Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00972/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00972-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv972

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FASTEK, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10 CV 0972 MMA (CAB)

ORDER CONSTRUING

DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF

UNITED STATES PATENT NOS.

7,172,382; 7,588,406; and 7,699,575

vs.

STECO, a division of Blue Tee Corporation,

et al.,

Defendants.

Pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the Court

conducted a hearing on March 25, 2011 regarding the construction of disputed claim terms in

United States Patent Nos. 7,172,382; 7,588,406; and 7,699,575. Attorneys Valerie Ho, Franklin

Ubell, and Kamran Salour appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Fastek, LLC. Attorneys Mark Brown

and Stephen Swinton appeared on behalf of Defendants Steco and Blue Tee Corp. Attorney

Dustin Dodgin appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant Sierra International Machinery,

LLC. Prior to the hearing, the Court provided the parties with its tentative construction of each

disputed claim term and instructed the parties to meet and confer. (See attached Court’s Exhibit

A.) After review, Plaintiff agreed with the Court’s tentative constructions, while Defendants

asserted the disputed terms merited further argument before the Court. Upon careful consideration

of the papers and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court issues the following order construing

the disputed claim terms of the patents at issue in this case.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv972

BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2010, Plaintiff Fastek filed a complaint for infringement of two patents—U.S.

Patent Nos. 7,588,406 (“‘406 Patent) and 7,699,575 (“‘575 Patent”). [Doc. No. 1.] On November

30, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to add a

third patent—U.S. Patent No. 7,172,382 (“‘382 Patent”). [Doc. Nos. 46, 47.] Defendants have

filed counterclaims against Plaintiff asserting the patents are invalid and requesting a declaration

of non-infringement. [Doc. Nos. 50, 52.] Generally, all three patents describe assemblies that

teach a method for loading bulk material into a transport container quickly and efficiently. 

[See Doc. No. 47.]

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The construction of patent claim terms is a matter of law for the court. Markman, 517 U.S.

at 372. “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.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water

Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As a general rule, the claim language

carries its ordinary and customary meaning. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d

1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The ordinary meaning of a term cannot, however, be construed in a

vacuum; rather, a court “must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written

description and the prosecution history.” Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313,

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To ascertain the meaning of a claim term, the court refers to “those sources

available to the public that show what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood

the disputed claim language to mean.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.

2005) (en banc). The court does so to “determine whether the inventor used any terms in a manner

inconsistent with their ordinary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,

1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The sources include “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of

the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific

principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314

(citing Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116).

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 2 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv972

The court begins with the language of the claims. PSC Computer Prods., Inc. v. Foxconn

Int’l, 355 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When considering the claim language, “the context in

which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. 

The court may also consider the other claims of the patent, both asserted and non-asserted. Id. 

For example, as claim terms are normally used consistently throughout a patent, the usage of a

term in one claim may illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Id. The court

may also consider differences between claims to guide in understanding the meaning of particular

claim terms. Id.

As the claims do not stand alone, they “must be read in view of the specification, of which

they are a part.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citation omitted). “The construction that stays true to

the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be,

in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d

1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When the specification reveals a special definition given to a claim

term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, the inventor’s

lexicography governs. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,

288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or

disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. Id. (citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced

Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

The Federal Circuit also has affirmed the importance of the prosecution history. Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1317. The prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO

and the applicant. Id. The prosecution history, like the specification, “provides evidence of how

the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. (citing Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 968

F.2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). However, it is subject to inherent ambiguity because is

represents the negotiation, rather than the final product of the negotiation, and is thus less useful

than the specification. Id.

Extrinsic evidence “can shed useful light on the relevant art,” but the Federal Circuit

considers it “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning

of claim language.” Id. (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir.

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 3 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 10cv972

2004)). “Extrinsic evidence may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable

interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id.

at 1319. The Federal Circuit has held that it remains within the court’s discretion to admit

extrinsic evidence, provided the court keeps in mind the flaws inherent in extrinsic evidence. Id. 

In sum, this Court first must interpret the claim terms in light of the intrinsic evidence—

specification, claims, and prosecution history—and then exercise discretion in deciding whether to

consider extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties.

II. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS

With the above principles in mind, the Court turns to the construction of the disputed claim

terms. The parties identified two terms for construction by the Court: (1) “engage” (and its

grammatical variations); and (2) “lock.” Each party proposed a single definition for each of the

two terms to be applied across the three patents at issue. Accordingly, to avoid repetition, the

Court will not parse each claim in each patent where the disputed terms appear. Rather, the Court

will utilize exemplary claim language from a single patent that is materially identical to the

relevant claims in the remaining two patents; any substantive differences among the patents that

affect the Court’s analysis are noted.

