Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 42
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPC BROADBAND, INC.,
`
`
`CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS
`RF LLC,
`
`
`
` Defendant
`
`.
`
`
`DEFENDANT CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`
`
` Plaintiff
`
`,
`
`-vs-
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Civil Action No.
`5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 42
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`General Principles of Claim Construction ............................................................. 2
`B.
`Construction of Means-Plus-Function Limitations ................................................ 3
`THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT CORNING’S CONSTRUCTIONS OF
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS IN THE ’338 PATENT. .................................................... 5
`A.
`Overview of the ’338 Patent .................................................................................. 5
`B.
`Construction of “Engagement Fingers” ................................................................. 6
`1.
`The ’338 Patent Specification Depicts and Describes the
`Engagement Fingers as Portions of the Post Made Resilient by
`Slotting the Post. ........................................................................................ 7
`The Invention Disclosure and Related ’053 Patent Confirm that the
`Invention Was Slotting the Post or Nut to Create Resilient
`Engagement Fingers................................................................................... 9
`The ’338 Patent Prosecution History Shows that the Examiner and
`the Applicant Interpreted the Claims to Require a Slotted Post. ............. 10
`Construction of “Proximate the Second End” ..................................................... 13
`C.
`Construction of “Slots Positioned on the Post” ................................................... 14
`D.
`The Other Disputed Terms of the ’338 Patent Require No Construction. ........... 15
`E.
`THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT CORNING’S CONSTRUCTIONS OF
`DISPUTED CLAIMS TERMS IN THE ’481 PATENT FAMILY. ................................ 16
`A.
`Overview of the ’481 Patent Family .................................................................... 16
`B.
`Construction of “Means for Exerting a Biasing Force” ....................................... 17
`C.
`Construction of “Biasing Member” and “Biasing Means” in the ’481, ’740
`and ’845 Patents ................................................................................................... 22
`Construction of “Flange of the Post,” “Flange of the Tubular Post,”
`“Surface of the Flange,” and “Outwardly Extending Flange” in the ’481,
`’740, ’205, ’431, and ’845 Patents ....................................................................... 24
`Construction of “Body Member Having a Body Biasing Portion and
`Configured to Engage the Post” and “Body Biasing Portion” in the ’740
`Patent.................................................................................................................... 26
`Construction of “Body Biasing Means” in the ’740 Patent ................................. 29
`Construction of “Axially Move Between a First Position … and a Second
`Position” in the ’205 and ’431 Patents ................................................................. 31
`Construction of “Biasing O-ring” in the ’205 and ’431 Patents .......................... 32
`
`E.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`H.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 42
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Construction of “Body Means,” “Coupling Means,” “Outer Wall Means,”
`and “Post Means” in the ’740 Patent ................................................................... 33
`The Other Disputed Claim Terms of the ’481 Patent Family Are
`Indefinite. ............................................................................................................. 34
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 35
`
`V.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 4 of 42
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................7
`
`Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc.,
`81 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................3
`
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................3
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................2, 3
`
`Comark Commc’ns Corp. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................15
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................10
`
`DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................3
`
`Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`386 F.3d 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................12
`
`Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp.,
`114 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................3
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................2
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................4
`
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp.,
`No. CIV WDQ-05-0759, 2007 WL 1575077 (D. Md. May 30, 2007) ....................................23
`
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................16
`
`Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co.,
`208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................4
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
`324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`iii
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 5 of 42
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................16
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................4
`
`Nike Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.,
`43 F.3d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1994)......................................................................................................7
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................3
`
`Sage Prod., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc.,
`126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................4, 18, 29, 34
`
`SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................15
`
`Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..........................................................................................29, 30
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................3, 8
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................4, 23
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ...........................................................................4, 22
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 6 of 42
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`AIA § 3(n)(1) ...................................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 7 of 42
`
`
`
`Defendant, Corning Optical Communications RF LLC (“Corning”), files this Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief in support of its proposed constructions of disputed claim terms in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338 (“’338 Patent”) and the “’481 Patent Family,” which consists of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,366,481 (“’481 Patent”), 8,469,740 (“’740 Patent”), 8,475,205 (“’205 Patent”),
`8,480,431 (“’431 Patent”), and 8,485,845 (“’845 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Patents-in-Suit purport to address the loss of electrical signal that can occur when a
`
`coaxial cable connector is not fully tightened or properly installed onto an appliance port, or
`
`fatigues over time. But PPC was neither the first nor the only industry participant that
`
`recognized the problem of a faulty connection. Indeed, before the Patents-in-Suit were filed,
`
`PPC and others already had addressed potential loss of electrical signal by developing connectors
`
`that utilized conductive “continuity members” to provide an electrical pathway from the nut to
`
`the post of the connector. For example, the PPC patents at issue in Case Nos. 5:12-cv-00911-
`
`GLS-DEP (’911 Case), 5:13-cv-01310-GLS-DEP (“’1310 Case), and 5:14-cv-01170-GLS-DEP
`
`(“’1170 Case”) disclose a connector with a conductive structure located behind the lip of the nut.
