Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941-9/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC AWARD METALS INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04941 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

MARKMAN HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF

THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING

SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 2, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings.

As to the disputed term “protective coating,” the Court tentatively construes that term

to mean: “The material applied to the front paper layer to reinforce said front paper layer and to

provide surface protection against abrasion.”

As to the disputed term “said protective coating penetrating some of the fibers of said

front paper layer and having a thickness on the surface of said front paper layer of about 0.001

to 0.005 inches,” the Court tentatively construes that term to mean: “The protective coating

penetrates some of the fibers at the surface of the front paper layer and has a total thickness of

about 0.001 to 0.005 inches, excluding penetration depth.”

The Court has the following questions for the parties:

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 73 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1. Award argues that the Court should construe the phrase “said protective coating

penetrating some of the fibers of said front paper layer and having a thickness on

the surface of said front paper layer of about 0.001 to 0.005 inches,” as two

phrases.

a. Is Award asking the Court to separately construe the terms “penetrating

some of the fibers” and “on the surface”. 

b. If the answer to question 1.a is yes, does USG object to construction of

those two phrases? If so, on what basis?

2. Award asks the Court to construe the term “protective coating” to mean: 

“Material that is applied to the outer surface of the front paper layer and that

guards against abrasion.” 

a. At the tutorial, it appeared that Mr. Dunham agreed that a purpose of the

protective coating was to “reinforce” the front paper layer. Does Award

contend that the language “guards against abrasion” includes that

concept? 

b. If the answer to question 2.a is yes, why should the Court not expressly

include the concept of reinforcement in its construction of the term

“protective coating”, especially where the claim language speaks to the

idea that the protective coating penetrates the fibers of the front paper

layer?

3. Why does Award omit “the” from its proposed construction of the term

“protective coating”?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 73 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2