(A) Engage, Engaged, Engaging

The first term disputed by the parties is “engage.” The following phrases utilizing the term

“engage” appear in the three patents at issue: 

• “wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support

structure”

• “engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure”

• “engaged with the stationary support structure”

• “the step of engaging”

• “engaging the movable wall of the barrier assembly”

Both parties offer proposed constructions for the term “engage.” Plaintiff proposes “engage”

means “any type of mechanical engagement which establishes contact, interlocking, or meshing

between respective elements, whether indirectly, through intermediate component(s), or directly.” 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 4 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendant Sierra International Machinery, LLC joins Defendants Steco and Blue Tee Corp.’s

claim construction briefs. [Doc. Nos. 70, 76.]

2

 The Court notes the dictionary definition for “engage” provided by Defendants—to interlock

with : MESH ; to cause (mechanical parts) to mesh—does not indicate direct, physical contact

between mechanical components is necessary. [See Doc. No. 69 at p.22; Doc. No. 69-7 at

BTC001489.] 

- 5 - 10cv972

[Doc. No. 54.] Defendants propose that “engage” means “direct physical contact between

mechanical components.” [Id.]1

 

The Court tentatively found that neither party offered an appropriate proposed construction

of the term, as both constructions imported additional limitations not supported by the intrinsic

evidence. Accordingly, the Court tentatively found that “engage” (and its grammatical variations)

means “to connect directly, or indirectly through intermediate component(s).” In so ruling,

the Court agreed with Plaintiff’s position that the plain language of the patents, the prosecution

history, and the plain meaning of “engage” do not support Defendants’ narrow construction which

requires direct, physical contact between mechanical components. Nothing in the record indicates

the inventor intended “engage” to have a special or limited meaning as used in the patents. Rather,

the intrinsic evidence supports a construction that reflects the broader plain meaning of the term

“engage.”2

 Plaintiff stipulates to the Court’s tentative construction.

Defendants argue, however, the inventor’s use of “disengage” precludes the Court’s

tentative construction. According to Defendants, if the Court’s construction is adopted, and

indirect components could be utilized to engage the barrier assembly with the support structure,

the barrier would always remain engaged with the support structure because the two elements will

always be indirectly connected through intermediate components. If “engage” encompasses

indirect contact, Defendants contend that to “disengage . . . the barrier assembly would have to

levitate above the stationary support structure and the load bin.” [Doc. No. 74, p.2 (emphasis in

original).] The Court disagrees. The term “engage” is not read in isolation, rather, it is interpreted

within the context of the claim(s) in which it appears. See Toro Co., 199 F.3d at 1299 (“in judicial

‘claim construction’ the court must achieve the same understanding of the patent, as a document

whose meaning and scope have legal consequences, as would a person experienced in the

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 5 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Similar “engage” and “disengage” phrases appear in the ‘406 Patent and ‘575 Patent. 

4

 Claim 2 of the ‘382 Patent states: “disengaging the barrier assembly from the support

structure; and sliding the barrier assembly to a retracted position, disposed within the load bin.”

- 6 - 10cv972

technology of the invention”); Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1251 (the meaning of a claim is to be

understood in context). 

For example, independent Claim 11 of the ‘382 Patent reads in relevant part: “engaging the

barrier assembly with the stationary support structure after the drive mechanism has been operated

to move the load bin into the transport container, to lock the barrier assembly adjacent to the open

end of the container . . . .” (emphasis added).3 The parties do not dispute that when the entire

phrase is considered, it is clear the inventor used the term “engage” to describe a specific action at

a specific point in time during the loading process. Namely, the barrier assembly engages the

support structure after the loan bin has been moved into the transport container. The Court finds

the inventor’s use of the term “disengage” in dependent Claim 12 to signal the termination of this

step—when the barrier assembly is disengaged from the support structure and slides to a retracted

position—is consistent with the inventor’s use of the term “engage.” 

Similarly, independent Claim 1 of the ‘382 Patent states in relevant part: “the step of

engaging includes engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure, to lock the

barrier assembly adjacent to the open end of the transport container.” (emphasis added). Thus, the

term “engage” again signals a specific action at a specific point in time for a specific purpose—the

barrier assembly connects to the stationary support structure so that it is locked adjacent to the

open end of the container. Stated another way, the barrier assembly connects to the stationary

support structure in a specific manner for a specified duration to accomplish this step of the

loading process. The limited nature of the claimed connection between the barrier assembly and

stationary support structure does not speak to any potential connection between the two structures

at any other point in time. Therefore, Defendants’ argument that for the two components to later

become “disengaged,” as described in dependent Claim 2 of the ‘382 Patent, they must have no

contact between them is unpersuasive.4

 In sum, the intrinsic evidence does not indicate the

inventor intended the word “engage” to have a special limited meaning to describe only direct

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 6 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 - 10cv972

physical contact between mechanical components, and the patents’ references to “disengagement”

in subsequent dependent claim limitations does not require a narrower construction. 

