Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04801/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04801-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

Phase Four Industries, Inc., 

 Plaintiff,

v.

Marathon Coach, Inc.

 Defendant.

 /

NO. 04-CV-04801 JW 

ORDER FOLLOWING CLAIMS

CONSTRUCTION HEARING; SETTING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Phase Four Industries, Inc. ("Phase Four") brings this action seeking a declaratory

judgment that it does not infringe Defendant's Marathon Coach, Inc.'s ("Marathon") U.S. Patent No.

6,607,009 ("the '009 Patent"). Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1338(a), and venue is

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1). The Court conducted a claims construction hearing on

February 22, 2006. This Order sets forth the Court's construction of the terms and phrases at issue. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Phase Four and Marathon are two companies in the recreational vehicle business. Phase

Four is a California corporation engaged in the business of developing and manufacturing

components, specifically waste disposal systems for recreational vehicles ("Rvs"). Marathon is an

Oregon corporation which manufactures custom, high-end RVs from the chassis up. Marathon's

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 14
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

RVs incorporate components and systems manufactured by Marathon and by third party companies

like Phase Four.

In 2003, Marathon was granted U.S. Patent No. 6,607,009, entitled "Sewage Systems for

Vehicles." Afterward, Marathon came to learn that Phase Four was marketing an extendable sewer

hose product called "Waste Master." In October of 2004, Marathon wrote a "cease and desist" letter

to Monaco, Inc., one of Phase Four's major customers claiming that the Phase Four's "Waste Master"

infringed the '009 Patent. Anticipating that Marathon would sue it for patent infringement, Phase

Four filed this preemptive action against Marathon by seeking a declaratory judgment that it does

not infringe the '009 Patent.

On November 19, 2004, Marathon filed a patent infringement action against Phase Four and

Monaco in the District of Oregon. The case was transferred to the Northen District of California. 

(See C 05-00748-JW, Docket Item No. 1.) A more comprehensive procedure history of these

consolidated actions may be found in the Court's Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Cases. (See

Id., Docket Item No. 26.)

On October 20, 2005, the Court granted Marathon's motion for partial summary judgment as

to the affirmative defenses of invalidity based on priority of inventorship and derivation, and ordered

those particular Phase Four's affirmative defenses dismissed. (See Order Granting Marathon's

Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Affirmative Defenses, hereafter, "Order," Docket Item No.

65.)

B. The Patented Invention

The '009 Patent contains four independent claims and associated dependent claims. Each

independent claim discloses a liquid water materials system for a vehicle comprising a storage

container for liquid waste materials, and a tubular waste disposal hose which is moveable from a

first position to a second position in response to air pressure. 

An embodiment of the invention is a mechanism for extending and retracting a preconnected sewage hose from a housing attached to the RV. In the embodiment, a user presses a

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 14
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

button which causes air pressure to be exerted on the hose. A trap door opens and the hose extends

from the RV plumbing bay to the dump site. The user uncaps the hose and connects it to the dump. 

When the user is ready to move the RV, the user releases the hose from the dump, caps the hose, and

presses another button which uses air pressure to retract the hose into its bay and closes the trap door

behind it. The parties submit that this mechanism makes RV owners' experience of dumping waste

from their vehicles more convenient and pleasant than the conventional way. (Order at 11.)

III. STANDARDS

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

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 387 (1996). Claims are construed from the

perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Markman v.

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1995). To determine the meaning of the

claim terms, the Court initially must look to intrinsic evidence, that is, the claims, the specification,

and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. Autogiro v. United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967). 

The Court must look first to the words of the claims themselves. See Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). These words are to be given their ordinary

and customary meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the

inventor used the term with a different meaning. Id. The claims should be interpreted consistently

with the specification. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250

(Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Where intrinsic evidence alone resolves any ambiguity in a disputed claim term, it is

improper to rely on evidence which is external to the patent and file history. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at

1583, 1585. However, extrinsic evidence may be considered in the rare instances where the intrinsic

evidence is insufficient to enable the court to construe disputed claim terms. Id. at 1585. Common

sources of extrinsic evidence include expert testimony, inventor testimony, dictionaries, and

technical treatises and articles. Id. at 1584. 

