Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_08-cv-00543/USCOURTS-alnd-5_08-cv-00543-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ABBOTT POINT OF CARE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EPOCAL, INC., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Civil Action No. CV-08-S-543-NE

ORDER

This court previously appointed Kevin R. Casey as Special Master for the

purposes of conducting a patent claim construction hearing, receiving evidence on

claim construction issues, and filing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53

a report recommending construction of the claim terms at issue in this case. Mr. 1

Casey conducted a Markman hearing on August 19, 2009, and submitted to the

2

parties an initial “Report and Recommendation of Special Master Directed to Patent

Claim Construction” on October 5, 2009, detailing his opinions of the proper

construction of the contested claim terms, as well as the bases for each of his

See doc. no. 81 (order appointing special master, entered on June 23, 2009). 1

See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). See also doc. no. 81 ¶

2

3, at 3 (“Mr. Casey will request a claim construction hearing. Mr. Casey shall hold such claim construction

hearing in the United States District Court in Huntsville, Alabama (or at another place to be agreed upon by

Mr. Casey and the parties) during the month of August 2009. In addition, the evidence submitted at the claim

construction hearing shall be taken under oath. The claim construction hearing should occur within a

timeframe to facilitate compliance with the deadlines set forth below.”). 

FILED

 2010 Jul-23 PM 01:43

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 12
conclusions. Both parties objected to various aspects of the Special Master’s initial

3

report and recommendation. After reviewing the parties’ objections, Mr. Casey filed 4

his final report and recommendation on December 1, 2009. Both parties again filed 5

objections to various aspects of the final report and recommendation. The court

6

heard oral arguments on the parties’ objections on July 14, 2010. 

After consideration of the entire record, the Special Master’s final report and

recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel, the court

ratifies and adopts the Special Master’s proposed construction of claim terms in all

respects, except one: i.e., his proposed construction of the claim limitation phrases

“positioned in a conduit” and “positioned in said conduit” asthey are used in the first

Claim of the ‘824, ‘664, and ‘416 patents (the so-called “gas patents”), each of which

See id. ¶ 5, at 3(“Mr. Casey shall serve on the parties a report detailing his claim 3

construction recommendations, and the complete bases for his recommendations, by September 30,

2009.”). The date specified in this court’s orderwas subsequentlyextended three additional working

days at the request of the Special Master. The Special Master’s initial report and recommendation

is Attachment No. 1 to his final report and recommendation filed on Dec. 1, 2009, as doc. no. 96.

See doc. no. 81 (order appointing special master) ¶ 6, at 3-4 (“The parties shall serve Mr. 4

Casey, and each other, with any Rule 53(f) objections to, motions to adopt, or motions to modify,

Mr. Casey’s claim construction report and recommendation no later than 20 days after Mr. Casey

serves his report and recommendation. Any such objection or motion shall not exceed 30 pages. 

The parties may file responses to anyRule 53(f) objections and/or motions no later than 14 days after

the Rule 53(f) objections and/or motions are initially served. Responses shall not exceed 20 pages

in length.”). The parties’ objections are included as attachments to the Special Master’s final report

and recommendation filed on Dec. 1, 2009, as doc. no. 96. 

See doc. no. 96 (“Report and Recommendation of Special Master Directed to Patent Claim 5

Construction” filed on Dec. 1, 2009) (“Special Master’s Final Report and Recommendation”). 

See doc. no. 106 (Epocal’s Objections to Final Report and Recommendation); doc. no. 107 6

(Abbott’s Objections to Final Report and Recommendation).

2

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 12
recites either a “gas equilibration reservoir positioned in a conduit,” or a “gas

equilibration reservoir positioned in said conduit.” 

7

The Special Master recommended that the phrase “positioned in a conduit” be

construed as meaning “positioned in a channel for conveying fluids,” and that

“positioned in said conduit” be construed as meaning “positioned in said channel for

conveying fluids.” En route to those recommendations, the Special Master focused

8

his analysis on the term “positioned in”; more narrowly, the rationale for the Special

Master’s recommended construction actually turns upon his interpretation ofthe twoletter word “in,” which he construed as meaning that the gas equilibration reservoir

must lie wholly within a conduit. The rub lies in the fact that the Special Master’s

recommended construction excludes all ofthe illustrated embodiments depicted in the

‘824 patent, as he noted in the following passages from his final report: 

Although the claims recite only one positional relationship

between the gas equilibration reservoir and the conduit, namely that the

former is positioned in the latter, the ‘824 written description (including

both text and drawings) teachesthree, separate positional embodiments. 

