Document 441
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 1 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 2 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 3 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 4 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 5 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 6 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 1 of 29
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 2 of 29
tf
ft-'* pf
1
2 3 4 5
6 7
JEFFREY N. BROWN (CA SBN 105520) TERESA A. MACDONALD (CA SBN 217053) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Tel: (213)612-2500 Fax: (213)612-2501 ANN A. BYUN (CA SBN 161593) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (2Y5) 963-5000 Fax: (215)963-5001 ANTHONY C. ROTH (admittedpro hoc vice) NATHAN W. MCCUTCHEON (admitted pro hac vice) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington. DC 20004 Tel: (202)739-3000 Fax: (202)739-3001 ·
·
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., Plaintiff, Case No. CV 02-6775 CBM Case No. CV 03-2866 CBM Case No. CV 03-2884 CBM Case No. CV 03-2885 CBM Case No. CV 03-2886 CBM LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTJVS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF DATE: TIME: PLACE: Consuelo April 5,2004 3:1)0 PM Courtroom of the Honorabh B. Marshall
vs.
TATUNG CO. OF AMERICA, TATUNG COMPANY AND CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., Defendants.
LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., Plaintiff,
DOCKETED ON CM
vs.
JEAN COMPANY LTD., Defendant.
l-WA/2132293.2
r
BY
I22D04
.001
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
ȣ.
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 3 of 29
:j
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
*
LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., Plaintiff,
vs.
LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORP. and LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendants.
LG.PHIL1PS LCD CO., LTD., Plaintiff,
vs.
TPV TECHNOLOGY, LTD. and ENVISION PERIPHERALS, INC., Defendants. LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., Plaintiff,
vs.
VIEWSONIC CORP.. Defendant.
////.
////
mi
Illl
tin
Illl
Illl Illl Illl nit
l-WA/2 132293.2 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
if
M
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 4 of 29
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. Page INTRODUCTION.... 1 LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 1 THE SIDE-MOUNTING PATENTS.. 4 A. Technology Overview 4 B. Side-Mounting Claims 6 1. Liquid Crystal Display Device Claims 7 2. Portable Computer Claims 11 C. Claim Construction Disputes 12 1. The claims that recite a liquid crystal display device are not limited to a portable computer 12 2. The phrases "frame," "first frame" and "second frame" should be given their plain and ordinary meaning 18 3. The phrases "attachable to a housing" and "fixable to a housing" and "fastening part" should not be loaded down with unrecited details from the specification... 19 4. The invention of the side-mounting patents is not limited to the use of screws and holes., thus, the phrases "through" and "passing through" have different meanings 21 5. A typographical error does not render a claim incapable of construction 25 6. The remaining terms proposed by Defendants for construction do not need a construction, but if the Court decides to construe them, LPL's constructions should be adopted :26 a. Defendants' stretch to find synonyms for or to define common words frequently does not do justice to the original words 26 b. Defendants' stretch to define common words frequently loads the words down with unrecited details improperly taken from the specification, or worse, improperly taken from extrinsic evidence 27 THE SEMICONDUCTOR PATENTS 28 A. Overview of Technology 28 1. The Thin Film Transistor 28 2. LCD Applications for TFTs 30 B. '737 Patent Claims 32 C. Construction of Disputed Terms in the '737 Patent 34 1. "thin-film transistor" 34 2. "source electrode" 35
ill LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12
13
14 15 16
17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IV.
l-WA/2132293.2
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 5 of 29
'·?
>! ·^ 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. 4. 5. 6.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page "continuously depositing" J7 "high-resistivity semiconductor film" and "low-resistivity semiconductor film" ..38 "conducting film" and "conducting film containing at least a low-resistivity semiconductor film" 40 "oxidizing atmosphere" and "without exposing them to an oxidizing atmosphere" 42
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
V.
and drain electrode" 45 9. "contacting a part of the surface of said island region" 46 10. "at least a part of the mask"/ "said source and drain electrodes serving as at least part of the mask"., 46 D. '449 Patent Claims 48 E. Construction of Disputed Terms in the '449 Patent ....50 1. "on"/"formed on"/"disposed on" 50 2. "contact hole is provided through... layer'V'provided through".... 52 3. "thin film transistor" 53 4. "selectively etching" 54 5. "gate electrode", "source electrode", "drain electrode" 54 6. "gate pad" and "source pad" 56 7. "active layer" 57 8. "common hole" 58 9. "aligned" 59 10. "said second insulating layer having a second contact hole exposing a predetermined portion 01 said second conductive layer and said first contact hole region" 59 11. "wiring structure" 60 CONCLUSION 60
7. 8.
"island region"/"island region on said gate electrode" "a fourth step for selectively forming a source electrode
43
l-WA/2132293.2
IV
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. "s Opening Claim Constmction Brief
n M ^
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 6 of 29
i
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES 3MInnovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.. 350F.3d 1365 (Fed. Or. 2003)....:. Arlington Industries, Inc.v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003% .... Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. AltekSys., 132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. fi>97) Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp.. 55 F3d615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Bowers v. Baystate Tech., Inc., 320F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Brainy Ideas, Inc. v. Media Group. 169 F. Supp. 2d 361 (E.D. Pa. iOOl) CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH& Co. KG, 224 F.3cfl308 (Fed. Cir. 2000).. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002).:.. Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) CSC Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F. 3
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26
2 23,53 54 50,52 18
2, 15
2
Dow Chem. Co. v. U.S., 226 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
ElektaInstrumentS.A. v. O.U.R. ScientificInt'I, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F3d 973 (Fed. Cir 1999) Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'I, Inc., 222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
l-WA/2132293.2
15
54
3
27 28
4 2
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 7 of 29
tf
II
-y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., Inc., 205 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , , .
Page(s) 3
2,13,15 22
16
Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir, 1999) KeyPharms. v. Hercon Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Laitram Corp. v, NEC Corp., 163 F.3dl342 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 2004 WL102849,*7 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Markmanv. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) Mycogen Plant Science Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000)... Omega Eng'glnc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ,
4 13 21 3
3
3 3 4 26 18 2,13 21 2, 3, 4,6,23, 60
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)... Sargent-Welch Scientific Co. v. JIB Indus., Inc., 496 F.Supp. 972
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.*s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 8 of 29
tf ,f
i
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) STATUTES 35U.S.C. §112 2(2003). OTHER AUTHORITIES 1981 Webster's
Page(s)
.2, 13, 22
.37
9 10 11
12
13:
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1.-WA/2132293.2
Vll
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 9 of 29
rt ,y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") has sued Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. ("CPT"), Tatung Co. and Tatung Company of America (collectively, "Tatung"), Jean Co., Ltd. ("Jean"), Lite-On Technology Corp. and Lite-On Technology International Inc. (collectively, "Lite-On"), TPV Technology, Ltd. and Envision Peripherals, Inc. (collectively, "TPV"), and ViewSonic Corporation ("ViewSonic") (all collectively "Defendants") for patent infringement. Following the parties' Second Revised Joint Claim Construction Statement (hereinafter "JCC"), this is LPL's brief in support of its claim constructions. The patents at issue relate to liquid crystal display ("LCD") devices, which are ubiquitous today in the form of displays in laptop computers, LCD monitors, LCD TVs, and other consumer and commercial products. LPL's patents fall into two.categories. Four of the patents relate to a particularly advantageous way of mounting an LCD device in a laptop computer or stand-alone LCD unit (e.g., an LCD monitor) by using the sides of the LCD device so that the front, viewing surface of the LCD device is maximized. For convenience, this first group of patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,373,537 ('537 patent); 6,002,457 ('457 patent); 6,020,942 ('942 patent); and 5,926,237 ('237 patent), will be referred to as the "side-mounting patents." The other two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,624,737 ('737 patent) and 5,825,449 ('449 patent), relate to the semiconductor structures used in LCD devices and their formation and are referred to as "the semiconductor patents." Copies of the asserted patents can be found in LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd's Exhibits to the Revised Joint Claim Construction Statement at 2-56 (side mounting patents); 374-83 ('733 patent); and 374-83 ('449 patent). This collection of exhibits will be cited hereinafter as "LPL Exs. at II. LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION "It is well-settled that in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should first
l-WA/2132293.2 1 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
."
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 10 of 29
if
iT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
look to the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). However, all intrinsic evidence is not equal. See Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323,1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). First, the court should focus on the claims themselves, both asserted and unassorted, to define the meaning and scope of the patented invention, because that is the "language that the patentee chose to use to 'particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention." Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193,1201-02 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112 J 2 (2003)); see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (citing Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615,620 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). There is a "heavy presumption" that the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is the correct construction. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F. 3d 1359,1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int 7, Inc., 222 F.3d 951,955 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises, which are extrinsic evidence, may be employed to "assist the court in determining the ordinary and customary meanings of claim terms." Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1202 (citations omitted). After examining the claim language the court may consider the remaining intrinsic evidence. Interactive Gift Express, 256 F.3d at 1331. Second, the court should review the specification, as claims must always be read in view of the specification, of which the claims are a part. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. A review of the specification will reveal whether or not the inventor has given a term an unconventional meaning. Id. However, it is improper to read a limitation into a claim from the specification. Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp. ,156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The inventor may act as his or her own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, so
l-WA/2132293.2
2
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
»,*
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 11 of 29
\\-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
long as any such specific definition is clearly stated in the patent specification or prosecution history. Mycogen Plant Science Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Therefore, for claim construction purposes, the specification is "the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582; Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), qflTd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Third, the court may also consider the prosecution history of the patent. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. The prosecution history is significant in understanding the claims because it reveals "the course of dealing with the Patent Office, which may show a particular meaning attached to the terms, or a position taken by an applicant" to secure the patent. Markman, 52 F.3d at 991. As such, the prosecution history may be reviewed to assess whether a patentee "relinquished [a] potential claim construction in an amendment to the claim or in an argument to overcome or distinguish a [prior art] reference." Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1999), cert, denied, 529 U.S. 1066 (2000). However, for subject matter to be held relinquished, a court must find that the patentee disclaimed the subject matter with "reasonable clarity and deliberateness." Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d 1281,1294 (Fed. Cir. 2000). hi particular, subject matter should not be held relinquished by statements merely emphasizing "improvement over the prior art" or "explaining the pertinency" of prior art references without expressly disclaiming subject matter. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422,1434,1439 (Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1066 (2000). Statement made during patent prosecution disclaim ordinary meaning of a disputed term only of the disclaimer is "clear and unmistakable." Omega Eng'gInc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314,1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Finally, if, and only if, a claim term remains "genuinely ambiguous" despite the full consideration of the intrinsic evidence, then a court may look toward
l-WA/2132293.2
3
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 12 of 29
»c
1+
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
extrinsic evidence to interpret the claim term itself. Bell & Howell Document Mgmt, Prods. Co. v. AltekSys., 132 F.3d 701,706 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. However, the need for such a departure from the intrinsic evidence "rarely, if ever, occur[s]." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585. Accordingly, the step of attempting to interpret a claim term by resorting to extrinsic evidence is rarely encountered and should not be attempted unless the meaning of the claim term at issue is not apparent from the totality of the intrinsic evidence. See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339,1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000); KeyPharms. v. Hercon Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d 709,716 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note, however, that while using extrinsic evidence to construe the language of the claim is strongly discouraged, it is otherwise permissible solely for the purpose of assisting the court in understanding the underlying technology. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. HewlettPackard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[Consultation of extrinsic evidence is particularly appropriate to ensure that [a judge's] understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is not entirely at variance with the understanding of one skilled in the art."); see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585 ("Had the district court relied on the expert testimony and other extrinsic evidence solely to help it understand the underlying technology, we could not say the district court was in error."). IH. THE SIDE-MOUNUNG PATENTS
12
13 14
15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A.
Technology Overview
Liquid crystal displays, or LCDs, are now commonly used as displays in desktop computer monitors, laptop computers, view finders in video cameras, navigation screens in automobiles, flat panel televisions and mobile
1-WA/2B2293.2
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 13 of 29
s
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
FIG. 7
520
communications systems. An example of an LCD module is shown in Figure 7, item 700, of LPL's '457 Patent (reproduced below). LPL Exs. at 37. This LCD module is installed in the computer or monitor and then used to display the visual information.
410a
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
*10c
430
500
Before LPL's side-mounting invention, companies mounted the LCD module in the computer or monitor using screws through the front of the module as shown in prior art Figure 5 of LPL's '457 patent (reproduced below):
FIG. 5
PRIOR ART
40 I ?0 so 1
HG. 9
300
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
43
430
600
The screws 43 were inserted into holes 41 in the front of the LCD module and attached the module to the computer as shown in Figure 5. LPL Exs. at 39 (col. 2,11.24-26). Because the screws were inserted through the front of the module, space had to be provided on the front of the module for receiving the screws, and the module had to be thick enough to support the mounting screws. Id. (col. 1,1. 66
I-WA/2132293.2
5
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
If
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 14 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- col. 2,1. 4). This method resulted in the viewing area (generally shown as area 20 in Figure 5) of the display being smaller than desired and in making the computer monitors thick and heavy. LPL's innovation, shown in Figures 7 and 9 (reproduced above), addressed these limitations. As shown in Figure 7, the screws 430 securing the LCD device 700 to rear case 500 are inserted through the side of the case and the device (hence, the commonly used phrase "side-mounting" patents). LPL Exs. at 40 (col. 4,11. 5565). The border at the front of the module can be much thinner using this approach, and the viewing area (shown generally as 300) is much larger than in the prior art technique. The effect of LPL's innovative design, as implemented in a computer, can be seen by reference to Figure 9. The mounting screws 430 are located on the side, thus, the front viewing area is maximized in Figure 9. LPL's innovative side-mounting technology revolutionized the way in which LCD modules were mounted in LCD devices. After LPL introduced its design, most of LPL's competitors in the market, including Defendants, adopted the patented feature and designed or implemented side-mounting LCD modules.
17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
B.
Side-Mounting Claims
There are four side-mounting patents in suit: the '237 patent, the '457 patent, the '942 patent and the '537 patent. These four patents share the same specification and the same figures, but claim different aspects of the invention. For example, the '237 patent includes method claims (i.e.' a method of making or forming liquid crystal display devices or portable computers); the '457 patent includes apparatus claims for liquid crystal display devices; the '942 patent includes apparatus claims for only portable computers; and the '537 patent includes apparatus claims for both liquid crystal display devices and portable computers. The claims of the side-mounting patents fall into two main categories: (1) claims directed to a "liquid crystal display device" and (2) claims directed to a "portable computer." Disputed terms often appear in multiple patent claims; so for
l-WA/2132293.2
6
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 15 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6
simplicity, the parties presented their disputes in the JCC on a term-by-term basis rather than on a claim-by-claim basis. Nonetheless, for illustration purposes, LPL presents two sample claims below - a liquid crystal display device claim and a portable computer claim -- to illustrate the nature of the side-mounting claims. 1. Liquid Crystal Display Device Claims Claim 37 of the '457 patent recites a liquid crystal display device.
7 ////
8 //// 9 //// 10 //// 11 //// 12 ////
13 //// 14 //// 15 //// 16 //// 17 //// 18 //// 19 //// 20 //// 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 ////
l-WA/2132293.2
.
·
·
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 16 of 29
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I-LA/756456.1 LG.Phillips LCD Co.. I.tds.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
<10c
Fig. 6
A liquid crystal display device comprising:
400
41 Ob
adjacent to the adjacent to the
adjacent to the
I; and
paving a fastening part at at least one side edge of the wherein the
190
120
41 Go
Fig. 7
first and second frames,
lattachable to a |through the side edge of the second frame.
*30
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 17 of 29
1 2 3 4 5
The claimed device is a sandwich-type structure where the components are held between two support members, or frames (190 and 400). LPL Exs. at 40 (col. 4,11. 38-54). The assembly and mounting of various components of a liquid crystal display device is a complicated and delicate process that requires engineering acumen. Various components of the LCD device, together with the delicate liquid
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
crystal panel must be combined to ensure that the display works properly. For
example, a light source 110, frequently a fluorescent bulb, generates light. LPL Exs. at 39 (col. 1.11.21 -22 and 36-38). Light guide unit 130 guides the light across the device. Id. at 11.43-45. Since viewing occurs through the front of the device (top of Figure 6), any light directed in other directions would be wasted; therefore, a reflector unit 140 is provided to direct light toward the front of the device. Id. at 11.24-26. In operation, the light from light source 110 is directed across the device by light guide unit 130, and reflected forward toward the liquid crystal panel 300 by reflector unit 140. The liquid crystal panel 300 obscures or passes light on a dotby-dot basis to create an image. Id. at 11.18-50. The dots are often referred to as picture elements or "pixels." Of particular importance to the functioning of the device is liquid crystal panel 300. Liquid crystals, as the name implies, are liquid but still tend to take on an ordered, crystalline structure. That crystalline structure can affect the polarization (or direction of) light that passes through it, but more important and as described above, the effect can be controlled by application of an electric field. Properly constructed, many pixels can be independently controlled by applying a desired electric field to each pixel. Data, including text and graphics, are displayed in that manner. In a liquid crystal display, all the data shown is made up of tiny dots that together create an image. Id. (col. 1,11.43-50). The elements recited in claim 37 are words that are well-known and understood in the field of LCDs or words that have a plain and ordinary meaning. For example, claim 37 recites a first frame and a "reflector unit" adjacent to the first
t-WA/2132293.2
9
LO.PhiHps LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 18 of 29
1 frame. The parties agree that the definition of a "reflector unit" is a member that 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 reflects light. JCC at 10. Claim 37 then recites that a "light source" is adjacent to the reflector unit, that a 'light guide unit" is adjacent to the light source and that a "liquid crystal panel" is adjacent to the light guide unit. The parties also agree that the definition of a "light source" is an element that provides light for the display and that a "light guide unit" is a member that guides light. JCC at 9. Claim 37 then recites that "a second frame having a fastening part at least one side edge of the second frame, wherein the reflector unit, light source, the light guide unit and the liquid crystal panel are between the first and second frames." Claim 37 then recites that the second frame is "attachable to a housing through the side edge of the second frame." Claim 37 describes that the various components of the liquid crystal display device are sandwiched between the first and second frames and that the second corresponds to the holes 410b in frame 400. LPL Exs. at 40 (col. 4,11. 52-54). The claim also describes the second frame "as attachable to a housing through the side edge of the second frame." Notice in Figures 6 and 7 how screws 430 engage holes 410c in rear case 500 (Fig. 7) and then engage holes 41 Ob in frame 400 (Fig. 6). LPL Exs. at 36, 37 and 40 (col. 4,11. 55-65). The LCD device is thus attached to a housing.
