Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01505-Gl\/IS Document 87 Filed O4/O3/2006 Page 1 of 2
Rrcataaos, LAYTON & Fn~.1<;ER
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ONE Roowzv ECIUARE
920 Ncnnrr-1 Kama STREET
FnEoER1ci< i. connect, as Wsrmrnerom, Dsmwanz tenor D';;°;§éA?_;l;*gE§R
D°HH°vl°R (302) $5**77OO Co·¤"REn.1.@nisr= com
Fax racaaa esi-vvor
WWW. RLF. CO M
April 3, 2006
BY E~FELING AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 1980l
Re: Tlzermo F irmigcm LLC v. Applem Corp ,
Civil Action No. 04—l505~GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
Pursuant to District of Delaware Local Rule '7.l.2(c), Thermo Finnigan responds to
Applera’s March 3i, 2006 letter to the Court concerning the Federal Circuit’s decision in On
Demczncl Machine Corp, v. Ingram Indzrstries, Inc., C .A. Nos. 05~·l074, ~l075, ~ll0 (Fed- Cir.
March 31, 2006) (slip op.).
On Demand does not advance Applera’s claim construction positions. In holding that the
claim term “customer" was limited to a "retail customer," the Federal Circuit determined that the
limitation of the invention to the sale of books to retail purchasers, as opposed to the "remote
large-scale production of books for publishers and retailers" was "clearly stated in the
specitication {] and . . . described as the advantage and distinction ofthe invention? Slip. op. at
12-1.3r For example, the specification "distinguisiie[d] ‘general purpose machines . . . not
specifically designed to be consumer operated for the on demand, automatic manufacturing of a
single book at the point of sale.”’ Id. at 12. No such statements of limitation or distinction exist
in the patent—·in—suit in this case related to the claim construction issues before the Court. instead,
the ’654 patent uses terms broadly and without qualification, for example, “common anionic
species” and "capillary electrophoresis?
Moreover, the On Demmid panel approved of the district court’s use of dictionary
definitions as a starting point in its construction of the term "sales information," provided those
definitions were construed in a manner consistent with their use in the intrinsic record. Slip op.
at 8.
arr;-zssssrs-1

Case 1:04-cv-01505-Gl\/IS Document 87 Filed O4/O3/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
April 3, 2006
Page 2
As always, if Your Honor has any questions regarding the foregoing, counsel remains
available at the Court’s convenience.
Respectfully,
.
T2/k/\ ( owl i wi
Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
FLC/bw
Enclosure
cc: Clerk, U.S. District Court (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (By Hand)
Walter E. Hanley, Jr., Esquire (By Telecopy)
William G, James, II, Esquire (By Telecopy)
rmi-zevasvs-z