Turning first to the text of the specification, taught is one embodiment

in which the gas equilibrium reservoir is “within” the conduit (col. 9,

line 42) or “in” the conduit (col. 3, lines 18, 42). This embodiment

clearly and directly corresponds to the claimed positional relationship. 

Claim 1(c) of the ‘824 patent refers to a “gas equilibration reservoir positioned in said 7

conduit . . . ”; Claim 1(d) of the ‘664 patent refers to “a gas equilibration reservoir positioned in said

conduit . . . ”; and, Claim 1(a) of the ‘416 patent refers to “a gas equilibration reservoir positioned

in a conduit . . . .” 

 Doc. no. 96 (Special Master’s Final Report and Recommendation), at 118. 8

3

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 12
In a second embodiment, [however,] the gas equilibrium reservoir is

“separated” from the conduit by an intervening membrane (col. 3, line

63; col. 4, lines 40 and 51-53; col. 10, line 54; and Figs. 1E and 4). 

Finally, in a third embodiment, the gas equilibriumreservoir is generally

“formed in association with the conduit” or the conduit is described as

“having” a reservoir (col. 3, line 67 and col. 4, line 17).

Turning to the drawings, the gas equilibrium reservoir is a

completely separate component from the conduit in some illustrated

embodiments. In fact, the gas equilibrium reservoir is separated from

the conduit by an intervening membrane with the gas equilibrium

reservoir external to the conduit. See Figs. 1E and 4 (note elements 75

and 85). In all of the other illustrated embodiments, the gas equilibrium

reservoir might best be described as contiguous with and external to the

conduit. See Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, and 4 (note elements 70 and

80). Webster’s defines “contiguous,” at 243, as “Sharing a boundary or

edge: TOUCHING.” Although Fig. 1D most clearly illustrates a

contiguous gas equilibrium reservoir and conduit, with a physical

boundary between them, the other listed figures could be viewed as

illustrating contiguity if the upper edge of the conduit is considered to

extend, creating a boundary (albeit imaginary rather than physical)

between that edge and the bottomof the gas equilibriumreservoir. None

of the illustrated embodiments depict a gas equilibrium reservoir “in”

or “within” a conduit. 

Doc. no. 96 (Special Master’s Final Report and Recommendation), at 91-93

(footnotes omitted) (italicized emphasis and bracketed alteration added). According

to the Special Master, “this is the rare case in which an interpretation that excludes

disclosed embodimentsis compelled by the unambiguous language of the claims and

the prosecution history.” Id. at 111. This court disagrees. 

4

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 4 of 12
The Federal Circuit has often held that a “‘claim construction that does not

encompass a disclosed embodiment is . . . rarely, if ever, correct.’” Medrad, Inc. v.

MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Johns Hopkins

University v. CellPro, 152 F.3d 1342, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); see also, e.g.,

Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir.

2008) (“[O]ur court has cautioned against interpreting a claim term in a way that

excludes disclosed embodiments, when that term has multiple ordinary meanings

consistent with the intrinsic record.”) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings

Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that the ordinary meaning of

claim terms must be read in such a manner as to include disclosed embodiments));

Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d at 1271, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reversing a claim

construction that excluded an embodiment); Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc. v. Masimo

Corp., 402 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that exclusion of all

embodiments was “powerful evidence” that the court’s construction was incorrect)

(citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583); Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing. L.P.,

327 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“This court has held that construing a claim

to exclude a preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly

persuasive evidentiary support.’”) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1578). Thus, it

5

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 5 of 12
would be “somewhat curious, indeed,” if this court were to adopt a construction of 9

the claim limitation “a gas equilibration reservoir positioned in [either ‘a’ or ‘said’]

conduit” that excludes all of the illustrated embodiments depicted in the gas patents.

