Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELANTECH DEVICES CORP.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SYNAPTICS, INC.;

AVERATEC, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB

ORDER

The claim construction hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on March 8, 2007. At oral

argument, the parties should focus their presentation on the following questions:

A. ’411:

1. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim scope limited to

embodiments in which increments are calculated by one particular formula?

2. What is wrong with a construction of “incrementally move” as “move along a

vector over a distance calculated by a monotonic function?”

B. ’931: 

3. Does the intrinsic evidence specify whether the “signals” in the claims that are

“initiated,” “maintained,” and “terminated” are limited to the original analog

signals which are generated at the sensing plane, limited to the digital signals

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 84 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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

which are the final output of the invention, limited to any other category of

signals, or not limited at all? 

4. Does the intrinsic evidence require that the “detection” of the occurrence of a

tap gesture is a separate event from the “detection” of where the tap gesture

occurred? 

5. Does the intrinsic evidence require only one type of “detection” step that

encompasses every event from sensing the change in voltage on the electrodes

of the sensing plane to sending X and Y position information to the host?

B. ’352: 

1. Does the intrinsic evidence exclude or require a claim construction that

includes the process of measuring the capacitance of the traces within the step

of “scanning?” 

2. Does the intrinsic evidence exclude, require, or simply allow a claim

construction that excludes the process of measuring the capacitance of the

traces from the step of “scanning?”

3. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim construction that the only

scanning technology encompassed within the scope of the claims is a

capacitive touch sensing device with traces?

4. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim construction that the

sensors may be scanned concurrently as well as sequentially?

5. Does the intrinsic evidence require that, within the domain of all values of

finger-induced capacitance generated by a single finger along a single trace, the

value that represents the maxima must be a unique value?

Each side will be permitted no more than 45 minutes for argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 84 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\ORDERreMarkmanQs.wpd 3

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 84 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 3