14 frame has a "fastening part" at the side edge of the second frame. This language
21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
mi mi
//// //// //// //// //// ////
l-WA/2132293.2
10
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 19 of 29
r
1
(
Portable Computer Claims
2.
2 3 4 5
Claim 4 of the '942 patent is exemplary of the portable computer claims in the side-mounting patents.
A portable computer comprising:
Fig. 6
a liquid crystal display device comprising:
400
6
7
8 9 10 11 12
13
light guide unit; and having a first fastening part at a first side edge, | adjacent to the
a light guide unit adjacent to the adjacent to the
120
41 Oo
14 15
16
wherein thej and first and second frames, are between the
190
Fig. 9
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
a Tsjb&f, having an input device;
having a second fastening part at a second side edge; and a fastening unit joining together the liquid crystal display and the cover through the first and second fastening part of the second frame and the cover, respectively.
Claim 4 recites a portable computer including a liquid crystal display device having the components previously discussed (i.e. a first frame, a reflector unit, a light source, a light guide unit, a liquid crystal panel and second frame) in a
l-LA/756456.1
11
LG.Phillips LCD Co., Ltds.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 20 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14
sandwich-type configuration. The second frame has a first fastening part, corresponding to the holes 41 Ob in frame 400 (Fig. 6). LPL Exs. at 23 and 27 (col.. 4,11.51-54). Claim 4 then recites a "body" having an input device. The parties agree that a "body" means the portion of the portable computer that contains the input device. JCC at 7. Claim 4 recites that a "cover," joined with the body, has a second fastening part. Finally, claim 4 recites a fastening unit (screw 430 in the embodiment of Figs. 6 and 9) "joining together the liquid crystal display and the cover through the first and second fastening parts of the second frame and the cover, respectively." C. Claim Construction Disputes
The parties have outlined their disputes in the JCC. In addressing the disputes, LPL has grouped them according to common issues. 1. The claims that recite a liquid crystal display device are not limited to a portable computer.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The side-mounting patents contain two types of claims: (1) liquid crystal display device claims and (2) portable computer claims. LPL proposes that claims that recite a "liquid crystal display device" apply generally to displays and claims that recite a "portable computer" are limited to portable computers. This is in accord with the plain language of the claims. Defendants, on the other hand, propose that all claims of the side-mounting patents - regardless of whether they recite "liquid crystal device" or "portable computer" - are limited to portable computers. Thus, under Defendants' proposed construction, even if the claim does not contain the words "portable computer," Defendants would read that limitation into the claims. This is simply wrong and violates the first rule of claim construction. It is well-settled that the Court must first look to the claim terms themselves, both asserted and unasserted, to define the meaning and scope of the patented invention, because the claim is the "language that the patentee chose to use to
l-WA/2132293.2 12 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 21 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
'particularly point[] out and distinctly claimf] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.' 35 U.S.C. §112, f2." Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193,1201 -02 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Interactive Gift Express., 256 F.3d at 1331). "|TJt is the claims, not the written description, [that] define the scope of the patent right." Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). In the side-mounting patents, when the inventors wanted to claim generally, they used the words "liquid crystal display device." When the inventors wanted to limit their invention to something "portable" or to a "portable computer," the inventors specifically used those words. When the inventors purposely did not use the words "portable computer," it is inappropriate for the Court to insert them after the fact. Interactive Gift Express, 256 F.3d at 1341 ("Although the preferred' embodiment [has the features], these features are not recited in the independent claims and ... [the Court is] not at liberty to read them into the claims."). The specification confirms LPL's construction in that the specification illustrates both a "liquid crystal display device" and a "portable computer." For example, Figure 7 of the '45 7 patent is described as a perspective view of the assembly structure of the liquid crystal display device and Figure 9 is described as an assembly structure of the liquid crystal display device and portable computer. LPL Exs. 37, 38, and 40 (col. 4,11.15-24). In addition, the prosecution history further supports LPL's proposed construction. From the day the original patent application for the side-mounting invention was filed in the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("PTO"), both types of claims were presented for patenting. Compare originally-submitted claims 1 and 10 (liquid crystal display device) to originally-submitted claim 6 (portable computer). LPL Exs. at 236 and 238-39, and 237, respectively. The liquid crystal display device claims have no language therein suggesting that they are limited to a portable computer.
