Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 1 of 45
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POLAROID CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No. 06-738 (SLR)
PLAINTIFF POLAROID CORP.'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Julia Heaney (#3052) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] [email protected] (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiff Polaroid Corporation OF COUNSEL: Russell E. Levine, P.C. C. Graham Gerst G. Courtney Holohan Michelle W. Skinner David W. Higer Maria A. Meginnes KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 861-2000 January 11, 2008
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 2 of 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .........................................1 ELECTRONIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGY...........................................1 A. B. III. Background to the Technology................................................................................1 The '381 Patent's Solution to Lost Contrast............................................................3
THE LAW OF PATENT CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................7 A. B. C. Construing Claims as One of Skill in the Art ..........................................................7 Claim Construction Begins With Intrinsic Evidence...............................................7 Construction of Means-Plus-Function Claims.........................................................8
IV.
CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE CLAIM TERMS FOR THE '381 PATENT .....................10 A. Construction of Claim 1.........................................................................................10 1. The Preamble .............................................................................................11 a. This preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. ....................11 b. If construed, the preamble terms should be construed in accordance with the intrinsic evidence. .........................................13 (1) "continuously enhancing"..................................................13 (2) "electronic information signals" ........................................13 (3) "electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals" ..........................15 (4) "each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values"...................................................17 "Means for Averaging . . ."........................................................................19 a. The function ...................................................................................20 b. The words used to describe the claimed function..........................20 c. The structure ..................................................................................22 "Means for Selecting . . . and for Subsequently Transforming . . ."..........22 a. The function ...................................................................................25 b. The words used to describe the claimed function..........................25 c. The structure ..................................................................................26 The function ...............................................................................................31 The structure ..............................................................................................31 The Preamble .............................................................................................33 The First and Second Claim Elements.......................................................33
2.
3.
B.
Construction of Claim 3.........................................................................................29 1. 2.
C.
Construction of Claim 7.........................................................................................32 1. 2.
i
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 3 of 45
3. D. V.
The Third Claim Element ..........................................................................35
Construction of Claim 9.........................................................................................37
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................37
ii
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 4 of 45
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 467 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 8 Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 15, 17 Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 12 B. Braun Med., Inc v Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 12 Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co v Altek Sys, 132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................... 10 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 15 C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998)......................................................................................... 14 Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v Coolsaving.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................... 16 Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 8 Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F 3.d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998).................................................................................. 11, 13 CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 9 Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 11 Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 9 IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 15 Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d. 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................ 7, 14, 15, 16
iii
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 5 of 45
Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 10 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................... 11, 12, 24, 29 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................. 7 Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)...................................................................... 11, 12, 13, 32 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 7, 8 Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 9, 10 Rexnord Corp v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d. 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................ 19, 37, 40 Southwall Tech. Inc., v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................... 19, 37, 40 Storage Technology Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 10 Tehrani v. Hamilton Med., Inc., 331 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................... 9, 18 TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am.), Inc., v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 25 Varco, L.P. v. Pason Systems USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 9 Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Intern. Ltd., 66 Fed.Appx. 853 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................. 12, 24 Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................... 7, 10 Vivid Tech. v. ASE, 200 F. 3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999).......................................................................................... 39 Statutes 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 6......................................................................................................................... 8
iv
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 6 of 45
Other Authorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter ....................................................................................... 2 MCGRAW HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS (4th Ed. 1989) ................................................................................................................... 22 THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2d Ed. Unabridged 1987)................................................................................................. 25 Wayne Niblack, AN INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING (Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. 1986)............................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 26
v
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 7 of 45
I.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Polaroid Corporation ("Polaroid") brought this action against Hewlett-Packard