`
`By contrast to prior art solutions, the ’338 Patent addresses potential loss of electrical
`
`signal by forming slots on the end of the post to create resilient fingers that keep the post and nut
`
`in contact. Similarly, the patents in the ’481 Patent Family address potential loss of electrical
`
`signal through two related ways of providing an axial force. But here, too, PPC and others had
`
`already patented solutions for maintaining contact between the nut and the post by applying an
`
`axial force. This art is crowded with many known structures that can force the post and the nut
`
`
`1 The claim construction positions taken in this brief are based exclusively on the claim
`construction principles articulated by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim constructions under another standard, such as
`the “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” standard used in certain proceedings in the PTO, could
`result in different constructions for certain terms. In that case, the difference in construction
`would be due exclusively to the different standard being applied.
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 8 of 42
`
`
`
`together to provide an alternative ground path, including O-rings located between the body, nut,
`
`and post.
`
`PPC’s patent claims should be construed in light of the prior art to ensure that the claims
`
`are limited to what PPC actually invented and disclosed. The Court should not allow PPC to use
`
`the claim construction process to, in effect, change the scope of the claims to capture subject
`
`matter that was already disclosed in the prior art.
`
`As the Court is aware, this is the sixth case PPC has brought against Corning in this
`
`District. Yet, unlike the earlier cases, PPC does not allege that it practices any of the Patents-in-
`Suit. Instead, they are “paper patents.”2
`II.
`APPLICABLE LAW
`A.
`Courts construe patent claims as a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`General Principles of Claim Construction
`
`Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 391 (1996). “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that the claims of a
`
`patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1312. “[A] claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim
`
`language itself, for that is the language the patentee has chosen to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.” Innova/Pure
`
`Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`“Claim interpretation begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the
`
`claims, the rest of the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.” CCS Fitness,
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which
`
`the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`2 None of the Patents-in-Suit are listed on PPC’s marking website as covering a PPC product.
`See Ex. 1, http://www.ppc-online.com/patents (last visited Oct. 31, 2016). All cites in this brief
`to “Ex. __” are to the exhibits attached to the supporting declaration of Joseph P. Lavelle filed
`concurrently herewith.
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`2
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`“The prosecution history is considered to determine whether or not there were any express
`
`representations made in obtaining the patent regarding the scope and meaning of the claims.”
`
`DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “An examination of
`
`the prosecution history is particularly important where, … the claimed invention is in a crowded
`
`art.” Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Court may
`
`also rely on extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, to resolve the scope and meaning of a
`
`claim. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.
`
`There is a presumption that claim terms carry their plain and ordinary meaning to one
`
`skilled in the art. CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; Thorner v.
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[T]he primary focus in
`
`determining the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim limitation is to consider the intrinsic
`
`evidence of record,” including the patent claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution
`
`history. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-17. Furthermore, claims should be interpreted, if possible, in a
`
`manner that will preserve the validity of the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327; see also
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1004 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Thus, “claims should be read in a way that avoids ensnaring prior art if it is possible to do
`
`so.” Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 114 F.3d 1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`B.
`A means-plus-function limitation recites a function to be performed rather than definite
`
`Construction of Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`structure or materials for performing that function. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral,
`Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.3 Determining whether
`a claim limitation is a means-plus-function limitation presents a question of law since it relates to
`
`
`3 The Patents-in-Suit have effective filing dates prior to March 16, 2013. Therefore, the
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112 prior to the Leahy-Smith American Invents
`Act (“AIA”) apply to the Patents-in-Suit. AIA § 3(n)(1).
