with the touch pad
`
`being touched,” as Samsung proposes. Specifically, the ’183 patent discusses a number of
`
`circuits that may be associated with the “touch pad being touched,” but those circuits may not
`
`necessarily be “uniquely” associated with the “touch pad being touched.” For example, the ’183
`
`patent discusses circuits associated with more than one “input touch terminal”:
`
`A further advantage of the present invention is seen in the manner in which
`the touch terminal detection circuit is interfaced to the touch terminals and
`to external control systems. A dedicated microprocessor referenced to the
`floating supply and floating common of the detection circuit maybe used to
`cost effectively multiplex a number of touch terminal detection circuits and
`multiplex the associated touch terminal output signals over a two line
`optical bus to a dedicated microprocessor referenced to a fixed supply and
`ground.
`
`’183, 6:13-22. Samsung’s proposed construction is incorrect because it reads out these
`
`embodiments of the invention. See EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338,
`
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The district court’s construction is incorrect because it reads out
`
`preferred embodiments.”).
`
`
`
`Finally, Samsung’s proposal including a “plurality” of touch pads reads out embodiments
`
`that have one input touch terminal. See York Prods. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 26
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-CV-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 16 of 26 Page|D.376
`
`F.3d 1568, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (defining the plain meaning of “plurali ” as “‘the state of
`
`being plural’” and “at
`
`least
`
`two”) (citation omitted).
`
`For example, Samsung’s proposed
`
`construction would not encompass the “palm button” embodiment: “[A]n improved palm button
`
`is featured. Through the use of a dielecuic cover, a large metallic touch tenninal can be used
`
`that differentiates between the touch of a finger or partial touch and the firll touch of a pahn.”
`
`’183, 6:51-55.
`
`In addition, Sa1nsung’s proposed construction would fail to capture the single
`
`input touch terminal embodiment of Figure 4: “Touch circuit 400 senses capacitance fiom a
`
`touch pad 450 via line 451 and outputs a signal to microcontroller 500 via line 401 upon
`
`detecting a capacitance to ground at touch pad 450 that exceeds a threshold value.” Id, 12:24-
`
`27. Because a construction that reads such embodiments out is contrary to law, Samsung’s
`
`proposed construction should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`“Keypad”
`
`“small sized
`input touch
`terminals of the
`keypad”
`
`Claims 37, 40,
`45, 61, 66, 83,
`94, and 96
`
`“touch circuits of the in u ut touch terminal s .
`
`No construction necessary. Plain and ordinary
`meaning. This tenn should be construed in the context
`of its surrounding claim language: “small sized input
`touch terminals of the keypad” is a disputed phrase as
`indicated below.
`
`Ifthe Court detennines that a construction is necessary
`for “small sized input touch tenninals of the keypad”:
`
`“a multiplicity of
`fixed, physically
`distinct, small sized
`touch pads in a
`physically close
`array, such as a
`keyboard”
`
`No construction is necessary for this claim tenn. Viewed in light of its surrounding claim
`
`language, “keypad” invokes its plain and ordinary meaning (and nothing more). For example,
`
`claim 40 recites, in part: “plurality of small sized input touch tenninals of the keypad; the
`
`plurality of small sized input touch terminals defining adjacent areas on a dielectric substrate for
`
`an operator to provide inputs by proximity and touch .
`
`.
`
`. .” In other words, the claim language
`
`surrounding “keypad” makes clear that a “keypad” means the touch circuits of the input touch
`
`Page 16 of 26
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00146-JTN ECF No. 52 filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 26 PageID.377
`
`
`
`terminal(s). Dictionary definitions of “keypad” and “keyboard” fully support the meaning of a
`
`“keypad” as an “input” device. See Lee Decl. Ex. C, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Terms 566 (6th ed. 1996) (“key board” – An input device consisting of a systematic
`
`arrangement of layout keys, used to encode data”; “keypad” – A small group of keys that are set
`
`up for convenience and greater flexibility such that they are grouped together physically on a
`
`keyboard.); see also Ex. D, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 485 (5th ed. 2002) (“smartphone” -
`
`A hybrid between a wireless telephone and a personal digital assistant (PDA). . . . Smartphones
`
`may rely on a stylus, keypad, or both for data entry or may use voice recognition technology.)
`
`(emphases added).
`
`
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction is unsupported. First, neither claim language nor the
`
`specification describes “input touch terminals of the keypad” in terms of “fixed” and “physically
`
`distinct.” See supra