Company ("HP") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,829,381 (the "'381 patent") (Ex. 1). In accordance with the Amended Scheduling Order, the parties have exchanged contentions regarding constructions of the disputed claim terms and submitted a Joint Claim Construction Statement. (D.I. 90). Polaroid's proposed constructions are based on their plain and ordinary meaning as used in the claims and the specification. They are consistent, claim to claim, and cover the
invention's full scope, rather than just a preferred embodiment. II. ELECTRONIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGY The asserted claims of the '381 patent relate to the enhancement of digital images. The patented system and method bolster the contrast in regions of an image where otherwise it would be hard to discern contrast, such as very bright or dark areas. The patented invention only bolsters contrast in the regions that need it, while leaving the rest alone. It accomplishes this by examining information about points in the image, or "pixels," as well as the collected information on other pixels in a region around that pixel, and analyzing the data using a mathematical algorithm to determine the optimal pixel value. A. Background of the Technology
Digital devices, like printers or scanners, capture images by sensing scene light that hits photosensitive arrays, which at the time of the invention might contain 500,000 pixels, but today
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 8 of 45
contain more. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat. 3:614; 2024)1. Each pixel then generates data about how much light hit it. The information about each pixel's location and level of light captured is then used to define the image. (Id., 1:3537; 2:6368). Pixels, by themselves, only capture the level of light; they cannot distinguish color. In order to generate color images, filters are laid over the pixels in a particular pattern, so that only one color of light hits each pixel. (Id., 3:2529). One common filter pattern is limited to red, green, and blue light, and the resulting signals from the pixels then measure the amount of either red, green, or blue light hitting that individual pixel. (Id., 3:2034). An example of such a filter pattern, and how it works, is shown below2:
If filters are not used, the pixels merely measure pure brightness, sometimes called "luminance," and the image will be in black and white. Ex. 2, Wayne Niblack, AN INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING 25 (Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. 1986). Or, the color electronic
1 Citations to the '381 patent follow the standard that the first number references the column of the patent and the second number references the line within the column. For example, 3:614 refers to column 3, lines 6 through 14. 2 See
2
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 9 of 45
information signal may be converted to a luminance electronic information signal using an equation. (Ex. 1, '318 Pat., 3:3843). Another way of characterizing pixel information that is not implicated in this case is "chrominance" which is essentially the amount of color at a particular pixel, rather than the level of light received. (Id., 3:3538; Ex. 2, Wayne Niblack, AN INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING at 32). In practice it is difficult to capture the wide range of light seen by human beings using electronic equipment. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 1:2630). When images are subsequently retrieved from the storage media for viewing or printing, detail that was visible in the original scene is sometimes lost. (Id., 1:3035). This happens because the original scene light data is compressed to fit the specifications that the equipment allows. (Id., 1:3035). A result can be lost detail, or contrast, in regions where different elements have a similar level of light. (Id., 1:3540). B. The '381 Patent's Solution to Lost Contrast
The invention disclosed in the '381 patent improves the contrast in regions of digital images where general light levels are very high or very low, making it difficult to distinguish details in those regions. (Id., '381 Pat., 2:5762). The invention increases minor variations in the light level of various features in those regions, which increases the contrast between those specific features and allows them to stand out. (Id.) The Summary of the Invention section discloses the general invention. Electronic
information signals corresponding to pixels are first sent to the patented system. (Id., 3:16; Fig. 1). The invention then calculates an average signal for a pixel in an area around a particular pixel. (Id., 3:5961). The patent teaches that a low pass filter or a block average can be used to average the select group of pixels. (Id., 3:6167). A low pass filter, for example, is known as a "smoothing filter" in the art of digital imaging processing. Ex. 2, Wayne Niblack, AN
INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING at 69. It reduces noise, detail, or "busyness" in
3
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 10 of 45
an image by calculating a variety of averages, including a weighted average, for groups of signals. Id. at 7781. Block averaging, on the other hand, calculates a simple arithmetic average for the group of signals. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 3:674:4). The invention then uses mathematical algorithms that, where appropriate, change the value of that individual pixel to increase the difference between the value of that single electronic information signal and the average value of the signals around it. (Id., 4:2665). The invention then repeats the same process for the next pixel, using a slightly different group of pixels for the averaging because the location of the central pixel has changed. (Id., 3:6167). In that way, the invention increases the contrast in regions of an image with either high or low scene light. (Id., 4:2665). Figure 1 illustrates the patented invention, providing the detailed algorithms:
The electronic information signals are received at YINPUT. (Id., 3:16; Fig. 1). Each electronic information signal corresponds to a particular pixel in the image. (Id., 1:682:1). The location of the pixel that is being transformed determines which electronic information signals are averaged. (Id., 3:5961; 674:4). That average is then used to calculate a value for
"gamma" () that will be used to select the amount of contrast enhancement:
4
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 11 of 45
= (1+C)(Av/M-1) (Id., Fig. 1; 4:2633). In this equation, C is a constant. (Id., 5:1921; Fig. 3). Av is the average electronic information signal. (Id., 3:6364). And M is any value within the dynamic range of the electronic information signals. (Id., 4:3944). These factors combine to determine how much contrast enhancement to apply, which represents. (Id., 5:815.) After is calculated for a particular signal, that signal must be transformed. The
transforming algorithm is shown below, with playing a role to determine how much change occurs: YOUT = YMAX(YIN/YMAX) (Id., Fig. 1; 8:5665). In this equation, YOUT is the value of the transformed electronic
information signal. (Id., 4:675:3). YMAX is the highest value of the dynamic range for the electronic information signals. (Id., 4:6668). And YIN is the value of the electronic information signal received at YINPUT. (Id., 4:5961). The graph of these algorithms illustrates how the invention works and is shown in Figure 2:
5
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 12 of 45
In Figure 2, will be close to 2 when the region is brightly lit. (Id., 5:2228). What this figure shows, for example, is that when YINPUT is in a bright (high value) region and has a high value close to the maximum (BIN), the output value will be reduced (to BOUT) to draw a greater contrast with other objects in the brightly-lit region. The opposite is true in dark areas ( = 0.5), where a low-value YINPUT (AIN) will be increased in value (to AOUT) to distinguish it from the low-value surrounding pixels. The Description of the Preferred Embodiment section of the specification then details one possible embodiment of the invention. In that embodiment, the color valued electronic
information signals are converted from color to luminance values before processing. (Id., 6:59 60). And a specific circuit, shown in Figure 4, physically implements the algorithms:
The equations in Figure 4, however, are slightly altered, a logarithm having been taken of the algorithms previously described. The inventors used logarithms because they are easier to implement in circuitry. (Id., 7:2739). The Patent concludes with 13 claims, of which 13 and 79 are at issue. Claims 13 teach an apparatus for accomplishing this regional image enhancement, while claims 79 teach the method for doing so.
