Citations
- 143 F. Supp. 3d 485
Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROY S. PAYNE, United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (“Plaintiff’) (Dkt. No. 53, filed on August 26, 2015), the response of Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd., TPV International (USA), Inc., Envision Peripherals, Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co. Ltd., TPV Electronics (Fujian) Co. Ltd., TPV Technology Ltd., and TPV Display Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 58, filed under seal on September 9, 2015), and the reply of Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 60, filed on September 16, 2015). The Court held a hearing on the issues of claim construction and claim definiteness on October 7, 2015. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and in their briefing, the Court issues this Order.
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND. . . 490
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES... 491
III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS... 495
IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS... 500
A.The ‘412 Patent — “input picture signal”... 500
B. The ‘197 Patent — The “video processor sections” Terms... 506
C. The‘366 Patent.. .510
1. The “mounting side” Terms... 510
2. The “horizontal direction” Terms... 515
V.CONCLUSION
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges infringement of U.S. Patents No. 6,037,995 (the “ ‘995 Patent”), No. 6,144,412 (the “‘412 Patent”), No. 6,388,713 (the “‘713 Patent”), No. 7,924,-366 (the “ ‘366 Patent”), No. 8,009,375 (the “‘375 Patent”), and No. 8,913,197 (the “ ‘197 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
In general, the Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for displaying or processing picture signals. The ‘995 Patent is entitled “BROADCASTING AND COMMUNICATION RECEIVER APPARATUS.” It issued on March 14, 2000 and claims priority to a Japanese patent application filed on April 19, 1996. The ‘412 Patent is entitled “METHOD AND CIRCUIT FOR SIGNAL PROCESSING OF FORMAT CONVERSION OF PICTURE SIGNAL.” It issued on November 7, 2000 and claims priority to a Japanese patent application filed October 15, 1996. The ‘713 Patent is entitled “IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS, AND METHOD TO PREVENT OR LIMIT USER ADJUSTMENT OF DISPLAYED IMAGE QUALITY.” It issued on May 14, 2002 and claims priority to a Japanese patent application filed on July 14, 1997. The ‘366 Patent is entitled “IMAGE DISPLAYING APPARATUS.” It issued on April 12, 2011 and claims priority to Japanese patent applications filed on September 28, 2007. The ‘375 Patent is entitled “APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RECEIVING AND RECORDING DIGITAL INFORMATION.” It issued on August 30, 2011 and claims priority to Japanese patent applications filed as early as July 6, 1990. The T97 Patent is entitled “DIGITAL BROADCAST RECEIVER UNIT.” It issued on December 16, 2014 and claims priority to a Japanese application filed on August 21,1997.
The Court has previously considered the ‘995 Patent, the ‘412 Patent, the ‘713 Patent, and the ‘375 Patent, and construed claims from those patents. Hitachi Consumer Elecs. Co. v. Top Victory Elecs. (Taiwan) Co., et al, No. 2:10-cv-260-JRG, 2013 WL 5273326, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162106 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 13, 2012). In that same proceeding, the .Court considered two patents related to the ‘197 Patent, namely, U.S. Patent No. 6,549,243 (the “ ‘243 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,889,-281 (the “ ‘281 Patent”). The ‘197 Patent is related to the ‘243 Patent and to the ‘281 Patent through a series of continuation applications, and therefore shares a substantially identical specification, apart from the claims.
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A. Claim Construction
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.Cir.2004)). To determine the meáning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed.Cir.2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. The general rule — subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra — is that each claim term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2003); Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2014) (“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”) (vacated on other grounds).
“The claim construction inquiry ... begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed.Cir.1998). “[I]n all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’ ” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.Cir.1998). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
“[Cjlaims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ ” Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002). But, “ ‘[although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’ ” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed.Cir.1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir.1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification — even if it is the only embodiment — into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed.Cir.2004).
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1996) (ambiguous prosecution history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “ ‘less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’ ” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C. R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the term is • used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court recently explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidencé in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period. .See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546, 78 U.S. 516, 20 L.Ed. 33 (1871) (a patent , may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the “evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., —U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 831, 841, — L.Ed.2d -(2015).
B. Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Golden Bridge Tech, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.Cir.2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding lexicography or disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”) “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2013).
C. Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f)(AIA)
A‘patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6; Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347-49 & n. 3 (Fed.Cir.2015) (en banc in relevant portion). Section 112, Paragraph 6, provides that a structure may be claimed as a “means ... for performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for performing a specified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2002).
