Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01601/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01601-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUNRISE TELECOM INCORPORATED, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ACTERNA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-1601 FMS

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

This case deals with the alleged infringement of two patents. Plaintiff Sunrise has asserted that

Acterna has infringed its patent, number 5,619,489 (“489"), and Acterna has counterclaimed that

Sunrise has infringed its patent, number 5,751,766 (“766"). 

The parties presented oral argument addressing the proper construction of five disputed claim

terms per patent at the Markman hearing held on March 25, 2005. The Court considered the oral

argument, written briefs, supporting declarations and exhibits and issued a Tentative Order construing

the disputed language in the ‘489 and ‘766 patents on April 7, 2005. The Tentative Order allowed the

parties to request a hearing to address specific issues with the Order. Acterna requested a hearing,

held May 17, 2005, and both parties submitted additional briefing. The Court has considered the

additional briefing and oral argument and adopts the following claim construction.

I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LEGAL STANDARD

Patent claim construction and interpretation is a question of law, determined by the Court. 

Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517

U.S. 370 (1996). To properly construe the terms, a court first looks to the intrinsic evidence, 

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

including the wording of the claims and the specifications and drawings. See Interactive Gift Express,

Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim terms should be understood

and construed in the context of one another. Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364,

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). At claim construction, words should be given their ordinary meanings, unless

the patent specifications clearly indicate otherwise. Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, PLC, 65 F.3d 1577,

1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Further, a claim term must not be narrowed unless the patent language clearly

narrows the scope of the meaning. See SunRace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 67 USPQ2d

1438, 1442-43 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Only after the Court considers intrinsic evidence may it resort to the

extrinsic, i.e. expert testimony, treatises and other materials. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard

Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

II. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS

‘489 Patent

The ‘489 Patent is related to a testing system for high-speed, digital communication networks. 

The parties have addressed the construction of five separate claim terms, discussed below.

Claim Term 1 Construction

Configuration of a Communication Transmission

Network

The characteristics of the network that define its

logical operation. These characteristics include,

but are not limited to, the type of framing used,

the type of multiplexing used, the level or

amplitude of the signal at its assigned port and

the channel(s) on which broadcast data is

transmitted or received. 

The parties agree on the beginning of Sunrise’s proposed construction, but disagree on the

inclusion of the several examples, specifically the “channel on which test data is transmitted or

received.” Acterna Brief at 12. Acterna argues that, even though the framing, multiplexing and

amplitude of the signal are all characteristics of the network, the channel isolated for testing is not. Id. at

13. The Court agrees. 

The Court’s construction includes the portion on which both parties agree and the examples

that refer to the network generally, but modifies the channel example so that it reflects the channels of

the network generally, not the specific channel where the testing takes place. Although Acterna has

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

argued that “channel(s) on which broadcast data is transmitted or received” still refers to channels for

testing, the Court disagrees.

Claim Term 2 Construction

User Input Device for Inputting Operating

Instructions to Said Microprocessor; Said

Operating Instructions Including a Configuration

of a Communication Transmission Network. 

A device that allows an operator to input

operating instructions into the device. Examples

include, but are not limited to, a keypad, function

keys, keyboard, mouse, or wand. 

Acterna’s argument fails to rebut the presumption against a means-plus-function interpretation. 

“User input device,” in light of the entire patent, demonstrates a definite structure. Additionally, the

Court’s proposed instruction is consistent with Judge Whyte’s earlier construction of this same term.

See Sunrise Telecom, Inc., v. Electrodata, Inc., Case No. C-97-20666.

Last, to address Acterna’s inquiry at oral argument, the Court sees no reason to entertain

equivalents arguments; thus no additional briefing is required for the construction of this claim term. 

Claim Term 3 Construction

Updating Said Configuration According to Said

Change; Wherein Said Configuration is

Displayed as Said Configuration is Being

Changed

Producing and storing a graphical display of the

characteristics of the network that define its

logical operation while such characteristics are

being altered. 

The Court agrees, for the reasons set forth by Acterna, that storage must be a function of

updating in order to differentiate it from the term inputting. This construction appropriately construes

the term in context. See Apex, 325 F.3d at 1371. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Claim Term 4 Construction

Graphical Display Showing Said Configuration

as Said Configuration is Being Input

A display capable of generating both graphical

and textual images. The graphical display

includes characteristics of the tester that match

the characteristics of the network that define its

logical operation. These characteristics include,

but are not limited to, the type of framing used,

the type of multiplexing used, the level or

amplitude of the signal at its assigned port and

the channel on which broadcast data is

transmitted or received.

The graphical display, reflecting the

characteristics of the tester, is updated to match

the characteristics of the network that define its

logical operation while the characteristics are

entered. 

First, a common sense understanding of graphical display would include both pictures and text. 

As discussed at oral argument, a pictorial map without text labeling would provide little use. Thus, both

text and graphics are necessary in order to convey “said configuration.” 

Second, Sunrise uses the terms “graphical illustration” and “graphical display” virtually

identically. See Sunrise Brief at 5, 10. The word “illustration” generally implies pictorial representation. 