6
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 13 of 45
III.
THE LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION A. Construing Claims as One of Skill in the Art
The law of claim construction is well established. The claims of a patent define its scope, and courts interpret patent claims as a matter of law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d. 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 387 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). Claim terms usually receive their ordinary and customary meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim to have on the filing date of the patent application. Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. B. Claim Construction Begins With Intrinsic Evidence
For claim construction purposes, a court presumes that one of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with the patent's intrinsic evidence, i.e. the patent claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Thus, claim construction begins with consideration of the intrinsic evidence. Id. Review of the intrinsic evidence begins with the claims themselves, which provide guidance as to the meaning of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. For example, the context in which a term is used and the similarities and/or differences with other claims in the same patent can be instructive in claim interpretation. Id. In addition to the claim language itself, courts look to the patent's specification when construing a patent's claims. A patent's
specification is often the best guide to understanding the meaning of a disputed claim term. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 467 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
7
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 14 of 45
"[I]t is axiomatic, however, that claims, not the specification embodiments, define the scope of the claims." Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). The court, therefore, must take care in its analysis when locating in the written description the context for a disputed term, not to import a limitation from that written description. Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The written description merely provides enlightenment, not limitations. Varco, L.P. v. Pason Systems USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); Tehrani v. Hamilton Med., Inc., 331 F.3d 1355, 136263 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the lower court improperly imported a limitation from the specification when it interpreted a claim to describe "automatic measuring" when the claim only stated "measuring"). Where the meaning of the claims is clear from these intrinsic sources, the court should not rely upon "extrinsic" sources of evidence, those outside the patent and prosecution history, to arrive at a claim construction that is at odds with the intrinsic evidence. Playtex Prods., Inc., 400 F.3d at 908 n.1; Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co v Altek Sys, 132 F.3d 701, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. Where ambiguity remains after a review of the intrinsic evidence, however, a court may consider extrinsic evidence to aid the claim construction process. Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 832 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583). C. Construction of Means-Plus-Function Claims
Claims 1 and 3 include elements with the introductory phrase "means for." The parties agree that these elements are means-plus-function elements. Construction of those elements, therefore, is governed by 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 6.
8
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 15 of 45
When the patent drafter uses the means-plus-function format for a claim term, the limitation "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6; Chiuminatta Concrete
Concepts, Inc. v Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F 3.d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Section 112, ¶ 6 restricts the coverage of literal claim language because it "rules out the possibility that any and every means which performs the functions specified in the claim literally satisfies that limitation." Chiuminatta, 145 F. 3d at 1309. The first step in analyzing a claim written in means-plus-function form is to identify the claimed function. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Chiuminatta, 145 F.3d at 1308. The court may not construe a means-plus-function limitation by "adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim." Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The function of a meansplus-function element typically follows the language "means for." Lockheed Martin Corp., 324 F.3d at 1319; Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Intern. Ltd., 66 Fed.Appx. 853, 855 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Second, the Court should construe the meaning of the words used to describe the claimed function, using ordinary principles of claim construction. Lockheed Martin Corp., 324 F.3d at 1319. The final step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to look to the written description to identify the structure corresponding to the function. Id. (citing Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Structure, material, or acts are deemed corresponding only where the "specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim." B. Braun Med., Inc v. Abbott Labs,
9
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 16 of 45
124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). The corresponding structure must actually perform the recited function, not merely enable the pertinent structure to operate as intended. Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Micro Chem., Inc., 194 F.3d at 125758; Chiuminatta, 145 F.3d at 130809. IV. CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS Polaroid asserts claims 13 and 79 of the '381 patent. A summary chart of the terms to be construed and Polaroid's proposed constructions is attached as Exhibit 3. The disputed terms will be discussed in the claims in which they first appear, rather than repeatedly construed every time they appear. Each term, however, should be construed consistently as it is repeated in other claims, unlike the position HP takes with its constructions. A. Construction of Claim 1
Claim 1 consists of a preamble and two means-plus-function claim elements: 1. A system for continuously enhancing electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals, each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values and corresponding to one of a plurality of succeeding pixels which collectively define an image, said system comprising: means for averaging electronic information signals corresponding to selected pluralities of pixels and providing an average electronic information signal for each said plurality of pixels so averaged; and means for selecting one of a plurality of different transfer functions for the electronic information signal for each of the succeeding pixels in a manner whereby each transfer function is selected as a function of the electronic information signal for one pixel and the average electronic information signal for the select plurality of pixels containing said one pixel and for subsequently transforming the electronic information signal corresponding to each pixel by the transfer function selected for that pixel wherein said selecting and transforming means further operates to select said transfer function as a function of the ratio of the
10
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 17 of 45
value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals such that the ratio increases in correspondence with the increase in the value of the average electronic information signal. Each of these three parts of the claim will be addressed separately. 1. The Preamble
The preamble of Claim 1 reads: A system for continuously enhancing electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals, each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values and corresponding to one of a plurality of succeeding pixels which collectively define an image, said system comprising: Because this preamble does not limit the scope of the claims, it should not be addressed during claim construction. a. This preamble does not limit the scope of the claim.