But § 112, ¶'6 does not apply to all'functional claim language. There is a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies when the claim language includes “means” or “step for” terms, and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326; Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls according to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context of the entire specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function. See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2015) (§ 112, ¶6 does not apply when “the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites sufficiently definite structure” (quotation marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349; Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed.Cir.2014))); Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”); Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes an “act” corresponding to “how the function is performed”); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. International Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed.Cir.1998) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes “sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited function ... even if the claim uses the term ‘means.’ ” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
When it applies, § 112, ¶ 6 limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure, materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple steps. “The first step ... is a determination of the function of the means-plus-function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2001). “[T]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Id. The corresponding structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2005). However, § 112 does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed.Cir.1999).
For mean-plus-function limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed.Cir.1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2008).
D. Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b)(AIA)
Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014). If it does not, the claim fails § 112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid as indefinite. Id. at 2124. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application for the patent was filed. Id. at 2130. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any claim in suit to comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 2130 n. 10. “[Ijndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed.Cir.2012).
When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2015) (quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when a subjective term is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of the [term].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2005); accord Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2014) (citing Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1351).
In the context of a claim governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the claim is invalid as indefinite if the claim fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52. The disclosure is inadequate when one of ordinary skill in the art “would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim.” Id. at 1352.
III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS
The parties have agreed to the following constructions set forth in their Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 62), as modified at the October 7, 2015 hearing:
Term5
Agreed Construction
“to thereof’
• ’412 Patenl Claim 1
“to the signal selected by the first selector”
“motion coefficient of picture’’
• ’412 Patent Claim 3
“one or more coefficients of motion of the picture to be displayed”
’ processing
• '197 Patent Claims 25, 27. 29, 31, 33,35
plain and ordinary meaning
“video signal formats”
• ’197 Patent Claims 25, 27, 29, 31, 33,35
“number of scan lines and whether the lines arc progressive or interlaced’’
Term5
Agreed Construction
“video processing sub software programs”
• ’197 Patent Claims 31, 3 3. 3 5
plain and ordinary meaning
‘'plurality'’ of video processing sub software programs”
• '197 Patent Claims 31, 33, 35
plain and ordinary meaning
“when a rear surface of said projection portion is pushed”
• ’366 Patent Claim 3
plain and ordinary meaning
“when a rear side of said display apparatus is pushed”
• '366 Patent Claim 7
plain and ordinary meaning
“not being connected”
• '366 Patent Claim 1
plain and ordinary meaning
“not to be connected”
• ’366 Patent Claim 5
plain and ordinary meaning
“a magnitude of the first display zone”
• ’995 Patent Claim I
“a size of the first display zone”
“receiver means for- receiving program-associated information including a title, a start time, and an end time of a broadcast program together with a video signal and an audio signal”
• '995 Patent Claim 1
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ ó.
Claimed Function
• “receiving program-associated information including at title, a start time, and an end time of a broadcast program together with a video signal and an audio signal”
Disclosed Structure
• a receiver (118), and equivalents thereof
Term5
Agreed Construction
“decoder means for decoding the program-associated information from the received signal”
* '995 Patent Claim 1
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
* “decoding the program-associated information from the received signal”
Disclosed Structure
• an information decoder (107), and equivalents thereof
“display controller means for controlling the display screen based on the input signal”
• ’995 Patent Claim 1
This term is governed by 35 U.S C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• “controlling the display screen based on the input signal”
Disclosed Structure
• a display controller (109), and equivalents thereof
“command receiver means for receiving an input signal from a remote controller or from a key or keys provided to a main body of the receiver apparatus”
• ’995 Patent Claim 1
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• “receiving an input signal from a remote controller or from a key or keys provided to a main body of the receiver apparatus”
Disclosed Structure
» a command receiver (106), and equivalents thereof
“data quantity comparator means for comparing a magnitude of the first display zone- with a quantity of display data ...”