Defendants also argue the prosecution history supports their construction where “engage”

requires direct contact between the barrier assembly and stationary support structure. The parties

do not dispute that during prosecution of the ‘382 Patent, the examiner rejected the inventor’s

proposed claim language which provided for a “locking assembly.” The examiner indicated the

application did not adequately disclose the locking assembly structure that purportedly locked the

barrier assembly adjacent to the open end of the container while the load bin is being retracted. 

[See FAS000856-59, Exh. G to Doc. No. 69-2 (the language “does not reasonably provide

enablement for a locking assembly that locks a barrier assembly to the support structure”;

“applicant makes no reference to the fact that there [sic] barrier locking mechanism are well

known in the art”.] The examiner concluded the “locking assembly” description was deficient

because one skilled in the art would not be able to implement the specification without more

information.

In response, after several failed attempts to amend the language, the inventor cancelled the

“locking assembly” element altogether and replaced it with the now disputed phrasing—“wherein

the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structure when the drive

mechanism has moved the load bin into the transport container.” [Exh. G to Doc. No. 69-2 at

FAS000688, FAS000694-696 (emphasis added).] This language, coupled with two expert

declarations indicating that it would be immediately clear to one skilled in the art how to

implement the barrier assembly identified by the inventor, proved successful and the patent was

allowed. Defendants argue the inventor’s decision to delete the “locking assembly” language

reflects his acquiescence to narrower claim limitations, which require direct physical contact

between the barrier assembly and stationary support structure. Again, the Court disagrees. 

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the prosecution histories for the three patents as issue,

and concludes they do not indicate the scope of the claims is limited to direct contact between the

barrier assembly and the stationary support structure. Although the examiner rejected the “locking

assembly” language several times during the prosecution of the ‘382 Patent, the examiner’s

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 7 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 - 10cv972

remarks do not suggest that in the absence of the “locking assembly” the barrier assembly and

stationary support structure were in direct contact. Rather, the examiner found what the inventor

described as a locking assembly to be inadequately specified, such that one reasonably skilled in

the art could not implement the locking assembly without undue experimentation. The examiner’s

rejection does not require the conclusion that all methods of indirectly connecting, contacting or

otherwise engaging the barrier assembly and stationary support structure are also precluded. 

Instead, it appears the inventor attempted to patent a locking assembly—a specific indirect method

for engaging the barrier and the support structure—but was ultimately unsuccessful because he did

not adequately explain how to implement the specified locking assembly element. Accordingly,

the inventor eventually opted to delete his reference to a specific locking assembly, and replaced

the rejected language with “engage.”

Without more, the Court concludes the prosecution history does not support a narrower

construction of the term engage which requires direct contact between the barrier assembly and the

stationary support structure. Indeed, the expert declaration of Lemna Hunter submitted to the

examiner identifies several possible embodiments of the technology, none of which indicate direct

physical contact between the structures is required, or even preferred. [See Exh. G to Doc. No. 69-

2 at FAS000850-52.] In the absence of “contravening evidence from the specification or

prosecution history, plain and unambiguous claim language controls the construction analysis.” 

DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilions, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Here, on its

face, the patent makes clear the disputed term “engage” means that the barrier assembly and the

stationary support structure connect to lock the barrier assembly in a particular position at a

specific point in time. Defendants have not demonstrated the intrinsic evidence limits this

connection to direct physical contact between the mechanical parts. Nothing in the record

reasonably precludes an embodiment wherein the components come into contact or engage one

another through intermediate means, and it is generally error to adopt a claim construction that

would exclude one of the inventor’s preferred embodiments. See MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton,

Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A] claim interpretation that excludes a

preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.”) (citing On-Line

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 8 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 - 10cv972

Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). 

Finally, given the unambiguous intrinsic evidence, the finds extrinsic evidence unnecessary to

properly construe the disputed term. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS its tentative construction

that “engage” means “to connect directly, or indirectly through intermediate component(s).”

(B) Lock

The second term disputed by the parties is “lock.” The following phrases utilizing the term

“lock” appear in the patents at issue: 

• “lock the barrier assembly”

• “lock the movable wall in a fixed position”

Both parties offer proposed constructions for the term “lock.” Plaintiff proposes “lock” means “to

position, hold, or stop temporarily.” [Doc. No. 54.] Defendants propose that “lock” means to

“physically restrain movement.” [Id.] 