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`3
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
`construing the claim. Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`A claim that contains the word “means” and recites a function is presumed to be a means-
`
`plus-function limitation. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). The presumption is rebutted if the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function. Sage Prod., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427-28 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997). Conversely, if a claim does not contain the word “means” and recites a function, it is
`
`presumed that it is not a means-plus-function limitation. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`
`F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). This presumption is rebutted if the claim “fails to
`
`recite sufficiently definite structure” or recites a “function without reciting sufficient structure for
`
`performing that function.” Id. at 1349.
`
`Once the court determines that a means-plus-function limitation is at issue, it must
`
`construe the limitation using a two-step process. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208
`
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000). First, the court must determine the claimed function. Id.
`
`Second, the Court must identify what structures, if any, disclosed in the specifications
`
`correspond to the claimed function. Id.; see also Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d
`
`1090, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (corresponding structure should include specific structure
`
`identified in specification as performing the recited function). Where there are multiple claimed
`
`functions, the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the
`
`claimed functions. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52. If the patentee fails to disclose adequate
`
`corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite. Id. at 1352.
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`4
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT CORNING’S CONSTRUCTIONS OF
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS IN THE ’338 PATENT.
`Overview of the ’338 Patent4
`A.
`The ’338 Patent discloses and claims “a coaxial cable connector having a constant
`
`contact post that extends electrical continuity through the connector.” Ex. 2, ’338 Patent, 1:14-
`
`17. Coaxial cable connectors are used to make a connection between the coaxial cable itself and
`
`an interface port on the equipment, such as a cable modem. Id. at 1:35-38. Fully tightening the
`
`connector on the port “helps to ensure a ground connection” between the two. Id. at 1:38-41.
`
`However, connectors often are “not properly tightened or otherwise installed” to the port.
`
`Id. at 1:41-42. A faulty connection between the connector and port can cause interruption in or
`
`interference with the electrical signal carried by the coaxial cable that is being consumed by the
`
`electronic device. Id. at 1:46. Thus, the ’338 Patent asserts that there was a “need . . . for an
`
`improved connector having a constant contact post for ensuring ground continuity through the
`
`connector, and establishing and maintaining electrical and physical communication between the
`
`post and a port coupling element” (i.e., nut). Id. at 1:47-51. The solution to this problem
`
`proposed by the ’338 Patent is a post with resilient engagement fingers at the second end (i.e.,
`
`the forward end) of the post. The resilient fingers are biased into a position of interference with
`
`the inner surface of the nut. Id. at 1:65-2:3. The engagement fingers are separated, or spaced
`
`apart, by slots or openings extending axially through the entire thickness of the wall of the post.
`
`Id. at 8:16-18. The engagement fingers and slots are depicted in the drawings of the ’338 Patent,
`
`as shown below:
`
`
`4 As the Court is already familiar with the technology at issue because of the co-pending
`litigation between the parties, Corning provides only a brief overview of the technology and
`disclosures of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`5
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 12 of 42
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GL5-[RE FFEr@d 10/31/16 Page 12 of 42
`
`Second end of Post
`
` Engagement
`
`.,,
`
`.
`
`Finger
`
`no.3
`
`Id. at Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`The ’338 Patent teaches that, when the nut is attached to the post, the resilient
`
`engagement fingers “should flex, expand, or ‘spring’ back in a radially outward direction,
`
`applying constant radial contact with the nut.” Id. at 8:33-38. The constant radial contact force
`
`applied by the engagement fingers against the nut establishes and maintains physical and
`
`electrical continuity between the post and the nut. Id. at 8:38-41 .
`
`B.
`
`Construction of “Engagement Fingers”5
`
`Claims
`
`Corning’s Construction
`
`PPC’s Construction
`
`
`“engagement
`fingers”
`
`“plurality of
`engagement
`fingers”
`
`“Plurality of engagement
`“Engagement fingers” should be
`fingers” should be
`construed to mean “portions of the post
`construed to mean “two or
`that have been made resilient by
`slotting the second end of the post. The more resilient projections
`engagement fingers are separated, or
`of the post (i.e., integral to
`spaced apart, by slots or openings that
`the post) that engage with
`extend through the post and have a
`the port coupling element.”