Thus, the Court modifies Sunrise’s proposed definition to replace “graphical illustration,” with

“graphical display” in order to reduce this potential confusion. 

Third, although a functional tester must match the configuration of the network to test

successfully, a user’s changes to the tester do not change the configuration of the network. Rather the

changes made to the tester adapt the characteristics of the tester so that it, ideally, matches the

network. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Claim Term 5 Construction

Graphical Editing of Said Configuration Providing commands that adapt the

characteristics of the tester (to match the

network) that define its logical operation by

modifying a graphical display of these

characteristics. 

A fundamental characteristic of the patent is allowing a user to configure the tester by using a

graphical interface that includes both pictorial and text elements. This understanding is consistent with

the other terms construed for this patent. 

Again, the Court replaces the term “graphical illustration” with “graphical display.” 

‘766 Patent

The ‘766 patent relates to a test instrument designed to non-invasively test the performance of a

digital communication system by detecting the difference between a signal sent and a signal received. 

The difference between signals is the result of interference, caused by a variety of possible sources. 

The tester calculates statistics related to the differences in signals that are helpful to resolving this

interference or noise.

The parties have addressed the construction of five terms related to the ‘766 patent litigation. 

Each of these are discussed below.

Claim Term 1 Construction

Ideal Modulation Signal A pair of I and Q values which correspond to a

digital signal, represented as one of a set of

predefined ideal points on a constellation chart. 

The patent teaches that the constellation points convey signal values, both ideal and estimated. 

The patent language specifies that it is the “points in the coordinate space represented by the graph...”

that are conveyed. ‘766 patent 5:35-39. The chart provides an example of an idea that has been

adequately reduced to a practical application, i.e., the communication of digital signals, thus making it

patentable. See State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d

1368, 1373 (Fed Cir, 1998) (asserting that mathematical equations are abstract unless reduced to a

practical purpose).

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

For consistency between terms, and because the testing process compares the ideal to the

estimated signal, it is reasonable that both terms specify digital data. 

Claim Term 2 Construction

Estimated Modulation Signal A pair of I and Q values identifying a point on a

constellation chart and corresponding to the

transmitted digital data that was distorted.

The parties have conceded that there is virtually no difference between the x and y

representation and the I and Q representation. Because the ideal modulation signal has been defined in

terms of I and Q values, the construction for the estimated modulated signal should follow suit.

Claim Term 3 Construction

A Symbol Decoder that Translates a

Representation of Said Estimated Modulation

Signal Output into Estimates of Said Digital Data

A decoder that converts a point on a

constellation chart (which represents the

estimated modulation signal) into a

reconstruction of originally transmitted data.

Sunrise has failed to rebut the presumption that means-plus-function does not apply to this term. 

The inclusion of the symbol decoder represents sufficient corresponding structure to the function of

converting estimated modulation signals into digital data. See Chin Decl. Exh. H.; Acterna Brief at 20. 

Further, the orthogonal chart and I and Q values are not mere abstractions, but have been reduced to a

practical purpose. 

Acterna’s proposed definition is consistent with the other claim terms specifically in how it

discusses the representation of signals as I and Q values, and addresses the estimated signal as a

representation of the original digital signal. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Claim Term 4 Construction

A Difference Signal Generator that Generates an

Ideal Difference Signal Between Said Ideal

Modulation Signal and Said Estimated

Modulation Signal as an Estimate of an

Interfering Signal, Said Difference Signal Being

Resolved into Orthogonal Components

A signal generator that generates a pair of I and

Q values corresponding to the difference

between the ideal modulation signal and

estimated modulation signal.

The specifications only refer to a difference, not the specific subtraction of one value from

another. Further, Sunrise has failed to rebut the presumption against a means-plus-function analysis. 

Claim Term 5 Construction

Calculating Statistics of Said Difference Signal

Using Said Orthogonal Components Using Said

Diagnostic Processor

Using the diagnostic processor and the received

I and Q values of the difference signal to

calculate statistics for the purposes of diagnosing

the communication channel. The diagnostic

processor is a processor that performs

calculations to diagnose a communication

channel. Statistics are a mathematical

calculation/numerical analysis of a set of data that

characterize the data set. 

The “I and Q values received” is clear in light of the earlier terms, specifically in light of term 4

that defines the calculation of the difference signal. “The separation of the I and Q values,” proposed

by Acterna, however, is unclear, and not adequately defined by the specifications or other claim terms. 

See Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Inc., 133 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (asserting

that elements of a claim must be understood in light of the entire claim and patent specifications). 

Finding that the patent specifications, along with the claim language itself, fail to describe this separation,

the Court excludes this language from the definition. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90

F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Understood in context of the claims, the diagnostic processor is linked to the diagnosis of a

particular channel. Acterna Brief at 23. Thus, in light of defining the terms in context, the Court adopts

Acterna’s argument that the processor diagnoses a particular channel. 

//

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

III. CONCLUSION

The Court construes the subject term definitions for both the ‘489 and ‘766 patents, for the

reasons articulated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May 19, 2005 ________/s/__________________________

FERN M. SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01601-WWS Document 111 Filed 05/19/05 Page 8 of 8