The Court tentatively declined to accept either party’s proposed construction, and 

tentatively found that “lock” means to “stop and hold fast temporarily.” Plaintiff stipulates to

the tentative construction. Defendants however dispute the Court’s tentative construction, arguing

that the word “temporarily” is unnecessary and should be removed. Specifically, Defendants

assert the disputed claims all include temporal limitations that make clear the barrier assembly is

locked in a certain position for a specific, limited amount of time. Thus, including “temporarily”

in the Court’s construction is redundant and superfluous. Defendants direct the Court to a recent

opinion issued by the Federal Circuit, American Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 2011

U.S. App. LEXIS 5663 (Fed. Cir.), wherein the Court of Appeals reiterated the longstanding

construction principle that, “the role of a district court in construing claims is not to redefine claim

recitations or to read limitations into the claims to obviate factual questions of infringement and

invalidity but rather to give meaning to the limitations actually contained in the claims, informed

by the written description, the prosecution history if in evidence, and any relevant extrinsic

evidence.” (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314).

The Court has reviewed the relevant claim limitations and finds that its tentative use of the

term “temporarily” is appropriate. Defendants are correct that certain claims in the patents at issue

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 9 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 - 10cv972

provide relatively clear temporal limitations in the surrounding language. For example, Claim 1 of

the ‘382 Patent states in relevant part:

wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary

support structure when the drive mechanism has moved the load

bin into the transport container, to lock the barrier assembly

adjacent to the open end of the container, such that when the drive

mechanism thereafter retracts the load bin from the container, the

wall of the barrier assembly retains the unpalletized load within the

container.

(emphasis added). From this language, the reader can reasonably infer that the barrier assembly is

locked adjacent to the open end of the container after the loan bin has been moved inside the

transport container, until the load bin is retracted and leaves the unpalletized load inside; the

barrier assembly is therefore only in the locked position temporarily.

In other claims, however, the temporal limitation is not readily apparent. For example,

Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘406 Patent both read, in relevant part:

the step of engaging includes engaging the barrier assembly with the

stationary support structure, to lock the barrier assembly adjacent

to the open end of the transport container; and 

the step of engaging further includes operating the drive mechanism so

as to retract the load bin from the transport container, while the

barrier assembly remains engaged with the stationary support

structure, such that the unpalletized load remains within the

transport container.

(emphasis added). Here, the claim language does not provide a clear indication that the barrier

assembly remains in the locked position temporarily. Unlike Claim 1 in the ‘382 Patent, here, the

disputed term “lock” appears in its own paragraph that does not include a temporal limitation. 

Instead, the reader must infer the duration of the barrier assembly’s locked position from the

surrounding paragraphs in the claims. Further, Plaintiff’s argument that the step wherein the term

“lock” appears is separate and distinct from the following step that provides a temporal limitation,

is well-taken. On the face of the patent, the inventor intentionally separated the phrases in Claims

1 and 6 to describe the distinct steps in the loading process. Although the paragraphs of a given

claim limitation are necessarily read in connection with and in reference to one another, the Court

finds that the connection between the inventor’s use of the term “lock” and the surrounding

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 10 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 - 10cv972

temporal language is sufficiently disconnected to warrant the Court’s tentative construction, which

supplies the intended temporal limitation. See, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-15.

Importantly, Defendants do not dispute that the barrier assembly is locked in place

temporarily. Rather, Defendants argue the Court’s inclusion of the term “temporarily” in its

tentative construction is unnecessary because the temporariness of the “locking step” is apparent in

the surrounding claim language. Having considered the parties’ submissions and oral arguments,

the Court finds including “temporarily” in its tentative construction of “lock” is appropriate. The

role of the Court in construing claims is to “give meaning to the limitations actually contained in

the claims.” American Piledriving Equip., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5663 at *10. Here, the Court’s

inclusion of the word “temporarily” makes clear what is otherwise impliedly present in the

surrounding claim language, and is therefore consistent with the Court’s role during claims

construction. The Court’s construction does not improperly import limitations into the claim

language, as the parties agree the “locking step” occurs for a limited duration at a certain place and

time. The Court’s tentative construction accurately describes what takes place during the relevant

period of the loading process; specifically, after the barrier assembly engages the support structure,

it stops temporarily, adjacent to the open end of the container and holds fast while the bin is

retracted. 

