Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 33
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`NEODRON, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00212-ADA
`
`APPLE’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF ON THE TERMS OF U.S. PAT.
`NOS. 7,821,502, 9,823,784, AND 10,146,351
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE AGREED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,823,784 ............................................. 1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 1
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,821,502 .......................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“sensing cells” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16) ........................................................... 3
`
`“sensing area” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16) ........................................................... 6
`
`“wherein row sensing electrodes of sensing cells at opposing ends of at
`least one of the rows are electrically coupled to one another by respective
`row wrap-around connections made outside of the sensing area” (claims 1-
`2, 4-8, 11-14, 16).................................................................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,146,351 ...................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“a bias resistance element connected in parallel with the first variable
`resistance element” (claim 3) and “a bias resistance element connected in
`parallel with the second variable resistance element” (claim 6) .......................... 13
`
`“a limiting resistance element connected in series with the first variable
`resistance element” (claim 4) and “a limiting resistance element connected
`in series with the second variable resistance element” (claim 7) ......................... 15
`
`“circuitry operable to determine, based on the measured parameter, an
`amount of force applied to a sensing area of the touch sensing panel”
`(claims 1-10) ........................................................................................................ 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Circuity” is Entitled to its Ordinary Meaning of “Electronic
`Hardware, Not Software” ......................................................................... 17
`
`Alternatively, “Circuity” is a Nonce Word Subject to Section 112 ¶
`6................................................................................................................ 21
`
`D.
`
`“wherein the circuitry is operable to determine an amount of force applied
`to the sensing area using a differential measurement” (claim 9) ......................... 24
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................21
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`908 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................14, 15, 16
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................23
`
`B. Braun Medical Inc., v. Abbott Laboratories,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................21
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................14, 15, 16
`
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L v. Apple,
`6:12-cv-00100-LED-JDL (August 7, 2014) ............................................................................22
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................23
`
`In the Matter of Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1016 (January 26, 2017) ..............................................................................22
`
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................3, 6, 7
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................3, 6, 7
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co.,
`196 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................3
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................20, 21
`
`MIT v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................20
`
`Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................23
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)............................................................................3, 17
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................17
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................23
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................14
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................21
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ......................................................................................................17, 21, 24, 25
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Dictionary of Computing (4th ed.1996) ...................................................................................20, 21
`
`Dictionary of Computing (6th Ed., 2010-11) .................................................................................19
`
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th Ed. 1996) ...........................19
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed., 2009) .........................................................20
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th ed.1999) ...........................................................................20
`
`New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd Ed., 2010) ........................................................................20
`
`Webster’s English Dictionary ........................................................................................................19
`
`Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2003)...............................................................6
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1968 ed.) ............................................................20
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 5 of 33
`
`Exhibit
`Wolfe Decl.
`
`Guaragna Decl.
`
`Ex. 1
`
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Ex. 7
`
`Ex. 8
`
`Ex. 9
`
`Ex. 10
`Ex. 11
`
`Ex. 12
`Ex. 13
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe in Support of Apple Inc.’s Opening
`Claim Construction Brief
`Declaration of John M. Guaragna in Support of Apple’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief on the Terms of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,821,502, 9,823,784,
`and 10,146,351
`D.I. 82 in case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA (WDTX), “Joint Claim
`Construction Statement”
`D.I. 64-1 in case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA (WDTX), “Declaration of
`Richard A. Flasck in Support of Neodron Ltd.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Briefs”
`D.I. 60 in case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA (WDTX), “Defendants’ Opening
`Claim Construction Brief on the Disputed Terms of the Touch Sensor
`Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,946,574; 9,086,770; 9,823,784; 10,088,960;
`and 7,821,502)” (“Dell Defs’ Opening Brief”)
`D.I. 66 in case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA (WDTX), “Defendants’
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief on the Disputed Terms of the Touch
`Sensor Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,946,574; 9,086,770; 9,823,784;
`10,088,960; and 7,821,502)” (“Dell Defs’ Responsive Brief”)
`D.I. 72 in case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA (WDTX), “Defendants’ Reply
`Claim Construction Brief on the Disputed Terms of the Touch Sensor
`Patents” (“Dell Defs’ Reply Brief”)
`“Response Under 37 C.F.R. 1.111,” dated February 19, 2013, in U.S. Pat.