`depth equal to the thickness of the post.
`The number of engagement fingers
`depends on the number of slots
`positioned on the post.”
`
`5 As previously noted, the claim construction positions taken in this brief are based on the
`Federal Circuit’s Phillips standard. See, supra, note 1.
`
`EAS'I\l34302454.7
`
`6
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims of the ’338 Patent (claims 5, 6, and 8) recite a “plurality of
`
`engagement fingers” on the end of the post which contact the nut. Ex. 2, ’338 Patent at 11:38,
`
`43, 52-53. The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence demonstrates that the “engagement fingers” are
`
`defined by slots on the post that extend the entire depth of the post. Id. at 8:16-20. This is what
`
`the ’338 Patent specification clearly depicts and describes. The Invention Disclosure for the
`
`’338 Patent and related patent, U.S Patent No. 8,323,053 (“’053 Patent”), confirms,
`
`
`
`
`
` The ’338 Patent prosecution history further demonstrates that PPC and
`
`the Examiner understood the claims of the ’338 Patent to require a slotted post. The term
`
`“engagement fingers” must be construed to reflect the invention actually conceived of and
`
`disclosed in the ’338 Patent and should not, as PPC tries to do, be construed to improperly
`
`rewrite the claims to try to read on an accused product. The Federal Circuit has cautioned
`
`against the practice of a patent owner asserting one claim construction to avoid unpatentability
`
`and another construction to find infringement. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com,
`Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Nike Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 43
`F.3d 644, 647 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (rejecting patentee’s construction that would, “in effect, rewrite
`
`its patent claims to suit its needs in this litigation”). For these reasons, as further discussed
`
`below, the Court should construe “engagement fingers” to mean “portions of the post that have
`
`been made resilient by slotting the second end of the post. The engagement fingers are
`
`separated, or spaced apart, by slots or openings that extend through the post and have a depth
`
`equal to the thickness of the post. The number of engagement fingers depends on the number of
`
`slots positioned on the post.”
`
`1.
`
`The ’338 Patent Specification Depicts and Describes the Engagement
`Fingers as Portions of the Post Made Resilient by Slotting the Post.
`It is clear from the specification that the claimed engagement fingers are portions of the
`
`post that have been made resilient by slotting the second end of the post, which includes a flange.
`
`Ex. 2, ’338 Patent at 5:40-43, 8:13-20; Ex. 3, Expert Declaration of Les Baxter (“Baxter Dec.)
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`7
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 14 of 42
`
`
`
`¶¶ 36-41. For example, the Abstract describes a connector with “a plurality of openings on the
`
`post” that extend from the flange toward the opposite end of the post. Ex. 2, ’338 Patent,
`
`Abstract. Furthermore, in the Summary of the Invention, each general aspect of the invention
`
`describes the post as having either “a plurality of openings,” “a plurality of engagement fingers,”
`
`or “a slotted flange” at the second end of the post. Id. at 1:60, 66-67, 2:6-7, 20-21, 29. These
`
`engagement fingers are depicted in each of the three drawings of the ’338 Patent. Id. at Figs. 1-3
`
`(engagement fingers labeled 145).
`
`The specification describes the slots on the post as “openings, spaces, voids, apertures,
`
`holes, cuts, channels, grooves, and the like.” Id. at 6:19-25. However, the term “slot” is used
`
`most often in the patent to describe this feature. Indeed, the ’338 Patent uses the term “slot” (or
`
`some variation thereof) no less than 53 times. Ex. 3, Baxter Dec. ¶ 37. According to the
`
`specification, the axial length of the slots may vary. Ex. 2,’338 Patent at 6:26-38. In addition,
`
`the slots “have a depth equal to the thickness of the post.” Id. at 6:66-7:1. The length and depth
`
`of the slots are important properties that must be engineered to make the structure resilient
`
`because, as the patent teaches, the structural properties of the post impact the modulus of
`
`elasticity. Id. 6:60-66; Baxter Dec. ¶ 38.