I-WA/2132293.2 ,13 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Conjunction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 22 of 29
1
Defendants' improper attempt to narrow all the claims to portable computers
2 can be seen in their effort to add the word "portable" to every aspect of the side3 mounting patents, as shown in the following chart: LPL's Construction Defendants' Construction 4 Claim Term (emphasis added) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
liquid crystal display device JCCat43. a type of display that generates an image by directing light through an array of liquid crystal pixels, where the amount of light effused by each pixel is controlled via an electric field varying the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules contained within the pixel a portable display that generates an image in response to an input from a portable computer by directing light through an array of liquid crystal pixels, where the amount of light effused by each pixel is controlled via an electric field varying the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules contained within the pixel the exterior cover or exterior case of a portable computer
housing JCCat36. outer casing
JCC at 58.
a member that contains the firame(s)
liquid crystal panel
JCC at 47.
liquid crystals encapsulated between substrates
an array of liquid crystals of a size and weight suitable for use in a portable computer
Defendants' improper rewriting of the claims to add "portable computers" is further illustrated by the dispute over "housing" and "outer casing." Exemplary claim 37 of the '457 patent (reproduced above) uses the word "housing."1 LPL's definition of "housing" is a member that contains the frame(s). JCC at 36.- LPL
1
This section will focus on the term "housing," although other claims use the words "outer casing" in a similar way and should be given me same definition.
2
Some claims recite a single frame while others recite two frames, e.g., claim 33 of the '457 patent (one frame) and claim 37 of '457 patent (two frames). LPL (continued).
l-WA/2132293.2
14
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 23 of 29
1
2 3 4
proposes that the term "housing" is used in its plain and ordinary way and is certainly not limited to a portable computer. The specification of the '457 patent describes frames 190 and 400. LPL Exs. at 40 (col. 4,11. 38-42 and 47-51). In Figure 7 of the '457 patent, reproduced above, notice that rear case 500 contains the frames 190 and 400. Id. Therefore, LPL's definition is consistent with the specification. The dictionary definition relied upon by LPL confirms that "housing" is a broad, generic term ("something that covers, protects, or supports"). JCC at 40; LPL Exs. at 229. Also notice that even the dictionary upon which Defendants rely has a similarly broad definition of housing--"anything that covers or protects." JCC at 36. LPL's construction recognizes the broad nature of the term "housing," it just has to contain the recited frame(s). Yet, Defendants' proposed construction of the term "housing" limits this obviously broad term to a "portable computer." Id. In Defendants' view, a housing must be the "exterior cover or exterior case of a portable computer." There is no support for that unduly narrow definition of "housing," and again, it violates the rule of claim construction that details of the preferred embodiment are not to be imported into the claims unless the claims themselves require the element. Interactive Gift Express, 256 F.3d at 1341; Dow Chem. Co. v. U.S., 226 F.3d 1334, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("We note also that as a general rule claims of a patent are not limited to the preferred embodiment, [citations omitted], or to examples listed within the patent specification."). Defendants' insertion of the words "portable computer" into the construction of housing also violates another venerable rule of claim construction called claim differentiation. The doctrine of claim differentiation presumes that each claim in a patent is presumptively different in meaning and scope. Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). According to the Exs. at 42. That is why LPL's definition allows frame(s).
l-WA/2132293.2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23
24 25 26 27 28
15
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 24 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Federal Circuit, the doctrine of claim differentiation "is ultimately based on the common sense notion that different words or phrases used in different claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meaning and scope," and therefore, "normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claims from which they depend." Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., Ill F.3d 968,971-72 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). If a proposed claim interpretation would result in one claim having the same scope and meaning as another claim, it is presumptively unreasonable. Claim 37 of the '457 patent uses the word "housing." Claim 40, dependent on claim 37, requires that "the housing includes a portable computer." LPL Exs. at 42. Thus, the doctrine of claim differentiation counsels that "housing" from claim 37 is not limited to a portable computer as recited in claim 40. Adding the words "portable computer" to claim 37 would render claim 40 superfluous because the claims would have the same scope. Such a construction is not correct. Beachcombers, Int'l, Inc. v. WildeWood Creative Prods., Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stating that construction of one claim rendering another claim superfluous is "presumptively unreasonable.") The situation with claims 37 and 40 of the'457 patent is not anomalous. Most liquid crystal display device independent claims have a dependent claim about a portable computer. See e.g., claims 1 and 4; 9 and 12; and 33 and 36 of the '457 patent; and claims 25 and 28; and 35 and 38 of the '237 patent, LPL Exs. at 41,42, and 55, respectively. It could not be clearer that the independent liquid crystal display device claims were never intended to be limited to a portable computer. Moreover, during the course of examination, the Examiner cited against the liquid crystal device claims many references that do not describe a portable computer. See e.g., Figs. 1-3 of Ida, U.S. Patent No. 5,666,172; Figs. 1-6 of Nakayama, U.S. Patent No. 5,654,779; Figs. 1-4 of Bosnall, U.S. Patent No. 5,636,101; Figs. 23-36 of Sasuga, U.S. Patent No. 5,680,183; Figs. 2-4 of Ashitomi,
l-WAy2I32293.2 16 LG.Philips LCD Co., Lld.'s Opening Claim Constmction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 25 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
U.S. Patent No. 5,216,411. LPL's Exs. at 246-47,262-66,277-80,102-05, and 133-35, respectively. Each of these references is listed in the "References Cited" portion of the patents. See e.g., LPL Exs. at 31. In fact, Ashitomi discloses an indicator panel for an electronic apparatus, such as a video tape recorder, which is wholly unrelated to a portable computer. LPL Exs. 133 and 141 (col. 1,11. 7-11). Thus, the Examiner did not understand the terms "housing" and "outer casing" to be limited to part of a portable computer. Turning finally to the construction of 'liquid crystal panel," Defendants again improperly insert "portable computer" into the definition. JCC at 47. Liquid crystal panel is a term of art used throughout the industry. This term is used in both the portable computer claims and the liquid crystal display device claims. LPL's definition of "liquid crystal panel" is "liquid crystals encapsulated between substrates." Id. Liquid crystals, as their names implies, are liquid. They have to be held between substrates, as is well-known and described, for example, in Tsukada, "TFT/LCD - Liquid Crystal Displays Addressed by Thin-Film Transistors," 29 Japanese Technology Reviews (1996) ("Liquid crystal is encapsulated between two glass substrates...."). LPL Exs. at 297-99. Defendants' construction ignores the liquid nature of liquid crystals, which require substrates to hold their panel shape. JCC at 47. Defendants argue that the definition for "liquid crystal panel" should be "an array of liquid crystals of size and weight suitable for use in a portable computer." Id. Without a structure to enclose the liquid crystals, they would flow away and there would be no liquid crystal display panel. Again, Defendants attempt to improperly narrow this term by limiting it to a portable computer, this time, by imposing a size and weight limitation on the liquid crystals. Such limitations are not found anywhere in the intrinsic evidence - there are no indications of size and weight requirements for liquid crystals in the claim language, the specification or the prosecution history.
////
l-WA/2132293.2
17
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 26 of 29
1 2 3
Accordingly, LPL's constructions of the terms "liquid crystal display device," "liquid crystal panel," "housing," and "outer casing" should be adopted. 2.
4
5 6 7 8 9
·
The phrases "frame." "first frame" and "second frame" should be given their plain and ordinary meaning! '
The term "frame" is used in the claims in its plain and ordinary way. LPL proposes that the term "frame" means "a support structure." JCCat31. Thus, a "first frame" is a frame and a "second frame" is a frame other than the first frame. ICC at 33 and 35, respectively. LPL's construction is in accord with the well established patent parlance, common sense and Federal Circuit precedents.
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28
Defendants propose a complex definition that incorporates words that are not found
in the claim language. Defendants argue that the term "frame" means "an open structure or rim for encasing, holding or bordering that encloses a substantial portion of each side edge of another structure." JCC at 31. Defendants further argue that the term "first frame" means "the inner frame which together with the second frame hold the parts of the liquid crystal display module together," and that the term "second frame" means "the outer frame which together with the first frame holds the parts of the liquid crystal display module together." Defendants' definitions are simply wrong. . There is a heavy presumption that the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is the correct construction. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Where a claim uses clear structural language, it is generally improper to interpret it as having functional requirements. Schwing Gmbh v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305 F.3d 1318,1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("An invention claimed in purely structural terms generally resists functional limitations")). The claim limitations simply recite structural words: a "frame," a "first frame" or a "second dictionary definition states that a frame is "a structure that gives shape or support."
l-WA/2132293.2 18 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ud.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
27 frame." These words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. The
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 27 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
JCC at 31; LG.Phillips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Exhibits to the Second Revised Joint Claim Construction Statement at 3. Defendants' attempt to add structural and functional limitations to simple claim terms should be rejected. A frame does not have to be an open structure or a rim. In addition, there is no requirement mat the frame must be for encasing, holding or bordering that encloses a substantial portion of each side edge of another structure. These are words and limitations inserted by Defendants in order to narrow the claim terms. There is no support for Defendants' construction of a "frame." In addition, Defendants' attempt to add yet more limitations to "first frame"
11
12 13 14 15 16 18 19
and second frame" should equally be rejected. As every patent practitioner knows,
and confirmed by the Federal Circuit, the use of words such as "'first' and 'second' is common patent-law convention [used] to distinguish between repeated instances of element or limitation." 3MInnovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365,1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Defendants are attempting to rewrite the claims by arguing that the "first frame" is the inner frame and that the "second claims. The inventors could have used those words, if they wanted to claim inner or outer frames. Instead, the inventors used first and second frames to designate that
17 frame" is the outer frame. The words "inner" and "outer" do not appear in the
20
21 22 23 24 25 27 2g
these are two separate frames and did nothing more to limit the frames in any way.The phrases "attachable to a housing" and "fixable to a housing" and "fastening part" should not be loaded down with unrecited details from the specification. Exemplary claim 37 of the '457 patent, discussed above in the general explanation of the side-mounting patents, contains the limitation "the second frame attachable to a housing through the side edge of the second frame." Other claims Defendants'position is further suspect in light of Defendants'definitions for other terms that use the words "first" and "second." For example, Defendants agree that the term "first hole" is a first opening or cavity and "second hole" is an opening or cavity other than the first hole. JCC at 8.
l-WA/2132293.2 19 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
3.
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 28 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
contain the similar language "fixable to a housing." See, e.g., claims 5 and 9 of the '457 patent. LPLExs.at41. Referring back to claim 37 of the '457 patent, the "attachable" limitation corresponds to the display device 700 having screws holes 410a and 41 Ob that allow the display device to be attached to the rear case 500, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. LPL proposes to interpret the language "attachable to a housing" and "fixable to a housing" to means it contains an element provided to fix or attach to a housing." JCC at 12. The display device 700 is attachable (or fixable) to a housing because it has holes 410a and 41 Ob provided to allow attachment to rear case 500 as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. LPL Exs. at 36,37, and 40 (col. 4,11. 55-65). , Defendants' proposed definition for these claim terms first takes the entire phrase, rather than the disputed terms, and states that "the second frame contains an element provided to fix or attach directly to the side of the housing through the side edge of the second frame." JCC at 12. Defendants' approach should be rejected because it is cumbersome and unwarranted. Given that the terms and phrases used in the claims will have the same meaning throughout the patents, this approach does not make sense. More problematic is Defendants'proposed definition for this phrase. Again, Defendants continue their mission of adding words that do not appear in the claims. Defendants have simply added the word "directly" to the claim. Nothing in the Defendants' cited evidence indicates that the words "attachable" or "fixable" mean "directly" fixed or attached. Interestingly, the word "directly" does not even appear
23
24 25 26 27 28
in any of the dictionary definitions cited by defendants. There is no reason to add a
limitation to the claim that is not there. Biovail Corp. Int 7 v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 239 F.3d 1297,1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("As a general proposition, a limitation that does not exist in a claim should not be read into that claim."). The Federal Circuit has warned time and time again not to read limitations into the claims. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318,1327 (Fed.