The construction recommended by the Special Master is not persuasive for at

least two reasons. First, the defendant, Epocal, conceded that six embodiments

pictured in the ‘824 patent — i.e., those depicted in Figures 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and

4 — portray gas equilibration reservoirs “positioned in” a conduit, even though none

of the drawings show a reservoir that is wholly within the conduit. 

This issue might be avoided if the claimlimitation “positioned in”

were interpreted to include a gas equilibrium reservoir positioned at

least in the wall of the conduit. The parties seem to support such an

interpretation, by implication if not expressly. Abbott characterizes Fig.

1D as illustrating a gas equilibrium reservoir in which the “bottom part

. . . forms the wall of the conduit,” Hearing Transcript at 22, or the

“upper surface of the conduit,” id. at 194. Curiously, Epocal

characterized the head space elements, which are illustrated in Figs. 1A,

1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 4, as “in the conduit.” Id. at 272. Regardless, such

is not the interpretation adopted by this report. 

The words quoted in text are from the Special Master’s Final Report and Recommendation, 9

and they appeared in the following context: 

It is somewhat curious, indeed, that the patent applicants chose to require the

gas equilibration reservoir to be “positioned in” the conduit in claim 1 of the ‘824,

‘664, and ‘416 patents given the disclosure of alternative embodiments in the

specification. (A patentee typically claims broadly enough to cover most, if not all,

of the disclosed embodiments.) But they did. Now, especially given the importance

of the “notice function” attributed to the claims in Phillips, Abbott cannot rewrite the

claims via claim construction. 

Doc. no. 96 at 117. 

6

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 6 of 12
Doc. no. 96 (Special Master’s Final Report and Recommendation), at 95. 

In addition, three of the many definitions of the word “in” found in

contemporaneous general dictionaries include the following: “1. a. Within the

bounds or area of . . . b. From the outside to a point within * * * 2. To or toward

a destination or goal . . . .” Webster’s II New College Dictionary 557 (Houghton

Mifflin Co. 2001, 1999, 1995); see also Webster’s II New Riverside University

Dictionary 616 (Houghton Mifflin 1994) (same). Thus, as the Special Master noted,

but only in passing: “The word ‘in’ does not require that something be completely

and continuously inside of something else.” Doc. no. 96 (Special Master’s Final

Report and Recommendation), at 92 n.57 (emphasissupplied). Instead, it is common

to use the word to state that something is contiguous to something else, such as

saying that a skylight is “in” the room to which it opens and provides natural

illumination. 

Accordingly, the construction adopted by this court for the phrases “positioned

in a conduit” and “positioned in said conduit,” as each is used in Claim 1 of the gas

patents, is: a gas equilibration reservoir positioned with respect to the conduit so as

to allow contact between at least some portion of the reservoir (or with the reservoir’s

gas-permeable membrane, if one is employed) and at least some portion of the

aqueous calibrant fluid within the conduit, such that there can be contact between the

7

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 7 of 12
fluid in the conduit and the equilibration reservoir to allow for gas exchange to occur

when the fluid is brought into contact with or exposed to the reservoir. 

In summary, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the contested

claim terms be, and the same hereby are, construed as follows: 

I. Construction of Claim Terms for the ‘455 Patent

A. The phrase “an external computational means” as used in Claims 1, 2, and

4 is construed as meaning “a computer processor external to the sensor and

reference electrode thatreceives electricalsignals generated by the sensors and

is programmed to perform the algorithm illustrated in Figure 9 to calculate, or

compute, the concentration of the chemical species tested.” 

10

B. The term“microfabricated,” which is used as an adjectivemodifying the noun

“sensor” in Claims 1, 2, and 4, is construed as meaning a sensor that is “made

or assembled using processes that produce a small sensor with a predictable

response, including such processes as, for example, thin-film techniques(such

as photolithographic techniques and automated microdispensing techniques),

and excluding such processes as, for example, lamination techniques, manual

deposition of membranes, photopatterning techniques, screen printing

 Doc. no. 96, at 34. 10

8

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 8 of 12
techniques,ink jet techniques, and microsyringe techniquesthatrely on ditches

or pools to confine a dispensed fluid within an area of interest.” 

11

C. The phrase “establishing electrical contact between” as used in Claims 1, 2,

and 4 is construed as meaning “establishing a path capable of supporting the

flow of electricity between” the external computational means, the sensor, and

the reference electrode. 

12

D. The phrase “before said sensor attains full equilibrated wet-up” as used in

Claims 1, 2, and 4 is construed as meaning “while physicochemical changes

continue to occur and before the sensor attains a steady state response

following exposure to a fluid.”13

E. The phrases (a) “relating said first and second signal measurements to

determine the concentration of said preselected analyte species in said

sample fluid as used in Claims 1 and 2 (italicized emphasis supplied), and (b)

“relating said first and second signal measurementsto determine the ratio

of the concentrations of said preselected analyte species in said first and

second fluids” as used inClaim4 (italicized emphasissupplied), are construed

as meaning “performing a calculation using at least the calibrant fluid signal

Id. at 57. 11

Id. at 62. 12

Id. at 76. 13

9

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 9 of 12
measurement and sample fluid measurement to determine the relative

concentrations ofthe chemical or gas component ofinterest in the calibrant and

sample fluids.” 

14

II. Construction of Claim Terms for the ‘824, ‘664, and ‘416 Patents

(i.e., the so-called “Gas Patents”)

A. The term “gas equilibration reservoir” as used in Claim 1 of all gas patents

is construed as meaning “a receptacle, head space element, or compartment —

or a series of such — that is distinguished from the conduit itself, that stores

or holds a predetermined composition of calibrant gases, and permits the

exchange of those gases with a calibrant fluid that is brought into contact with

it.” 

15

B. The terms “a conduit” and “at least one conduit” as used in Claim 1 of all gas

patents are construed as meaning, respectively, “a channel for conveying

fluids” and “at least one channel for conveying fluids.” 

16

C. As discussed previously, the phrases “positioned in a conduit” and

“positioned in said conduit,” as each is used in Claim 1 of all gas patents, are

construed as meaning a gas equilibration reservoir positioned with respect to

Id. at 84. 14

 Doc. no. 96, at 104. 15

Id. at 108. 16

10

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 10 of 12
the conduit so asto allow contact between at least some portion of the reservoir

(or with the reservoir’s gas-permeable membrane, if one is employed) and at

least some portion of the aqueous calibrant fluid within the conduit, such that

there can be contact between the fluid in the conduit and the equilibration

reservoir to allow for gas exchange to occur when the fluid is brought into

contact with or exposed to the reservoir. 

D. The phrase “predetermined composition of calibrant gases” as used inClaim

1 of all gas patents is construed as meaning “a composition of calibrant gases

whose relative concentration is known by the time the calibrant fluid contacts

the reservoir.”17

E. The dependent clause “an equilibrated dissolved gas composition that

reflects substantially the predetermined composition of calibrant gases

contained in said reservoir” as used in Claim 1 of all gas patents is 18

construed as meaning “a dissolved gas composition that has been changed to

Id. at 123. 17

Note well that the various forms of the word “equilibrate,” as that term is used in Claim 18

1 of all gas patents, and regardless of whether the word is used as a noun or verb — e.g.,

“equilibrating,” “equilibration,” and “equilibrated” — were not separately construed by the Special

Master. Instead, “the parties’respective arguments [were] construed in the context of construing the

broader limitations in which those terms appear[ed]:” i.e., the sentence fragment to which this

marginal note is appended. Id. at 126 (bracketed alterations added). 

11

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 11 of 12
substantially reflect the predetermined composition of calibrant gases

contained in the reservoir.” 

19

F. The phrase “said equilibrated calibrant fluid” as used in Claim 1 of the ‘664

patent (only) is construed as meaning “the calibrant fluid having a dissolved

gas composition that has been changed to substantially reflect the

predetermined composition of calibrant gases contained in the reservoir.” 

20

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2010. 

______________________________

United States District Judge

Id. at 133-34. 19

Id. at 135. 20

12

Case 5:08-cv-00543-CLS Document 129 Filed 07/23/10 Page 12 of 12