`
`The specification describes the engagement fingers as the portions of the post between
`
`the slots. Ex. 2,’338 Patent at 8:16-20 (“Engagement fingers 145 can be portions of the post 40
`
`proximate or otherwise near the second end 42 that are separated, or spaced apart, by slots 140
`
`running axially through the flange 44 and a portion of the post 40 proximate or otherwise near
`
`the second end 42.”); Baxter Dec. ¶¶ 39-40. The number of engagement fingers depends on the
`
`number of slots. Ex. 2,’338 Patent at 8:24-25. For example, if the post has six slots, six
`
`engagement fingers would be formed. Id. at 8:25-27. Moreover, the specification states that the
`
`engagement fingers are resilient in the radial directions (e.g., radially inward and outward). Id. at
`
`8:28-30. For all these reasons, Corning’s construction of “engagement fingers” under Phillips is
`
`well-supported by the specification which is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582; see also Baxter Dec. ¶¶ 36-41.
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`8
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 15 of 42
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GL3-[RE FFEI@d 10/31/16 Page 15 of 42
`
`2.
`
`The Invention Disclosure and Related ’053 Patent Confirm that the
`
`Invention Was Slottin the Post or Nut to Create Resilient
`
`Engagement Fingers.
`
`Additional evidence further supports Coming’s constnlction. Notably, in the Invention
`
`
`
`Disclosure for we
`
`and
`
`Ex. 4, at PPC_CGVI0005469-70 (emphasis added). Thus, the inventor believed that the resilient
`
`“fmgers” in his invention were created by forming slots through the post or nut.
`
`This is confnmed by the specification and claims of the related ’053 Patent, which is
`
`incorporated by reference i11to the specification of the ’338 Patent. Ex. 5, ’338 Patent at 1:7-10.
`
`Similar to the slotted post depicted and described in the ’338 Patent, the ’053 Patent depicts and
`
`describes a nut with slots at one end that form resilient “engagement fmgers,” as shown, for
`
`example, in Figure 4 of the ’053 Patent:
`
`Slots (-xtcnding through
`entire depth of nut
`
`
`
`fingers
`
`'_
`
`_
`
`-»«
`/
`
`3,
`
`F.ngagement
`
`Id. at Fig. 4 (annotated); see also id. at Figs. 1-3 (engagement fmgers labeled 135). The ’053
`
`Patent teaches that the “engagement fmgers” are portions of the nut “separated, or spaced apait,
`
`EAS'I\l34302454_7
`
`9
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 16 of 42
`
`
`
`by slots running axially through nut” and are “resilient in the radial directions.” Id. at 7:65-8:12;
`
`Ex. 3, Baxter Dec. ¶¶ 42-49. Thus, in both patents, PPC used the term “engagement fingers” to
`
`describe portions of the post/nut that are formed by creating slots through the post/nut that
`
`extend through the entire depth of the post/nut so that the engagement fingers are made resilient.
`
`Ex. 3, Baxter Dec. ¶ 50. This further supports Corning’s construction under Phillips. See, e.g.,
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (using information
`
`contained in figures and specification of patent incorporated by reference into asserted patent to
`
`construe claims).
`
`3.
`
`The ’338 Patent Prosecution History Shows that the Examiner and the
`Applicant Interpreted the Claims to Require a Slotted Post.
`The prosecution history of the ’338 Patent also supports Corning’s construction. See
`
`Baxter Dec. ¶¶ 51-59. During prosecution, the Examiner treated the invention claimed in the
`
`’338 Patent as requiring a post with slots that extend through the entire thickness of the wall of
`
`the post. In an Office Action, the Examiner rejected all the claims of the ’338 Patent as obvious
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 to Bence et al. (“Bence”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,979,911 to
`
`Spencer (“Spencer”). Ex. 7, 05/31/11 OA at 2. The Examiner stated that Bence “substantially
`
`discloses the claimed invention except for flanged post 104, 106 being slotted.” Id. As can be
`
`seen in Figure 2 of Bence, which is an exploded view of the connector disclosed in Bence, the
`
`post 104 has a flange 106 and does not have any slots or other openings at the flanged end:
`
`EAST\134302454.7
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP Document 42 Filed 10/31/16 Page 17 of 42
`
`
`
`Ex. 8, Bence, Fig. 2; Ex. 3, Baxter Dec. ¶ 52. The Examiner found that “Spencer discloses
`
`slotted post 1.” Ex. 7, 05/31/11 OA at 2. Figures 1 and 3 of Spencer depict a post (referred to as
`
`a “collet”) with slots extending radially through the entire thicknes