Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 5840
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00898-RWS
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`P.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
` Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 and the Court’s Docket Control Order of June 6, 2016 (Docket No.
`
`96), the parties hereby file this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`The claim terms proposed for construction below are found within U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,513,058 (“the ’058 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 (“the ’236 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,073,557 (“the ’557 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897 (“the ’897 patent”), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,941,543 (“the ’543 patent”) (collectively, “patents-in-suit”).
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3, the parties provide the following:
`
`(A) The construction of those claim terms, phrases, or clauses on which the parties agree;
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“component function(s)”
`
`
`a hardware independent function that corresponds to an
`operation performed by a motion control device
`
`command codes in hardware language, which instruct a motion
`control device to perform motion control operations
`
`a device comprising a controller and a mechanical system capable
`of moving an object in a controlled manner
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`“control command(s)”
`
`
`
`“motion control
`device(s)”
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 5841
`
`“network”
`
`
`“a set of”
`
`“plurality”
`
`
`a communications and data exchange system created by
`connecting two or more computers
`
`two or more
`
`two or more
`
`(B) Each party’s proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause,
`
`together with an identification of all references from the specification or prosecution
`
`history that support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence
`
`known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed
`
`construction of the claim or to oppose any other party’s proposed construction of the
`
`claim, including, but not limited to, as permitted by law, dictionary definitions,
`
`citations to learned treatises and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert
`
`witnesses;
`
`Plaintiff’s identification of proposed constructions and supporting intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As required by the Docket Control Order, Exhibit A
`
`reflects the parties’ efforts to narrow the number of disputed claim terms to ten. The following
`
`terms were agreed by the parties to be included in the ten most significant terms for construction:
`
`“application program,” “driver function(s),” “motion control operation,” and “primitive
`
`operation”/“non-primitive operation.” Following the agreement on those terms, the six remaining
`
`terms for construction were divided evenly between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff selected the
`
`following
`
`terms: “software driver(s)”/“driver(s),” “motion control,” and “workstation.”
`
`Defendants selected the following terms: “motion control component” / “motion component,”
`
`“control command generating module,” and “component code.” Plaintiff objects to Defendants’
`
`selection of terms on the basis that Defendants’ characterization of each of those terms as a single
`
`term is incorrect. Instead, Defendants’ selected terms actually represent the disputed construction
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 5842
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 of eleven (11) separate claim terms—not three. See Exhibit A at n. 5-6.
`
`Plaintiff further objects to Defendants’ efforts to expand the number of claim terms construed
`
`beyond the eighteen (18) terms already identified in Exhibit A. Though Defendants claim the
`
`expansion to be from 10 terms to 17 terms, Plaintiff again disagrees with Defendants grouping of
`
`distinct claim terms into a “single” term for purposes of counting terms. In actuality, Defendants
`
`propose an expansion of the number of claim terms construed from 18 to 39. Plaintiff objects to
`
`Defendants’ refusal to comply with the narrowing of disputed claim terms directed by the Court
`
`and further objects to Defendants’ inclusion of those additional terms in this joint filing as a
`
`violation of the Court’s Docket Control Order.
`
`Defendants’ identification of proposed constructions and supporting intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence for the first 10 terms is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1. Defendants’ disclosure for the
`
`additional seven (7) terms it seeks to have construed is attached hereto as Exhibit B-2. Defendants
`
`note that due to the inability to reach agreement on a large number of terms, Defendants do not
`
`agree that limiting the list of terms to be construed to only 10 terms is appropriate, and submits
`
`that other key terms will be omitted if the parties are so limited. The case includes six separate
`
`defendants, each with numerous (sometimes dozens) of accused products, five asserted patents,
`
`and extremely lengthy claims and specifications. Accordingly, Defendants concurrently file
`
`herewith a motion to increase the number of claim terms to be construed from 10 to up to 17.
`
`Defendants provide their list of the seven additional terms proposed for construction in Exhibit B.
`
`With respect to the counting issue raised above by Plaintiff, Defendants’ position is that a
`
`terms such as “component code” and the longer clauses that include “component code” are simply
`
`one term. The dispute for “component code” will be whether it should be construed as a means-
`
`plus-function term, and that dispute is the same for all clauses containing the term. The same is
`
`true for “motion control component,” “control command generating module,” and “driver code.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 5843
`
`Accordingly, each such term used in varying contexts should be counted as one term for purposes
`
`of tallying the total number of terms to be construed. Plaintiff’s counting of terms leads to
`
`exaggerated numbers and should not be followed.
`
`(C) The anticipated length of time necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing;
`
`Plaintiff anticipates 4 hours as the total length of time necessary for the claim construction
`
`hearing, with 120 minutes allocated to each side.
`
`Defendants state that the length of time necessary for the claim construction hearing
`
`depends on the ultimate number of terms heard for construction (which is the subject of
`
`Defendants’ motion to construe more than ten terms), and whether live testimony will be necessary
`
`as explained below, and thereby propose 6 hours for the hearing.
`
`
`(D) Whether any party proposes to call one or more witnesses, including experts, at the
`
`Claim Construction Hearing, the identity of each such witness, and for each expert,
`
`a summary of each opinion to be offered in sufficient detail to permit a meaningful
`
`deposition of that expert;
`
`At this time, Plaintiff does not intend to call any witnesses at the claim construction
`
`hearing. Plaintiff reserves the right to call a rebuttal witness or expert if Defendants identify any
`
`such claim construction witnesses or experts. Defendants may raise objections and seek to strike
`
`and/or preclude reliance on such rebuttal witness or expert or any testimony he or she provides.
`
`Furthermore, any AMS expert declaration supporting arguments contained in its Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief (other than those regarding alleged indefiniteness) shall be disclosed to
`
`Defendants no later than the filing of that brief.
`
`Defendants may call an expert witness on the issue of indefiniteness at the claim construction
`
`hearing depending on the substance of Plaintiff’s expert’s declaration and Plaintiff’s briefing on
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5844
`
`terms that Defendants contend are indefinite. Defendants have summarized expected opinion
`
`testimony in Ex. B. Furthermore, Defendants’ expert declaration, supporting arguments contained
`
`in Defendants Opening Claim Construction Brief, shall be disclosed to Defendants no later than
`
`the filing of that brief.
`
`(E) A list of any other issues which might appropriately be taken up at a prehearing
`
`conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing, and proposed dates, if not
`
`previously set, for any such prehearing conference.
`
`Plaintiff’s position: Subject to Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ improper grouping of
`
`claim terms resulting in the proposal of 18 claim terms instead of 10, Plaintiff is prepared to move
`
`forward on the disputed terms in Exhibit A and on that basis, does not anticipate the need for a
`
`prehearing conference.
`
`Defendants’ position: Defendants’ concurrently filed motion to amend the Docket Control
`
`Order seeks to increase the number of claim terms to be construed by the Court from ten to up to
`
`seventeen terms for the reasons stated both above and in more detail in that Motion, and to increase
`
`the number of pages for briefing from 30 to 45 pages if the additional terms are allowed.
`
`Defendants are not aware of any other issues at this time.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 5845
`
`Dated: September 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Terry Saad
`Monte Bond (lead attorney)
`Texas Bar No. 02585625
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone
`Texas Bar No. 02855775
`Patrick J. Conroy
`Texas Bar No. 24012448
`Terry A. Saad
`Texas Bar No. 24066015
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 4500W
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 785-6670
`Fax: (214) 785-6680
`mbond@bcpc-law.com
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`pconroy@bcpc-law.com
`tsaad@bcpc-law.com
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`J. Wesley Hill
`Texas State Bar No. 24032294
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`P.O. Box 1231
`1127 Judson Rd. Ste. 220
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`(903) 757-6400
`(903) 757-2323 (fax)
`jw@jwfirm.com
`wh@wsfirm.com
`ch@wsfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 5846
`
`By: /s/ Cynthia J. Rigsby .
`Cynthia J. Rigsby
`WI Bar No. 1025479
`Kevin J. Malaney
`WI Bar No. 1066371
`Michelle A. Moran
`WI Bar No. 1073653
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`777 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5306
`Tel: (414) 319-7067
`Fax: (414) 297-4900
`crigsby@foley.com
`kmalaney@foley.com
`mmoran@foley.com
`Robert William Weber
`Texas Bar No. 21044800
`SMITH WEBER LLP
`5505 Plaza Drive
`PO Box 6167
`Texarkana, Texas 75505
`Tel: (903) 223-5656
`Fax: (903) 223-5652
`bweber@smithweber.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Rockwell Automation
`Technologies, Inc. and Rockwell Automation,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`By: /s/ Clyde M. Siebman
`Clyde M. Siebman
`clydesiebman@siebman.com
`Texas Bar No. 18341600
`SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
`Federal Courthouse Square
`300 N. Travis Street
`Sherman, Texas 75090
`Telephone: (903) 870-0070
`Facsimile: (903) 870-0066
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C.*
`Sean M. McEldowney*
`gregg.locascio@kirkland.com
`- 2 -
`
`Page 7 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 5847
`
`sean.mceldowney@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 879-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
`
`Jeanne M. Heffernan*
`jheffernan@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 11109
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`*Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Kollmorgen
`Corporation and Danaher Corporation
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Joseph A. Saltiel .
`Joseph A. Saltiel
`Steven L. Katz
`MASUDA, FUNAI, EIFERT & MITCHELL,
`LTD.
`203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1262
`Telephone: (312) 245-7500
`E-mail: jsaltiel@masudafunai.com
`E-mail: skatz@masudafunai.com
`
`Allen F. Gardner
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`102 N College, Suite 800
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: 903.934.8450
`Fax: 903.934.9257
`allen@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Yaskawa America,
`Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Tonya M. Gray .
`TONYA M. GRAY
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 5848
`
`Texas Bar No. 24012726
`tonyagray@andrewskurth.com
`ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 3700
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: 214-659-4400
`Facsimile: 214-659-4401
`
`Steven P. Petersen (pro hac vice)
`Illinois Bar No. 6196793
`
`spetersen@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD.
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: 312-616-5600
`Telecopier: 312-616-5700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Mitsubishi Electric Corp.,
`Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc. and
`Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Inc.
`
`
`
`By: /s/Keith B. Davis .
`Keith B. Davis
`Lead Attorney
`Texas State Bar No. 24037895
`Email: o
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood Street
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 969-4528
`Facsimile: (214) 969-5100
`
`Attorneys for Defendants VIPA USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Nick Saros .
`J. Thad Heartfield, Attorney In Charge
`Texas Bar No. 09346800
`THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
`The Heartfield Law Firm
`2195 Dowlen Road
`Beaumont, Texas 77706
`Phone: (409) 866.3318
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 5849
`
`Fax: (409) 866.5789
`thad@jth-law.com
`
`Terrence J. Truax
`Peter H. Hanna
`Michael G. Babbitt
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456
`Telephone: (312) 222-9350
`Fax: (312) 527-0484
`ttruax@jenner.com
`phanna@jenner.com
`mbabbitt@jenner.com
`
`Nick G. Saros
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2054
`Telephone: (213) 239-5100
`Fax: (213) 239-5199
`nsaros@jenner.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc.
`Schneider Electric USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Rudolph A. Telscher .
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.*
`Email: rtelscher@hdp.com
`Kara R. Fussner*
`Email: kfussner@hdp.com
`Steven E. Holtshouser*
`Email: sholtshouser@hdp.com
`Greg W. Meyer*
`Email: gmeyer@hdp.com
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Telephone: 314-726-7500
`Facsimile: 314-726-7501
`*Pro Hac Vice
`
`and
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176 Filed 09/13/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 5850
`
`Michael C. Smith
`State Bar Card No. 18650410
`Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP
`113 East Austin Street
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903.938.8900
`Email: michaelsmith@siebman.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Emerson Process
`Management LLLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems,
`Inc., Rosemount, Inc., Emerson Industrial
`Automation USA Inc., Emerson Industrial
`Automation USA LLC and Emerson Process
`Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on this 13th day of September, 2016. As of
`this date all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a
`copy of this document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
`
`
`/s/ Terry A. Saad
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 11 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 5851
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00898-RWS
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order and the Local Rules, the following is
`
`Plaintiff’s listing of the ten most significant claim terms for construction, as determined by the
`
`procedure set forth in the Docket Control Order and based on the disclosures of the parties. The
`
`following terms were agreed by the parties to be included in the ten most significant terms for
`
`construction: “application program,” “driver function(s),” “motion control operation,” and
`
`“primitive operation” / “non-primitive operation.” Following the agreement on those terms, the
`
`six remaining terms for construction were divided evenly between Plaintiff and Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff selected the following terms: “software driver(s)” / “driver(s),” “motion control,” and
`
`“workstation.” Defendants selected the following terms: “motion control component” / “motion
`
`component,” “control command generating module,” and “component code.” Plaintiff’s positions
`
`on these terms are provided in the chart below, along with the supporting intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence for its proposed constructions.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 5852
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and Supporting Evidence
`
`“a software program designed to handle specific tasks”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE12:
`
`’236 Patent: Abstract; 2:4-16; 3:45-55; 6:35-38; 6:39-43; 6:53-56;
`8:30-34; Appendix at 8 of 79; Figure 1.
`
`’897 Patent: Abstract; 1:4-7; 1:67; 6:10-18; 6:29-30; 8:6-10; 8:18-
`21; 31:30-34; 32:62-63; 33:50-58.
`
`’543 Patent Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination at 6-8.
`
`ABB Case3 – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. Nos. 196, 220) and
`all related briefing.
`
`GE FANUC Case4 – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 194)
`and all related briefing.
`
`DICTIONARY DEFINITION(S):
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS® COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 1991, p.19:
`(“Application”: “A computer program designed to help people
`perform a certain type of work. An application thus differs from
`an operating system (which runs a computer), a utility (which
`performs maintenance or general-purpose chores), and a language
`(with which computer programs are created)”
`
`JARGON: AN INFORMAL DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS, p. 36:
`(“Application: “An application is a program you use to get some
`practical work done, such as word processing or accounting or
`illustrating.”)
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“application
`program”
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`1 The ’236, ’058, ’543, ’897, and ’557 Patents all include overlapping subject matter because they claim
`priority from the same original child application. Therefore, for simplicity, citations are provided herein to
`either the ’897 or ’236 Patent. When support from the ’897 or ’236 patent is cited, it is with the
`understanding that Plaintiff is also relying upon the same support in the specification of the other patents
`in suit. In addition, where text in the patent specification is cited, the corresponding figure in the patent is
`also being relied upon.
`2 Plaintiff may rely on any, or all, claims recited by the ’236, ’058, ’543, ’897, and ’557 Patents.
`3 Roy-G-Biv Corp. v. ABB, Ltd., et al., No. 6:11-CV-00622-LED-ZJH, (E.D. TX) (“ABB Case”).
`4 Roy-G-Biv Corp. v. Fanuc Ltd., et al., No. 2:07-CV-00418-DF (E.D. TX) (“GE FANUC Case”).
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 13 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 5853
`
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS® COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 1991, p. 19:
`(“Application Program”: “See application.”)
`
`ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, Third Ed., 1993, p.72:
`(“Application Program”: “Applications programs are programs
`written to solve specific problems, to produce specific reports, to
`update specific files.”)
`
`THE ILLUSTRATED COMPUTER DICTIONARY, Third Edition, 1986,
`p. 9-10: (“Application program”: “Programs normally written by
`programmers within an organization that enable the computer to
`produce useful work, such as specific inventory control,
`attendance accounting, linear programming, or medical accounting
`tasks. Contrast with systems programs.”)
`
`IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Tenth Edition, 1993, p. 28:
`(“Application Program”: “(1) A program that is specific to the
`solution of an application problem.
`Synonymous with application software.
`(1) (2) A program written for or by a user that applies to the user’s
`work, such as a program that does inventory control or payroll.”)
`
`THE PRENTICE-HALL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFORMATION
`TECHNOLOGY, 1998, p. 394-395: (“Application Software”: “These
`are programs designed to handle specific tasks, such as
`accounting, inventory control, schedule, payroll processing, and
`the like. The term “application” can be extended to include
`anything from video games to sophisticated business programs.”)
`
`EXPERT TESTIMONY:
`AMS may rely on the declaration and testimony of George
`Huntington, Jr. in support of its positions and/or proposed
`construction of this claim term.
`
`“hardware independent functions that are separate and distinct
`from the component functions”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE:
`
`’236 Patent: Abstract; 4:9-13; 7:40-53; 8:35-42; Appendix at 11-
`18; Figure 2
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`2
`
`“driver function(s)”
`
`Page 14 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 5854
`
`’897 Patent: Abstract; 4:1-5; 7:18-26; 8:11-17; 12:63-67; 31:4-10;
`47:30-34.
`
`’236 Patent Right of Appeal Notice in Reexamination at 5-6.
`
`’543 Patent Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination at 6.
`
`’058 IPR Petition at 30.
`
`ABB Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. Nos. 196, 220) and
`all related briefing.
`
`GE FANUC Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 194) and
`all related briefing.
`
`DICTIONARY DEFINITION(S):
`
`See “software driver(s) / driver(s)”
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS® COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 1991, p. 157:
`(“Function”: “The purpose of or the action carried out by a
`program or routine; a general term for a subroutine; in some
`languages, a subroutine that returns a single value. See also
`procedure, routine, subroutine.”)
`
`THE PENGUIN DICTIONARY OF COMPUTERS, 1985, p. 204:
`(“Function”: “1.That part of a computer instruction which
`specifies the operation to be performed. 2. The expression in
`mathematical symbols of the relationship between variables, e.g.,
`the expression a + b = c may be said to be a function of the
`variables, a, b, c.”)
`
`THE ILLUSTRATED COMPUTER DICTIONARY, Third Edition, 1986,
`p. 127: (“Function”: “ (1) Process that generates a value. (2)
`Prerecorded routine.”)
`
`IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Tenth Edition, 1993, p. 291:
`(“Function”: “…(3) A specific purpose of an entity, or its
`characteristic action. (A) (4) A machine action such as a carriage
`return or a line feed. (A)”)
`
`BUSINESS DICTIONARY OF COMPUTERS, 1993, p. 145: (“Function”:
`“…(2) a specific purpose of an entity, or its characteristic action.”)
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 15 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5855
`
`EXPERT TESTIMONY:
`AMS may rely on the declaration and testimony of George
`Huntington, Jr. in support of its positions and/or proposed
`construction of this claim term.
`
`“hardware independent operations (such as GET POSITION,
`MOVE RELATIVE, or CONTOUR MOVE) that are performed by
`a motion control device”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE:
`
`’236 Patent: 4:22-26; 7:20–38; 7:43-51; 8:35-38; 13:48-51; 16:41-
`45; 24:7-12; 26:54-57; 44:23-36; Appendix at 50 of 79; Appendix
`at 11-18 of 79; Appendix at 33-37.
`
`’897 Patent: 4:6-16; 6:62-7:14; 10:16-25; 13:4-6; 13:25-28; 15:49-
`52; 16:19-26; 23:50-52; 26:40-42; 27:50-54.
`
`’236 IPR Petition at 4.
`
`ABB Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. Nos. 196, 220) and
`all related briefing.
`
`GE FANUC Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 194) and
`all related briefing.
`
`EXPERT TESTIMONY:
`AMS may rely on the declaration and testimony of George
`Huntington, Jr. in support of its positions and/or proposed
`construction of this claim term.
`
`“motion control operations that cannot be simulated using a
`combination of other motion control operations”
`
`
`
`“motion control operations that can be simulated using a
`combination of other motion control operations”
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`3
`
`“motion control
`operation”
`
`4
`
`“primitive
`operation” /
`
`
`
`“non-primitive
`operation”
`
`Page 16 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 5856
`
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE:
`
`’236 Patent: 7:27–38; Appendix at 14-18 of 79.
`
`’897 Patent: 7:3-14; 16:22-24.
`
`‘543 Patent Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination at 6-8.
`
`ABB Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. Nos. 196, 220) and
`all related briefing.
`
`GE FANUC Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 194) and
`all related briefing.
`
`DICTIONARY DEFINITION(S):
`MICROSOFT PRESS® COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 1991, p. 276:
`(“Primitive”: “In computer graphics, a shape, such as a line, circle,
`curve, or polygon that can be drawn, stored, and manipulated as a
`discrete entity by a graphics program. Primitives, also called
`geometric primitives, are the elements from which large graphic
`designs are created.”)
`
`THE ILLUSTRATED COMPUTER DICTIONARY, Third Edition, 1986.
`p. 229: (“Primitive”: “ (1) Basic or fundamental unit, often
`referring to the lowest level of a machine instruction or the lowest
`unit of language translation. (2) In computer graphics the most
`basic graphic entities available, such as points, line segments, or
`characters.”)
`
`IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Tenth Edition, 1993, p. 526:
`(“Primitive”: “ (1) In computer graphics, one of several simple
`functions for drawing on the screen, including, for example, the
`rectangle, line, ellipse, polygon, and so on.”)
`
`EXPERT TESTIMONY:
`AMS may rely on the declaration and testimony of George
`Huntington, Jr. in support of its positions and/or proposed
`construction of this claim term.
`
`“one or more controller dependent software modules that support
`some core driver functions and are used to control a hardware
`device or group of related hardware devices”
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`5
`
`“software driver(s)”
`/ “driver(s)”
`
`Page 17 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 5857
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE:
`
`’236 Patent: 4:9-55; 7:40-53; 8:15-59; 10:59-61; 13:17-20; 16:41-
`45; 24:7-12; 26:54-57; 31:20-32:60; Appendix at 11-18 of 79.
`
`’897 Patent: Abstract; 1:14-15; 4:39-47; 6:2-5; 7:57-67; 12:62-
`13:6; 16:19-23; 23:51-56; 26:31-34; 31:48-49; 32:27-37; Figures
`2, 34.
`
`’543 Patent Action Closing Prosecution in Reexamination at 5-8.
`
`ABB Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. Nos. 196, 220) and
`all related briefing.
`
`GE FANUC Case – Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 194) and
`all related briefing.
`
`DICTIONARY DEFINITION(S):
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS® COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 1991, pp. 104-105:
`(“Device Driver”: “A software component that permits a computer
`system to communicate with a device. A printer driver is a device
`driver that translates computer data into a form understood by the
`intended printer. In most cases, the driver also manipulates the
`hardware in order to transmit the data to the device. However,
`device drivers associated with application packages typically
`perform only the data translation; these higher-level drivers then
`rely on lower-level drivers to actually send the data to the
`device.”)
`
`JARGON: AN INFORMAL DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS, p. 150:
`(“Device Driver”: “A device driver is a piece of software designed
`for a particular device (printer, mouse, monitor, or what have you)
`and the particular application program or environment you’re
`working with. The driver serves as a go-between for the program
`(or environment) and the device, translating the software’s desires
`into commands the device understands.”)
`
`IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Tenth Edition, 1993, p. 193:
`(“Device Driver”: “ (1) A file that contains the code needed to use
`an attached device. (2) A program that enables a computer to
`communicate with a specific peripheral device; for example, a
`printer, a videodisc player, or a CD drive. (3) A collection of
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 18 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 5858
`
`subroutines that control the interface between I/O device adapters
`and the processor.”)
`
`DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Fourth
`Edition, 1996, p. 137-138: (“Device Driver”: “A program, or part
`of a program, used to control the detailed operation of an input or
`output device connected to a computer system.”)
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS® COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 1991, p. 117:
`(“Driver”: “A hardware device or a program that controls or
`regulates another device… . A device driver is a device-specific
`control program that enables a computer to work with a particular
`device, such as a printer or disk drive. See also device driver.”)
`
`THE PENGUIN DICTIONARY OF COMPUTERS, 1985, p. 157:
`(“Driver”: “A program dealing with low level operations of
`peripheral units in order to handle such devices as part of an
`operating system.”)
`
`ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, Third Ed., 1993, p. 486:
`(“Driver”: “A driver is a program or subprogram that is written to
`control either a particular hardware device or another software
`routine.”)
`
`JARGON: AN INFORMAL DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS, p. 175:
`(“Driver”: “A driver is a piece of software that tells the computer
`how to communicate with or operate another piece of hardware,
`such as a printer, scanner, or mouse.”)
`
`THE ILLUSTRATED COMPUTER DICTIONARY, Third Edition, 1986,
`p. 97: (“Driver”: “Series of instructions the computer follows to
`reformat data for transfer to and from a particular peripheral
`device. Electrical and mechanical requirements differ from one
`kind of device to another, and software drivers are used to
`standardize the format of data between them and the central
`processor.”)
`
`IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Tenth Edition, 1993, p. 218:
`(“Driver”: “ (a) A program (and possibly data files) that contain
`information needed to run a particular unit, such as a plotter,
`printer, port, or mouse. See also device driver, printer driver, and
`queue driver. (2) A system or device that enables a functional unit
`to operate. (3) A circuit that increases the signal current for
`sending data over long cables or to many other circuits.”)
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 19 of 47
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 176-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 5859
`
`BUSINESS DICTIONARY OF COMPUTERS, 1993, p. 108: (“Driver”: “
`(1) a program that controls a peripheral unit connected on line. (2)
`a program that the computer uses to direct the operation of a
`peripheral device, such as a printer or scanner.”)
`
` DICTIONARY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMPUTER
`SCIENCE, Second Edition, 1993, p. 93: (“Driver”: “A program that
`handles the basic operations of a peripheral or a transmission line,
`such as initiating physical transfers, checking transfer status, and
`initiating repeat transmissions on detecting hardware error.
`Drivers may be held in read-only memory (ROM) or on expansion
`cards, or may be included within the operating system.”)
`
`DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, FourthEdition, 1996, p. 154:
`(“Driver”: “1. A routine within an operating system that handles
`the individual peripheral units on the computer system.”)
`
`EXPERT TESTIMONY:
`AMS may rely on the declaration and testimony of George
`Huntington, Jr. in support of its