Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03190/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03190-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH R. PACZONAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN RECREATION PRODUCTS,

INC., ULTIMATE DIRECTIONS, INC.,

KELLWOOD COMPANY AND WENGER

N.A. and DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03190 WHA

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

INTRODUCTION

This is a claim-construction order for United States Patent Nos. 5,609,207 and 6,273,128

asserted herein by plaintiff. This order addresses the seven disputed phrases selected by the

parties. A technology tutorial, a full round of briefing, and a Markman hearing preceded this

order. 

STATEMENT

On May 12, 2006, plaintiff Joseph R. Paczonay filed a complaint alleging that

defendants American Recreation Products, Inc., Ultimate Directions Inc., Kellwood Company,

Wenger N.A., and Does 1–10 infringed two of Paczonay’s patents. Paczonay maintained a

design and manufacturing facility for producing hydration valves and systems. All companies

named as defendants sold products for use in outdoor sports and recreation. American

Recreation Products is a subsidiary of Kellwood. 

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 9
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

The patents in suit both related to valves for personal hydration systems designed to

provide a better flow rate and easier use in active sports. The ’207 patent was drawn to a bite

valve with a plurality of slits. The bite valve deformed under pressure causing the slits to open

and liquid to flow through the slits. The ’128 patent was drawn to a pressure-activated valve

which contained a deformable diaphragm that opens and closes in response to suction. 

Paczonay applied for the two patents separately and the applications were not related. 

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD.

Claim construction is a matter of law to be decided by a judge, not a jury. Markman v.

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388 (1996). Courts must give words in the claim

their ordinary and customary meaning, which “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 v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

Where this ordinary and customary meaning in not immediately clear, courts must

primarily look to intrinsic evidence (i.e., the claims, the specification, and the prosecution

history) to determine the meaning. Id. at 1314. With respect to the specification, although a

difficult task, a court must distinguish “between using the specification to interpret the meaning

of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323. The

latter is not permissible. 

Although courts have the discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, including expert and

inventor testimony, dictionaries and scientific treatises, such evidence is “less significant than

the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. at

1317 (citation omitted). “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most

naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct

construction.” Id. at 1315. “Nonetheless, any articulated definition of a claim term ultimately

must relate to the infringement questions it was intended to answer.” E-Pass Tech., Inc. v.

3Com Corp., ___ F.3d ____, 2007 WL 80852, *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing Wilson

Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 9
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

2. THE ’207 PATENT.

The parties have jointly selected four disputed terms and phrases from the ’207 patent to

be construed at this time. They are: (1) “tubular;” (2) “integral;” (3) “integrally constructed;”

and (4) “integrally connected.” The parties agree, however, that the true subjects of dispute are

the terms “tubular” and “integral.” In arguing their proposed definitions, neither party relies on

the patent’s prosecution history; it was not submitted in conjunction with this claimconstruction proceeding. Furthermore, at oral argument, both parties stated that the prosecution

history had no bearing on the definitions of the disputed claim terms. 

A. “Tubular.”

The term “tubular” appeared in claim 18 of the ’207 patent. Claim 18 depended from

claim 1. Claim 1 recited in part (col. 4:59–5:2):

1. Apparatus for positioning in the mouth of an individual for selectively

delivering liquid from a liquid source for consummation by the

individual, said apparatus being formed of resilient, flexible

material, and comprising, in combination:

A hollow body portion defining an interior for accommodating fluid

received from a liquid source, said body portion including a fluid

inlet end communicating with said interior for receiving liquid

from the liquid source and a fluid outlet end spaced from said

fluid inlet end;

Claim 18 read (col. 6:17–18):

18. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein said body portion is

generally tubular shaped. 

Defendants argue that the term “tubular” should be limited to a “hollow article having a

circular cross-section.” Paczonay proposes that the term should be construed to mean “having

the form of a hollow body.” He relies on a dictionary definition and his purported definitions in

the specification. Specifically, he described the apparatus in the specification as being formed

of “resilient, flexible material and includes a hollow body portion defining an interior for

accommodating fluid received from a liquid source” (col. 1:48–51). Defendants contend that

plaintiff’s definition of the term is far too broad and could encompass any hollow article. 

The word “tubular” is a common English-language word with a readily-understood

meaning. Nothing found in the specification or the claims indicates that the term should have

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 3 of 9
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

anything other than its commonly-understood meaning. Additionally, the parties presented no

evidence or argument from the prosecution history in this claim-construction proceeding, and at

the hearing, the parties agreed that nothing in the prosecution history addresses the meaning of

the term. Because “tubular” has a commonly-understood meaning and there is no basis on

which to conclude that it was used in any specialized way, there is no need to give it further

definition, with one minor exception. 

This order holds that limiting the definition of “tubular” to only objects with a circular

cross-section is unwarranted. Cross-section-wise, tubes come in many different shapes, ranging

from circular to oval to poly-sided. The figures in the patent, for example, show the bite valve

as having a roughly elliptical shape, as shown in figure 2B. 

This precludes any finding that the term should be restricted to

objects with a circular cross-section. Accordingly, the term

“tubular” will be given its commonly-understood meaning

with the caveat that it is not to be restricted to objects having a

circular cross-section. ’207 Patent, Fig. 2B

B. “Integral.”

The term “integral” appeared in claim 17. Claim 17 depended from claim 1 and read as

follows (col. 6:15–16): 

17. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein said body portion and

said closure are of integral construction. 

Paczonay contends that integral should mean “of or pertaining to, or belonging as a part

of the whole; constituent or component.” He argues that this term is defined in the specification

in the following passage: “[a]pparatus is of integral construction and is formed of resilient,

flexible material such as rubber or plastic” (col. 3:13–15). Paczonay also refers to figures

depicting the invention. Defendants propose that integral should mean “functioning as a

solitary article.” From the specification, defendants cite the same passage as Paczonay, and in

addition, cite the passage that stated “[i]ntegrally connected to the body portion at the fluid

outlet end thereof and extending across the fluid outlet end is a deformable closure 24 . . . ” (col.

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 4 of 9
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

3:23–26). The term is also used in the specification describing the bite-valve closure (col.

3:39–48): 

“[p]ortion 34 is in the form of a strip of resilient flexible material integrally

connected to the remainder of the closure at opposed strip ends . . . application of

the opposed forces will deform the closure . . . and cause portion or strip 34 to

form an outwardly projecting arch between the ends of the portion or strip.” 

As mentioned above, claim 17 depended from claim 1. Claim 1 read “a hollow body

portion . . . and a deformable closure connected to said body portion and extending across the

fluid outlet . . .” (col. 4:64–5:4). Claim 17 indicated that the deformable closure and the body

portions are “integrally connected.” Also, parties agree that the term “unitary construction” as

used in claim 20 is defined as “construction of a single object” (Joint Stmt. at 2). Looking at the

claims and specification as a whole, it is clear that “integral” must mean something more than

merely connected, but something less than made from a single object. Defendants’ proposed

definition captures such a relationship. “Integral” means that the objects must function as a

single unit. They need not be formed of a single piece. 

This interpretation is consistent with the term’s commonly-understood, plain meaning. 

As to dictionary definitions, both parties cite the definition that reads “of, pertaining to,

belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component.” Joint Stmt. at 5–6. Similarly,

integral is defined as “formed as a unit with another part.” Merriam-Webster, Ninth New

Collegiate Dictionary, 1984. All of these definitions comport with the concept that the parts

must function together as a single unit, but need not be comprised of a single part. Accordingly,

“integral” is held to mean “functioning as a single article.” 

C. “Integral Construction.”

The phrase “integral construction” was used in claim 17. As stated in previous section 

construing the term “integral,” it must mean “functioning as a single unit.” Here, parties seem

to have little dispute over the actual meaning of the term “construction,” agreeing that it refers

to the way the article is made. Thus, this order holds that “integral construction” means “made

such that components function as a single article.”

D. “Integrally Connected.”

The phrase “integrally connected” appeared in claim 2 which depended from claim 1. It 

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 5 of 9
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

recited (col. 5:20–23):

2. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein said at least one portion

comprises a strip of resilient flexible material integrally

connected to the remainder of said closure at opposed strip ends. 

Again, the term “integrally connected” relies on the construction of “integral,” as described

above. Plaintiff proposes that the term be defined as “made as one continuous piece,” while

defendants propose that it should mean “connected such that the component parts function as a

solitary article.” Plaintiff’s proposed definition conflicts with this order’s definition of

“integral.” The parts must function as a single piece; they must not be made of a single piece

(as a molded unit, for example). Thus, importing the prior definition of “integral” into this

claim, this order holds that “integrally connected” is construed to mean “joined to function as a

single article.” 

3. THE ’128 PATENT.

The parties have selected three disputed phrases to be construed by this order. They are: 

(1) “integrally connected;” (2) “tubular housing member;” and (3) “integrally connected to said

tubular housing member.” The third term depends on the construction of the first two, so it will

be addressed last. At oral argument, parties agreed that the substance of their dispute lies with

the term “integral.” As with the ’207 patent, the parties did not submit the prosecution history. 

The parties stated that the prosecution history had no bearing at all on the definitions of the

disputed claim terms. 

A. “Integrally Connected.” 

The phrase “integrally connected” appeared in claim 21 which recited (col. 8:28–45): 

21. Apparatus for controlling the flow of fluid through a fluid

passageway, said apparatus comprising a pressure-activated valve

for receiving fluid from a fluid flow passageway and including a

tubular housing member formed a resilient molded material and a

deformable diaphragm formed of resilient molded material

integrally connected to said tubular housing member and movable

between a first position wherein said diaphragm is closed and

forms a substantially fluid-tight seal preventing fluid flow through

said tubular housing member and a second position wherein said

diaphragm defines an opening responsive to fluid pressure within

said tubular housing member, said pressure-activated valve

additionally including a wall providing a hinged interconnection

between said tubular housing member and said diaphragm, said

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 6 of 9
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

wall inverting when said diaphragm moves between said first and

second position. 

The term appeared in the same context in claim 24. In contrast, claim 26 recited “a tubular

housing member and a deformable diaphragm of resilient material connected to said tubular

housing member and moveable responsive to a change in fluid pressure” (col. 9:28–10:3). 

The term also appeared in claim 14, which recited “[t]he apparatus according to claim

13 wherein said diaphragm is integral with said outer tubular housing member” (col. 7:63–65). 

Claim 13 recited an apparatus where the outer housing member was formed of a hard, inflexible

material, and the inner tubular was formed of a flexible, resilient material. 

Plaintiff contends that this term should mean “joined to the tubular housing to form a

single part or piece; the tubular housing, diaphragm, and the wall surrounding the diaphragm

are all molded into a single integral part or component called the pressure activated apparatus.” 

In support, Paczonay points out that the specification stated “[t]ypically, closures of this type

employed on containers utilize multiple piece [sic] housings or bodies in which the valve is

mounted. While closures used for such applications may function generally satisfactorily, in

some applications it is desirable not to employ multiple piece [sic] constructions” (col.

1:16–20). This statement shows that constructing the valve from a single piece of material was

desirable, but this limitation never appeared in the claims. 

In response, defendants argue that “integrally connected” means “connected such that

the component parts function as a solitary article,” the same construction that defendants

proposed for the term “integral” as used in the ’207 patent. Defendants cite to the specification,

which states “[A] wall 54 is positioned within the tubular housing and provides a hinged

interconnection between the diaphragm and the tubular housing, the wall being integrally

formed with the diaphragm and the tubular housing and of course constructed of the same

material” (col. 4:31–35). 

Both parties cite the following passage from the specification describing a preferred

embodiment in support of their respective definitions: “[d]iaphragm 84 and outer tubular

housing member along with wall 91 interconnecting same are integrally molded. The housing

members 88, 90 are secured together during a molding process wherein the housing member 88

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

is molded in situ on housing member 90” (col. 5:66–6:3, Fig. 5). 

From the figure, it appears that the housing members are secured

inside one another to form a single unit. 

Defendants interpret this language to indicate that Paczonay

necessarily intended that the two pieces be molded separately, then

joined together such that they function as a unit. Paczonay argues

in response that this indicates that the pieces were molded together

to form a single unit. Paczonay also contends, without presenting

supporting evidence, that one skilled in the art would know that ’207 Pat. Fig. 5

the pieces are intended to be molded as one piece. It seems that here, Paczonay is attempting to

read a limitation from the specification into the claims. The specification mentions the

desirability of molding the two pieces together, but doing so is never mentioned in the claims. 

Simply put, both parties are trying to find definitions for the term in the specification that are

not there. Accordingly, the specification of the ’128 patent does not indicate that “integral”

should be given anything other than its plain-language meaning. 

The term “integrally connected” does not require that an article be formed of a single,

continuous piece, as plaintiff argues. Defendants’ proposed definition, that the parts must be

joined to function as a single article, adequately captures the plain meaning of the term. Here,

“integrally connected” is held to mean that the pieces are joined to function as a single article,

including, but not limited to, a molded unit.

B. “Tubular Housing Member.”

The phrase “tubular housing member” appeared in claim 21, 26, and 27. Claim 27

depended from claim 26 and recited (col. 10:14–19):

27. The apparatus according to claim 26 wherein said fluid flow

passageway includes a hydration delivery tube, said tubular

housing member being connected to said hydration delivery tube

and cooperable therewith to deliver a liquid to said pressure

activated valve from a source of liquid. 

Plaintiff’s proposed definition for this term is a “housing member having the form of a 

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 8 of 9
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

hollow body made of resilient material.” Defendant contends that this term should mean “a

hollow article, having a circular cross section, which houses the wall and the deformable

diaphragm.” “Housing” is an agreed-upon term which parties have construed as “an enclosure”

(Joint Stmt. at 3). 

As stated previously, “tubular” is a commonly-understood English word. Both parties

cite to sections of the specification, but no reference in the specification or claims indicates that

the term should have anything other than its plain meaning. As such, it will be given its

commonly-understood meaning, with the caveat that it will not be limited to having a circular

cross-section. 

C. “Integrally Connected To Said Tubular Housing.”

The phrase “integrally connected to said tubular housing” appeared in claim 21 and 26. 

This order has already construed the terms “integrally connected” and “tubular housing.” Thus,

this order holds that this disputed term means “joined to a hollow enclosure having a tubular

form to function as a single article.” 

CONCLUSION

The foregoing claim-construction ruling shall govern all subsequent proceedings herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2007 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03190-WHA Document 40 Filed 01/30/07 Page 9 of 9