T IN TI-IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT `
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
. INTERLOTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. )
) Case N0. l:O2C‘»/2157
Plaintifi ) .
vs. } fudge: Paul R. Matia
} Magistrate Judge: Jack B. Streepy
POLLAR3) BANKNOTE LIMITED, and }
POLLARD (U.S.) LTD. ) PLA{NTIFF'S, INTERLOTT
) TECHNOLOGIES, INCJS,
Defendants. ) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
T h v. Scientiiic Games QH 033538
G ec 04-128-JJF GTE ~ _ _
Case 1 :04-cv-00138-JJF Document 57-2 Filed O4/29/2005 Page 2 of 4
l I. INTRODUCTION c
Pursuant to the Case Management Order tiled December 20, 2002, plaintiff
lnterlott Technologies, lnc. ("lnterlott") hereby submits its Claim Construction Brief on the
disputed terms of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 4,982,337 (Exhibit l, "tbe ‘337 patent").
There are two categories of claim terms in dispute: terms that will be referred to as "structural
elements", and elements written in "means~plus-function" format. (See Exhibit 2, Joint Claim i
Construction and Prehearing Statement, hereinafter “C1aim Statement".)
It is fundamental patent law that, to construe the structural elements, the Court
need look no hrrther than the plain, ordinary meaning ofthe claim terms themselves. The Court
may not read limitations from the written description into those claim terms as Pollard asks the
Court to do. With respect to the claim elements written in means-plus-function format, the Court
t must construe those elements as performing the function recited in the claim, and only that b _
function; the Court may not add or subtract from that function. Then the Court must identify
only the structure disclosed in the specification that is necessary to perform the recited function.
Following the above principles, the Court should adopt lnterlott's construction of
the disputed temis ofthe '337 patent.-
II. THE ‘337 PATENT
The '337 patent is directed to a machine for dispensing lottery tickets that includes
a unique burster mechanism to separate the lottery tickets from each other. The machine has a
housing that includes a control panel 32 to permit the user to select the types and quantities of
lottery tickets to be purchased. ('337 patent at col. 7, l. 3-col. 8, 1. 9 and Fig. 3.) The housing
includes a storage area 58 that holds lottery tickets in fan-fold form wherein the tickets are
l
‘"`°°“`8ti¥l°£ll§—G““°S GTECH was
Case 1 :04-cv-00138-JJF Document 57-2 Filed O4/29/2005 Page 3 of 4
separable along a line of weakness (Le., a perforated line). ('337 patent at col. 3, l. 43-48; col.
10, l. 16-25 and 32-34; Fig. 5.)
Lottery tickets are typically printed on a stiff and relatively thick card stock that is
difficuit to tear apart. {Exhibit 3, Certiiied File Wrapper of the Prosecution History of U.S.
Pater1tNo. 4,982,337, hereinafter "'337 Prosecution History", at p.284, Amendment dated May
_ 17, 1989 at p. 30).)i Previous attempts at automatically dispensing lottery tickets cut the tickets,
which could lead to the destruction of the lottery ticket when the cut is not made precisely
between adjoining tickets. (*337 Prosecution History at p. 285, Amendment dated May 17, 1989
at p. 31.) The ’337 patent overcame this drawback by providing a unique burster mechanism that
uses "a dull edge bursting blade moveably mounted adjacent a predetermined bursting position".
('337 patent at col. 3, 1. 55-57; col. 10, E. 57-61; Figs. 5 and 7.) The burster mechanism of the
· '337 patent "does not cut {the} stream of tickets 50, but rather exerts pressure against the top of
{the} stream of tickets 50 in a direction to deflect it from the dispensing path S7". ('337 patent at
col. 10,1. 61-63.) The lottery tickets, however, are held between sets of rollers 60,62 and 64,66
that prevent substantial dellectiort, which "enables the bursting force from the burster 68 to
- separate the tickets 52, S4." ('337 patent at col. 10, l. 64 — col. 1 l, l. 3; Figs. SA and SB.)
Ill. THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
· lnterlott has asserted that defendants Poilard Banknotes Limited and Pollard
(U .S.) Ltd. {referred to collectively as "Pollard") are infringing each of claims 20-25 and 27-35
ofthe '337 patent. On May 21, 2003, the patties filed with the Court their feint Claim
Construction and Prehearing Statement (Exhibit 2), which sets forth Poilard‘s contentions as to
_ the terms of those claims that Pollard contends require construction and lnterlott‘s responses.
` The pages ofthe ‘337 Prosecution History have been consecutively numbered for the
convenience of the Court. _
2
{'}Tech v. Scientific Games
04-128-JJF GTECH 033536
Case 1 :04-cv-00138-JJF Document 57-2 Filed O4/29/2005 Page 4 of 4
` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Plaintiffs, Interlott Technologies,
Inc.‘s, Claim Construction Brief was served this 2Sth day of May, 2003, on counsel for
U defendants in the following manner indicated:
· y Via E-Mail
Jennifer S. Roach (0074143) Russell E. Levine, P.C.
Jctmifer,[email protected] rlevineg@,kirkland.com
THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. Luke L. Dauchot
3900 Key Center ldauchot@kiri
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 kcerven@l
200 East Randolph Drive
. Chicago, Illinois 60601
· ` _ ls! Theodore R. Remaklus
29
GTech v. Scientific Games G
04-128—JJ¥*` TECH 933563
Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF
Document 57-2
Filed 04/29/2005
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF
Document 57-2
Filed 04/29/2005
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF
Document 57-2
Filed 04/29/2005
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF
Document 57-2
Filed 04/29/2005
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms