Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 168 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
POWER INTEGIUITIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.A. No. 04-1371
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and FAIRCHILD
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF PAUL HOROWITZ IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
I, Paul Horowitz, the undersigned, declare as follows:
1) I am a Professor of Physics and of Electrical Engineering at Harvard
University, where I teach courses in Physics and in Electronics, and where I perform and
supervise experimental research. I have been asked to give expert opinions and
testimony conceming Power Integrations’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,107,851, 6,229,366, and
6,249,876 (the "’851 Patent", "’366 Patent", and "’876 Patent", respectively.
2) I agree with Mr. Blauschild’s statement in 1] 6 of his declaration that “from
a technical standpoint,. .. one of skill in the art could conceive of various ‘sott start
circuit’ structures to accomplish the functions recited in the patent claims associated with
the soft start circuit .... ." However, the use of the tenn "soft start" in the elements of the
claims of the ‘366 and ‘851 Patents goes beyond a mere functional statement by requiring
a circuit to carry out soft start and, more specifically, that the claimed circuit must
operate in a certain way — namely, by generating a signal that blocks the drive signal
oocssv1;44ss4s.1
10414-25 Mzs/Mza

Case 1:O4—cv—O1371-JJF Document 168 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
generated by the drive circuit during at least a portion of the time that it would otherwise
have been asserted.
3) Were the Court to construe the "soft start circuit" elements of the ‘366
Patent as means-plus-function limitations, one structure descnbed in the specification of
the ‘366 Patent that would perform the claimed function is soft start capacitor 1 10
illustrated in Figure I of that patent.
4) I disagree with Mr. Blauschild’s statements in Paragraph 7 of his
declaration conceming the construction of the tem1"frequency variation signal", recited
in Claims I and 11 of` the ‘85l Patent and Claims 5 and 14 ofthe ‘366 Patent. Neither
the claims nor the patents’ specifications require that the "frequency variation signal" be
an intemal signal that cyclically varies in magnitude during a fixed period of time. To
the contrary, based on the patents’ claims, specifications, and prosecution histories, one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand "frequency variation sigr1al" to be a signal
used to vary the frequency of the oscillation signal.
I declare the foregoing is true and correct under penalty ofperjury under the laws
ofthe United States of America.
Executed on January 17, 2006 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
724 %
Paul Horo itz
oocssv i :443548. i
10414-25 Mzazmzrs

Case 1:O4—cv—O1371-JJF Document 168 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 17th day of January, 2006, the attached DECLARATION OF
PAUL HOROWITZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ AN SWERING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEF was served upon the below-named counsel of record at the address
and in the manner indicated:
William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire HAND DELIVERY
Fish & Richardson P.C.
919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 1114
Wilmington, DE 19899
Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Fish & Richardson P.C.
225 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110-2804
Michael Kane, Esquire VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Fish & Richardson P.C.
60 South Sixth Street
3300 Dain Rauscher Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Howard G. Pollack, Esquire VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Fish & Richardson P.C.
500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
x C" i ._
LL; en E. Maguire