This Court should not construe the preamble because it is non-limiting and, therefore, is of no significance to the claim construction process. Federal Circuit law explains that preambles are generally non-limiting, particularly where they merely recite a purpose or intended use of the invention set forth in the body of the claim or do not give life, meaning and vitality to the claim. Innova, 381 F.3d at 1118; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A preamble does not give life, meaning and vitality to a claim if the body of the claim sets forth the complete invention. Innova, 381 F.3d at 1118; Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (phrase in preamble merely giving name to the structurally complete invention not limiting); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding preamble non-limiting because steps of claimed method performed the same way regardless of whether purpose described in preamble is achieved).
11
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 18 of 45
The Innova/Pure Water case provides an illustrative example of a non-limiting preamble. The preamble recited "[a] filter assembly for use with a bottle ... to simultaneously cap the neck or open end and filter liquid poured out of the bottle...." Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d at 1118. The court concluded that the preamble did not limit the claim because it merely stated the purpose or intended use of the claimed filter assembly -- filtering liquid poured out of the bottle -- while the ensuing claim elements set forth the complete invention. Id. Like the preamble at issue in Innova/Pure Water, Claim 1's preamble is non-limiting. The two claim elements that follow the preamble, the means for averaging signals and the means for selecting a transform function and then transforming the signal, set forth the complete invention. The preamble merely states the purpose for that invention -- enhancing electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals, each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values and corresponding to one of a plurality of succeeding pixels which collectively define an image. The way the preamble begins, "a system for," demonstrates that what the preamble describes is merely the purpose, or intended use, of the claimed invention. A further indication that the preamble merely describes the invention's purpose is that the invention would still work as intended even if the preamble were deleted. Where deletion of the preamble would not affect the invention's operation, that preamble is non-limiting. Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, deleting the preamble would not affect the invention's operation. The only requirements are the means for averaging and the means for selecting and transforming. The electronic information signals would still be averaged and appropriately transformed, regardless of the preamble's absence.
12
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 19 of 45
In short, the preamble adds nothing to this highly detailed claim and thus cannot be considered to give "life and meaning" to it. See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1118. The court in Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1371, reached this conclusion in dealing with a similarly non-limiting preamble, explaining that "[the preamble] is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation." Thus, because the preamble is not limiting, this Court should not construe the terms that are found solely in the preamble. b. If construed, the preamble terms should be construed in accordance with the intrinsic evidence.
If the Court concludes that the preamble is a limitation, it will need to construe four terms: (i) "continuously enhancing"; (ii) "electronic information signals"; (iii) "electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals"; and (iv) "each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values". The first, third, and fourth terms only appear in the Claim 1 preamble, and so if the preamble is non-limiting, they would not be construed. But the second, "electronic information signals," does appear later in Claim 1 and requires construction regardless. (1)
Term "continuously enhancing"
"continuously enhancing"
Construction "successively transforming"
The parties agree that, if the Court holds that the preamble is limiting, then "continuously enhancing" is properly construed as "successively transforming." (2)
Term "electronic information signals"
"electronic information signals"
Polaroid's Construction HP's Construction "signal(s) providing luminance pixel information
"signals providing pixel information, such as color, luminance, or chrominance values"
13
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 20 of 45
"Electronic information signals" should be construed to mean "signals providing pixel information, such as color, luminance, or chrominance values." The difference between this construction and what HP argues is that HP seeks to limit the signals to signals providing luminance information only. construction. The claim language itself establishes that any type of electronic information signal can be an "electronic information signal," not just a luminance signal. That is why claim language refers to "electronic information signals," not "luminance signals." If the inventors had intended to limit their invention to luminance values, they could have done so by using that term instead of the more general "electronic information signals." See Tehrani, 331 F.3d at 136263 (holding that use of general term "measuring" in claim precluded construction as more specific "automatic measuring"). The specification supports this construction by discussing different types of electronic information signals other than mere luminance values, such as color values. The specification describes using arrays of pixels that collect scene light. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 3:118). Each pixel then generates a signal based on the brightness of light measured by that pixel. (Id., 3:1318). The pixels, however, just measure brightness. For the signals to correspond to color values, a filter is laid over the pixel array, allowing only light of a particular colorfor example red, green, and blueto reach the pixel. (Id., 3:2532). The specification, therefore, states that "electronic information signals" can be color values: "[t]he electronic information signal value for each pixel in this arrangement thus corresponds to a particular color." (Id., 3:3334). After explicitly including color values within the definition of "electronic information signal," the specification goes on to explain that in the preferred embodiment, those color values But the claim language and specification compel Polaroid's
14
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 21 of 45
may be converted to luminance and chrominance values. (Id., 3:3538). Even under the preferred embodiment, therefore, "electronic information signals" encompass more than just luminance values. Throughout the remainder of the discussion of the preferred embodiment, the inventors consistently include the word "luminance" when referring to luminance values, rather than the more general "electronic information signals." For example: The image defining luminance electronic information signals are thereafter averaged for selected pluralities of pixels . . . . *** The average value for the image defining luminance electronic information signal (Av) is thereafter provided to a gamma determining circuit 14 . . . . (Id.; 3:5961; 4:2627) (emphasis added). This usage demonstrates that the inventors were specific with the term "luminance" when they intended to be. But they left that term out of the claims, and the Court should not import it through claim construction. (3)
Term "electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals"
"electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals"
Polaroid's Construction HP's Construction "an uninterrupted stream of received luminance image data [pixels] defining an original image to be recorded"
"electronic data received in a successive series of signals providing pixel information, such as color, luminance, or chrominance values"
Because this phrase incorporates the term "electronic information signals" construed immediately above, the proper construction should incorporate the construction of that term as well. Claim terms should be construed consistently throughout the claim. Rexnord Corp v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d. 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Southwall Tech. Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that "[t]he fact that we must look to other
15
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 22 of 45
claims using the same term when interpreting a term in an asserted claim mandates that the term be interpreted consistently in all claims"). Polaroid provides this type of consistent construction, directly substituting its construction for "electronic information" signal in this phrase. As a result, this phrase encompasses "signals providing pixel information, such as color, luminance, or chrominance values," rather than just luminance values, as HP proposes. The only remaining dispute with respect to this phrase, therefore, centers on the word "continuous." Again, the proper construction should incorporate constructions used elsewhere. Because the parties agreed above that "continuously" in the preamble means "successively," that construction should be incorporated in construing the word "continuous" in the preamble as well. Polaroid's construction does so. Moreover, this construction of "a successive series" is consistent with the claim language. The very preamble containing this phrase also explains that the data comes from "succeeding pixels." The second claim element then emphasizes that this is a successive process, where each pixel gets evaluated and transformed, one after another: ...selecting one of a plurality of different transfer functions for the electronic information signal for each of the succeeding pixels in a manner whereby each transfer function is selected as a function of the electronic information signal for one pixel and the average electronic information signal for the select plurality of pixels containing said one pixel and for subsequently transforming the electronic information signal corresponding to each pixel.... (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., Cl. 1)(emphasis added). As this language demonstrates, the process is one that operates successively, and that is the way one of skill in the art would interpret it. Construing "continuous stream" as "successive series" is also consistent with the specification. In the Summary of the Invention section, the inventors emphasized the successive nature of their invention as operating on "image data received in a continuous stream wherein each signal corresponds to one of a plurality of succeeding pixels." (Id., 1:662:1). And each
16
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 23 of 45
time the inventors described a "continuous stream," they referred to "succeeding" pixels or "succeeding" electronic information signals: · "electronic image data received in a continuous stream of electronic information signals, each signal of which corresponds to one of the plurality of succeeding pixels . . ." (Id., 2:6367) (emphasis added); "there is shown a block diagram for the system of this invention in which a continuous stream of electronic information signals each corresponding to one of a plurality of succeeding pixels from the recorded image . . ." (Id., 3:15) (emphasis added); and "gamma changes continuously in correspondence with the average values from the continuous stream of succeeding image defining luminance electronic information signals . . ." (Id., 5:912) (emphasis added).
·
·
Thus, based on the claim language and the specification, "continuous stream" should be construed as "successive series." (4)
Term "each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values"
"each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values"
Polaroid's Construction HP's Construction "each received pixel has an associated luminance value that lies within a predetermined group of luminance values"
"each signal being associated with a value that lies within a range of possible values bounded by definite limits"
The first substantive dispute between the parties is the same as with "electronic information signals": whether to construe the term "value" generally, or to limit it to luminance values as HP proposes. But the claim language and the specification support the more general construction. As with "electronic information signal," the inventors used the word "value" in the claim, not "luminance value." Moreover, as already noted, the specification explicitly refers to color values as well as luminance values:
17
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 24 of 45
· ·
The electronic information signal value for each pixel in this arrangement thus corresponds to a particular color. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 3:3334). The analog luminance electronic signal values for each pixel element of the photosensitive array for the example herein described are digitized to an 8-bit binary number.... (Id., 3:4346).
Indeed, as these examples demonstrate, when the inventors intended a particular type of value, they specified it. Viewing both the general term in the claim, therefore, and the flexible use of the term in the specification, one of skill in the art would not understand "value" to be limited to luminance. The second substantive dispute between the parties concerns "within a determinate dynamic range of values" in the phrase. The intrinsic evidence supports the construction "within a range of possible values bounded by definite limits." The plain and ordinary meaning of "determinate" is "having defined limits." Ex. 4, MCGRAW HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 519 (4th Ed. 1989). Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language is to require that the signal lie within a range of values bounded by definite limits. There is nothing in the specification that requires the Court to stray from the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language. Rather, the specification supports Polaroid's
construction that the signal be bounded by definite limits. It discloses that the dynamic range has a lower limit of zero and an upper limit of 255 for an 8-bit system. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 3:4648). HP conceded that "within a determinate dynamic range of values" requires a value that lies within a predetermined group of values. But HP attempts to narrow this claim element to a group of luminance values. As explained above, such a narrowing limitation is in direct
contradiction to the claims and the patent specification. Thus, the proper construction of "each signal having a value within a determinate dynamic range of values" is "each signal being associated with a value that lies within a range of possible values bounded by definite limits."