`App. No. 12/959,166
`William H. Hayt, Jr., Jack E. Kemmerly, Steven M. Durbin, Engineering
`Circuit Analysis pp. 9-23 (7th ed. 2007)
`William H. Hayt, Jr. and Jack E. Kemmerly, Steven M. Durbin,
`Engineering Circuit Analysis pp. 9-23 (4th ed. 1986)
`Standards Coordinating Committee 10, Terms and Definitions, Jane
`Radatz, Chair, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms 156-58 (6th ed. 1996)
`Dictionary of Computing 63 (6th ed. 2010)
`Richard Dorf and James Svoboda, Introduction to Electric Circuits 1-4
`(8th ed. 2010)
`Ronald Scott, Linear Circuits 2-4 (1960)
`Fawwaz Ulaby and Michel Maharbiz, Circuits 1-3 (2010)
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 6 of 33
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`Ex. 16
`
`Ex. 17
`
`Description
`Angus Stevenson and Christine Lindberg, editors, New Oxford American
`Dictionary 314-15 (3rd ed. 2010)
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 224 (11th ed. 2009)
`“Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.116,” dated May 15, 2018, in U.S.
`Pat. App. No. 14/981,510
`Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 523 (2003)
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 7 of 33
`
`Defendant respectfully submits its opening claim construction brief for the terms of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,821,502, 9,823,784, and 10,146,351.1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant’s constructions reflect what a person of ordinary skill in the art, informed by
`
`the cited intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, would understand the terms to mean. Where
`
`Defendant’s 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 patentee acted as their
`
`own lexicographer in defining a term, or (c) the patentee defined the term by implication.
`
`For the reasons demonstrated below, the Court should adopt Apple’s constructions.
`
`II.
`
`THE AGREED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,823,784
`
`The parties have agreed to the construction below for the ʼ784 patent.
`
`ʼ784 Claim Term
`“pitch” (claims 1-3)
`
`“wherein the plurality of drive electrodes
`are substantially area filling within the
`sensing region relative to the plurality of
`sense electrodes” (claims 1-3)
`“together, the plurality of sense electrodes
`and the plurality of isolated conductive
`elements are substantially area filling within
`the sensing region relative to the plurality of
`sense electrodes” (claims 1-3)
`
`Agreed Construction
`“distance from the center of one electrode to the
`center of an adjacent electrode”
`“where the drive electrodes are substantially
`area filling and where the drive electrodes are
`more area filling than the sense electrodes”
`
`“where the sense electrodes and isolated
`conductive elements are substantially area
`filling and where the sense electrodes and
`isolated conductive elements are more area
`filling than the sense electrodes”
`
`III.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applications of the ʼ502 and ʼ351
`
`patents (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`1 The parties do not dispute any terms in U.S. Pat. No. 9,823,784, the third patent-in-suit.
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 8 of 33
`
`science, physics, or the equivalent, plus at least two years of experience in the field of touch
`
`sensors or a related field, where additional education could substitute for work experience and
`
`vice versa. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 33.
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,821,502
`
`The ’502 patent is directed to a two-dimensional capacitive position sensor such as in a
`
`touchpad or a touchscreen. See ’502 patent at 1:5-17. Unlike prior art devices with strip-shaped
`
`sensing electrodes formed on opposite surfaces of a substrate (e.g., a sheet of glass or plastic) or
`
`with two sets of strip-shaped sensing electrodes formed on one surface of a substrate, the ’502
`
`patent discloses interleaved row and column sensing electrodes formed on the same surface of a
`
`substrate in a single layer and arranged in an array. Id. at 1:19-33, 2:47-67. To provide both as
`
`many as four or more rows and four columns in an array, the patent discloses row and column
`
`wrap-around connections that connect electrodes at opposite ends of a respective row or column,
`
`which purportedly ensures that all electrodes in the same row or column are electrically coupled.