l-WA/2132293.2 20 LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-2
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 29 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
Cir. 2003); Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., - F.3d -, Nos. 03-1146, 1147, -1208,2004 WL102849, *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2004). Defendants' attempt to do so should be rejected by the Court. Defendants add the word "directly" to other claim terms as well. LPL proposes that the term "fastening part" (and other equivalents, such as "fastening unit" and "fastening member") is used in the claims to indicate parts that are used in performing the fastening function. Thus, LPL proposes that the term "fastening part" means a part that plays a role in fastening. Defendants, once again, try to add limitations that are simply not found in the claim language. Defendants argue that the term "fastening part" means "as defined in the specification, such as screws, screw holes, mounting holes, hook, and adhesives which directly connect the side of the liquid crystal display module to the side of the outer casing." JCC at 29-30. Defendants' argument should be rejected for two reasons. First, the term "fastening part" is not limited to the specific examples set forth in the specification. Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("References to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations.") Second, Defendants again improperly add the word "directly" to the definition of a simple term, like "fastening part." There is no requirement that the fastening part must "directly connect" the elements. Defendants should not be allowed to add limitations to the claims that are not present. For all these reasons, LPL requests that the Court accept LPL's proposed constructions that "attachable to a housing" and "fixable to a housing" mean "contains an element provided to fix or attach to a housing" and that the term "fastening part" means a part that plays a role in fastening. 4. The invention of the side-mounting patents is not limited to ing the use of screws and holes, thus, the phrases "through" and "passing through" have ditierent meanings.
l-WA/2132293.2
21
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-3
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 1 of 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The parties have a dispute over the phrases "through" and "passing through." LPL proposes that, as used in the claims, "through" means "by way of; and "passing through" means "extending into." JCC at 74 and 62, respectively. LPL's constructions are based on the fact that the side-mounting invention contemplates various types of fastening devices, including screws, holes, adhesive materials, hooks and other fastening parts. LPL Exs. at 40-41 (col. 4,1.66-col. 5,1. 9). Defendants argue that these terms are the same: "through" means "in at one end, side or surface and out the other"; and "passing through" means "moving past or making way in one side and out the other side of." JCG at 74 and 62, respectively. Defendants' definition does not make sense because, for example, one cannot have an adhesive tape that goes in at one side and out the other. First, the claims of the side-mounting patents make it perfectly clear that "through" and "passing through" mean different things. Claim 37 of the '457 patent recites that "the second frame attachable to a housing through the side edge of the second frame" (emphasis added). LPL's construction of the term "through" is "by way of." JCC at 74. The dictionary confirms this definition: through - "By way of;" "By the means or agency of." JCC at 75; LPL Exs. at 235. Moreover, the dependent claims in the side-mounting patents repeatedly confirm that LPL's proposed definition of "through" is the correct one. Consider dependent claim 39 of the '457 patent, dependent on independent claim 37, which has been used as an exemplary claim throughout this brief. A dependent claim incorporates every limitation in the independent claim it references, then adds one or more additional limitations. 35 U.S.C. § 112, f4; Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., Inc., 205 F.3d 1377,1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[A] dependent claim, by nature, incorporates all the limitations of the claim to which it refers."). Claim 39 states as follows: "The liquid crystal display device according to claim 37, wherein the fastening part includes an adhesive material." LPL Exs. at 42. The language of claim 39 means that "through the side edge" in claim 37 is broad enough to cover use of an
l-WA/2132293.2
22
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Constmction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-3
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 2 of 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
adhesive material. And that is certainly the case if "through" means "by way of as LPL proposes. Although the preferred embodiment shown in the drawings uses screws engaging holes to connect the components, the patent contemplates other methods of attaching the components, such as support frame 400 and rear case 500 (again referencing Fig. 7, annotated above). In the '457 patent specification, at column 4, line 66 - column 5, line 9, the patent states: In another embodiment, in order to join the second support frame 400 and the rear case 500, an adhesive device, such as double-sided tape can be used instead of the second and third screw holes 41 Ob and 4 lOc. This example has the added advantage in that no screws are needed which makes the manufacturing method easy. hi a further embodiment, the rear case 500 and the second support frame 400 are jointed to each other using hooks and/or other suitable fastening devices including adhesives formed at the inner sides of the rear case 50u. This embodiment also does not need fastening devices such as screws 430. LPL Exs. at 40-41. Defendants propose a much more narrow definition of "through," namely, "in at one end, side, or surface and out the other." JCC at 74. This construction limits claim 37 to a screw type of fastener (a screw is shown in Figs. 6 and 7 of the patent). However, Defendants' proposed construction is so narrow that it does not even cover the adhesive material embodiment claimed in claim 39. Adhesive material does not pass in and out of one side edge of the frame. Therefore, the definition proposed by Defendants would not cover a disclosed and claimed embodiment. Such a construction is "rarely, if ever, correct." Bowers v. Baystate Tech., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317,1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). LPL's proposed definition of "through" covers both screws and screw holes on .the one hand, and adhesive material on the other hand. It is the better definition, and LPL requests that the Court interpret "through" as "by way of in the side-mounting patents.
l-WA/2132293.2 23 LG.Philtps LCD Co., LtA's Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-3
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 3 of 43
1
Additionally, Defendants have proposed interpretations of additional phrases
2
3 4 5
using the word "through." JCC at 77-78 and 80-81 (i.e. "through the side edge"
and "through the sides of the first frame, the second frame, and the outer casing"). These phrases are just combinations of terms already being construed. The word "through" should be used in the same way, and it should mean the same thing, in all
6
7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
instances. Moreover, Defendants' interpretations improperly incorporate into these
simple phrases details from the specification that appear nowhere in the claim. For example, in interpreting the phrase "through the sides of the first frame, the second secures the first and second frames and the outer casing together by passing into and out of a side of the outer casing and into and out of the sides of the first and second frames." JCC at 80-81. (emphasis added). This interpretation potentially contradicts the adhesive embodiment where two adhesives (e.g., pieces of tape) would be used as described in the quote from the '457 patent, above. This is yet another attempt by Defendants' to limit the claims to one embodiment in the specification while excluding another, clearly claimed embodiment. Such constructions cannot be correct. In contrast, the phrase "passing through" is used only in reference to screws and screw holes. The parties have a dispute concerning the term "passing through,"
9 frame, and the outer casing," Defendants require that "a single fastening part
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
as used, for example, in claim 48 of the '457 patent (also ultimately dependent on
claim 37 that has been discussed as exemplary throughout this brief). Claim 48 states: "The liquid crystal display device according to claim 47 [claim 47 is dependent on claim 37], wherein the fastening part includes a screw passing through at least one hole." LPL Exs. at 42. LPL's construction of the phrase "passing through" is "extending into." JCC at 62. As can be seen from Figures 6 and 7 of the '457 patent, screws 430 extend into holes 410a, 41 Ob and 410c. LPL Exs. at 36-37. Defendants propose a very narrow construction of "passing through" that requires "moving past or making
l-WA/2132293.2
24
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-3
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 4 of 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
way in one side and out the other side of." JCC at 62. However, by their definition, Defendants attempt to exclude the situation where a screw enters one side of the hole but does not exit the opposite side of the hole. For example, one situation would be where the screw has a lengthwise extent that is equal to the hole depth. But in that case, any common understanding would be that the screw had passed through the hole, even though it did not exit the other side. Notice that LPL's definition of "passing through" would be met in that situation since the screw extends into the hole. "Through" is a word of several meanings, as reflected by its various dictionary definitions. LPL Exs. at 235. Therefore, the context of the term must be considered in determining which of the various definition is appropriate. "Through" can mean in one side and out the other, as in the example of a thread passing through the eye of a needle. But a walk through the flowers does not mean that one walked the entire length of the flowers, and the dictionary accommodates that meaning by the definition of through as "[a]mong or between; in the midst of." Id. It is this meaning of "through" that is most appropriate here, and "passing through" means "extending into." Defendants insist on construing an additional phrase that contains the disputed phrase "passing through" and other disputed or agreed to terms. JCC at 62-63. However, Defendants'construction of "passing through" in this phrase is inconsistent with its earlier definition of "passing through" and is an overly complicated combination of separately defined terms. Id. No construction of this phrase is necessary. 5. A typographical error does not render a claim incapable of construction.
24 25 26 27 28
The parties agree on the construction of the claim term "liquid crystal display module." JCC at 9. However, in one claim, claim 7 of the '537 patent, the term appears as "liquid crystal display model." LPL Exs. at 15. This is an obvious typographical error, which is borne out by the fact the term appears correctly at various other places in the same claim, including the next limitation:
l-WA/2132293.2
25
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-3
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 5 of 43
1 2 3 4
a surface an upper casing substantially covering theTback f surface of the liquid crystal display module.
Defendants construction is that "[tjhis term is unintelligible in the context of the patent." JCC at 46-47. Defendants* argument is specious. An obvious typographical errors do not render the claims meaningless. Sargent-Welch Scientific Co. v. J/B Indus., Inc., 496 F.Supp. 972,978 (N.D. 111. 1980) (stating that the word 'motor' appearing in the claim should of course be 'rotor'). It is obvious that a liquid crystal display model is a typographical error. The correct construction of "liquid crystal display model" is "liquid crystal display module." 6. The remaining terms proposed by Defendants for construction do not need a construction, but if the Court decides to construe them, LFJL/s constructions should be adopted. ·
5 6 7 8 9 Io II 12
13
14 15 16 17 1g 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, the parties exchanged terms proposed for constructions on May 1. LPL proposed nine terms for construction in the side-mounting patents. See Exhibit 1 attached to the Declaration of Nathan W. McCutcheon In Support of LG.Phillips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief ("McCutcheon Decl."). The constructions of five of those terms were eventually agreed upon by the parties. The other four are briefed above. The remaining terms that appear in the JCC were placed there by Defendants. E.g., McCutcheon Decl., Exh. 2 (CPT's list of claim terms for construction). While LPL believes that these other terms are plain on their face, if the Court decides to construe them, LPL's construction should be adopted as set out below. a. Defendants' stretch to find synonyms for or to define common words frequently does not do justice to the" original words.
Due to LPL's position that these terms are clear without construction and the obvious infirmity of Defendants' constructions, LPL will not address them at length but provides a brief analysis.
l-WA/2132293.2
26
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 441-3
Filed 09/05/2008
Page 6 of 43
1
2 3 4 5 6 8
10 11 12 13 14
·i c 15
cover outer casing (JCCat21)
Defendants' synonyms for cover are too narrow; e.g. one could cover for aesthetic reasons, not just for protection or shielding.
coupled/couple Defendants' synonyms are too narrow in that they require d to/joined with "contact." Actual contact is not required when objects are (JCCatl7) coupled or joined. immovably couple (JCCat41) forming (JCC at 30) Defendants' construction is overly complicated and unwieldy. If construed, a simple word "providing" is a better synonym in the context in which the word is used. Defendants' propose an unnecessarily complicated geometric definition of side, when it just means "side surface." b. Defendants' stretch to define common words frequently loads the words down with unrecited details imoroDerlv 1 taken from the soecitication. or worse. imoroDerlv i aken from extrinsic evidence.
side (JCC at 70)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The term "portable computer" is used in various claims as has been explained. A construction of this term seems unnecessary but nonetheless LPL proposes that the definition of portable computer is "a computer that is portable; portable means can be moved with ease." JCC at 64. This definition is largely from common sense and the dictionary, which defines "portable" as "[c]arried or moved with ease: a portable typewriter." JCC at 64-65; LPL Exs. at 232. Defendants interpose many limitations on the term, including a specific weight limitation based entirely on extrinsic evidence: "Portable Computer" refers to a personal computer not exceeding 21 Ibs. in weight that is designed and configured to permit transportation as a piece of handheld luggage. JCC at 64. Review of the specification for the side-mounting patents reveals that the term is
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms