Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Avago Technologies General IP 

PTE Ltd., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Elan Microelectronics Corp., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 04-05385 JW 

ORDER GRANTING ELAN’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

INVALIDITY OF CLAIM 14 OF THE ‘804

PATENT; DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ISSUE

OF INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 14 OF

THE ‘804 PATENT AS MOOT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Avago Technologies General IP PTE Ltd. and Avago Technologies ECBU IP PTE

Ltd. (collectively, “Avago”) brings this action against Defendants Elan Microelectronics Corp. and

Elan Information Technology Group (collectively, “Elan”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.

5,786,804 (the “‘804 Patent”) and 6,433,780 (the “‘780 Patent”). Elan sells optical mouse sensor

chips to manufacturers of optical mice.

Presently before the Court is Elan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘804

Patent. (hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 239.) The Court conducted hearings on August 1,

2007 and June 20, 2008. Based on the papers submitted to date and oral argument of counsel, the

Court GRANTS Elan’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

The technology at issue relates to optical mice. A complete background of the technology is

contained in the Court’s August 18, 2006 Claim Construction Order. The ‘780 Patent, “Seeing Eye

Mouse for a Computer System,” discloses an optical mouse that images as an array of pixels the

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 18
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

spatial features of a work surface below the mouse. (‘780 Patent, Col. 2:66-3:3.) The ‘804 Patent,

“Method and System for Tracking Attitude,” discloses a method and system for tracking attitude of a

device by fixing a two-dimensional array of photosensors to the device and using the array to form a

reference frame and a sample frame of images. (‘804 Patent, Col. 3:6-34.) 

A. The ‘804 Patent and the Prior Art

Since it is particularly at issue with respect to Elan’s motion, the Court reviews the

technology of the ‘804 Patent. The ‘804 Patent was filed on October 6, 1995. Its Abstract discloses

the following:

A method and system for tracking attitude of a device [which] includes fixing a

two-dimensional array of photosensors to the device and using the array to form a reference

frame and a sample frame of images. The fields of view of the sample and reference frames

largely overlap, so that there are common imaged features from frame to frame. Sample

frames are correlated with the reference frame to detect differences in location of the

common features. Based upon detection of correlations of features, an attitudinal signal

indicative of pitch, yaw, and/or roll is generated. In the preferred embodiment, the attitudinal

signal is used to manipulate a screen cursor of a display system, such as a remote interactive

video system (RIVS). However, attitudinal tracking using the invention may be employed in

other applications. Another aspect of the invention is that the two-dimensional array is

configured to compensate for any curvilinear distortions introduced by a lens system for

imaging the features within the field of view of the array. 

(‘804 Patent, Abstract.) In practice, the technology claimed in the ‘804 Patent allows a user to

manipulate a “hand-holdable device” or controller to move a cursor on a video screen. (Id., Col.

3:5-4:50, Claim 14.) The technology tracks the movement of the device and sends a signal which

causes the cursor to move in a corresponding fashion. Movement is calculated by correlating a

sample frame image with a previously taken reference frame image. The overlap between the two

images reveals the direction and distance in which the device is moved. (Id.) One issue in this case

is whether an optical mouse is literally encompassed by the claims of ‘804 Patent.

Xerox Corporations’ U.S. Patent No. 4,794,384 (the “‘384 Patent”), which was filed on April

9, 1987, describes a similar technology that more clearly relates to an optical mouse device. The

Abstract of the ‘384 Patent discloses the following:

An optical translator device capable of providing information indicative of the amount and

direction of relative movement between the device and a surface positioned relative thereto. 

The device comprises a light source for providing at least partially coherent radiation and the

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 18
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

source radiation is directed toward an area of the surface area. The reflected coherent

radiation or light at the surface area undergoes optical interference due to the texture of the

surface thereby forming a speckle pattern consisting of light and dark features. A detector

array at the device comprises a plurality of photodetector cells and [is] positioned in the path

to receive the reflected light and to detect the light and dark features as represented by the

cells in the array detecting light features in the reflected light thereby representative of a

sample of the speckle pattern. Means is provided to compare consecutively produced

samples which are indicative of the translatory information. A particular application of the

optical translator device is a novel optical cursor control device which derives its translatory

information from movement on substantially any sufficiently reflective surface. The output

of the detector array is provided to circuit means to produce signals indicative of the amount

and direction of relative cursor control device movement over the surface based upon

observation of changes and movement of the speckle pattern as presented to the detector

array. Such a device can be characterized as a “padless optical mouse” to provide orthogonal

signals to move a cursor from position to position on a display screen in response to

movement of the mouse over any sufficiently reflective surface, such as a desk top.

(‘384 Patent, Abstract.) The ‘384 Patent describes a “padless optical mouse” which allows a user to

control a cursor on a display screen. (Id., Col. 2:53-60.) The device uses a light source to illuminate

a work surface, such as a desktop. (Id., Col. 2:60-65.) The illumination is reflected to an array of

photodetector cells which detect an image comprising a pattern of light and dark spots, which the

patent refers to as a “speckle pattern.” (Id., Col. 3:3-13.) Similar to the ‘804 Patent, sample images

are compared to produce signals which are indicative of the amount and direction of the movement

of the device over the work surface. (Id., Col. 3:13-29.) 

B. Procedural History

On December 20, 2004, this case was filed by Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Agilent”). 

(Docket Item No. 1.) However, on May 10, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation that Agilent’s entire

right, title and interest in the patents-in-suit had been transferred and assigned to Avago. (Docket

Item No. 84.) Therefore, Avago substituted for Agilent in the case. (Id.) 

On May 9, 2006, the Court held a hearing in accordance with Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), to construe the disputed terms and phrases of the asserted

//

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 18
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

1

 (August 18, 2006 Claim Construction Order, hereafter, “First Claim Construction Order,”

Docket Item No. 103; June 13, 2007 Claim Construction Order, hereafter, “Second Claim

Construction Order,” Docket Item No. 290.)

4

claims. (Docket Item No. 85.) The Court’s August 18, 2006 and June 13, 2007 Claim Construction

Orders1

 construed the following disputed terms in the ‘804 Patent:

Disputed Claim Language Court’s Construction

“tracking movement of the device relative to a

region of an environment in which said device

resides”

“tracking movement of the device relative to a

region of the three-dimensional space in which

said device may operate”

“periodically forming largely overlapping

images of a field of view of said array”

“acquiring optoelectric signals from an array of

photosensors and, using circuitry, converting

the signals to values which represent the field

of view to which the array is being exposed at

discrete points in time. The substep of forming

an image is not otherwise limited to any

particular process. This substep includes

processing of the signals from acquisition up to

but not including storing as a frame”

“storing a first image as a reference image” “storing a first set of pixel values representing

that which is captured by the array of

photosensors as the reference image”

On February 8, 2007, the Court denied Elan’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ‘804 Patent pending further construction of the disputed terms. Presently before

the Court is Elan’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘804 Patent.

III. STANDARDS

A. General Principles of Claim Construction

Claim construction is a matter of law, to be decided exclusively by the Court. Markman v.

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 387 (1996). When the meaning of a term used in a claim

is in dispute, the Court invites the parties to submit their respective proposed definitions and a brief,

outlining the basis for their proposals. In addition, the Court conducts a hearing to allow oral

argument of the respective proposed definitions. After the hearing, the Court takes the matter under

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 4 of 18
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

submission, and issues an Order construing the meaning of the term. The Court’s construction

becomes the legally operative meaning of the term that governs further proceedings in the case. 

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Court recognizes

that claim construction is a fluid process, wherein the Court may consider a number of extrinsic

sources of evidence so long as they do not contradict the intrinsic evidence. However, the Court

acknowledges that greater weight should always be given to the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

B. Construction from the View Point of an Ordinarily Skilled Artisan

A patent’s claims define the scope of the patent: the invention that the patentee may exclude

others from practicing. Id. at 1312. The Court generally gives the patent’s claims their ordinary and

customary meaning. In construing the ordinary and customary meaning of a patent claim, the Court

does so from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, which

is considered to be the effective filing date of the patent application. Thus, the Court seeks to

construe the patent claim in accordance with what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have

understood the claim to have meant at the time the patent application was filed. This inquiry forms

an objective baseline from which the Court begins its claim construction. Id.

The Court proceeds from that baseline under the premise that a person of ordinary skill in the

art would interpret claim language not only in the context of the particular claim in which the

language appears, but also in the context of the entire patent specification, of which it is a part. Id.

at 1313. Additionally, the Court considers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult the

rest of the intrinsic record, including any surrounding claims, the drawings, and the prosecution

history—if it is in evidence. Id.; Teleflex, Inc. v. Fisosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed.

Cir. 2002). In reading the intrinsic evidence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would give

consideration to whether the disputed term is a term commonly used in lay language, a technical

term, or a term defined by the patentee. 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 5 of 18
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

C. Commonly Used Terms

In some cases, disputed claim language involves a commonly understood term that is readily

apparent to the Court. In such a case, the Court considers that a person of ordinary skill in the art

would give to it its widely accepted meaning, unless a specialized definition is stated in the patent

specification or was stated by the patentee during prosecution of the patent. In articulating the

widely accepted meaning of such a term, the Court may consult a general purpose dictionary. 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. 

D. Technical Terms 

If a disputed term is a technical term in the field of the invention, the Court considers that

one of skill in the art would give the term its ordinary and customary meaning in that technical field,

unless a specialized definition is stated in the specification or during prosecution of the patent. In

arriving at this definition, the Court may consult a technical art-specific dictionary or invite the

parties to present testimony from experts in the field on the ordinary and customary definition of the

technical term at the time of the invention. Id. 

E. Defined Terms

The Court acknowledges that a patentee is free to act as his or her own lexicographer. 

Acting as such, the patentee may use a term differently than a person of ordinary skill in the art

would understand it, without the benefit of the patentee’s definition. Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at

1582. Thus, the Court examines the claims and the intrinsic evidence to determine if the patentee

used a term with a specialized meaning.

The Court regards a specialized definition of a term stated in the specification as highly

persuasive of the meaning of the term as it is used in a claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316-17. 

However, the definition must be stated in a clear words, which make it apparent to the Court that the

term has been defined. See id.; Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582. If the definition is not clearly

stated or cannot be reasonably inferred, the Court may decline to construe the term pending further

proceedings. Statements made by the patentee in the prosecution of the patent application as to the

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 6 of 18
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

scope of the invention may be considered when deciding the meaning of the claims. Microsoft

Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349 (2004). Accordingly, the Court may also

examine the prosecution history of the patent when considering whether to construe the claim term

as having a specialized definition.

In construing claims, it is for the Court to determine the terms that require construction and

those that do not. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Moreover, the Court is not required to adopt a construction of a term, even if the parties have

stipulated to it. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir.

2005). Instead, the Court may arrive at its own constructions of claim terms, which may differ from

the constructions proposed by the parties.

F. Summary Judgment

The standard for summary judgment does not change in a patent case. Conroy v. Reebok

Int’l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The purpose of summary judgment “is to

isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323-24 (1986). The moving party “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying the evidence which it believes demonstrates the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. The non-moving party must then identify

specific facts “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” thus establishing

that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence through the

prism of the evidentiary standard of proof that would pertain at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, including questions of credibility and of the weight that particular evidence is

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 7 of 18
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

 (Avago’s Response to Elan’s Supplemental Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion

for Summary Judgment at 3, hereafter, “Response,” Docket Item No. 304.) 

3

 Unless otherwise indicated, all bold typeface is added by the Court for emphasis.

8

accorded. See, e.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520 (1992). The court

determines whether the non-moving party’s “specific facts,” coupled with disputed background or

contextual facts, are such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-moving party. 

T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. In such a case, summary judgment is inappropriate. Anderson,

477 U.S. at 248. However, where a rational trier of fact could not find for the non-moving party

based on the record as a whole, there is no “genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

Elan moves for summary judgment of invalidity of Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent on the

ground that it is anticipated by the ‘384 Patent. (Motion at 5.) Avago contends that the construction

of “images of a field of view of said array” as it is used in Claim 14 of the ‘804 patent must be

revisited by the Court prior to determining whether to grant Elan’s motion.2

 The Court proceeds (1)

to consider whether further construction of the disputed phrase in Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent is

necessary, and (2) to examine whether Claim 14 is anticipated.

A. Construction of Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent

The Court considers whether further construction of the phrase “images of a field of view of

said array” is required.

Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent provides:3

A method of controlling movement of a cursor of a video display comprising steps of:

providing a hand-holdable device having a two-dimensional array of photosensors;

tracking movement of said device relative to a region of an environment in which said device

resides, including substeps of:

(a) periodically forming largely overlapping images of a field of view of said array;

(b) storing a first image as a reference image;

(c) correlating said images such that changes in location of characteristics of said

region within successive images are computationally recognized;

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 8 of 18
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 9

in response to said substeps (a), (b) and (c), forming a cursor-control signal that corresponds

to computational recognition of said changes in location; and

transmitting said cursor-control signal to said video display.

 The Court considered the meaning of the phrase “images of a field of view of said array” in

its First Claim Construction Order. (First Claim Construction Order at 10.) Since the Court found

that the device of Claim 14 may operate in a three-dimensional environment, the Court declined to

further construe the phrase. (Id.) Subsequent to the Court’s First Claim Construction Order, the

Court revisited the disputed phrase in its Second Claim Construction Order. (Second Claim

Construction Order at 6.) While construing the broader phrase “periodically forming largely

overlapping images of a field of view of said array,” the Court construed the words “image,” “field

of view,” and “said array.” (Id. at 6-11.) In particular, the Court stated as follows:

[T]he inventor used the word “image” to mean a periodically acquired set of pixel values. 

(Id. at 11, n.6.) 

[T]he inventor used the phrase “field of view” to mean the region of the environment

optoelectrically detectable by the array of photosensors. (Id. at 7-8.)

[T]he ‘804 Patent is using the phrase “said array” to mean the two-dimensional array of

photosensors and associated circuitry of the hand-held device. (Id. at 6-7.)

Avago contends that these constructions are not correct because the word “image” as it is used in the

‘804 Patent requires the use of a “lens” and “field of view” requires imaging of the actual

environment. (Response at 4.) Although the Court finds that its previous construction is correct, the

Court takes this opportunity to review its analysis. 

The ‘804 Patent frequently uses the words “image” and “field of view” throughout its

specification. For instance, the ‘804 Patent discloses as follows:

[I]mage acquisition refers to the loading of new image data . . . . [E]very 50 ms a new frame

of pixel values is acquired from the sensor array . . . . The process of loading a new

reference image is referred to as a “frame transfer.” (‘804 Patent, Col. 11:35-40.)

The two-dimensional array of photosensors is used to acquire a reference frame for tracking

the attitude of the device. (Id., Col. 3:28-30.)

[T]he field of view . . . of the controller device during acquisition of the sample frame largely

overlaps the field of view at the time of acquiring the reference frame. (Id., 9:6-9.) 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 9 of 18
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

 “[T]he specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be

‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.’” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar

Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

10

The reference frame is stored and a second image of features within a field of view of the

array is acquired. (Id., Col. 3:30-31.)

The width of the field of view for imaging the environment is a matter of balancing the desire

of capturing as much visible detail as possible with the requirement of avoiding excessive

distortion. (Id., Col. 5:38-40.)

The specification discloses that the “image” described by the ‘804 Patent is acquired as data by an

array of photosensors. The data is referred to as a “frame of pixel values.” Such a frame represents

“features within the field of view of the array.” While it is true that the ‘804 Patent discloses the use

of a lens to “provide[] an image . . . of the surrounding environment to the sensor array,” the

specification notes that optics are “not critical.” (‘804 Patent, Col. 3:35-36, 5:28-30.) Thus, the

Court’s construction of the words “image” and “field of view” is supported by the disclosures in the

specification of the ‘804 Patent.4

 

The claims provide further support for the Court’s construction. Claim 1 of the ‘804 Patent

contains a limitation that is not present in Claim 14. The additional step requires a user to attach “an

optical means to [the] device to image features of an environment onto [the] photosensors.” The

next step in Claim 1 is similar to the step in Claim 14 at issue above because it requires the

utilization of an “array to acquire a first image of features within a field of view of said array.” The

doctrine of claim differentiation allows the to Court consider whether a construction given to a word

or phrase in one claim would render words in another claim superfluous. Curtiss-Wright Flow

Control Corp., v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. 

In applying this doctrine, it becomes apparent that “image” as it is used in the ‘804 Patent does not

require the use of a lens. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary for the patentee to add the addition

limitation requiring an “optical means” in Claim 1, since a lens is an “optical means.” Moreover,

Claim 1 makes it apparent that “field of view” refers to the vantage of the array, not the “optical

means.” Claim 1 does not reference “field of view” when describing the “optical means.” Instead,

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 10 of 18
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 11

that Claim refers to use of the “optical means” in imaging “features of an environment.” In both

Claim 1 and Claim 14, the patentee makes it clear that “field of view” refers to the “field of view of

said array,” which is the array of photosensors. 

In sum, the Court finds that its construction of words in the phrase “images of a field of view

of said array” is consistent with the understanding of one of ordinary skill in art and that further

construction of the phrase is unnecessary.

B. Invalidity of Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent

Elan moves for summary judgment that Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent is invalid because it is

anticipated by the ‘384 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Motion at 5.)

An invention claimed in a patent is anticipated under § 102(b) if “the invention was patented

or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this

country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” 

Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University, 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

A determination that a patent is invalid as being anticipated requires a finding that “each and every

limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs.

Inc. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Under the principles of

inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claims

limitations, it anticipates.” See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). When there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court may resolve a question of

anticipation on summary judgment. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1301

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming grant of summary judgment of anticipation under § 102(b));

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Since an issued patent is presumed to be valid, a party challenging the patent must prove anticipation

by clear and convincing evidence. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Techs., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355

(Fed. Cir. 1999).

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 11 of 18
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 12

The Court proceeds to consider (1) whether the ‘384 Patent is prior art under § 102(b), and if

so, (2) whether it contains “each and every” limitation of Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent. 

1. Prior Art Under § 102(b)

The ‘384 Patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December

27, 1988. (See ‘384 Patent at 1.) The application for the ‘804 Patent was filed on October 6, 1995. 

(See ‘804 Patent at 1.) Based on these two dates, it is clear that the invention disclosed in the ‘384

Patent was patented “more than one year prior” to the date of the application for the ‘804 Patent. 

Thus, the ‘384 Patent qualifies as prior art under § 102(b), and the Court must examine whether it

discloses “each and every” limitation of Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent.

2. Anticipation Under § 102(b)

Avago contends that on the basis of undisputed evidence, Defendants cannot carry their

burden to prove the ‘384 Patent anticipates Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent because it does not disclose

the following three limitations: (1) “periodically forming largely overlapping images of a field of

view of said array;” (2) “storing a first image as a reference image;” and (3) “correlating said images

such that changes in location of characteristics of said region within successive images are

computationally recognized.” (Avago’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 12-18,

hereafter, “Opposition,” Docket Item No. 257.) The Court considers whether the ‘384 discloses

each of these limitations in turn.

a. “periodically forming largely overlapping images of a field of view of said

array”

In its Second Claim Construction Order, the Court construed the subject limitation to mean:

[A]cquiring optoelectric signals from an array of photosensors and, using circuitry,

converting the signals to values which represent the field of view to which the array is being

exposed at discrete points in time. The substep of forming an image is not otherwise limited

to any particular process. This substep includes processing of the signals from acquisition up

to but not including storing as a frame.

(Second Claim Construction Order at 12.) It is undisputed that the ‘384 Patent discloses an array of

photosensors that acquire optoelectric signals. (‘384 Patent, 3:5-29.) Principally at issue is whether

the “speckle patterns” disclosed in the ‘384 Patent are “images of a field of view.” 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 12 of 18
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

 While the ‘384 Patent discloses the use of “coherent light” in a preferred embodiment,

Claim 10 of the ‘384 Patent is not limited to coherent light. Claim 11, which depends from Claim

10 adds as its sole limitation that the reflection of light in Claim 10 is caused by illumination with

coherent light. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, the invention disclosed in Claim 10 does

not require coherent light to generate the speckle pattern. Curtiss-Wright, 438 F.3d at 1381.

13

As noted above, the Court has determined that the inventor used the word “image” to mean a

“periodically acquired set of pixel values.” (Second Claim Construction Order at 11-12.) It is

commonly understood that the word pixel refers to “any of the detecting elements of a

charge-coupled device used as an optical sensor” such as a photosensor. MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S

COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, “pixel,” (11th ed. 2003). The ‘384 Patent claims an invention with an

“array . . . having a plurality of photodetector cells and positioned in a path to receive a reflected

image from said surface comprising a speckle pattern.” (‘384 Patent, Claim 10.) To acquire this

image, the optical mouse disclosed in the patent employs a “light source” which illuminates a

portion of a work surface “as the mouse is moved over its surface.”5

 (Id., Col. 5:64-66.) The

acquired image is a “speckle pattern” of the light and dark features of the illuminated work surface

which are reflected onto the “detector array.” (Id., Col. 5:66-68.) The ‘384 Patent explains that

detector arrays may be composed of “a plurality of silicon photodetector cells.” (Id., Col. 5:8-12.)

Further, the invention of the ‘384 Patent contemplates that the sample image will be acquired

as values which are a “representation of the speckle pattern incident on the detector cells.” (Id., Col.

6:45-68.) The detector cells acquire sample images in periodic sample windows “to provide useful

information relative to motion and direction.” (Id., Col. 6:13-29.) The time of the sample window is

set such that saturation of the sample is avoided and, as analyzed in more detail below, a comparison

may be made between the same or “overlapping” portions of the sample images. (Id., Col. 6:13-29,

8:28-12:20, Claim 10.) Thus, the Court finds that the ‘385 Patent discloses an invention which

“periodically form[s] largely overlapping images.” 

The issue becomes whether the images are “of a field of view of said array.” The Court has

construed the phrase “field of view” to mean the “region of the environment optoelectrically

detectable by the array of photosensors.” (Second Claim Construction at 7-8.) In further construing

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 13 of 18
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 14

the subject limitation, the Court explained that the “field of view” is represented by optoelectric

signals acquired from the photosensors, which are converted into values. (Id. at 12.) Notably, the

Court’s construction does not require that the image must be an exact image of the environment. 

While the environment must be “detectable,” and the image must correspond with that which was

detected, “the substep of forming an image is not otherwise limited to any particular process.” (Id.) 

In one embodiment described in the ‘384 Patent, the environment is “a surface area” positioned

relative to the device. (See, e.g., ‘384 Patent, Col. 2:37.) When light is reflected from the surface

area, it forms a speckle pattern consisting of light and dark features. (Id., Col. 2:43-44.) A detector

array comprising a plurality of photodetector cells is “positioned in the path to receive the reflected

light and to detect the light and dark features in the reflected light.” (Id., Col. 2:45-49.) The image

acquired by the array of photodetectors is “representative of a sample of the speckle pattern.” (Id.,

Col. 2:49-50.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ‘384 Patent discloses an invention capable of

“periodically forming largely overlapping images of a field of view of said array.”

b. “storing a first image as a reference image” 

In its First Claim Construction Order, the Court construed the subject limitation to mean:

[S]toring a first set of pixel values representing that which is captured by the array of

photosensors as the reference image.

(First Claim Construction Order at 11.) The parties do not dispute that the ‘384 Patent discloses

storing a first sample “speckle pattern” and a reference sample “speckle pattern.” For instance, in

describing one embodiment of the invention disclosed in the ‘384 Patent, the patentee states: 

The detector array comprises a plurality of photodetector elements or cells that are permitted

to detect light features of the pattern within a dynamically determined period of time. The

read out of the detected values from the array is a representation of a sample of the speckle

pattern. (‘384 Patent, Col. 3:12-17.)

[T]he values in the array sampled may . . . be shifted out . . . into shift registers . . . . (Id., Col. 7:65-67.)

[T]he values in shift registers 42A and 42B represent the most recent or instant valid sample,

termed THIS TIME, and the values in shift registers 44A and 44B represent the immediately

past or last valid sample, termed LAST TIME. (Id., Col. 8:10-14.)

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 14 of 18
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 15

In this way, the ‘384 Patent refers to a first image as a sample called “THIS TIME,” and to a

reference image as a sample called “LAST TIME.” Avago’s only contention with respect to this

limitation is the same argument analyzed above, that the speckle pattern referred to in the

specification of the ‘384 Patent is not an “image” as claimed in Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent. 

However, as set forth in Section IV.B.2.a., no reasonable jury could find that the ‘384 Patent does

not disclose an “image” as that word has been construed by the Court.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ‘384 Patent discloses an invention capable of “storing a

first image as a reference image.”

c. “correlating said images such that changes in location of characteristics

of said region within successive images are computationally recognized” 

This limitation has not been construed by the Court. Avago contends that ‘384 Patent does

not disclose computationally recognizing changes in location of characteristics of a region within

successive images because the invention does not mathematically compare gray values of successive

samples. (Opposition at 18.) The Court examines the specification of the ‘804 Patent to put the

“correlating” limitation in context and to clarify what is required to anticipate this limitation. 

The specification of the ‘804 Patent describes how a first image may be compared with a

“sample image” to determine whether the two images “include a number of common features.” 

(‘804 Patent, Col. 3:11-35.) The ‘804 Patent further provides that “the correlations compare the

positions of imaged features in successive frames.” (Id., Col. 8:55-58.) This process is visually

represented by Figure 5, as follows:

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 15 of 18
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 16

The correlation step disclosed in the ‘804 Patent is a shifting of the arrangement of the pixel values

to the nearest-neighbor pixel cells. (Id., Col. 9:18-20.) The specification of the ‘804 Patent

discloses that “[t]he shifting is performed sequentially for each of eight nearest-neighbor pixel cells,

as represented by member 212 in FIG. 5.” (Id., Col. 9:20-25.) The ‘804 Patent further discloses that

“[e]ight shifts of the reference frame represented by member 212 occur one at a time, but all pixel

values are shifted uniformly” and that “[c]orrelations are used to find the locations of common

features . . . of successive frames . . . in order to track the angular orientation of the controller

device.” (Id., Col. 9:25-30, 9:51-53.) 

The ‘384 Patent similarly discloses processing “the data signals developed from the detector

array to . . . compare a new sample with a previous sample.” (‘384 Patent, Col. 3:67-67.) The step

of “autocorrelation” disclosed in the ‘384 Patent is visually explained with Figure 4, shown below.

There are eight positions shown in Figure 4, “top (T), left top (LT), left (L), left bottom (LB),

bottom (B), right bottom (RB), right (R) and right top (RT).” (Id., Col. 8:58-62.) The ‘384 Patent

explains that “[f]or each cell in the array, a comparison for identical values is made relative to each

of those eight adjacent cell positions and the tally of those eight comparisons for each cell position

in the array is maintained in a respective counter until the process is complete for an entire sample

comparison.” (Id., Col. 8:62-67.) This process allows for the detection of movement as follows: 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 16 of 18
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

 (Docket Item Nos. 267, 277.) 

7

 See Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir.

2001); B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys., Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

(noting that where “claims . . . are invalid . . . [the Court] need not reach the issues relating to . . .

infringement”).

17

If any of the eight comparisons provide an indication of being the same, whether a dark

feature or a light feature, then there is a possibility that the pattern feature being detected has

“moved” to new cell position. . . . It can be seen, then, that if the preponderance is that a

certain majority of light features detected in the speckle pattern presented to the array have

moved in a given direction and also a certain majority of dark features have moved in the

same given direction, a reliable indication has been derived that the relative motion between

the array 16 and the reflecting surface 14 is in the given direction. 

 (Id., Col. 9:24-40.) The process disclosed in the ‘384 Patent describes every material detail of the

process for correlation claimed in Claim 14 of ‘804 Patent. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ‘384 Patent discloses an invention capable of

“correlating said images such that changes in location of characteristics of said region within

successive images are computationally recognized.” 

In sum, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute that each and every limitation of

Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent may be found in the ‘384 Patent. Accordingly, Claim 14 of the ‘804

Patent is anticipated by the ‘384 Patent.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court Grants Elan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claim 14 of the

‘804 Patent. In light of the Court’s finding of invalidity of Claim 14 of the ‘804 Patent, the Court

DENIES the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment6 on the issue of infringement of Claim 14

of the ‘804 Patent as moot.7

Dated: August 14, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 17 of 18
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan J. Heinrich aheinrich@irell.com

David Craig McPhie dmcphie@irell.com

Elizabeth Hannah Rader elizabeth.rader@alston.com

Gary C. Ma gary.ma@finnegan.com

Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng cindy.feng@alston.com

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com

Richard Elgar Lyon rlyon@irell.com

Samuel Kai Lu slu@irell.com

Sang Hui Michael Kim Michael.Kim@alston.com

Yitai Hu yitai.hu@alston.com

Dated: August 14, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 508 Filed 08/14/08 Page 18 of 18