Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 84

Filed 03/01/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELANTECH DEVICES CORP., Plaintiff, v. SYNAPTICS, INC.; AVERATEC, INC., Defendants. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB ORDER

The claim construction hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on March 8, 2007. At oral argument, the parties should focus their presentation on the following questions: A. '411: 1. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim scope limited to embodiments in which increments are calculated by one particular formula? 2. What is wrong with a construction of "incrementally move" as "move along a vector over a distance calculated by a monotonic function?" B. '931: 3. Does the intrinsic evidence specify whether the "signals" in the claims that are "initiated," "maintained," and "terminated" are limited to the original analog signals which are generated at the sensing plane, limited to the digital signals

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 84

Filed 03/01/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

which are the final output of the invention, limited to any other category of signals, or not limited at all? 4. Does the intrinsic evidence require that the "detection" of the occurrence of a tap gesture is a separate event from the "detection" of where the tap gesture occurred? 5. Does the intrinsic evidence require only one type of "detection" step that encompasses every event from sensing the change in voltage on the electrodes of the sensing plane to sending X and Y position information to the host? B. '352: 1. Does the intrinsic evidence exclude or require a claim construction that includes the process of measuring the capacitance of the traces within the step of "scanning?" 2. Does the intrinsic evidence exclude, require, or simply allow a claim construction that excludes the process of measuring the capacitance of the traces from the step of "scanning?" 3. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim construction that the only scanning technology encompassed within the scope of the claims is a capacitive touch sensing device with traces? 4. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim construction that the sensors may be scanned concurrently as well as sequentially? 5. Does the intrinsic evidence require that, within the domain of all values of finger-induced capacitance generated by a single finger along a single trace, the value that represents the maxima must be a unique value? Each side will be permitted no more than 45 minutes for argument. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\ORDERreMarkmanQs.wpd 2

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 84

Filed 03/01/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\ORDERreMarkmanQs.wpd 3