`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF ON
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF THE TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS
`
`(U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,102,286 and 10,365,747)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ....................................................................................2
`The Disputed Terms Of U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 ............................................................2
`A.
`“sensor value” (’286 patent, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 24) ..................3
`1.
`The Specification Requires Defendants’ Construction ................................4
`2.
`The Claims Support Defendant’s Construction ...........................................7
`3.
`Extrinsic Evidence Supports Defendants’ Construction. .............................9
`4.
`Neodron’s Construction Is Incorrect ............................................................9
`The Disputed Terms Of U.S. Patent No. 10,365,747 ........................................................11
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 patent,
`A.
`claims 10, 16) .........................................................................................................12
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc.,
`234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 4, 7
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc.,
`No. 15-1594, 2016 WL 3090851 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 25
`
`Defendants respectfully submit their opening claim construction brief for the disputed
`
`terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,286 and 10,365,747 (collectively the “touch processing
`
`patents”).1 The agreed constructions for these patents are set out in the Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this series of cases, Neodron asserts more than 150 claims of 13 patents against seven
`
`groups of defendants. Despite the obvious need to narrow the scope and breadth of these cases
`
`before fact and expert discovery and trial, Defendants have identified below only the key claim
`
`terms requiring construction. For most terms, Defendants’ constructions reflect the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, as informed by the patent specification and
`
`file history. Where Defendants’ constructions depart from the plain and ordinary meaning, it is
`
`only because (a) the claim term in dispute has no accepted plain and ordinary meaning, (b) the
`
`applicants acted as their own lexicographer in defining a term, or (c) the claim term is indefinite.
`
`For the reasons demonstrated below, the Court should adopt Defendants’ correct constructions.
`
`Neodron’s proposed constructions—and its positions during the meet-and-confer process
`
`leading up to claim construction briefing—are a different story. Neodron frequently claims that
`
`no construction is necessary and merely parrots the claim language in its “constructions,” while
`
`refusing to agree with Defendants’ constructions or, worse yet, refusing to confirm why and how
`
`it disagrees with Defendants’ positions. In the rare instance where Neodron provides an actual
`
`construction, its proposals contradict the intrinsic evidence, inject ambiguity, and consist
`
`primarily or solely of attorney argument. Neodron’s goal is obvious—it wants to keep the
`
`
`1 The “touch processing patents” also include U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237, for which there are no
`disputed terms. Defendants are filing a separate opening claim construction brief to cover the
`disputed terms of the touch sensor patents, which include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,946,574; 9,086,770;
`9,823,784; 10,088,960; and 7,821,502.)
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 25
`
`asserted claims as flexible and as malleable as possible, so it can try to take different positions on
`
`infringement versus invalidity, both in these cases and in the pending IPRs, which have now
`
`been filed on all but four of the asserted patents. But flexibility and malleability are not the goals
`
`of claim construction, so the Court should reject Neodron’s attempt to inject ambiguity and
`
`uncertainty into the claim construction process.
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Defendants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’286 and
`
`’747 patents would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Physics, Electrical or Computer
`
`Engineering, or Computer Science or the equivalent plus at least two years of experience in the
`
`field of touch sensors, signal processing, human-computer interaction or interfaces, graphical
`
`user interfaces, or a related field. Additional education could substitute for work experience and
`
`vice versa. Silzars Dec. ¶ 28.2
`
`III. THE DISPUTED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,286
`
`The ’286 patent is directed to reducing ambiguity in key selection. ’286 patent at
`
`Abstract. The patent explains that key selection in a tightly packed keyboard is problematic
`
`because a user’s finger is likely to contact both a desired key and adjacent keys, producing
`
`sensor signals from multiple keys. Id. at Abstract, 1:35-39. This is especially problematic if the
`
`user has large fingers or presses the keyboard surface hard enough to deform his or her fingers.
`
`Id. at 1:39-42. The ’286 patent purports to improve upon prior art systems by “permit[ting] the
`
`smooth rollover of key selection as a finger slides from one key to the next, while still reducing
`
`key ambiguity.” Id. at 3:7-10. The strength of the signals from keys’ sensors are compared and
`
`the largest is selected as the active key. Id. at 2:8-16. As the user’s finger slides to a second key,
`
`
`2 “Silzars Dec.” refers to the Declaration of Dr. Aris K. Silzars Regarding Claim Construction,
`filed concurrently herewith.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 25
`
`the strengths of the signals output from keys’ sensors changes, but switching to a second key
`
`does not occur until the strength of the signal from the second key exceeds that of the first key by
`
`a fixed “bias” amount, such that the process of selecting a second active key is biased in favor of
`
`the first active key. Id. at 5:42-58. This biasing can be achieved either by increasing the signal
`
`strength associated with the initially selected key or by decreasing the signal strength associated
`
`with keys other than the initially selected key. Id.
`
`A.
`
`“sensor value” (’286 patent, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 24)
`
`Claim Term(s)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“sensor value”
`(claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-
`17, 20-21, 24)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “value
`indicating the strength of the sensor
`signal”
`
`Neodron’s
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is
`“sensor signal value”
`
`Both sides agree this term should be construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Both also agree that a sensor value must relate to the signal from a sensor. The only dispute is
`
`whether the sensor value indicates the strength of the sensor signal. But measuring and
`
`comparing the relative signal strengths of the keys’ sensors to reduce ambiguity in key selection
`
`is the stated purpose of the invention, and the ’286 patent specification consistently and
`
`repeatedly describes measuring and comparing signal strengths to thresholds and to each other to
`
`achieve that purpose. Defendants’ construction not only captures the claimed concept as it is
`
`described consistently throughout the specification and claims, it also conveys the meaning a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would give to the term “sensor value” as set forth by
`
`Defendants’ expert Dr. Silzars and as reflected in dictionary definitions. Neodron’s construction,
`
`by contrast, simply replaces the term “sensor value” with a term used nowhere in the
`
`specification that fails to assist a jury charged with comparing the ’286 patent claims to the prior
`
`art and to the accused products. Thus, the Court should adopt Defendants’ construction.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 25
`
`1.
`
`The Specification Requires Defendants’ Construction
`
`A claim term should be given its plain meaning but “must be interpreted in light of the
`
`teachings of the written description and purpose of the invention described therein.” Apple
`
`Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 25 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, when a
`
`patent “describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the
`
`scope of the invention.” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`
`also Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., No. 15-1594, 2016 WL 3090851, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (construing “support frame” to require use of an earthen ramp, described as a feature of
`
`the “present invention”); Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006) (construing “fuel injection system component” as limited to a fuel filter, described as a
`
`feature of the “present invention”).
`
`Outside of the claims, the term “sensor value” appears nowhere in the specification. But
`
`the description and figures illustrating the alleged invention consistently make clear that sensor
`
`value must refer to the strength of the signal from the sensor. For example, the specification
`
`describes “the invention” as follows, substituting the term “signal strength” for what is referred
`
`to in the claims as “sensor value,” as shown below:
`
`One aspect of the invention is that it may provide an iterative method of removing
`keying ambiguity by measuring a signal strength associated with each key in an
`array, comparing the measured signal strengths to find a maximum, determining
`that the key having the maximum signal strength is the unique user-selected first
`key, and maintaining that selection until either the first key’s signal strength drops
`below some threshold level or a second key’s signal strength exceeds the first
`key’s signal strength.
`
`’286 patent at 2:8-16 (emphasis added). Compare this language to claim 1, for example, which
`
`recites “detect a sensor value of an inactive key surpassing a sensor value of an active key,” or
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 25
`
`claim 5, which recites “designate an active key as
`
`inactive when its corresponding sensor value
`
`falls below a hysteresis value.” (emphasis
`
`added). Similarly, the specification discloses that
`
`“the invention provides that the newly intended
`
`key 2, having a larger signal level due to a
`
`’286 Patent, Figs. 1b, 1c (annotated)
`higher degree of fingerprint intersection than key 1, becomes the solely active key by switching
`
`off the active state of key 1.” Id. at 5:26-30 (emphasis added). In addition, the sensor values of
`
`the keys are depicted as bars labeled “signal strength” in Figures 1b and 1c, which purport to
`
`illustrate how the strength of the sensor signals of the keys change as a finger slides from a first
`
`position to a second position and how those signal strengths compare to a threshold. The
`
`specification describes these figures as follows:
`
`FIGS. 1b and 1c further detail the change in signals on the keys of FIG. 1a by virtue
`of the relative electrode surface intersections with the fingerprint first at location
`A (FIG.1b) and then at location B (FIG. 1c). The signal strengths are shown in the
`bar plots in the lower portions of the respective figures. It is desired that in order
`for a key to win the status of user-selected key, its signal change must exceed a
`threshold value, and its signal has to be the largest.
`
`Id. at 5:31-39. The embodiment shown in Figure 5 further emphasizes comparing signal
`
`strengths:3
`
`A signal S1, acquired from sensor key K1 (Step 24) is compared with a selected
`signal threshold value (Step 26). . . . If the value S1 is at or above its detection
`threshold, it is then compared against all other signals Sj in step 29. If it has the
`strongest change in signal due to touch, subject to a possible non-dithering bias
`value ‘k’ if another key is active (Step 30) then counter D1 can increment (Step
`31).
`
`
`3 The parties have agreed that independent claims 1 and 9 are to be construed as means plus
`function and that Figure 5A depicts the corresponding structure for performing the recited
`function. Thus, the fact that Figure 5A compares strengths of sensor signals further supports
`Defendants’ proposed construction of “sensor value.”
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 25
`
`Id. at 7:53-62. The specification further explains that “in order for a key to gain dominance over
`
`an already active key, it must exceed the active key’s last measured signal level by a small
`
`added amount ‘k’, as shown in Step 30 to prevent selection dithering.” Id. at 8:8-11 (emphasis
`
`added). Further, “[w]hether a key remains on, in the absence of any other keys with larger
`
`signals (FIG. 5a), is determined by whether the key’s signal change remains above a hysteresis
`
`level.” Id. at 8:24-27. In fact, the specification exclusively describes what the claims refer to as
`
`a “sensor value” as a value indicating the strength of the sensor signal. See id. at Abstract, 2:8-
`
`20; 2:25-28; 2:39-46; 2:47-59; 2:62-3:4; 3:9-26; 5:31-40; 5:41-57; 5:60-66; 6:5-12; 7:17-22.
`
`Furthermore, the specification teaches that the bias of the active key assignment process
`
`in favor of an already selected key is accomplished by manipulating the value of the signal
`
`strength of the keys:
`
`The bias may be provided in many ways in subsequent key selection decisions.
`These ways may be equivalent to adding an incremental value to the signal
`associated with the selected key; multiplying the signal strength of the selected key
`by a value greater than one in subsequent selections; subtracting a respective
`incremental value from the signal strengths associated with each of the non-selected
`keys; or multiplying the signal strength of each of the non-selected keys by a
`respective value less than one.
`
`Id. at 5:49-57. In other words, the signal values of the keys may be modified by applying a bias
`
`value such that the already selected key’s signal value is given preference over the signal values
`
`of the non-selected keys. Thus, the signals of each of the keys correspond to a value indicating
`
`the strength of that signal.
`
`In addition, the sensors disclosed in the specification are electrodes that form capacitive
`
`keys. See, e.g., id. at 2:21-22 (“A particular preferred embodiment of the invention is an array of
`
`capacitive keys”) (emphasis added); 5:1-3 (“Turning now to FIG. 1A, one finds an array of ‘N’
`
`tightly spaced capacitive keys in a key panel 11 which would benefit from the invention.”)
`
`(emphasis added); 6:65-7:1 (“Turning now to FIG. 4, one finds a schematic representation of
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 25
`
`apparatus of the invention 10, comprising an array of N capacitive proximity sensors 12 labeled
`
`“Key 1”, . . . , “Key N”) (emphasis added). The “sensor value” from a capacitive sensor must be
`
`an electrical signal, such as a voltage, having a value indicative of the strength of the capacitive
`
`coupling. Indeed, even for the embodiment of Figure 3, which depicts a “capacitive touch screen
`
`area 6,” the specification states “the area 6 can be treated as a single key with a single signal
`
`strength . . . .” Id. at 5:59, 6:7-8 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, every description of the claimed invention in the specification confirms and
`
`reinforces Defendants’ construction of “sensor value” to mean “value indicating the strength of
`
`the sensor signal.” When a patent “repeatedly and consistently” characterizes a claimed concept
`
`in a particular way, as the ’286 patent does here, the claim term should be construed in
`
`accordance with that characterization. GPNE Corp., 830 F.3d at 1370-71.
`
`2.
`
`The Claims Support Defendant’s Construction
`
`Consistent with the description in the specification, “sensor value” appears throughout
`
`the claims of the ’286 patent in the context of comparing signal strengths to determine an active
`
`key. For example, claim 1 recites “detect a sensor value of an inactive key surpassing a sensor
`
`value of an active key by a select amount.” (emphasis added). In other words, as the
`
`specification explains, the strength of the sensor signal for an inactive key must exceed the
`
`strength of the sensor signal for an active key by a certain amount. Further, claim 1 recites that
`
`“key assignment is biased in favor of the currently active key by increasing sensor values of the
`
`currently active key.” (emphasis added). In other words, the strength of the sensor signal for the
`
`currently active key is increased, for example, by adding to it or amplifying it, making it more
`
`difficult for the strength of the sensor signal of the inactive key to exceed that of the active key
`
`by a select amount, thereby biasing the assignment step in favor of the currently active key. The
`
`other independent claims—claims 9, 10, and 21—recite the same steps except that claims 9 and
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 25
`
`21 implement the biasing “by decreasing sensor values of inactive keys.” (emphasis added). In
`
`other words, claims 9 and 21 require reducing the strength of the sensor signal for the inactive
`
`keys by subtracting from them or scaling them down, making it more difficult for the strength of
`
`a sensor signal for an inactive key to exceed that of the active key by a select amount, thereby
`
`biasing the assignment step in favor of the currently active key. Thus, as the independent claims
`
`make clear, a “sensor value” must be a value indicating the signal strength of an active key’s
`
`sensor or the signal strength of an inactive key’s sensor. Indeed, under the claims, it must be
`
`possible to compare the signal strengths of the active and inactive keys’ sensors to determine
`
`whether the value of the signal strength of the inactive key’s sensor surpasses that of the active
`
`key by a select amount. Thus, a “sensor value” must be a value indicating the strength of the
`
`sensor signal.
`
`The dependent claims reinforce this conclusion. Dependent claims 4 and 16, for
`
`example, require that the “selected amount”4 by which a sensor value of an inactive key
`
`surpasses that of an active key is a “predetermined amount.” Thus, a quantitative difference
`
`between sensor values must be compared to a “predetermined amount,” emphasizing that a
`
`“sensor value” as claimed must represent the value indicating the strength of the sensor signal.
`
`Similarly, dependent claims 5 and 17 require designating an active key as inactive when its
`
`“sensor value falls below a hysteresis value.” This again emphasizes that the value indicating the
`
`strength of a sensor signal is what must be compared to a threshold value to determine whether
`
`the value of an active key is higher or lower than the threshold value.
`
`
`4 The independent claims recite “select amount,” but no other antecedent for “selected amount”
`is plausible, and this appears to be a clear typographical error propagated throughout the
`dependent claims.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 25
`
`3.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence Supports Defendants’ Construction.
`
`Defendants’ construction of the term “sensor value” is also consistent with dictionary
`
`definitions of the constituent words. For example, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`
`Technical Terms defines “value” to mean “the magnitude of a quantity.” Silzars Dec. ¶ 82, Ex. 5
`
`at 2116. The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary defines “value” to mean “a quantity assigned
`
`to an element such as a variable, symbol, or label.” Silzars Dec. ¶ 82, Ex. 6 at 490. Both of
`
`these definitions emphasize that “value” is a quantitative magnitude that one of ordinary skill
`
`would understand to be consistent with a signal “strength.” Silzars Dec. ¶¶ 81-82. The
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary defines “sensor” as “a device that detects or measures
`
`something by converting nonelectrical energy to electrical energy. A photocell, for example,
`
`detects or measures light by converting it to electrical energy.” Silzars Dec. ¶ 83, Ex. 6 at 428.
`
`This is consistent with the ’286 patent in which the claimed sensors detect or measure the
`
`“relative electrode surface intersections with the fingerprint” (’286 patent at 5:31-33) and use
`
`“mechanical to electrical transducing device[s]” (id. at 4:38-42) or an “array of piezoelectric
`
`sensors in which the output from a given sensor increases with increasing activation force” (id. at
`
`4:55-62) to convert a mechanical touch to an electrical signal. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand it is the magnitude, or strength, of this electrical signal that is referred to by
`
`the term “sensor value.” Silzars Dec. ¶¶ 79-84. Thus, all of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`supports Defendants’ construction of “sensor value” to mean “value indicating the strength of the
`
`sensor signal.”
`
`4.
`
`Neodron’s Construction Is Incorrect
`
`The Court should reject Neodron’s construction because it attempts to import a
`
`construction from International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1162 that
`
`addressed an indefiniteness problem in a different patent, U.S. 9,024,790 (“the ’790 patent”),
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 25
`
`with different claim language, and for which the parties’ dispute centered on a different issue.
`
`As such, Neodron’s proposed construction from the ITC fails to assist the fact finder in this case
`
`regarding the meaning and scope of the ’286 patent claims.
`
`While the ’790 patent is related to the ’286 patent, its claims are different and include
`
`drafting errors the construction in the ITC investigation was intended to address. For example,
`
`claim 1 of the ’790 patent recites the following (emphasis added):
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`plurality of keys;
`control logic operatively coupled to the plurality of keys and configured to:
`analyze, to determine a first active key, respective first signal values of the
`plurality of keys;
`assign, based at least on the respective first sensor values of the plurality keys, a
`first key as the first active key; and
`analyze, to determine a second active key, respective second signal values of the
`plurality of keys, the analysis, to determine the second active key, of the
`respective second signal values of the plurality of keys being biased in favor of
`the first key.
`
`In this claim, the term “the respective first sensor values” has no antecedent basis but appears to
`
`refer to “respective first signal values.” (emphasis added). The other independent claims of the
`
`’790 patent have the same problem. Because the parties in the ITC agreed that “sensor value”
`
`and “signal value” were interchangeable (though the parties disagreed on their meaning) the
`
`administrative law judge simply construed both “sensor value” and “signal value” to mean
`
`“sensor signal value,” over Respondents’ objections, in an attempt to resolve this antecedent
`
`basis ambiguity.
`
`The ’286 patent has no such problem, so no such construction is warranted here.
`
`Importantly, construing the term “sensor values” in this case as Neodron proposes does not
`
`address the issue of what a “sensor value” as claimed in the ’286 patent actually is. In the ITC,
`
`the dispute was whether “sensor value”/“signal value” in the ’790 patent was limited to be the
`
`output of the sensor. Here, Defendants do not contest that a sensor output may be conditioned,
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 25
`
`smoothed, or amplified, for example, and still be a “sensor value;” rather, what Defendants
`
`contend is that a “sensor value” must be indicative of the strength of the sensor signal.
`
`Neodron’s proposed construction of “sensor signal value” sheds no light on this dispute and
`
`simply substitutes a vague term that appears nowhere in the specification for the term “sensor
`
`value” that appears only in the claims. Neodron’s proposed construction is therefore unhelpful
`
`to the jury and should be rejected, and Defendants’ construction should be adopted.
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,365,747
`
`The ’747 patent is directed to a touch sensing panel, such as a touchscreen, that includes a
`
`“force sensor” (also referred to as “force detection circuitry”) for determining the amount of
`
`force applied to the touch panel. ’747 patent at Abstract, 1:59-62, 4:6-19. The patent explains
`
`that the force sensor may be used to “quantify or distinguish between different types of touches.”
`
`Id. at 4:13-14. For example, “the force sensor can measure the amount of force applied and
`
`cause the execution of a first function if the force is below or equal to a threshold. The force
`
`sensor can also measure the amount of force applied and cause the execution of a second
`
`function if the force exceeds the threshold.” Id. at 4:14-19.
`
`Independent claims 10 and 16 require a “first variable resistance electrode,” which the
`
`parties have agreed5 to construe as a “first electrode in which the resistance of the material varies
`
`in relation to applied force.” Id. at Cl. 10, 16. The specification does not use the phrase
`
`“variable resistance electrode,” but instead refers to this element as a “resistive force sensitive
`
`element.” See, e.g.,’747 patent at 4:20-34, 5:26-36, 6:51-58, 7:32-41; Figs. 3, 4, 5 (element 30 in
`
`figures). The parties’ agreed construction is consistent with the specification’s only example of a
`
`resistive force sensitive element (i.e., “variable resistance electrode” in the claims), which is an
`
`
`5 See Joint Claim Construction Statement.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 25
`
`electrode formed of Quantum Tunneling Composite material (QTC), the DC resistance of which
`
`varies in relation to applied force:
`
`The resistive force sensitive element 30, for example, may be formed of a Quantum
`Tunneling Composite material (QTC). The DC resistance of the QTC material
`varies in relation to applied force. In one example, the force sensitive element 30
`can be formed by printing an ink containing the QTC material.
`
`Id. at 4:29-34 (emphasis added). See also id. at 5:26-40, 6:51-59, 7:32-41.
`
`The amount of current flowing through the resistive force sensitive element is a function
`
`of the change in the element’s resistance. Id. at 5:27-28; see also id. at 4:29-38, 5:26-40, 6:51-
`
`58, 7:32-41. An integrator circuit measures the value of the current flowing through the resistive
`
`force sensitive element to calculate the element’s resistance, which in turn is used to calculate the
`
`amount of force applied to the panel. Id. The applied force can be calculated based on the
`
`characteristics of the element’s material (i.e., its resistance varies in relation to applied force)
`
`using the calculated resistance. Id.
`
`A.
`
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode”
`(’747 patent, claims 10, 16)
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “to measure a
`value determined by the resistance of the
`first variable resistance electrode”
`
`The parties agree6 the term “first variable resistance electrode” should be construed to
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “to measure a parameter of the first
`variable resistance electrode”
`
`have its plain and ordinary meaning, which is a “first electrode in which the resistance of the
`
`material varies in relation to applied force.” However, the parties dispute the remainder of the
`
`phrase, namely, what it means “to measure a parameter of” the first variable resistance
`
`electrode. Based on the plain meaning of the claim language, as well as the specification,
`
`
`6 See Joint Claim Construction Statement.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 62 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 25
`
`Samsung correctly construes this term as “to measure a value determined by the resistance of
`
`the first variable resistance electrode.” Indeed, the claims and specification do not contemplate
`
`any other meaning. By contrast, Neodron’s “plain and ordinary meaning” proposal simply
`
`restates the claim language and must be rejected because it does not resolve the parties’ dispute.
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The claim language supports Samsung’s construction. The claims first require a “first
`
`variable resistance electrode,” which the parties agree7 is a “first electrode in which the
`
`resistance of the material varies in relation to applied force.” ’747 patent at 10:13, 10:61
`
`(emphasis added). In other words, the electrode is made of a material with an electrical
`
`resistance that varies in relation to the amount of force applied to the material. The disputed
`
`claim term then requires that a circuit “measure a parameter of the first variable resistance
`
`electrode.” ’747 patent at 10:15-16, 10:63-64 (emphasis added). Because the only function of
`
`the “first variable resistance electrode” is that its resistance varies in relation to applied force, the
`
`only parameter the claim contemplates being measured is a value determined by the electrode’s
`
`resistance. Moreover, any other interpretation would render the remainder of the claim
`
`inoperable. A later limitation recites “one or more processors configured to determine, based on
`
`the measured parameter, an amount of force applied….” Id. at 10:22-24, 11:4-6 (emphasis
`
`added). It would not be possible to determine the amount of force applied