The Court acknowledges that the temporal limitation in some claims is more clear than it is

in others, but finds that its use of the term “temporarily” to expressly define what is implied in the

claim limitations can consistently be applied across the patents at issue, and the Court’s tentative

construction does not render the existing claim language superfluous when read directly into the

patents. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS its tentative construction that “lock” means to “stop

and hold fast temporarily.”

III. DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

On March 21, 2011, Defendants filed evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Dr. John

D. Pratt submitted in support of Plaintiff’s responsive claim construction brief [Doc. No. 75-5]. 

[Doc. No. 104.] The Court declines to rule on the merits of Defendants’ objections in connection

with its claim construction order, as the Court did not rely on Dr. Pratt’s declaration to reach its

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 11 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 - 10cv972

constructions of the disputed terms. Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED

without prejudice as MOOT. To the extent the Court finds Dr. Pratt’s declaration relevant to its

ruling on the parties’ pending motions for summary judgment, the Court will consider the merits

of Defendants’ objections at that time. 

IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

In an order dated March 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Bencivengo permitted Defendants to

submit a supplemental claim construction brief, not to exceed five pages, “regarding the operation

of the Fastek Loader based on [Defendants’] inspection of the device . . . to challenge Dr. Pratt’s

conclusions.” [Doc. No. 94.] Defendants filed their supplement brief on March 21, 2011. [Doc.

Nos. 103 (redacted), 114 (under seal).] On March 23, 2011, Plaintiff moved ex parte to strike

Defendants’ supplemental brief on the ground that it exceeds the scope of Magistrate Judge

Bencivengo’s March 9 Order. [Doc. No. 107.] Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to strike. 

[Doc. No. 112.] The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion to strike as MOOT. 

In their supplemental brief, Defendants correctly note that purported commercial

embodiments of the patents at issue are not relevant to the Court’s claim construction. [Doc. No.

103, p.1 citing Int’l Visual Corp. v. Crown Metal Co., 991 F.2d 768, 771-72 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005).] Plaintiff does

not challenge this general proposition, but rather accuses Defendants of exceeding the scope of the

sur-reply permitted by Judge Bencivengo. Irrespective of whether Defendants’ brief exceeds the

scope of additional briefing contemplated by Judge Bencivengo, the Court does not find the

parties’ arguments regarding the structure of the Fastek CLS Loader relevant to its construction of

the disputed terms in the patents at issue. Accordingly, because the Court did not consider the

parties’ commercial embodiment arguments in reaching its constructions of the disputed terms, the

Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to strike moot.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 12 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 - 10cv972

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the disputed terms of United States Patent Nos. 7,172,382;

7,588,406; and 7,699,575 are construed as set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that: (i) Defendants’ objections to Dr. Pratt’s declaration are OVERRULED without prejudice as

MOOT [Doc. No. 104]; and (ii) Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to strike Defendants’ supplemental

claim construction brief is DENIED as MOOT [Doc. No. 107]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 13 of 39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 - 10cv972

COURT’S

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 14 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

1

TENTATIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET (prepared by the Co

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

‘382 Patent, Claim 1:A loading assembly for use with a transport container having an open end, comprising: a load bin sized to be inserted into a transport container through an open end thereof, the load bin

including a floor, two side walls, 

and a movable front wall; 

a barrier assembly including a wall disposed within the load 

bin, spaced from the movable 

front wall thereof, wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly cooperate to define a volume configured to hold an unpalletized load of 

sufficient size to fill the transport 

“assembly” -- a collection of parts so assembled as to form a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine. “barrier/wall” -- a structure which hinders or restricts the passage of material. “unpalletized load” -- a load which is not stored on portable platforms. “movable front wall” -- a structure(s) of the load bin that opens to allow the load to exit the load 

N/A N/A C

ac

1 The parties are advised the Court made some formatting changes to the Joint Claim Construction Worksheet prepared by the parties to m

Court’s constructions were added; no substantive information provided by the parties has been altered. The parties are further advised that phrases to keep the formatting consistent with that created by the parties, the Court has only construed the limited terms “engage” (and its g“lock.” 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 15 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

2

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

container to capacity in a single operation, and wherein the load bin and the barrier assemblyfurther cooperate to define a top opening for receiving an unpalletized load; a stationary support structure

including a base support disposed below the load bin and a pair of upstanding side supports disposed on opposing sides of the load bin; and a drive mechanism coupled to the load bin to move the load bin into the transport container through the open end thereof and to retract the load bin from the container; wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structurewhen the drive mechanism has moved the load bin into the transport container, to lock the barrier assembly adjacent to the open end of the container, such that when the drive 

bin. “load bin” -- a box, frame, crib, or enclosed place used for storing a load. “support structure /support” -- a structure(s) that holds up or serves as a foundation or prop for another structure. “stationary” -- nonmoving. “adjacent” -- close to or nearby. 

“engage” -- any type of mechanical engagement which establishes contact, interlocking, or meshing, between respective elements, whether indirectly, through intermediate component(s), or directly. 

“engage” -- direct physical contact between mechanical components. 

“cininc- sit3

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 16 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

3

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

mechanism thereafter retracts the load bin from the container, the wall of the barrier assemblyretains the unpalletized loadwithin the container. 

 5

- debsnc- n“aIE

“wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structure” -- wherein the barrier assembly has or includes some component(s) or structural feature which participates or cooperates in establishing contact, interlocking, or meshing either indirectly, through 

“wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structure” -- 

S

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 17 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

4

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

intermediate component(s), or directly, with the stationary support structure. “lock” -- to position, hold or stop temporarily. 

“lock” -- to physically restrain movement. 

“ate- sit31- dnDcreth

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 18 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

5

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

“lock the barrier” -- to position, hold, or stop temporarily the barrier. 

“lock the barrier” -- to physically restrain the barrier. 

S

‘382 Patent, Claim 2:A loading assembly as defined in claim 1, wherein the barrier assembly can be positioned in the load bin, prior to loading, to conform the internal volume of the load bin to prescribed container sizes. 

 See above, ‘382 Patent, 

Claim 1. 

See above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

SC

‘382 Patent, Claim 3:A loading assembly as defined in claim 1, wherein the load bin is configured to hold a load in excess of 22,000 pounds. 

 See above, ‘382 Patent, 

Claim 1. 

See above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

SC

‘382 Patent, Claim 6:A loading assembly as defined in claim 3, wherein the barrier assembly is configured to be positioned to conform the 

 See above, ‘382 Patent, 

Claim 1. 

See above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

SC

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 19 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

6

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

internal volume of the load bin to prescribed container sizes. ‘382 Patent, Claim 8:A loading assembly as defined in claim 1, wherein the base support is configured for lateral and vertical adjustments to aid in aligning the load bin with the transport container. 

 See above, ‘382 Patent, 

Claim 1. 

See above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

SC

‘382 Patent, Claim 11:A method of loading a transport container, comprising: positioning a transport container and a loading assembly relative to one another such that the loading assembly is adjacent to an open end of the container, the loading assembly including a load bin including a floor, two side walls, and a movable front wall, 

“engage/engaging/ engaged” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “lock the barrier” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1.

“engage/engaging/ engaged” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “lock the barrier” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

SS

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 20 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

7

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

a barrier assembly having a wall disposed within the load bin, spaced from the movable front wall, wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly cooperate to define a volume configured to hold an unpalletized load of sufficient size to substantially fill the transport container to capacity in a single operation, and wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly further cooperate to define a top opening for receiving an unpalletized load, a stationary support structure for supporting the load bin and the barrier assembly while in a position adjacent to the open end of the transport container, and a drive mechanism configured to move the load bin into the transport container through the open end thereof; loading the load bin with an 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 21 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

8

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

unpalletized load through the top opening; operating the drive mechanism so as to move the load bin into the transport container through the open end thereof until the unpalletized load is fully disposed within the container, while the container is maintained generally stationary; engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure after the drive mechanism has been operated to move the load bin into the transport container, to lock the barrier assembly adjacent to the open end of the container; and 

“engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- establishing contact, interlocking, or meshing between structure or component(s) of the barrier assembly and structure or component(s) attached to the stationary support structure. 

“engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- directly physically contacting the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure. 

“ass“assdthc

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 22 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

9

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

operating the drive mechanism so as to retract the load bin from the transport container, while the barrier assembly remains engaged with the stationary support structure, such that the load remains within the container. 

“engaged with the stationary support structure” -- in contact, interlocked, or meshed with structure or component(s) attached to the stationary support structure. 

“engaged with the stationary support structure” -- direct physical contact with the stationary support structure. 

“ss“ininc

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 23 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

10

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

‘382 Patent, Claim 16:A loading assembly for use with a transport container having an open end, comprising: a load bin sized to be inserted into a transport container through an open end thereof, the load bin including a floor, two side walls, and a movable front wall; a barrier assembly including a wall disposed within the load bin that conforms to the internal dimensions of the load bin, and further including a brace coupled to the wall; wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly cooperate to define a volume configured to hold an unpalletized load of sufficient size to fill the transport container to capacity in a single operation, and wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly further cooperate to define a top opening for receiving an unpalletized load; 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 24 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

11

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

a stationary support structure disposed about the load bin; and a drive mechanism coupled to the load bin to move the load bin into the container through the open end thereof and to retract the load bin from the container; wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structurewhen the drive mechanism has moved the load bin into the transport container, to lock the barrier assembly in place adjacent to the open end of the container during retraction of, such that when the drive mechanism thereafter retracts the load bin from the container, the barrier assembly retains the unpalletized load within the container. 

“engage” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structure”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “lock the barrier”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

“engage” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “wherein the barrier assembly is configured to engage the stationary support structure”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “lock the barrier”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

“‘“ato sssC“sC

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 25 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

12

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

‘406 Patent, Claim 1:A method of loading a transport container, comprising: positioning a transport container having a predetermined maximum loading capacity and a loading assembly wherein the container and the loading assembly are movable relative to one another such that the loading assembly is disposed adjacent to an open end of the container, the loading assembly including: a load bin including a nontelescoping floor and two side walls, a barrier assembly having a horizontally movable wall disposed within the load bin, a stationary support structure supporting the load bin and the barrier assembly, the support structure comprising frame members fixed relative to a 

“non-telescoping floor” -- the floor is not made of parts which slide one within the other. 

N/A N/A C

ac

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 26 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

13

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

ground support surface, wherein the barrier assembly is selectively positionable along the load bin to define a load bin maximum capacity, and wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly further cooperate to define a top opening for receiving an unpalletized load; defining the predetermined maximum loading capacity by positioning the barrier assembly along the load bin, wherein the step of defining the predetermined maximum loading capacity further comprises positioning the barrier assembly relative to and within the load bin therealong to a volume configured to hold an unpalletized load of sufficient size to substantially fill the transport container to the predetermined maximum loading capacity in a single operation; 

 “the step of engaging” -

- the step of establishing contact, interlocking, or meshing, between respective elements, either indirectly, through intermediate component(s), or directly. “engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “engage/engaging/ engaged”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. “lock the barrier”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

“the step of engaging”

- see above. “engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. “engage/engaging/ engaged”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. “lock the barrier”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. 

“– C“ass‘“e‘1“sC

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 27 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

14

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

loading the load bin with an unpalletized load through the top opening and to the predetermined maximum loading capacity defined by the barrier assembly and the load bin; positioning the loaded load bin within the transport container through the open end thereof, such that the unpalletized load is fully disposed within the container; and engaging the movable wall of the barrier assembly with the 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 28 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

15

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

unpalletized load and simultaneously repositioning the load bin and the transport container relative to each other such that the load bin again is disposed adjacent to the open end of the transport container, while the unpalletized load remains disposed within the transport container, wherein: the loading assembly further includes a drive mechanism operable to move the load bin into the transport container during the step of positioning and to retract the load bin from the transport container during the step of engaging; the step of positioning includes operating the drive mechanism so as to move the load bin into the transport container through the open end thereof until the unpalletized load is fully disposed within the transport container, while the transport container is maintained generally 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 29 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

16

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

stationary; the step of engaging includes engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure, to lock the barrier 

assembly adjacent to the open end of the transport container; and the step of engaging further 

includes operating the drive mechanism so as to retract the load bin from the transport container, while the barrier assembly remains engaged with the stationary support structure, such that the unpalletized load remains within the transport container. 

‘406 Patent, Claim 4:A method as defined in claim 1, wherein the stationary support structure includes side supports disposed on opposing sides of the load bin. 

 See above, ‘406 Patent, 

Claim 1. 

See above, ‘406 Patent, Claim 1. 

SC

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 30 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

17

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

‘406 Patent, Claim 6:A method of loading a transport container, comprising: providing loading assembly including a load bin, a barrier assembly having a horizontally movable wall disposed within the load bin, and a stationary support structure supporting the load bin and the barrier assembly, the support structure comprising frame members fixed relative to a ground support surface, wherein the barrier assembly is selectively positionable along the load bin, and wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly further cooperate to define a top opening for receiving an unpalletized load; providing a transport container having an open end and a predetermined maximum loading capacity; defining the predetermined 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 31 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

18

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

maximum loading capacity by positioning the barrier assembly along the load bin, wherein the step of defining the predetermined maximum loading capacity further comprises positioning the barrier assembly relative to and within the load bin therealong to a volume configured to hold an unpalletized load of sufficient size to substantially fill the transport container to the predetermined maximum loading capacity in a single operation; loading the load bin with an unpalletized load through the top opening to the predetermined maximum loading capacity defined by the barrier assembly and the load bin; locating the transport container in alignment with the load bin adjacent the open end of the container; positioning the loaded load bin within the transport container 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 32 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

19

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

through the open end thereof, such that the unpalletized load is fully disposed within the container; and engaging the movable wall of the barrier assembly with the unpalletized load and simultaneously repositioning the load bin and the transport container relative to each other such that the load bin again is disposed adjacent to the open end of the transport container, while the unpalletized load remains disposed within the transport container, wherein: the loading assembly further includes a drive mechanism operable to move the load bin into the transport container during the step of positioning of the loaded load bin and to retract the load bin from the transport container during the step of engaging; the step of positioning the loaded load bin includes operating the 

“the step of engaging” -- see above, ‘406 Patent, Claim 1.“engage/engaging/ engaged”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. “lock the barrier”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. 