• ’995 Patent Claim 1
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
« “comparing a magnitude of the first display zone with a quantity of display data”
Disclosed Structure
® a comparator (1Í2), and equivalents thereof
Term5
Agreed Construction
“display means for displaying the decoded program-associated information on a display screen”
• ‘995 Patent Claim 1
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• "displaying the decoded program-associated information on-a display screen"
Disclosed Structure
• a television screen (105), and equivalents thereof’
“a plurality of character strings”
* ’995 Patent Claim 1
“two or more sets of letters, numbers, spaces, and/or punctuation marks’’
“the character string”
• ’995 Patent Claim 1
“one or more of the plurality of character strings”
“enabler/disabler”
• ’713 Patent Claim
"a circuit that enables and disables an operation”
“enabler/disabler means for selectively preventing said user adjustment control means from adjusting at least said portions of said displayed image containing said information image based on said control signal”
• ’713 Patent Claim 8
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• “selectively preventing said user adjustment control means from adjusting at least said portions of said displayed image containing said information image based on said control signal”
Disclosed Structure
» (1) changeover switch 13, changeover switch 13 b, short-circuiting switch 13 c, or changeover switch 13d, and equivalents thereof; or (2) bypass circuit 15 together with changeover switch 13a, and equivalents thereof
“said portions” in the phrase “adjusting at least said portions of said displayed image containing said information image based on said control signal”
• ’713 Patent Claims 1, 8,15
“each portion”
Term5
Agreed Construction
“detection means for detecting a portion of said displayed image containing said information image and outputting a control signal according to said detected portion”
• ’713 Patent Claim 8
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• “detecting a portion of said displayed image containing said information image and outputting a control signal according to said detected portion”
Disclosed Structure
• a decoder (4 or 1206), an EPG processor (1204), a CPU (1220), or a separator (7c), and equivalents thereof
“said displayed image’’
• ’713 Patent Claims 1, 8
’'the image to be displayed”
'"said selection menu”
’713 Patent Claims 6,13, 20
“said EPG or PPV selection menu”
“display means for selectably displaying at least two of: a picture image without an information image; said information image without said picture image; and said picture image simultaneously with said information image”
• ’713 Patent Claim 8
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• “selectably displaying at least two of: a picture image without an information image; said information image without said picture image; and said picture image simultaneously with said information image”
Disclosed Structure
• a cathode ray tube (or CRT), a display, or a screen, and equivalents thereof
“user adjustment control means for allowing user adjustment of an image quality of a displayed image”
• '713 Patent Claim 8
This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
Claimed Function
• “allowing user adjustment of an image quality of a displayed image”
Disclosed Structure
• an adjusting section circuit (Ra) and an image quality adjusting circuit (7a), and equivalents thereof
Term5
Agreed Construction
"crror-detecti on informad on”
• '375 Patent Claim 1
plain and ordinary meaning
“control signal information”
• '375 Patent Claim 31
“data used to control a recording or playback process”
Having reviewed the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence of record, the Court hereby adopts the parties’ agreed constructions.
IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
The parties’ positions and the Court’s analysis as to the disputed terms are presented below.
A. The ‘412 Patent — “input picture signal”
Disputed Term
Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“input picture signal”
• '412 Patent Claims 1, 15, 17, 19
“picture signal before format conversion”
“video signal received from an input source”
The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits that the input picture signal is the signal that is inputted to the format-conversion circuit or process. Dkt. No. 53 at 14. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly focuses on the display apparatus as a whole, as opposed to the format-conversion circuit that is the subject invention of the ‘412 Patent. Id. at 14-15. According to Plaintiff, the patent consistently uses “input picture signal” to refer to the picture signal before it is processed by the format-conversion circuit, and does not use to the term to refer to the source signal. Id. at 15-17. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly threatens to exclude a preferred embodiment, in which the source signal undergoes pre-processing before being input into the format-conversion circuit. Id. at 17-19 (citing ‘412 Patent Figure 8 and accompanying description).
In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic evidence to support its position: ‘412 Patent col.2 11.9-37, col.6 11.26-44, eol.6 11.53-64, col.7 11.2-16, col. 15 1.40 — col.16 1.15, col.16 11.35-39, col.16 1.57, col.19 11.51-54, col.23 11.11-15, fíg.l, fig.8, ñg.9, fig.13, fig. 17.
Defendants respond that the invention, and claims, of the ‘412 Patent are directed to receiving video signals from a variety of sources and processing the signal “so that it can be properly displayed on the picture output device.” Dkt. No. 58 at 9-10. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's proposed construction is based on an improper restriction of the “format conversion” of the patent to conversion of the scanning method (e.g., interlaced scanning to progressive scanning). Id. at 12. According to Defendants, the “format conversion” of the patent includes “color space conversion” and “inverse gamma conversion.” Id. And Defendants argue that Plaintiffs proposed construction would improperly exclude the “input signals” .from the various sources depicted in Figure 8. Id. at 11-12.
In addition to the claims themselves, Defendants cite the following intrinsic evidence to support their position: ‘412 Patent col.l 11.21-25, col.l 11.45-47, col.16 11.35-39, col.13 11.24-61, col.16 11.12-21, fig.8, fig-21.
Plaintiff replies that the ‘412 Patent is directed specifically at converting the format of video signals, not simply processing signals from a variety of sources. Dkt. No. 60 at 6. Plaintiff further replies that contrary to Defendants’ contention, Plaintiffs proposed construction does not exclude the source signals of Figure 18. Id. at 6-7. Rather, Plaintiff argues, those source signals are “picture signal[s] before format conversion.” Id. at 7. And although the source signals undergo some pre-processing before being input into the format-conversion circuit, they do not undergo any format conversion until being processed by the format-conversion circuit. Id. Plaintiff also replies that the format conversion contemplated by the ‘412 Patent is scan conversion and scaling, and that the gamma and color conversion are part of the picture quality improvement that happens after the format of the input signal is converted. Id. Finally, Plaintiff argues that if Defendants’ proposed construction requires raw source signal input into the format-conversion circuit, it will improperly exclude the embodiment of Figure 8, which describes processing of source signals before they are input into the format-conversion circuit labeled 49-1. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff cites further intrinsic evidence to support its position: ‘412 Patent col.3 11.27-31, col.4 11.8-13, col.4 11.33-34, col.4 11.66-67, col.6 11.20-26, 46, 48, & 49, col.7 11.29, 33, & 51, col.8 11.18 & 31, col.15 11.11-27, col.16 11.57, 61, & 65, col.17 1.28, col.20 11.51, 54, & 62, col.23 11.12 & 15, fig.7.
Analysis
The parties’ dispute distills to whether “input picture signal” should be defined by the signal’s source or its destination. The term is properly defined by its destination — the claimed format-conversion circuit or process to which the picture signal is an input.
The ‘412 Patent is directed to methods and circuits for taking a picture signal that is inputted into the method or circuit, and converting the format of the signal into a format compatible with a display device. ‘412 Patent col.l 11.6-13. The patent describes several format-conversion signal-processing circuits, and their methods of operation. See, e.g., id. at col.6 1.19 — col.7 I.45 (describing Figure 1), col.16 1.46— col.17 1.23 (describing Figure 9), col.20 II.39-64 (describing Figure 13), col.22 1.63 — col.23 1.25 (describing Figure 17). Figure 1 is reproduced here and annotated by the Court. Each embodiment is designated as “a format conversion signal processing circuit” or “a format conversion circuit.” Id. at col.6 11.20-21, col.16 11.47-48, col.20 11.40 — 41, col.22 11.64-65. In each of these embodiments an “input picture signal SI (comprising component luminance and color difference signals ...) is inputted to [an element of the circuit].” Id. at col.6 11.26-29 (in yellow in the annotated Figure 1), col.16 11.57-60, col.20 11.51— 54, col.23 11.12-15.
The ‘412 Patent consistently describes a signal entering a circuit, circuit element, or process as an “input” or “inputted” signal, independent of the ultimate source of such signal. See, e.g., id. at col.l 11.39-44 (“format conversion is performed by signal processing and pictures are displayed by converting inputted signals of pictures into signals of display formats of picture output devices”), col.7 11.4-16 (describing a circuit element as having an “input side” and a circuit element that “inputs” a signal that is outputted from another element), col.9 11.21-27 (“an input signal to the delay unit”), col.10 11.25-31 (“an input signal to the memory unit”), col.15 11.11-22 (describing a “signal ... inputted to a luminance processing unit” and a “signal ... inputted to a picture element interpolation unit”). That is, a signal is an input signal because it is inputted into a circuit, element, or process.
’412 Patent
1. A circuit lor signal processing of format conversion of picture signal which performs signal processing of convert-,im> a format of an input picture signal into a predetermined display formal ot'a picture, output device, said circuit comprising;
a scantling convertor for performing first local signal processing of converting lie input picture sismal into a picture signal of progressive scanning when the input picture signal is of interlace scanning;
a first selector for selecting cither one of the input picture siuna) and the picture signal of progressive scanning outputted from the scanning convertor;
a sealing unit comprising a horizontal scaling unit for performing second local signal processing ul compression and expansion in a horizontal direction to a signal selected by the íimt selector and a vertical sealing unit performing third local signal processing of compression and expansion tu a vertical direction to thereof: and
a control unit for selecting parameters of the signal processing in accordance with the format of the jtmu] picture signal and the display format of the picture output device and controlling at least the scanning convertor, the first selector and the scaling, unit in accordance with the parameters of the signal process-rig.
The claim language itself indicates that the “input picture signal” is the signal inputted to the format-conversion circuit or method. For instance the circuit of Claim 1, reproduced here and annotated by the Court, is for “converting a format of an input picture signal.” The input picture signal is used or manipulated by various circuit components: the scanning convertor, the first selector, and the control unit. The circuit components convert the format of the input picture signal by'converting the signal’s scanning method from interlace scanning to progressive scanning and by compressing or expanding the picture in the horizontal and vertical directions. This “input picture signal” is the picture signal that is inputted to, and converted by, the Claim 1 circuit.
The format-conversion circuits of the ‘412 Patent are described with respect to the format of the “input picture signal,” not with respect to the source of the “input picture signal.”" For example, the description of the first embodiment (Figure 1) includes a description of various formats of picture signal, namely interface scanning signals (TV) and progressive scanning signals (EDTV, PC, HDTV). Id. at col.6 11.45-52. This discussion does not define the “input picture signal” by its source. Rather, it explains that the format-conversion signal processing is configured according to the input signal’s format by using a format detector (0, in green in annotated Figure 1), a control unit (11, in cyan in annotated Figure 1), and a selector (4, in red in annotated Figure 1). Id. at col.6 11.45-52, col.7 11.27-43. Configuring the format-conversion processing according to the format of the input signal is further described with reference to Figures 21, 22, and 23. Id. at col.13 1.24— col.15 1.10. In these figures, the “input signal” is identified according to its format, e.g., 525/60/2:1 (an “NTSC” signal), not according to its source. Id. The “input picture signal” is a picture signal that is inputted to the format-conversion circuit or process, regardless of the signal’s source.
Defendants’ argument that the embodiment of Figure 8 of the ‘412 Patent mandates that “input picture signal” refers to the signal received from a source is unpersuasive. Figure 8, reproduced here and annotated by the Court, depicts an example of a television receiver that has a format-conversion circuit. Id. at col.15 1.40— col.16 1.45. The various sources of the signals received by the receiver are shown as: (1) a PC, (2) a terrestrial broadcast wave, (3) a package system (e.g., CD-ROM, video tape), (4) a satellite broadcast wave, and (5) a digital broadcast wave. Id. at col.15 1.47 — col.16 1.10. These sources are denoted using words distinct from the format-denoting words found elsewhere in the patent, such as in Figures 21, 22, and 23 and the accompanying description. Thus, while each source signal will necessarily be of some format, the signal’s “source” and “format” should not be conflated as Defendants argue.
The source signals of Figure 8 are processed by various circuits (40^17, in green) before being output from the switcher (48) to the format-conversion circuits (49-1 and 49-2, in cyan). Id. at col.15 1.47 — col.16 1.21. This processing includes receiving the source signal and converting the signal to luminance and color signals through YC (luminance and color) separation, demodulation, or color space conversion. Id. The picture processing units (49-1 and 49-2, in cyan) each are the “format conversion signal processing circuit” of Figure 1 or, alternately, of Figure 9, 13, or 17. See id. at col.16 11.12-21, col.16 11.35-49, col.20 11.39-41, col.22 11.63-66. As set forth above, the input to the Figure 1 format-conversion circuit is the “input picture signal.” Thus, the output of the switcher (48) in Figure 8 is the “input picture signal,” irrespective of whether the source signals were received and processed before reaching the switcher. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ construction, to the extent it is meant to define the “input picture signal” as the raw source signal, would exclude the Figure 8 embodiment. And a “construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 865 (Fed.Cir.2004).
Claim 14, reproduced here and annotated by the Court, further supports that the input picture signal is the picture signal inputted to the claimed format-conversion circuit or method. The claimed television receiver includes the circuit of Claim 1. And as discussed above, the circuit of Claim 1 converts the format of the “input picture signal.” Claim 14 further includes a “picture output device” that displays the signal “outputted from” the format-conversion circuit of Claim 1. Thus, the format-conversion circuit has both an input and an output: the signal inputted to the circuit has its format converted according to the circuit of Claim 1 and the format-converted signal output from the circuit of Claim 1 is displayed on the output device. But there is nothing in Claim 14 that supports Defendants’ position that the “input picture signal” must be that signal received from the picture source. In fact, such a construction would improperly read in limitations from the Figure 8 embodiment, namely the processing elements 40-47 by which the source signal is processed for input to the format-conversion circuit. The “input picture signal” is not defined by an input source, as Defendants’ contend, it is defined by its destination, i.e., the claimed format-conversion circuit or method.
’412 Patent
14, A id claim I; ami’** a pki'iH- iHilpni device fot disphtyiur, piclure oía siiyial • nunsiii^d ¡Hijii iljo ciiciiii iur signal pioeev>mg ul h