`
`Id. at 1:19-33, 2:47-67, 11:35-38. One embodiment of a four-column, five-row array is illustrated
`
`in annotated and color-coded Figure 3 below:
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 9 of 33
`
`A.
`
`“sensing cells” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“the area whose boundaries are fixed by the
`portions of a column sensing electrode and
`a row sensing electrode at the intersection
`of a row and column in the array that forms
`the sensing area”
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is “sensing
`cells”
`
`The term “sensing cells” has no plain and ordinary meaning.2 Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 34. There
`
`is no definition of this term in any of 17 technical and non-technical dictionaries examined by
`
`Dr. Wolfe. Id. Moreover, those of skill in the art do not attribute any particular meaning to this
`
`term. Id.
`
`Because “sensing cells” has no plain and ordinary meaning, the meaning of this term
`
`must be found in the patent and this term can be construed “only as broadly as provided for by
`
`the patent itself.” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (citing J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 196 F.3d 1563, 1570 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997)); Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A patent may
`
`provide an express definition of a term with no plain and ordinary meaning, or may define the
`
`term by implication by using the term in a manner consistent with only a single meaning. Irdeto,
`
`383 F.3d at 1302; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc) (citing Irdeto holding that specification may define claim terms by implication); Indacon,
`
`824 F.3d at 1357 (relying on specification to limit scope of claim term with no plain meaning).
`
`The ʼ502 patent does not explicitly define a sensing cell, but does provide an implicit
`
`definition. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 35. First, claim 1 recites “each sensing cell including a column
`
`2 The Court did not construe “sensing cells” in the Dell Case because the parties agreed to a
`construction of plain and ordinary meaning, which is “sensing cells.” Ex. 1 (JCCS in 1:19-cv-
`00918) at 3.
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 10 of 33
`
`sensing electrode and a row sensing electrode” and further recites that “the electrodes define an
`
`array of sensing cells arranged in columns and rows.” ʼ502 patent at 12:15-18. The specification
`
`indicates that a sensing cell may have different shapes including a square, a rectangle or
`
`“possibly other shapes such as trapezoids.” ʼ502 patent at 7:50-54. Each of these shapes are
`
`polygons comprised of four straight edges. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 36. This is in accord with the
`
`recitation in claim 1 that the sensing cells form an array that is arranged in columns and rows.
`
`The specification also discloses that every boundary of a sensing cell is co-located with
`
`the outermost portion of an electrode in the sensing cell, and that no boundary of a sensing cell is
`
`located entirely beyond the boundaries of all electrodes in that cell. Wolfe Decl. at ¶¶ 37-38.
`
`First, the specification is clear that the boundaries of a sensing cell do not extend beyond the
`
`outermost boundaries of the electrodes in that cell. Figures 3 and 8 reproduced below are the
`
`only illustrations in the ’502 patent that show the relationship between sensing cells and the
`
`sensing electrodes that define them:
`
`ʼ502 Fig. 3
`
`ʼ502 Fig. 8
`
`In both of these figures, every boundary of every sensing cell is located at the edges of
`
`the electrodes or portions of the electrodes that define the sensing cell. Sensing cell 28 of Fig. 3,
`
`illustrated by dashed lines that form a rectangle, has a top edge at the top edge of the row
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 11 of 33
`
`electrode 30, and a bottom edge at the bottom edge of column electrode 32. Similarly, the right
`
`and left edges of sensing cell 28 are at the corresponding right and left edge of column electrode
`
`32. There is no edge of sensing cell 28 that is not touching at an outermost edge of an electrode
`
`or portion of an electrode in that sensing cell. Similarly, every boundary of the sensing cells 84
`
`and 86 of Fig. 8, as well as the other, non-numbered sensing cells indicated by the dotted lines in
`
`Fig. 8, touches an outermost edge of an electrode or portion of an electrode in that cell. Wolfe
`
`Decl. at ¶ 38. There is no boundary of any sensing cell in Figures 3 or 8 that is not at least partly
`
`co-located at an outermost edge of an electrode in that cell. Wolfe Decl. at ¶¶ 37-38.
`
`Second, the specification is clear that the boundaries of a sensing cell do not extend to
`
`locations at which a sensing cell is able to sense an object. Said another way, objects which can
`
`be sensed by a sensing cell may be located outside the sensing cell. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 39. This
`
`can be seen with reference to Figs. 5A and 5B and the accompanying discussion at 9:10-54. This
`
`passage discusses an interpolation process by which the position of a finger that touches the
`
`touch sensor of Fig. 3 at a point in column X2 and row Y3, in particular at location (x,y) = (1.8,
`
`2.8), can be determined. ’502 patent at 9:47-48. As seen in Fig. 5A, although the finger touches
`
`the touch sensor in column X2, the finger is also sensed in columns X1, X3 and X4 as indicated
`
`by the capacitance values along the Cx axis in Fig. 5A. Similarly, although the finger touches
`
`the touchscreen in row Y3, the finger is also sensed in rows Y1, Y2, Y4 and Y5 as indicated by
`
`the capacitance values along the Cy axis in Fig. 5B. This means that the sensing cell 28, which
`
`is in column X3 and row Y1, senses the finger that touches the display in column X2 and row
`
`Y3. However, the boundary of sensing cell 28 does not extend to the point in column X2 and
`
`row Y3 where the finger touches. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 39. Moreover, even though sensing cell 28
`
`may be capable of sensing a finger above the illustrated dashed line boundary of sensing cell 28,
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 12 of 33
`
`that boundary extends no further than the top of the portion of row sensing electrode 30 in that
`
`sensing cell 28. Id.
`
`Every example of sensing cells in the ’502 patent have boundaries that are in contact with
`
`an outermost portion of an electrode in that cell. Wolfe Decl. at ¶¶ 36-39. Nowhere does the
`
`specification contemplate a sensing cell with any boundary that lies beyond all electrodes in that
`
`cell. Id. Under these circumstances, the specification has defined a sensing cell by implication
`
`as having boundaries in contact with the outermost portions of electrodes in that cell. See Irdeto,
`
`383 F.3d at 1301 (specification in which every example of a group is a subset of subscribers has
`
`defined group as a subset of subscribers by implication, even when those examples are
`
`permissive); Indacon, 824 F.3d at 1357 (construing “link” terms narrowly as “allowing each
`
`instance of a defined term to be identified and displayed as a link” based on repeated examples
`
`in specification) (emphasis in original).
`
`B.
`
`“sensing area” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“an area whose boundaries are fixed by the outermost
`edges of the sensing cells of the position sensor”
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`“an area defined by the sensing cells”
`
`In case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA (“Dell Case”) the Court determined that “sensing area”
`
`means “an area defined by the sensing cells.” Dell Case, D.I. 100 at 2 (emphasis added).
`
`However, the briefing in that case indicates that the parties there disputed the meaning of the
`
`verb “define.” See, e.g., Dell Case, D.I. 66 at 16-17 (defendants relying on the definition “to
`
`determine or fix the boundaries or extent of” in Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
`
`(2003), Ex. 17) and D.I. 73 at 8-9 (Neodron relying on the definition “to make clear the outline
`
`or form of,” (emphasis original). During the parties’ Markman conference, it appeared that
`
`Apple and Neodron also dispute the meaning of “define” in the context of what it means for a
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 13 of 33
`
`sensing cell to define a sensing area. Because there is a dispute between the parties regarding the
`
`meaning of “define,” the Court must resolve the dispute. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The term “sensing area” has no plain and ordinary meaning. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 40. There
`
`is no definition of this term in any of 17 technical dictionaries examined by Dr. Wolfe. Id.
`
`Moreover, those of skill in the art do not attribute any particular meaning to this term. Id. As
`
`established above, when a term has no plain and ordinary meaning, the meaning of the term must
`
`be found in the patent, and can be construed “only as broadly as provided for by the patent
`
`itself.” Irdeto, 383 F.3d at 1300; Indacon, 824 F.3d at 1357.
`
`The specification of the ’502 patent makes clear that the boundaries of the sensing cells
`
`determine or fix the boundaries of the sensing area. Said another way, the boundaries of the
`
`sensing area extend no farther than the boundaries of the sensing cell. As discussed above, the
`
`specification illustrates a sensing cell 28 located at column x3 and row y1 with a boundary
`
`indicated by a dashed line in Fig. 3. The specification further discloses that in Fig. 3 the
`
`“column sensing electrodes in column X2 are connected to one another by a connection 51, also
`
`referred to as a spine” and that “[t]his connection runs the length of the sensing area.” ’502
`
`patent at 6:29-33. The spine 51 is the red-shaded area in the annotated version of Fig. 3 below:
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 14 of 33
`
`As seen in the figure, the top of the spine 51 stops exactly at the upper boundary of the sensing
`
`cell 28. Because the specification teaches that the spine 51 runs the length of the sensing area,
`
`this means that the upper boundary of the sensing cell is located at the top edge of sensing area.
`
`A POSITA would readily understand the bottom boundary of the sensing cell at column x3 and
`
`row Y5 would similarly coincide with the bottom of spine 51. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 41. Thus, the
`
`specification teaches that the upper and lower boundaries of the sensing area are located at (i.e.,
`
`are defined by) the upper and lower boundaries of the sensing cells at the top and bottom of the
`
`sensing area. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 41.
`
`The specification also discloses that the right and left edges of the sensing area are
`
`located at (i.e., are defined by) the right-most and left-most boundaries of the sensing cells on the
`
`right and left sides of the sensing area. In discussing the embodiment of Fig. 8, the specification
`
`refers to “sensing cells in columns at the edge of the sensing area (i.e. columns x1 and x3, e.g.,
`
`sensing cell 86 . . . .” ’502 patent at 11:1-2 (emphasis added). The boundaries sensing cells such
`
`as sensing cell 86 are indicated by dotted lines as shown in the portion of Fig. 8 below:
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 15 of 33
`
`Thus, the specification discloses that right boundary of sensing cell 86 in column x3 is at the
`
`right edge of the sensing area. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 42. Similarly, the left edge of the sensing cell in
`
`the upper left-hand corner (the sensing cell at column x1, row y1) is at the left edge of the
`
`sensing area. Id. These disclosures are also in accordance with the recitation in claim 1 “sensing
`
`cells arranged in columns and rows to form a capacitive sensing area.” ’502 patent at 12:12:15-
`
`17. In contrast to these embodiments, there is no disclosure of any embodiment in the ’502
`
`patent where the sensing area extends beyond the boundaries of the sensing cells in that sensing
`
`area. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 42.
`
`In light of these disclosures in the specification and in the absence of any disclosure in
`
`the specification of a sensing area that extends beyond the sensing cells in it, a POSITA would
`
`understand “define” to mean “to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of” just as defendants
`
`argued in the Dell Case. Wolfe Decl. at ¶ 43. Neodron’s claim construction expert in the Dell
`
`Case, Mr. Richard Flasck, agrees. In that case, Mr. Flasck repeatedly used “define” in the same
`
`way, and repeatedly indicated that the sensing area does not extend beyond the outermost
`
`boundaries of the sensing cells that make up the sensing area. Ex. 2, (Flasck decl.) at ¶ 54 (“[I]t
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 16 of 33
`
`is those ‘sensing cells’ that define the disputed ‘sensing area’ …”); ¶ 57 (“[T]he claims
`
`consistently refer to the ‘sensing cells’ that exist at and defines [sic] the boundary or ‘edge’ of
`
`a sensing area.”) (emphasis added); and, ¶ 58 (“In other words, the sensing cells define the
`
`‘edge’ of the sensing area …”) (emphasis added). Because the sensing cells exist at the edge of
`
`the sensing area, it follows that the sensing area does not extend beyond the boundaries of
`
`sensing cells. Thus, experts for both parties agree that a POSITA would understand “sensing
`
`area” to mean “an area whose boundaries are fixed by the outermost edges of the sensing cells of
`
`the position sensor.”
`
`C.
`
`“wherein row sensing electrodes of sensing cells at opposing ends of at least
`one of the rows are electrically coupled to one another by respective row
`wrap-around connections made outside of the sensing area” (claims 1-2, 4-8,
`11-14, 16)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“wherein row sensing electrodes of sensing cells at
`opposing ends of at least one of the rows are electrically
`coupled to one another by respective row wrap-around
`connections made outside of the sensing area,” where the
`row wrap-around connection must wrap around electrodes
`in the row other than the two electrodes at opposing ends
`of the row, but need not have any particular shape nor be
`connected to the ends of the two electrodes at opposite
`ends of the row.
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`“wherein row sensing electrodes
`of sensing cells at opposing ends
`of at least one of the rows are
`electrically coupled to one another
`by respective row wrap-around
`connections made outside of the
`sensing area”
`
`In the Joint Claim Construction Statement submitted by the parties in the earlier Neodron
`
`litigation, Neodron stated that “[b]ased on Defendants’ claim construction briefing, Neodron no
`
`longer believes there is any meaningful dispute between the parties on the plain meaning of this
`
`term.” Ex. 1 at 6. Taking Neodron at its word, this means that Neodron does not dispute the
`
`following issues raised in the Dell defendants’ briefing:
`
`First, the Dell defendants’ briefing asserted that the row wrap-around connections are not
`
`limited to connections that wrap around from the ends of row sensing electrodes at opposite ends
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 17 of 33
`
`of the row such as the yellow-highlighted wrap-around connection from the annotated excerpt
`
`from Fig. 3 of the ’502 patent shown below (see also Ex. 5 at 22-24):
`
`Rather, row wrap-around connections may have different shapes, and may be connected to a part
`
`of the row sensing spaced apart from the ends of the row sensing electrodes at opposite ends of a
`
`row, as illustrated by the yellow-highlighted row wrap-around connection in the hypothetical
`
`figure below taken from the Dell Defs’ Reply Brief (Ex. 5) at 22-24:
`
`Second, the Dell defendants’ briefs contested Neodron’s assertion that the yellow-
`
`highlighted connector 40 shown in the annotated excerpt from Fig. 3 below is a wrap-around
`
`connection (i.e., a column wrap-around connection) as discussed in the Dell Defs’ Opening Brief
`
`(Ex. 3) at 33-34 and in Dell Defs’ Responsive Brief (Ex. 4) at 27-28:
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 18 of 33
`
`Third, the Dell defendants argued that this limitation did not require the row wrap-around
`
`connection to wrap around the sensing area, but instead required the wrap-around connection to
`
`wrap around electrodes in the row other than the two electrodes at opposing ends of the row.
`
`Ex. 4 (Dell Defs’ Responsive Brief) at 24-30 and Ex. 5 (Dell Defendants’ Reply Brief) at 19-24.
`
`Given that Neodron has represented to this Court that it no longer disputes these points in
`
`the Dell defendants’ briefing, Apple’s construction makes explicit that wrap-around connections
`
`are not limited to the particular shape of the green-highlighted row-wrap around connections of
`
`Fig. 3 and need not have any particular shape, need not be connected to the ends of row sensing
`
`electrodes at opposite ends of a row, and need only wrap around the sensing electrodes other
`
`than the row sensing electrodes at opposite ends of the row rather than wrap around the sensing
`
`area, should be adopted. Moreover, in light of its earlier representation to the Court in the Dell
`
`Case, the Court should expressly preclude Neodron from arguing that the connector 40 of Fig. 3
`
`of the ʼ502 patent is not a wrap-around connection.
`
`WEST\292016876.12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/23/20 Page 19 of 33
`
`V.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,146,351
`
`The ’351 Patent is directed to an apparatus that determines the amount of force applied to
`
`a “touch sensing panel.” ’351 Patent at claim 1. Claim 1 (the only independent claim) recites a
`
`“control unit” that includes a “voltage driver and integrator circuit.” Id. at claim 1. A “touch
`
`sensing panel” is “operable to communicate with the control unit” and a “variable resistance
`
`element” is “coupled to an output of the voltage driver and an input of the integrator circuit.”
`
`The voltage driver is “operable to provide an alternating voltage,” and the integrator circuit is
`
`“operable to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance element over a period of time.”
`
`Additional “circuitry” is “operable to determine, based on