“the step of engaging” -- see above, ‘406 Patent, Claim 1.“engage/engaging/ engaged”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. “lock the barrier”-- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 1. “engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. 

“- P“e‘1“sC“ass‘

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 33 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

20

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

drive mechanism so as to move the load bin into the transport container through the open end thereof until the unpalletized load is fully disposed within the transport container, while the transport container is maintained generally stationary; the step of engaging includes engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure, to lock the barrierassembly adjacent to the open end of the transport container; and the step of engaging further includes operating the drive mechanism so as to retract the load bin from the transport container, while the barrier assembly remains engaged with the stationary support structure, such that the unpalletized load remains within the transport container. 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 34 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

21

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

‘406 Patent, Claim 9:

A method as defined in claim 6, wherein the stationary support structure includes side supports disposed on opposing sides of the load bin. 

 See above, ‘406 Patent, 

Claim 6. 

See above, ‘406 Patent, Claim 6. 

SC

‘575 Patent, Claim 2:A method of loading a transport container, comprising: positioning a transport container having a predetermined load capacity and a loading assembly relative to one another such that the loading assembly is disposed adjacent to an open end of the container, the loading assembly including 

“while repositioning the load bin and the transport container relative to each other” -- the load bin may move while the transport container is stationary, or vice versa, or both the load bin and the transport container may move. 

N/A N/A C

ac

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 35 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

22

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

a load bin including a floor and two side walls, wherein the bin is movable relative to the transport container between a retracted position, external of the transport container, and an inserted position, internal of the transport container, a barrier assembly having a movable wall disposed within the load bin, the movable wall being movable relative to the load bin, wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly cooperate to define a volume configured to hold a bulk material load of sufficient size to substantially fill the transport container to the predetermined load capacity in a single operation, and wherein the load bin and the barrier assembly further cooperate to define a top opening for receiving the bulk material load, and 

“lock the movable wall in a fixed position” -- to position, hold or stop temporarily the movable wall. 

 S

C

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 36 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

23

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

support structure supporting the load bin and the barrier assembly, wherein the support structure is stationary during loading assembly operation, defining the predetermined maximum loading capacity by positioning the barrier assembly along the load bin, wherein the step of defining the predetermined maximum loading capacity further comprises positioning the barrier assembly relative to and within the load bin therealong to the volume configured to hold the bulk material load of sufficient size to substantially fill the transport container to the predetermined maximum capacity in the single operation; loading the load bin with a bulk material load through the top opening; positioning the load bin relative to the transport container through the open end thereof to the 

“engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. 

“engaging the barrier assembly with the stationary support structure” -- see above, ‘382 Patent, Claim 11. 

SC

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 37 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

24

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

inserted position such that the load bin and the unpalletized load are disposed within the container; and engaging the movable wall of the barrier assembly with the support structure to lock the movable wall in a fixed position with respect to the bulk material load and with said wall being adjacent the open end of the transport container while repositioning the load bin and the transport container relative to each other from the inserted position with the load bin internal of the container to the retracted position external of the container such that the load bin again is disposed adjacent to the open end of the transport container, while the bulk material load remains disposed within the transport container. 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 38 of 39
LA 129,250,485v6 12-28-10 

25

AGREED 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

DEFENDANTS’ 

PROPOSED 

CONSTRUCTION 

‘575 Patent, Claim 3:A method as defined in claim 2, wherein: the loading assembly further includes a drive mechanism operable to separate the load bin relative to the transport container during the step of engaging. 

 “the step of engaging” -

- see above, ‘406 Patent, Claim 1.

“the step of engaging” -- see above, ‘406 Patent, Claim 1.

“- C

‘575 Patent, Claim 7:A method as defined in claim 2, wherein the support structure includes side supports disposed on opposing sides of the load bin. 

 See above, ‘575 Patent, 

Claim 2. 

See above, ‘575 Patent, Claim 2. 

SC

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 119 Filed 04/06/11 Page 39 of 39