18
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 25 of 45
2.
Term
"Means for Averaging . . ."
Polaroid's Construction Functionaveraging electronic information signals corresponding to selected pluralities of pixels and providing an average electronic information signal for each said plurality of pixels so averaged Terms used to describe the function: "averaging" should be construed to mean "calculating an intermediate value for" "average" should be construed to mean "of calculated intermediate value" "electronic information signals" should be construed to mean "signals providing pixel information, such as color, luminance, or chrominance values" "average electronic information signal" should be construed to mean "signal providing pixel information, such as a color, luminance, or chrominance value of calculated intermediate value." Structurea low pass filter or block average and equivalents thereof. Structurea block averager 12 with a buffer memory that takes luminance as an input and outputs an average luminance value that is correlated to each pixel in the block, and equivalents thereof. HP's Construction Functionproviding an average for selected pixel values around one pixel, where the average is correlated to each pixel making up the average
"means for averaging electronic information signals corresponding to selected pluralities of pixels and providing an average electronic information signal for each said plurality of pixels so averaged"
Terms used to describe the function: "averaging"taking an arithmetic mean of "average"an arithmetic mean "electronic information signals"signal(s) providing luminance pixel information "average electronic information signal"No construction necessary. Alternatively, the average of the electronic information signals
The parties agree that this element is a means-plus-function claim element, but disagree about the function, the meaning of the terms describing that function, and structure implicated by
19
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 26 of 45
this claim element.
Polaroid's construction of this means-plus-function claim element is
consistent with the law concerning such means-plus-function claims and the intrinsic evidence. a. The function
The function of this means-plus-function element is "averaging electronic information signals corresponding to selected pluralities of pixels and providing an average electronic information signal for each said plurality of pixels so averaged," which is the language that immediately follows "means for." The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that the function in a means-plus-function claim is defined by the language that follows the "means for..." clause. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp., 324 F.3d at 1319 (holding the recited function follows the phrase "means for"); Versa Corp., 66 Fed.Appx. at 855 (holding the claimed function follows the language "means for"). Here, the language that follows the "means for" clause is "averaging electronic information signals corresponding to selected pluralities of pixels and providing an average electronic information signal for each said plurality of pixels so averaged." That is therefore the function. HP's attempt to rewrite the function, on the other hand, is legally improper. b. The words used to describe the claimed function
Besides "electronic information signal," which was discussed above, there are three terms used to describe the claimed function that should be construed: (i) "averaging"; (ii) "average"; and (iii) "average electronic information signal". The proper construction of "averaging" is "calculating an intermediate value for." Similarly, the proper construction of "average" is "of calculated intermediate value." And the proper construction of "average electronic information signal" is "signals providing pixel information, such as a color, luminance, or chrominance value of calculated intermediate value." These constructions are consistent with both the claim language and the specification, which
20
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 27 of 45
allow for "average" to encompass its full meaning, rather than limiting it to only an "arithmetic mean," as HP proposes. The claim language does not limit the claimed "average" to a particular type of average, such as an arithmetic mean. Instead, the claim uses the general term "average." (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 7:67; 8:2). A court construing claim terms may not unduly limit its reading of those terms. TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am.), Inc., v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, "a patentee is entitled to a definition that encompasses all consistent meanings" of the term. Id. All consistent meanings of the term "average" include more than an arithmetic mean. An average can also be a median, mode, or a weighted average. Although the result of these averages vary, they all are a calculated intermediate value. This construction is consistent with the contemporaneous dictionary definition, which defined "average" in the mathematical context as "a quantity intermediate to a set of quantities." See Ex. 5, THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY
OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE 142 (2d Ed. Unabridged 1987). That definition demonstrates that
there are different types of averages. For example, a grade-point average in school is not typically a simple arithmetic mean, but rather a weighted average that constitutes a calculated intermediate value. The specification precludes any narrower construction by describing an embodiment of an average broader than an arithmetic mean. The specification teaches that a low-pass filter may be used to calculate the average. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 3:6162). Low pass filters at the time calculated different types of averages, such as weighted mean, mode, and median. Ex 2, Wayne Niblack, AN INTRODUCTION
TO
DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING at 7781.3
Thus, "averaging"
3 The Niblack reference uses the term "average" to refer to weighted mean, mode, and median. See Ex 2, Wayne Niblack, INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING at 77.
21
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 28 of 45
should be construed to mean "calculating an intermediate value for." "Average" should be construed to mean "of calculated intermediate value." And "average electronic information signal" should be construed to mean "signals providing pixel information, such as a color, luminance, or chrominance value of calculated intermediate value." c. The structure
The structure associated with this function is a low pass filter or block average and equivalents thereof. (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 3:6168). The specification clearly associates both a low pass filter and a block average with the claimed function: The averager 12 may comprise a low pass filter as is well known in the art which operates to provide an average value electronic information signal Av corresponding to the average luminance values for a selected window or plurality of pixels that continuously changes in correspondence with each succeeding pixel value to be enhanced. Alternatively, the averager may comprise a block average in which a selected group or block of pixel values is averaged to provide one average value electronic information signal Av in correspondence with each pixel value of that group to be enhanced. (Id., 6:617:4) (emphasis added). HP's effort to limit the structure solely to a block average ignores this clear statement. A low pass filter unambiguously is a corresponding structure. 3.
Term "means for selecting one of a plurality of different transfer functions for the electronic information signal for each of the succeeding pixels . . . and for subsequently transforming the electronic information signal corresponding to each pixel by the transfer function selected for that pixel wherein said selecting and transforming means further operates to select said transfer function as a function of the ratio
"Means for Selecting . . . and for Subsequently Transforming . . ."
Polaroid's Construction Function"selecting one of a plurality of different transfer functions for the electronic information signal for each of the succeeding pixels whereby each transfer function is selected as a function of the electronic information signal for one pixel and the average electronic information signal for the select plurality of pixels containing said one pixel and for subsequently transforming the electronic HP's Construction Functionselecting a transfer function for each incoming pixel based on the pixel value and its corresponding average electronic information signal, and based on the result of dividing a first existing data value representing the average electronic information signal by a second existing data value representing the dynamic range of the average electronic information signals.
22
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 29 of 45
Term of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals such that the ratio increases in correspondence with the increase in the value of the average electronic information signal."
Polaroid's Construction information signal corresponding to each pixel by the transfer function selected for that pixel wherein said selecting and transforming means further operates to select said transfer function as a function of the ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals such that the ratio increases in correspondence with the increase in the value of the average electronic information signal." Terms used to describe the function: "transfer function" should be construed to mean function that transforms an input signal. "electronic information signal" should be construed to mean "signal providing pixel information, such as a color, luminance, or chrominance value" "ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals" should be construed as "ratio of that calculated intermediate value over a value that lies within the range of possible values" "dynamic range of the electronic information signals" should be construed to mean "value that lies within the range of possible values." "average electronic information signal" should be construed to mean "signal providing pixel information, such as a color,
HP's Construction
Terms used to describe the function: "transfer function"function that transforms an input signal. "electronic information signals"signal(s) providing luminance pixel information "ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals" No construction necessary. Alternatively, the result of dividing a first existing data value representing the average electronic information signal by a second existing data value representing they dynamic range of the average electronic information signal. "dynamic range of the electronic information signals"an integer representing the number of possible pixel values; for an 8-bit system, 256. "average electronic information signal"No construction necessary. Alternatively, the
23
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 30 of 45
Term
Polaroid's Construction luminance, or chrominance value of calculated intermediate value" Structure YOUT = YMAX(Yin/YMAX), where = (1 + C)(Av/M - 1), where Yout is the transformed signal providing pixel information, such as a color, luminance, or chrominance value, YMAX is the highest value of the dynamic range, Yin is the input signal providing pixel information, such as a color, luminance, or chrominance value, C is a chosen number, Av is a calculated intermediate value, and M is any value within the dynamic range, and equivalents thereof.
HP's Construction average of the electronic information signals Structurenone (indefinite). Alternatively, a gamma determining circuit 14 containing a multiplier circuit 18, a combining circuit 20, a second combiner circuit 22, a log circuit 24, a multiplier circuit 26 and a antilogarithmic determining circuit 28all arranged according to Fig. 4, which computes = (1 + C)(Av/M - 1), where Av is average luminance input, C is a constant and M equals one half of the dynamic range and the transfer function imposing circuit 16 containing a logarithm determining circuit 30, a combiner circuit 32, a multiplier circuit 34, a second combiner circuit 36 and an antilogarithm determining circuit 38all arranged according to Fig. 4, which computes an output luminance: YOUT = YMAX(Yin/YMAX), where YOUT is the output luminance value, YMAX is the maximum value in the dynamic range (255), YIN is the input pixel value, and is the "means for selecting a transfer function" and equivalents.
The parties agree that this second element of Claim 1 is a means-plus-function element but again dispute the function, the meaning of the terms describing that function, and the corresponding structure. Polaroid's construction of this means-plus-function claim element is consistent with the law concerning means-plus-function claims, and the intrinsic evidence compels Polaroid's construction of the terms used to describe that function.
24
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 31 of 45
a.
The function
The description that follows the phrase "means for..." defines the function of this meansplus-function claim element and includes both selecting and transforming. See Lockheed Martin Corp., 324 F.3d at 1319 (holding the claimed function follows the language "means for). As already explained, Federal Circuit law dictates that the language following that phrase is what describes the function in a means-plus-function claim element. HP's effort to re-write the function ignores the law. b. The words used to describe the claimed function
Two of the terms used to describe the function are discussed above -- "electronic information signal" and "average electronic information signal" -- and they should be construed consistently here. That leaves three terms to construe: (i) "transfer function"; (ii) "ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals"; and (iii) "dynamic range of the electronic information signals". As a threshold matter, the parties agree that "transfer function" should be construed to mean "function that transforms an input signal". With respect to the other two terms, the first, "ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals," includes the second, "dynamic range of the electronic information signals," and that is the only time the second phrase appears. It is only necessary, therefore, to construe the first phrase. One of skill in the art would construe "ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals" as "ratio of that calculated intermediate value over a value that lies within the range of possible values." This construction is consistent with the construction of the term "average electronic information signal" in the claim language discussed above. The average is a calculated intermediate value.
25
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 32 of 45
And the claim term "ratio" requires just thata ratio with both a numerator and a denominator. The dispute between the parties centers on what that denominator in the ratio should be. The specification clearly demonstrates that the ratio being claimed is the "ratio of the calculated intermediate value over a value that lies within the range of possible values." The only ratio the specification describes is one where the average electronic information signal is divided by a number, M. (Id., 4:3136). The specification goes on to explain that "M may be selected to be any value within the dynamic range of the electronic information signals...." (Id., 4:3942). This ratio is then represented numerous times throughout the patent as: AV/M (Id., Fig. 1, 4:32, 6:56, 8:47, 10:22). Thus, one of skill in the art would understand that the denominator in this ratio could be any value within the range of possible values. Accordingly, "ratio of the value of the average electronic information signal to the dynamic range of the electronic information signals" should be construed to mean "ratio of that calculated intermediate value over a value that lies within the range of possible values." As a result, if the Court chooses to separately construe "dynamic range of the electronic information signals," the proper construction is "value that lies within the range of possible values." c. The structure
The corresponding structure for accomplishing the function is the algorithm YOUT = YMAX(Yin/YMAX), where = (1 + C)(Av/M - 1), and equivalents thereof. The specification teaches that gamma () is calculated using the following algorithm: = (1 + C)(Av/M - 1). (Ex. 1, '381 Pat., 4:2634; Fig. 1). According to the specification, gamma is then directed to the algorithm for YOUT to transform the electronic information signals according to the transfer function selected. (Id., 4:5665; Fig. 1). Figure 1 of the patent shows how the claimed system enhances electronic information signals using these algorithms:
26
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 33 of 45
While HP initially contends that there is no disclosed structure, it concedes that if there is one, these equations are the appropriate place to look for that structure. Five disputes remain, however. One dispute between the parties is whether the structure implementing these algorithms is limited to the circuitry of the preferred embodiment shown in Figure 4 of the patent, or more generally to the system for implementing these algorithms, such as that shown in Figure 1 above. Patent law requires that the more general construction apply, because anything else would restrict the claim to the single preferred embodiment. The structure in a means-plusfunction claim is not limited to the preferred embodiment, but rather includes all disclosed structures and their equivalents. Micro Chem. Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The '381 patent specification demonstrates that the more general
construction applies, rather than the circuitry described as the preferred embodiment. Neither of the first two sections of the specification, the Background to the Invention nor the Summary of the Invention, discusses specific circuitry, or even mentions the word "circuit." Instead, the Summary of the Invention describes a "system" for enhancing images, without further limitation. (Ex. 1, '318 Pat., 1:6668). The specification then describes Figure 1 as "a block diagram showing the system for enhancing electronic image data in the manner of this invention," again without further limitation. (Id., 2:3941) (emphasis added).
27
Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR
Document 100
Filed 01/11/2008
Page 34 of 45
The circuitry in Figure 4 that HP points to, however, is only a preferred embodiment of the invention. The specification describes Figure 4 as only one possible system for
implementing the invention: "Figure 4 is a block diagram showing in substantially more detail a system for enhancing electronic image data of this invention in the manner of FIG. 1." (Id., 2:4850) (emphasis added). And the specification only discusses Figure 4 in the section titled "Description of the Preferred Embodiment." Moreover, the algorithms shown in Figure 4 are different from those shown in Figure 1, because they have been "converted ... by taking the logarithm on both sides of the aforementioned equations." (Id., 6: 4749). Thus, the circuitry in Figure 4 is merely the preferred embodiment, not the general structure for implementing the invention. As a matter of law, therefore, the construction should not limit the structure to Figure 4, but rather to the algorithms shown in Figure 1. The parties also dispute the construction of the variables YOUT, YIN, YMAX , and C contained in the algorithms. The parties agree that YOUT and YIN are the output and input signal values, respectively, but disagree about whether those values must be limited to luminance values only. As already explained during the construction of "electronic information signals," however, those signal values may include other values, like color, as well as luminance. Only the preferred embodiment is limited to luminance, and such a limited construction would be legally improper, as well as contrary to the way one of skill in the art would construe these variables. The parties also agree that the proper construction for YMAX is the highest value of the dynamic range in a particular system. But that dynamic range could be any value
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms