Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02367/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02367-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYSCAN, INC,

Plaintiff,

v

PORTABLE PERIPHERAL CO, LTD, 

et al,

Defendants. /

No C 03-2367 VRW

SUPPLEMENTAL

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

The court hereby supplements the claim construction order

of March 27, 2006, Doc #57 (the “original claim construction

order”). This order (1) clarifies the basis of the court’s

construction of “interface module” (which appears in claim 1 of the

’309 patent) and (2) adjudicates plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, Doc #58, which seeks construction of one claim

phrase and one claim term that were not addressed in the original

claim construction order because the parties had previously agreed

upon the meaning of the relevant claim language. See Doc #61

(clarifying that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is a

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

vehicle for further claim construction). The hearing noticed for

June 29, 2006 is VACATED.

I

’309 Patent

1 “interface module”

The parties dispute whether the interface module can be

contained within the scanner’s main case.

The mobile scanner in claim 1 comprises an image sensing

module, a motion mechanism and “an interface module coupling the

image sensing module and the motion mechanism to a computing device

and receiving a power supply and system control signals from the

computing device.” ’309 patent, col 10, ll 39-57. Plaintiff

contends that nothing in the claims suggests the interface module

must reside outside of the scanner. The court disagrees.

The specification clearly distinguishes the disclosed

scanner from the prior art on the basis of the disclosed scanner’s

minimalist approach. “The disclosed invention, for the first time,

provides a mobile scanner that has only the minimum components to

operate.” ’309 patent, col 2, l 27 (emphasis added). “Further,

unlike many scanners in the market, there is not a single

microcontroller in the disclosed scanner * * *.” Id, ll 29-31. 

The “Summary of the Invention” section goes on to state that one

feature of the “present invention” is “the scanner itself comprises

only an image sensing module and a motion mechanism,” which are

“coupled to an interface engine that is typically received in a

computing device.” Id, ll 36-38, 44-45 (emphasis added). 

// 

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

The specification later states that “fundamentally

different from the scanners in the market, there is no

microcontroller and other electronic components in main module to

control the operation of the image sensor and the illumination

source.” Id, col 6, ll 63-67 (emphasis added). Because this

statement appears in the “Detailed Description of the Preferred

Embodiments” section, it is unclear whether it refers to all

embodiments or a particular embodiment. The specification does not

describe any embodiment where electronic components that control

the scanner are within the main case. Although this consideration

is not dispositive, see Phillips v AWH Corp, 415 F3d 1303, 1323

(Fed Cir 2005) (warning against confining claims to particular

embodiments in the specification), it nonetheless tends to confirm

that by distinguishing prior art scanners in which the main case

housed more than the minimum components needed to operate, the

patentee did not contemplate embodiments of the ’309 patent in

which the main case enclosed the interface module. 

The court concludes that the patentee limited the scope

of the invention to scanners where the “scanner itself” contains

“only” the minimum components needed to operate, viz, a motion

mechanism and an image sensing module. By “scanner itself,” the

patentee meant the main module, depictions of which appear in the

diagrams of the invention. The court finds that the patentee did

not intend the invention to encompass scanners where the main case

housed components in addition to the image sensing module and the

motion mechanism. 

Aside from the location of the interface module,

plaintiff proposes that the term be construed to account for the

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

fact that the interface module “comprises a control circuit that

receives system control signals from the computing device and

generates logical control signals for the image sensing module and

the motion mechanism to operate in synchronization.” Accounting

for these features in the construction of the term “interface

module” would render limitations contained in claim 7 superfluous. 

Plaintiff further proposes that the construction of this term

accounts for the fact that the interface module “draws a power

supply from the computing device to energize the image sensing

module and the motion mechanism to operate.” Claim 1 already

includes this limitation, suggesting the patentee did not

contemplate that this feature was inherent in the term “interface

module.” See Phillips, 415 F3d at 1325 (“The inclusion of such a

specific limitation on the term ‘baffles’ in claim 2 makes it

likely that the patentee did not contemplate that the term

‘baffles’ already contained that limitation.”).

The court construes “interface module” as “interface

engine located outside of the main case that houses the image

sensing module and motion mechanism.” 

2 “an interface module coupling * * * to a computing device and

receiving * * * from the computing device”

The mobile scanner in claim 1 comprises an image sensing

module, a motion mechanism and “an interface module coupling * * *

to a computing device and receiving * * * from the computing

device.” ’309 patent, col 10, ll 39-57. The parties initially

agreed that the quoted phrase means “an interface engine received

in an external computing device coupling * * * to a computing

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

device and receiving * * * from the computing device.” Doc #36, Ex

1 at 2 (emphasis added). But plaintiff now rejects that

construction and contends that the phrase means “an interface

engine connecting to a computing device coupling * * * and

receiving * * * from the computing device.” Doc #58-2 at 2

(emphasis original). 

Plaintiff argues that the previously agreed upon

construction inappropriately limits the claim because the patent

does not require that the interface module be received in an

external computing device. The court agrees. The patent evidences

that the patentee contemplated embodiments where the interface

engine would not be implemented in a card that is received within

an external computing device. See ’309 patent, col 2, ll 43-45

(“Both of the image sensing module and the motion mechanism are

coupled to an interface engine that is typically received in a

computing device.” (emphasis added)). This is consistent with the

patentee’s use of the distinct (albeit related) term “interface

card,” which was construed in the original claim construction

order. Accordingly, the court agrees that the previously agreed

upon construction unduly limits claim 1. Plaintiff will not be

bound by that construction. But aside from the term “interface

module,” which has already been construed, the court sees no reason

to construe the remainder of the phrase. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

II

’506 Patent

1 “main case”

The parties dispute whether the scanner’s main case

necessarily contains the interface engine. 

The mobile scanner disclosed by independent claim 13

comprises “a main case including an image sensing module and a

motion mechanism,” “an interface engine coupled to the image

sensing module and the motion mechanism” and “a universal serial

bus.” ’506 patent, col 11, l 39 through col 12, l 11. 

The parties originally agreed that “main case” means “a

compact case that houses the image sensing module and the motion

mechanism.” Doc #36, Ex 1 at 16. Plaintiff now rejects that

construction and contends that “main case” means “a compact case

that houses the image sensing module, the motion mechanism and the

interface engine.” Doc #58-2 at 2 (emphasis original). Plaintiff

argues that the previously agreed upon construction is inconsistent

with dependent claim 14, which claims “the mobile scanner of claim

13, wherein the interface engine is enclosed in the main case and

communicate[s] with the computing device through the universal

serial bus.” ’506 patent, col 12, ll 12-14. 

It is true that “the usage of a term in one claim can

often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.” 

Phillips, 415 F3d at 1314; see also Fonar Corp v Johnson & Johnson,

821 F2d 627, 631 (Fed Cir 1987) (“[C]onstruction of disputed claims

requires reference to the specification, the prosecution history,

and the other claims.”). But in this context, plaintiff’s argument

proves too much. The fact that claim 14 specifies that the main

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

case houses the interface engine actually militates against

implying such a spatial limitation into claim 13, for it suggests

that the patentee contemplated that the interface engine would not

necessarily be enclosed within the main case. See Phillips, 415

F3d at 1325 (“The inclusion of such a specific limitation on the

term ‘baffles’ in claim 2 makes it likely that the patentee did not

contemplate that the term ‘baffles’ already contained that

limitation.”).

This is confirmed by dependent claim 15, which specifies

that interface engine is housed in “a separate case integrated with

the universal serial bus.” ’506 patent, col 12, ll 12-17 (emphasis

added). The additional and mutually exclusive limitations of

claims 14 and 15 show that the location of the interface engine was

not a limitation inherent to the “main case” language of claim 13. 

Hence, “main case” should not be construed so as to specify the

interface engine location. 

Plaintiff lastly contends that its construction is

appropriate because this court found in the previous claim

construction order that the “interface engine is enclosed in the

main case.” Id at 2-3. But the court merely observed that the

claim language of the ’506 patent “makes clear that the interface

engine is contained within the main case in some embodiments.” Doc

#57 at 17 (emphasis added). This observation is entirely

consistent with the conclusion that the interface engine may be

housed outside the main case, a possibility that should not be

foreclosed in the manner plaintiff proposes. 

In sum, the court declines to construe “main case” so as

to import a limitation concerning the location of the interface

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 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

engine into claim 13. Because (1) the location of the interface

engine vis-a-vis the main case was the sole subject of dispute and

(2) the parties agree that the main case is a compact case that

houses the image sensing module and the motion mechanism, the court

adopts the parties’ previously agreed upon construction, which is

amply supported by the claims and the specification. See ’506

patent, col 2, ll 13-14 (proclaiming that the disclosed scanner

fulfills the need for a “compact, energy-efficient and lightweight”

scanner); col 2, ll 57-61 (“The main case houses the image sensing

module and the motion mechanism * * *.”); col 5, ll 41-42 (same);

col 11, ll 31-40 (same). 

The court construes “main case” as “a compact case that

houses the image sensing module and the motion mechanism.”

III

In sum, the court has clarified the basis for the

construction of “interface module” and construed (or declined to

construe) claim language that was the subject of plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration. Within two weeks of the filing of this

supplemental claim construction order, the parties shall submit a

proposed schedule for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 68 Filed 07/05/06 Page 8 of 8