Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-3561 PJH 

v. ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS

 SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

On October 4, 2006, the court held a claim construction hearing to construe the

disputed terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,596,366 and 6,850,408 pursuant to Markman v.

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Having read the parties’ papers and

carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court rules as

follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rackable Systems, Inc. (“Rackable”) owns two patents concerning high

density computer equipment storage systems. The patents are U.S. Patent No. 6,496,366

(“the ‘366 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,850,408 (“the ‘408 patent”). The ‘408 patent is a

continuation of the ‘366 patent, and the two patents share the same specification.

In October 1999, three co-inventors, one of whom was Giovanni Coglitore, who

presented at the tutorial in this case, founded Rackable Systems LLC, the predecessor to

Rackable. They founded Rackable to market the “back-to-back” and “front access” storage

systems that they had previously devised. Rackable Systems, LLC subsequently merged

with and into the prior Rackable Systems, Inc. in January 2001. Rackable Systems, Inc.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 23
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

then assigned the patents to Rackable Corporation in December 2002. Rackable

Corporation later changed its name to the present Rackable Systems, Inc.

The patents’ specification describes the incentive for the inventions. It discusses

how the inventions intended to increase the efficiency at server locations by enabling front

access to computers, for which access had previously generally been in the rear. This, in

turn, enabled the placement of the computers back-to-back, thereby increasing the number

of computers that could be racked and stored at a given facility. Rackable’s ‘366 patent is

focused primarily on the “back-to-back” rackmounting of computer servers, while the ‘408

patent is focused on “front access” design, enabling access to certain components from the

front of the computer as opposed to the back. 

Rackable filed this case on September 2, 2005, against Supermicro for infringement

as to both the ‘366 and ‘408 patents. Supermicro is a competitor of Rackable, and imports

and sells servers and “motherboards.” Rackable contends that Supermicro recently began

importing and selling computers that violate Rackable’s patent rights.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Patent infringement analysis involves a two-step process. First, the court must

determine as a matter of law the correct scope and meaning of disputed claim terms. 

Second, the properly construed claims are compared to the accused device to see whether

the device contains all the limitations (literally or by equivalents) in the claims at issue. 

Markman, 517 U.S. at 384. 

“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the

right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation and

quotation omitted); see also Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,

1248 ( Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim construction "begins and ends" with the actual words of the

claims). "A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term in

the absence of an express intent to the contrary. York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm

& Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 ( Fed. Cir. 1996). The ordinary and customary meaning

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 23
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

of a claim term is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the

art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The person of

ordinary skill in the art is “deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the

particular claim . . . but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. 

The words in the claim may also be interpreted in light of the prosecution history, if in

evidence. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir.

2002) (citations omitted). "Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the

legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,

Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

In terms of intrinsic evidence, the court begins with the language of the claims. See

id. When considering the claim language, “the context in which a claim is used in the

asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The court may also

consider the other claims of the patent, both asserted and unasserted. Id. For example, as

claim terms are normally used consistently throughout a patent, the usage of a term in one

claim may illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Id. The court may also

consider differences between claims to guide in understanding the meaning of particular

claim terms.

Additionally, the claims “must [also] be read in view of the specification, of which

they are a part.” Id. at 1315. When the specification reveals a special definition given to a

claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, the

inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. at 1316. 

However, as a general claim construction principle, the Phillips court warned of the

“danger of reading limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323. While “the

specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, the Federal Circuit

has “repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Id. Even if

the “patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must [not] be

construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Id. 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 23
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

Prosecution history is also considered intrinsic evidence. In Phillips, the Federal

Circuit reaffirmed the importance of the prosecution history, which represents an ongoing

negotiation between the PTO and the applicant. Id. at 1317. Like the specification, the

prosecution history “provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the

patent.” Id. It is nevertheless less helpful than the specification since the history

represents the process of negotiation rather than the final product of negotiation. Id.

In most cases, claims can be resolved based on intrinsic evidence. See Vitrionics,

90 F.3d at 1583. Only if an analysis of the intrinsic evidence fails to resolve any ambiguity

in the claim language may the court then rely on extrinsic evidence, such as expert

testimony, prior art, and inventor testimony. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. While extrinsic

evidence “can shed useful light on the relevant art,” the Phillips court noted that it is “less

significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim

language.” Id. (citations omitted). It noted the following deficiencies associated with

extrinsic evidence: (1) it is not part of the patent and does not have the specification’s virtue

of being created at the time of patent prosecution for the purpose of explaining the patent’s

scope and meaning; (2) expert reports and testimony are “generated at the time of and for

the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from bias that is not present in intrinsic

evidence;” (3) “there is a virtually unbounded universe of potential extrinsic evidence that

could be brought to bear on any claim construction question;” and (4) “undue reliance on

extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it will be used to change the meaning of claims.” Id.

at 1318.

Dictionaries and comparable sources may be used in claim construction as “long as

the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a

reading of the patent documents.” Id. at 1322-23. The Phillips court noted that:

The main problem with elevating the dictionary to such prominence is that it

focuses the inquiry on the abstract meaning of words rather than on the

meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent. Properly viewed, the

“ordinary meaning” of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after

reading the entire patent. [H]eavy reliance on the dictionary divorced from the

intrinsic evidence risks transforming the meaning of the claim term to the

artisan into the meaning of the term in the abstract, out of its particular

context, which is the specification.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 4 of 23
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

Id. at 1321. For these reasons, the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of

a disputed term, and that the specification [itself] acts as a dictionary when it expressly

defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Id.

“Every patent’s specification must ‘conclude with one or more claims particularly

pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his

invention.’” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir.

2005) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2000)). Claim indefiniteness is determined as a matter

of law by the court construing the patent claims. Id.

“[T]he purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims delineate

the scope of the invention using language that adequately notifies the public of the

patentee’s right to exclude.” Id. The requirement does not, however, “compel absolute

clarity.” Id. Instead, only claims “not amenable to construction or insolubly ambiguous are

indefinite.” Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, “the definiteness of claim terms depends on

whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning.” Id.

A claim is not indefinite simply because it presents a “difficult issue of claim

construction.” Id. (citing Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371,

1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). An issued patent is entitled to a statutory presumption of validity. 

Id. Clear and convincing evidence is required to invalidate a patent. Id. at 1348. “In the

face of an allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of claim construction apply.” Id.

B. Disputed Terms

1. “rack”

This term appears in the ‘366 patent claims 1, 4, 6, 18, 23, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 41, 42,

46, and 47. Rackable contends that “rack” means “frame or cabinet for holding multiple

computer chassis that can be removed and are accessible after installation, such as a

standard industry server rack.” Supermicro proposes that “rack” means “a frame or cabinet

that contains mounting arrangements for holding electronic devices in a stacked manner.”

The essence of the parties’ dispute concerns whether “rack” should be construed to

mean a particular type of frame or cabinet used in the server storage industry, or whether it

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 5 of 23
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

should be construed as a more general purpose rack capable of holding all types of

electronic devices; and whether the device enables the mounting or the removal of the

computers or electronic devices.

Rackable argues that “rack” refers to a particular type of electronic device –

computer chassis – and enables removal. In support of its construction, Rackable

contends that the patent itself targets the computer server industry, and notes that the

specification example, figure 4, is of a type of rack used for holding computers in the highdensity computer industry. It also argues that figure 4 of the patent demonstrates that the

rack is a type that enables the removal of the computers after installation. Rackable further

asserts that its construction, referring to the “standard industry server rack,” is consistent

with the patent itself, which describes a rack whose dimensions are those of a “standard

industry server rack.” 

Supermicro contends that “racks” store electronic devices generally, and enable the

mounting of the devices. Supermicro responds that figure 4 to the ‘366 patent supports its

construction. It also relies in part on the expert declaration of Sam Wood. In support of its

mounting argument, Supermicro also cites to language in the patent for the proposition that

“[i]n a typical setup, the rack will have holes and the electronic devices will contain ‘ears’

that are screwed into the holes, thus connecting the electronic devices to the rack.” It

further argues that the specification discloses that the rack can hold items other than

computers. Finally, Supermicro asserts that its construction is supported by technical

dictionary definitions.

Because the patent is not ambiguous, the court declines to consider extrinsic

evidence as to this term. It also declines to adopt either party’s construction in full. First,

the court finds that the intrinsic evidence supports Rackable’s construction that the “rack”

holds computers, as opposed to Supermicro’s more general construction, which

encompasses all “electronic devices.” The ‘366 specification’s field, background, and

summary of the invention clarifies that the patent concerns the storage of computers, as

opposed to simply “electronic devices.” There is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in the

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 6 of 23
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

patent that the rack is utilized for holding other types of electronic devices. See, e.g.,

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (person of ordinary skill is “deemed to read the claim term not

only in the context of the particular claim . . . but in the context of the entire patent,

including the specification”).

The court also rejects both of the parties’ injection of the mounting and removability

limitations on the computers held by the racks. Those are limitations that are not properly

read into this court’s construction of the claims. The law is clear that it is error to import a

limitation from the specification into the claim. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358

F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves

several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to

structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Id. at 908. Nor should an

embodiment disclosed in the specification limit the claims. Id. at 906.

In conclusion, the court adopts a modified version of Rackable’s construction of the

term “rack” as a frame or cabinet for holding multiple computer chassis.

2. “computer”

This term appears in both the ‘366 patent and the ‘408 patent. It appears in the ‘366

patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,

25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, and 47; and in all claims 1-17 of

the ‘408 patent.

Rackable contends that “computer” means “general purpose computer including a

main board and additional components, such as a server.” Supermicro contends that

“computers” means “a device capable of processing information to produce a desired

result.”

The essence of this dispute is whether, as Rackable contends, “computer” refers to

a general purpose computer like a server, or whether it is even more generic, as argued by

Supermicro. 

Rackable argues that the patent specification clarifies that the patent targets

problems related to densely packed data centers. Because computers in data centers are

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 7 of 23
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

general purpose computers, it asserts that its construction is consistent with the

specification. Rackable contends that Supermicro’s construction is contrary to the patent. 

It asserts that according to defendant, “computer” would include all processing devices –

not just computers in a data center environment.

Supermicro argues that its construction is consistent with the specification, and that

several technical dictionaries support its construction as well. It contends that Rackable

seeks to improperly read limitations into the claim terms that do not exist. It further notes

that the phrase “general purpose computer,” as urged by Rackable, does not exist

anywhere in the specification, in a dictionary; nor is it supported by expert testimony. 

At the October 4, 2006 hearing, the court indicated that it did not find either parties’

constructions convincing. The court noted that Supermicro’s definition was too generic,

and that Rackable’s attempt to limit the definition to a “general purpose” computer, a

phrase not employed by or defined by the specification, was also problematic. However,

because the court believed that construction is a matter for the parties in the first instance,

it afforded the parties an opportunity to meet and confer regarding the term in light of the

court’s stated concerns. The parties subsequently notified the court that they were unable

to reach an agreement regarding construction of “computer.” 

Accordingly, the court declines to adopt either parties’ construction, and construes

“computer” as a computer that functions as a server. For the reasons noted on the

record at the hearing, Supermicro’s construction is too generic. As for Rackable’s

proposed construction, it not only improperly reads in limitations from the specification, but

it inserts language that improperly modifies the term “computer.” Because there is nothing

in the intrinsic evidence to suggest the ordinary meaning of “computer” was not meant to

apply, the court finds no need to further define “computer” other than that it should function

as a server.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 8 of 23
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

3. “front”

This term also appears in both the ‘366 patent and the ‘408 patent. It appears in the

‘366 patent claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 41, 44, 45, 46, and 47; and the ‘408 patent claims 1, 2-6,

and 9-15.

Rackable contends that “front” means “the most forward panel that will face toward

the user when sliding or moving the computer into or out of a rack. In a standard full depth

configuration, the front panel is opposite the side having I/O connectors for connecting to

peripheral equipment such as a router. In the patented configuration, the orientation of the

main board in the chassis is reversed.” Supermicro asserts that “front” is indefinite under

35 U.S.C. § 112(2), or alternatively, means “a panel designed to face toward the user, such

as a panel designed to face forward when placed in a rack.”

Rackable therefore argues for a narrow definition of “front;” while Supermicro argues

that the term is either indefinite or for a broader definition.

Supermicro asserts that “front” is indefinite and ambiguous as used in the patents. It

argues that it requires some frame of reference. It contends that normally, computers have

a top, bottom, and four vertical sides, and that a member of the public could not determine

which side of the computer is the “front” for purposes of determining infringement. 

Accordingly, Supermicro argues that the term is incapable of construction. 

Alternatively, Supermicro argues that the ‘366 patent provides support for its

construction of “front” – that when a computer is placed in a rack, the “front” side is the side

that faces out toward the user. However, Supermicro then argues that there is still

ambiguity regarding the ‘408 patent since that patent does not require a “rack” in its claims,

and it is difficult to determine which side of a stand-alone computer is designed to face the

user.

Rackable contends that Supermicro has not shown by clear and convincing

evidence that the term is indefinite. Rackable further argues that Supermicro’s construction

ignores the specification, and standard industry practice, which entails I/O access from the

rear main board. It contends that Supermicro’s “irrelevant prior art” demonstrates as much.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 9 of 23
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

10

The court adopts in part Supermicro’s construction of “front” as a panel designed to

face forward when placed in a rack as applied to the ‘366 patent only. The court rejects

both parties’ constructions to the extent that they refer to a “user.” Reference to a “user” is

too ambiguous, as there are multiple user purposes, and the term “front” cannot be defined

according to how the computer is being used. See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350. Although

“a patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision to satisfy the

definiteness requirement,” there must be some “objective anchor” by which skilled artisans

can identify whether they are practicing the patented invention. Id. (concluding that term

“aesthetically pleasing” was indefinite because it was too subjective). Here, as in

Datamize, reference to “user” renders the term indefinite because its scope depends “solely

on the unrestrained subjective [purpose] of a particular individual purportedly practicing the

invention.” See id.

As noted above, though, the court’s construction of “front” is limited to the ‘366

patent. That is because the ‘366 patent, unlike the ‘408 patent, provides an “objective

anchor” in terms of the existence of the “rack.” Because the ‘408 patent lacks such an

“objective anchor,” the court concludes that “front” is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as

concerns the ‘408 patent.

The court recognizes that the finding of indefiniteness with respect to “front” as to the

‘408 patent only may have some adverse impact with regard to the ‘366 patent, which

contains the same term. However, the court is unclear regarding what, if any, impact may

occur, and expects that the parties will advise the court of any such impact in their briefing

on the dispositive motions.

4. “components requiring intermittent physical access”

This term appears in the ‘366 patent claims 15, 16, and 39.

Rackable asserts that “components requiring intermittent physical access” means

“features that would normally be accessed in use from the rear of the main board in a

standard computer chassis, such as I/O connectors, and accessible data drives if present.” 

Supermicro contends that “components requiring intermittent physical access” is indefinite

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 10 of 23
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

under 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to the word “intermittent,” or alternatively, means “parts of the

computer requiring occasional physical access by a user or operator.”

Supermicro again argues that this phrase is indefinite, based on the term

“intermittent.” It argues that the term does not adequately describe the degree of access

required, and is therefore ambiguous. Supermicro further asserts that Rackable’s definition

itself makes the phrase increasingly vague and ambiguous. It argues that the terms

“normally” and “standard” are themselves subjective and ambiguous. Alternatively,

Supermicro argues that the term “intermittent” should be replaced with “occasional,” based

on the dictionary definition of “intermittent.” 

Rackable responds that Supermicro’s “reason for pretending there is ambiguity is

[to] move the claims away from main board features to instead require non-main board

features, such as the socket for the power plug, to be on front, even though the socket is

not a main board feature, the plug and power source is not a peripheral device, and the

front panel power and reset buttons confirm the lack of need for intermittent access to a

socket.” 

The ‘366 patent abstract, suggests that “intermittent” is synonymous with “periodic.” 

It provides in part:

By placement of access space to all elements which require periodic attention

at the front of each computer, the need for significant space at the rear of the

computer is eliminated.

‘366 patent. Additionally, in the summary of the invention, the specification provides,

regarding the elements that should be located at the front of the computer, that: “Desirably,

those [attachments] which require physical access periodically or would significantly hinder

forward removal of the machine from a rack in which it may be placed are provided for at

the front of the chassis.” ‘366 patent, 4: 9-12.

However, the patent’s reference to “periodic” does not save the term from

indefiniteness. That is because both terms – “periodic” and “intermittent” – suggest time

frames, and a certain regularity that depends on a user’s purpose. However, as discussed

above regarding the term “front,” because a user’s purpose is highly subjective and

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 11 of 23
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 The court also rejects Supermicro’s alternative construction of “intermittent” as 

 “occasional.” Both “intermittent” and “periodic” suggest some regularity, which is 

not reflected in the term “occasional.”

12

variable, the terms “periodic” and “intermittent” do not provide the type of “objective anchor”

required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.1

For these reasons, the court declines to adopt either parties’ construction, and

concludes that “components requiring intermittent physical access” is indefinite under 35

U.S.C. § 112. 

5. “main board

This term appears in the ‘408 patent claims 1 and 9.

Rackable asserts that “main board” means “main circuit board inside the computer

that makes it possible for the other parts of a computer to communicate with each other,

into which additional boards may be plugged if present.” Supermicro asserts that “main

board” means “a circuit board that contains the primary components of a computer.”

 The essence of this dispute is whether this term constitutes the principal board in

the computer through which other parts of the computer communicate, as Rackable

contends, as opposed to any printed circuit board having a processor, according to

Supermicro. 

Rackable explains that a computer may contain several printed circuit boards, but

that the “main board” is “the largest printed circuit board in the computer” into which other

circuit boards would plug. It asserts that many electronic devices contain circuit boards, but

do not contain “main boards” as found in general purpose computers such as servers. In

support, Rackable cites to extrinsic evidence, including several different print and online

dictionaries. In addition to the dictionary definitions, in support of its construction, Rackable

also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would expect a main board of the basic type

that permits the level of functionality required of a general purpose computer, . . . also

known as a ‘motherboard’” and “would also know that the main board in a general purpose

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 12 of 23
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

13

computer makes it possible for the other parts of the computer to communicate with each

other.”

Supermicro, in response, argues that specification language supports its

construction, in addition to extrinsic evidence, including several computer and/or electronic

dictionary definitions.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that “main board” is synonymous with

“motherboard.” Based on the admissions at the hearing, it is clear to the court that the

parties agree that the “main board” includes “the primary components of a computer,” and

is distinguishable from a daughter board. In fact, Supermicro made a judicial admission

that a “main board” is not the same thing as a daughter board. Thus, the real issue

concerns the amount of detail that should be provided regarding the function of the

motherboard or “main board” and its relation to other boards. As noted, per Rackable’s

construction, the “main board” should be construed to include language regarding

communication, specifically that it is a circuit board that enables “other parts of a computer

to communicate with each other,” and should also be construed to note that additional

boards, if present, may be plugged into it.

The only guidance in the specification itself appears to be several examples of

“[p]referred main boards,” which include “models N44BX, L44GX, 810, 810E and C440GX

by Intel.” However, the court cannot read limitations from the embodiment or the examples

in the specification into the definition. Because analysis of the intrinsic evidence fails to

resolve the ambiguity, the court will consider the extrinsic evidence – most significantly, the

dictionary definitions provided by the parties.

Rackable cites to five dictionary definitions in support of its construction, including:

(1) a CNET.com definition (Ostapuk Decl., Exh. X); (2) Merriam-Webster’s Online

Dictionary (Exh. Y); (3) Free Online Dictionary of Computing (Exh. Z); (4) Microsoft Press

Computer Dictionary (Exh. AA); and (5) an Answers.com definition (Exh. EE).

Supermicro cites to three different dictionary definitions in support of its construction,

including: (1) Microsoft Computer Dictionary definitions of “main board” and “mother board;”

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 13 of 23
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

(Yamashita Decl., Exh. D) (3) Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms (Exh. F); and (4)

the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms (Exh. E).

Technical treatises and dictionaries are generally preferred over a definition in an

ordinary dictionary based on “the principle that patents are to be construed by the

hypothetical person skilled in the art.” Kahrl, Patent Claim Construction, § 7.03[B],

Technical Treatises (Aspen 2005 Suppl.); see also, e.g., Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon

Technologies AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A technical treatise is more likely

to provide a definition used by persons skilled in the art than an ordinary dictionary

definition.” Id. In defining electrical and computer terms, the Federal Circuit has employed

computing dictionaries and the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic terms,

as offered by Supermicro in this case. See Rambus, 318 F.3d at 1091; see also NeoMagic

Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc., 287 F.3d 1062, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Here, the technical dictionaries overwhelmingly support Supermicro’s construction of

the term “main board,” with one modification – that the “main board” be “main” or “primary.” 

Rackable’s definition is unnecessarily complex and contains limitations on the definition of

“main board” that are not universally present in the dictionary definitions.

For these reasons, the court adopts, with one addition, Supermicro’s construction,

and construes the term “main board” as a main circuit board that contains the primary

components of a computer.

6. “a chassis comprising a front panel”

This term appears in the ‘408 patent claims 1 and 9. Rackable contends that “a

chassis comprising a front panel” means a “frame or housing for the general purpose

computer including the main board and including a front panel providing access as

claimed.” Supermicro asserts that “a chassis comprising a front panel” means “a frame or

housing including a front panel.”

The essence of the dispute is whether the “chassis” is for a general purpose

computer, or whether it is simply any frame or housing. Again, Rackable argues for the

narrower, more specific construction, and Supermicro the broad one.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 14 of 23
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

Rackable argues that the claims themselves refer to “the computer” and the various

components of the computer, supporting its construction. It further asserts that the

specification and the “summary of the invention” explicitly state that the chassis is for a

general purpose computer, and not simply any frame or housing. Additionally, Rackable

argues that the embodiments support its construction, and demonstrate a chassis built up

with certain components, including a main board. 

In response, Supermicro argues that Rackable’s construction is too limiting. Even if

it were a chassis for a computer, Supermicro notes that contrary to Rackable’s

construction, it should not be construed only as a frame or housing for a “general purpose

computer” or server. It argues that Rackable is attempting to import an inappropriate

limitation into the term. 

The court indicated at the hearing that Rackable’s reference to “computer” in its

construction of the term was redundant, given the fact that the broader context of the claim

is the computer itself. In response to the court’s inquiries, Rackable indicated agreement

with Supermicro’s construction. Because claims must be construed in a manner that

avoids such redundancies, the court adopts Supermicro’s definition, and construes the term

“a chassis comprising a front panel” as a frame or housing including a front panel. See

Unique Concepts Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (merging one

element into another is improper because it renders claim language redundant).

7. “the I/O connectors including the one or more data transmission ports

and to all components requiring intermittent access provided for the

computer”

This term appears in the ‘408 patent claims 1 and 9. Rackable asserts that “the I/O

connectors including the one or more data transmission ports and to all components

requiring intermittent access provided for the computer” means “features that would

normally be accessed from the rear of the main board in a standard computer, such as the

I/O connectors, and accessible data drives if present.” Supermicro contends that “the I/O

connectors including the one or more data transmission ports and to all components

requiring intermittent access provided for the computer” is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 15 of 23
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

112(2) due to the word “intermittent,” or alternatively means “the i/o connectors including

the one or more data transmission ports and all parts of the computer that require

occasional access by the user or operator.”

The essence of the dispute here again appears to concern the meaning of the word

“intermittent,” and also which parts of a computer require access. 

As with disputed term four, “components requiring intermittent physical access,”

Rackable appears to focus on the type and extent of I/O connectors described by the

phrase; whereas, Supermicro focuses on the type of access. Rackable again argues that

contrary to Supermicro, not each and every attachment to a computer requires

“intermittent” physical access. It asserts that instead, as with term four, the “components

requiring intermittent access” include only “physical input and output sockets that are found

on the main board, and various data drives or storage devices if they are present.” 

Supermicro again, as with term four, argues that the phrase is indefinite, based on

the term “intermittent.” 

For the reasons set forth above with respect to term four, the court concludes that

“the I/O connectors including the one or more data transmission ports and to all

components requiring intermittent access provided for the computer,” is indefinite under 35

U.S.C. § 112 based on its use of the term “intermittent.” 

8. “providing access . . . to each component provided for the computer

selected from the group consisting of”

This term appears in the ‘408 patent claim 9. It is helpful to provide the full language

of that claim, which recites:

A computer comprising: 

a main board having I/O connectors including one or more data transmission

ports mounted thereon; and 

a chassis comprising a front panel providing access to the I/O connectors

including the one or more data transmission ports and access to each

component provided for the computer selected from the group consisting of

removable power supplies, removable drives, removable media drives, one or

more plugs for external drives and devices, and ports for switches. 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 16 of 23
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

17

At the hearing, the court noted that in its claim construction brief, Supermicro had

proposed a construction different from that proposed in the joint claim construction

statement, without complying with the court’s standing order. Supermicro advised the court

that any change was inadvertent, and that it would rely upon the joint claim construction

statement. Accordingly, that is the construction that the court now considers. 

Rackable contends that “providing access . . . to each component provided for the

computer selected from the group consisting of” means “to each removable power supply,

removable drive or removable media drive, if present.” Supermicro asserts that “providing

access . . . to each component provided for the computer selected from the group

consisting of” means “providing the user or operator of the computer with access to each of

the following parts of the computer if present [see claim language for list of items].” 

According to Rackable, the issue concerns which of the items must each be located

on the front, if present, as opposed to being potentially found on both the front and back of

the computer. Rackable breaks down the subsequent claim language into three

categories, including: (1) removable power supplies, removable drives, and removable

media drives; (2) plugs for external drives and devices; and (3) ports for switches. 

According to Rackable, the claim language requires access only to the items included in

category (1) – the removable power supplies, removable drives, and removable media

drives to the extent that these removable components are present. In other words, it

asserts that the members of the group for which access is required are only those referred

to as “removable.”

Rackable thus argues that the access described does not apply to the “plugs for

external drives and devices, and ports for switches.” It argues that only one plug for

external drives and devices need be present on the front panel, and that redundant or

duplicate plugs may indeed be located on a rear panel. Regarding the third component,

the “ports for switches,” Rackable implies that the “providing access” language does not

apply to the ports. Instead, the ports are simply located on the front panel.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 17 of 23
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

18

Supermicro, on the other hand, argues that “providing access” refers to all

components – not just the removable ones. In other words, Supermicro asserts that the

access language applies to all three groups that Rackable has listed, including the (1)

removable power supplies, removable drives, and removable media drives; (2) plugs for

external drives and devices; and (3) ports for switches. To the extent that any of the three

groups of components is present, Supermicro argues that they must be located on the front

of the computer. 

Supermicro argues that Rackable’s construction makes no sense because it is

ignoring words that actually appear in the disputed claim language, and instead improperly

imports other limitations into its construction. It further notes that there is a “linguistic

dispute” among the parties regarding the phrase “group consisting of.” Supermicro asserts

that because all of the items following that phrase are listed in succession, and separated

by commas, its reading is the more natural of the two. It argues that Rackable misreads

the placement of the word “and.”

The term “consisting of” means that the list of ingredients following the term is a

closed list, such that additional ingredients cannot be present in the composition. Robert C.

Karhl, Patent Claim Construction § 4.03[I], Transitional Words and Phrases (Aspen 2005

Suppl.); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed.

Cir. 1999). The term, however, “does not necessarily mean that no other components can

be used with the invention, but only that the list of ingredients of the same type cannot be

augmented.” Id.; Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2004);

see also Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Rackable’s proposed construction is contrary to the normal construction of a group

following “consisting of” language. It attempts to limit the closed group inappropriately. 

There is nothing in the claim language or the specification that suggests that the plugs and

ports, which follow the removable components, are not a part of “the group consisting of,”

as Rackable implies.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 18 of 23
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

19

Additionally, Supermicro’s construction is a more grammatically correct interpretation

of the disputed language, as endorsed by the Federal Circuit. See SuperGuide Corp. v.

DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where a phrase such as

“group consisting of” “precedes a series of categories of criteria, and the patentee used the

term “and” to separate the categories of criteria,” this “connotes a conjunctive list.” Id. In

other words, applying the correct grammatical principle, the phrase “group consisting of”

“modifies each member of the list, i.e., each category in the list.” Id. (relying in part on

William Strunk, Jr. & E.B. White, The Elements of Style). 

Accordingly, the court adopts Supermicro’s definition and construes “providing

access . . . to each component provided for the computer selected from the group

consisting of” as providing the user or operator of the computer with access to each

of the following parts of the computer if present: removable power supplies,

removable drives, removable media drives, one or more plugs for external drives and

devices, and ports for switches. In other words, the court construes “group consisting of”

to include all three categories that follow the phrase, including removable components,

plugs, and ports. Rackable’s attempt to limit the group to the removable components

improperly narrows and modifies the claim language. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1250

(claim may not be construed to “add a narrowing modifier before an otherwise general term

that stands unmodified in a claim”).

9. “removable”

This term appears in the ‘408 patent claims 2 and 9.

Rackable asserts that “removable” means “able to be removed without opening the

chassis or removing the chassis from a rack.” Supermicro asserts that “removable” means

“able to be removed without opening the chassis.”

At the hearing, Rackable noted that it agreed with Supermicro’s construction. 

Therefore, the court construes “removable” as able to be removed without opening the

chassis.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 19 of 23
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

20

10. “one or more plugs for external drives and devices, and ports for

switches”

This term appears in the ‘408 patent claim 9. Rackable contends that “one or more

plugs for external drives and devices, and ports for switches” means “one or more plugs for

drives and peripheral computer subsystems (such as disks, keyboards, monitors, mice,

printers, scanners, tape drives, microphones, speakers, or cameras) that are external to the

computer chassis, and one or more ports for switches.” Supermicro asserts that “one or

more plugs for external drives and devices, and ports for switches” means “one or more

connectors for drives or elements that are external to the computer, and openings that

provide access to switches.”

Again, it is helpful to provide the full language of claim 9 of the ‘408 patent, which

recites:

A computer comprising: 

a main board having I/O connectors including one or more data transmission

ports mounted thereon; and 

a chassis comprising a front panel providing access to the I/O connectors

including the one or more data transmission ports and access to each

component provided for the computer selected from the group consisting of

removable power supplies, removable drives, removable media drives, one or

more plugs for external drives and devices, and ports for switches. 

The essence of this dispute is really how “device” should be defined. It is clear to

the court from the parties’ arguments in their papers and at the hearing that there really is

no dispute regarding the definition of “plug” or “drive;” that the drives and devices are

“external” to the computer; and that “ports for switches” are openings. Accordingly, the

court declines to define those terms, which are undisputed.

As for the definition of “device,” Supermicro advocates a broad definition of the term,

contending that “device” is synonymous with “element,” and should be construed as a

generic term referring to any item that is hooked up to a computer. Rackable, on the other

hand, argues for a narrower definition, one that limits a “device” to a “peripheral computer

subsystem” and provides examples of “peripheral computer subsystem[s].”

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 20 of 23
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

21

Rackable argues that Supermicro improperly attempts to broaden the definition of

the term “device.” Rackable cites to the ‘366 patent specification, including figure 1, in

support of its argument that “referred-to ‘devices’” include “peripheral computer devices,

such as keyboards, monitors, mice, printers, scanners, tape drives, microphones, speakers

or cameras.” See ‘366 patent at 6:11-18. Rackable also cites to a dictionary definition for

“device.” See Ostrapuk Decl., Exh. DD. 

 Supermicro counters that Rackable’s narrow definition of the word “device,” limiting

it to a “peripheral computer subsystem” is contrary to the specification. It asserts that the

patent application intentionally chose to use the generic term “device,” as opposed to the

more specific “computer subsystem” or “peripheral device.” Supermicro also cites to a

technical dictionary definition for the term “device.”

It is not necessary for the court to resort to extrinsic evidence to construe the term

“device” because the specification provides meaning for the term. The related ‘366 patent

abstract clarifies that Supermicro’s broader construction of “device” is more appropriate. 

That abstract explains that “[b]y placement of access space to all elements which require

periodic attention at the front of each computer, the need for significant space at the rear of

a computer is eliminated.” ‘366 patent abstract. Later in the specification’s “summary of

invention,” the specification utilizes a similar broad term for “devices” – “attachments.” ‘408

patent at 4:8. The specification also provides examples of such “devices,” but the list is not

exhaustive. In the detailed description of the embodiments, the specification provides that

“a number of devices may be optionally used in this port” and then continues with a

discussion of the possible types of “drives” (not to be confused with “devices”). ‘408 patent

at 6:7-13. The specification then suggests that devices may include “USB/external SCSI or

parallel port devices or other auxiliary data drives configured for plug-in use.” Id. at 6:13-

19. However, nowhere does the specification define “devices” as narrowly as Rackable

would have the court construe it. 

Because the court finds that the specification supports a broader construction of

“device,” and also finds that “attachment” is clearer than “element,” as advocated by

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 21 of 23
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

22

Supermicro, the court construes “one or more plugs for external drives and devices, and

ports for switches” as one or more plugs for external drives and attachments, and

ports for switches.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the court construes the disputed terms as follows:

1. “Rack” means a frame or cabinet for holding multiple computer chassis.

2. “Computer” means a computer that functions as a server.

3. “Front” means a panel designed to face forward when placed in a rack as

applies to the ‘366 patent only. “Front” is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as

concerns the ‘408 patent.

4. “Components requiring intermittent physical access” is indefinite under 35

U.S.C. § 112. 

5. “Main board” means a main circuit board that contains the primary

components of a computer.

6. “A chassis comprising a front panel” means a frame or housing including a

front panel.

7. “The I/O connectors including the one or more data transmission ports and to

all components requiring intermittent access provided for the computer,” is

indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

8. “Providing access . . . to each component provided for the computer selected

from the group consisting of” means providing the user or operator of the

computer with access to each of the following parts of the computer if

present: removable power supplies, removable drives, removable

media drives, one or more plugs for external drives and devices, and

ports for switches.

9. “Removable” means able to be removed without opening the chassis.

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 22 of 23
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

23

10. “One or more plugs for external drives and devices, and ports for switches”

means one or more plugs for external drives and attachments, and ports

for switches.

A case management conference will take place on Thursday, November 16, 2006, at

2:30 p.m. Pursuant to the court’s Patent Standing Order, the parties are ordered to file a

joint case management statement seven calendar days prior to the conference, which

must address the following topics set forth in that order.

Dated: October 27, 2006

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 110 Filed 10/27/06 Page 23 of 23