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 14
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

 Unless otherwise indicated, all bold typeface is added by the Court to emphasize the words

and phrases under consideration.

4

The Federal Circuit has consistently employed the caveat, "if possible," to their instruction

that claims should be construed to sustain their validity. Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345,

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Whittaker Corp. v. UNR Indus., Inc., 911 F.2d 709, 712 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

At the same time, the Federal Circuit has admonished against judicial rewriting of claims to preserve

validity. Rhine, 183 F.3d at 1354 (citing Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792,

799 & n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

IV. DISCUSSION

The parties have asked the Court to construe a number of words and phrases used in the

claims of the '009 Patent. In some instances the word or phrase appears in multiple claims. (See

Docket Item No. 76.) Unless otherwise indicated, a construction given to a word or phrase applies

to each claim in which it appears. 

In addition, to the constuction of words and phrases, the chart contains requests by one or

both parties to rule on the validity of a claim. It is the practice of the Court to decline to construe a

word or phrase if it determines, pursuant to the principles of claim construction, that a construction

cannot be given. When the declination to construe a word or phrase renders a claim arguably

indefinite, the Court will identify that issue and leave it to the parties to bring a motion directed to

that issue. Otherwise, all matters pertaining to validity are left to proceeding subsequent to claim

construction. 

A. The '009 Patent - Claim 1

Claim 1of the '009 Patent provides:1

A liquid water materials system for a vehicle comprising: 

(a) a storage container for liquid waste materials; 

(b) an elongate tubular member through which said waste materials

may flow, wherein said elongate tubular member has an end; 

(c) said end of said elongate tubular member is movable from a first

position to a second position, wherein said end when in said second

position is further distant from said vehicle than said end in said first

position; and 

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 4 of 14
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

(d) wherein said movement of said end is in response to air pressure

exerted within said tubular member. 

1. Relationship between the Structural Elements of Claim 1

Claim 1 discloses a liquid water materials system comprising two elements: "a storage

container" and an "elongate tubular member." The claim does not disclose any structural

relationship or connection between the storage container and the elongate tubular member. 

An essential element of an apparatus claim is disclosure of a structural cooperative

relationship among the elements of the claim. See In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003 (C.C.P.A. 1968). 

Therefore, a claim which does not recite the structural relationship between elements is incomplete

and therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. Id. at 1005. 

Although not expressly stated, an inference of a connection between the elements of Claim 1

of the '009 Patent can be derived from the following language of the "elongate tubular" element: "an

elongate tubular member through which said waste material can flow . . ." ('009 Patent, Col. 

4:61-62.) Those skilled in the art could infer a connection between the storage container and the

elongate tubular member in order for the "flow" limitation to be met. At this time, the Court

declines to address whether or not an inference of structural relationship is sufficient to withstand an

invalidity challenge.

Further, the written description discloses an embodiment in which a black tank and grey tank

are "interconnected" to pipes. Figure 1 of the drawings also show a waste hose interconnected to the

pipes:

The black tank10 and the grey tank 12 are interconnected by pipes 14 and 16 to a

vent pipe 18. * * * Using an existing pressurized air source reduces the expense of an

automated extension and retraction of the waste hose 42.

('009 Patent, Col. 2:49-51; Col. 3:4-6.) Presuming that the "waste hose" practices the "elongate

tubular member" limitation of the second element, the "pipes" described in the embodiment are not

claimed as elements. At this time, the Court declines to address whether or not the pipes are

essential elements of Claim 1.

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 5 of 14
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 phrase "liquid water materials" is also found in the Preamble of Claims 11, 21, and 30

of the '009 Patent. 

6

Although the Court proceeds to construe the words and phrases used in the elements of

Claim 1, the Court finds that the lack of a structural relationship between the elements renders Claim

1 and its dependent claims arguably indefinite. The Court invites the parties to address the cited

apparent indefinite of Claim 1 in appropriate motions.

2. "liquid waste materials"

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "liquid waste materials." Claim 1

uses two different phrases to describe the materials being handled by the claimed apparatus. The

Preamble uses the phrase, "a liquid water materials system."2

 The claim uses the phrase "liquid

waste materials."

Generally, a preamble does not limit the claims. Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,

299 F.3d 1336, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n. 3 (Fed. Cir.

1985)). If a preamble is used as an antecedent, namely, to define the apparatus which is referred to

in the elements of the claimed invention, it is limiting. Allen Eng'g Corp., 299 F.3d at 1346 (citing

Bell Comm. Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Comm. Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). In

addition, "clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention

from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use

of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention." Catalina Marketing International Inc. v.

Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Ben

Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

The Court finds that the Preamble to Claim 1 is not limiting because it is not used as an

antecedent or to avoid prior art. Therefore, the Court declines to construe the phrase "liquid water

materials system," since it adds no limitations to the elements of Claim 1.

In using the phrase, "liquid waste material," the patentee was acting as lexicographer and

coined this term to describe the material being handled by the system. A patentee is free to act as his

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 6 of 14
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

 This phrase is also found in Claims 9, 10, 11, 19, 21, and 30. 

7

or her own lexicographer. Acting as lexicographer, the patentee may either define a term used in a

claim differently from its ordinary meaning or coin a new term. However, if the patentee chooses to

act as his or her own lexicographer, the special definition must be clearly stated within the patent

specification or file history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1996). In this case, the '009 Patent's written description does not contain an express definition of the

phrase. However, the related phrases "waste" and "waste water" are defined: 

Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary waste system for a RV of the present invention may

include a black tank 10 for holding toilet sewage and a grey tank 12 for holding other waste

water, such as for example, the sink or the shower.

('009 Patent, Col. 2:44-47.)

In addition, the abstract of the invention may be used as a source for defining the phrases. 

Hill Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 209 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000.) The abstract of the '009

Patent provides: "The present invention relates to a sewage system for a vehicle." This same

language is used in describing the background of the invention. (See '009 Patent Col. 1:5-6.)

The Court construes the phrase "liquid waste materials" as follows:

"any waste material or mixture of waste materials which flows." 

3. "elongate tubular member" 

Claim 1 of the '009 Patent provides:

an elongate tubular member3 through which said waste materials may flow.

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "elongate tubular member." The

Court gives this phrase its plain and ordinary meaning. "Elongate" is commonly understood to

mean, "long and narrow." The detailed description uses the phrase "tubular member" as follows:

"Further, the waste hose 42 may be any type of tubular member having any cross sectional

profile(s) suitable to pass liquids through." ('009 Patent, Col. 3:63-65.)

 The Court construes "elongate tubular member" as follows:

"long narrow tube suitable to pass liquids."

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 7 of 14
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

4. "may flow"

Claim 1 of the '009 Patent provides:

an elongate tubular member through which said waste materials may

flow.

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "may flow." The Court is requested

by one to the parties to define the word "may" as "not required." The word "may" is also commonly

used to mean "can" or "having the ability or power." The Court finds that in the context of the

phrase at issue, one skilled in the art reading the patent would understand the word "may" in this

latter context. 

The Court construes the phrase "through which said waste materials may flow" as follows:

"through which said waste materials can flow." 

5. "second position is further distant from said vehicle"

Claim 1 provides as an element:

said end of said elongate tubular member is movable from a first position to a second

position, wherein said end when in said second position is further distant from

said vehicle than said end in said first position. . . 

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "second position is further distant

from said vehicle." The Court finds that one skilled in the art reading the claim and specification

would understand this phrase to have an ordinary and customary meaning. 

The Court construes the phrase: "second position is further distant from said vehicle" to

mean:

"When the end of the elongate tubular member is in the second position, it is 

further from the exterior of the vehicle than it is when it is in its first position."

6. "said movement" 

Claim 1 claims as an element:

wherein said movement of said end is in response to air pressure exerted within said

tubular member. 

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 8 of 14
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

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "said movement." The phrase "said

movement" refers to the antecedent movement of the end of the elongate tubular member. 

Therefore, the Court construes "said movement" as follows:

"the movement of the end of the elongate tubular member from a first position

to a second position."

B. The '009 Patent - Claim 3

Claim 3 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 1 wherein said first container stores toilet sewage and said second

container stores shower waste water.

The parties dispute whether it is proper for the Court to construe the phrases "said first

container" and "said second container." Claim 3 is a dependent claim from Claim 1.

When a dependent claim states as an invention elements using the word "the" or "said," it

should be construed to refer back to elements already disclosed in the independent claim. Nautilus

Group, Inc. v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 308 F.Supp.2d 1198 (citing Process Control Corp. v.

HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed.Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1037 (2000)). If the

element is not recited in the independent claim, the dependent claim is arguably indefinite. Id. 

Claim 3 of the '009 Patent suffers from lack of an antecedent in Claim 1 with respect to its

recitals of a "first container" and a "second container." Therefore, Claim 3 is arguably indefinite

under 35 U.S.C. §112. The Court invites the parties to address this arguable indefiniteness of Claim

3 in appropriate motions.

C. The '009 Patent - Claim 4

Claim 4 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 1 wherein said storage container is vented to the exterior of said

vehicle.

The parties dispute the proper construction of the word "exterior." The Court finds that the

word "exterior" has its plain and customary meaning and declines to construe the word any further. 

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 9 of 14
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

 This word is found in claims 5, 7, 15, 17, 26, and 28. 

10

D. The '009 Patent - Claim 7

Claim 7 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 6 further comprising first check valve interconnected to the output of

said air tank and a second check valve interconnected to the input of said air tank

1. "check valve"

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "check valve." The written

description describes a check valve as follows:

An intake check valve 44 is preferably a "one-way" valve that substantially only permits air

flow in a single direction, as indicated by the arrows.

('009 Patent, Col. 3:13-16.) The court adopts the definition given in the written description. 

Therefore, the Court construes the phrase "check valve" as follows:

 "a one way valve that substantially only permits flow in a single direction."

2. "interconnected"

Claim 7 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 6 further comprising first check valve interconnected to the output of

said air tank and a second check valve interconnected to the input of said air tank

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "interconnected." The word

"interconnected" has a plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art at the time of the

invention, namely, "connected one to another."

The Court, therefore, construes the term "interconnected"4

 as follows:

"connected one to another."

E. The '009 Patent - Claim 8

Claim 8 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 1 further comprising a valve that selectively causes said movement of

said end.

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "valve." The Court finds that the

term "valve" has a ordinary and customary meaning and requires no further construction. The Court

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 10 of 14
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

notes, however, the lack of any recital of a structural relationship of the valve to the elements of the

claim. As discussed in Section A1 above, the Court invites the parties to address this matter in

appropriate motions.

F. The '009 Patent - Claim 9

Claim 9 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 1 further comprising said end of said elongate tubular member being

movable from said second position to said first position, wherein said end when in said

second position is further distant from said vehicle than said end in said first position,

wherein said movement of said end is in response to air pressure. 

There is a dispute between the parties with respect to whether Claim 9 is redundant to Claim

1. See 35 U.S.C. §112. Both claims recite "movement of said end in response to air pressure." 

Claim 1 recites movement from a first position to a second position. Claim 9 recites movement from

a second position to a first position. The Court finds that the elements of Claim 1 recites using air

pressure to extend the tubular member. Claim 9 recites using air pressure to retract the tubular

member. The Court finds that Claim 9 recites elements distinct from those cited in Claim 1.

G. The '009 Patent - Claim 10

Claim 10 of the '009 Patent provides:

The system of claim 1 further comprising said end of said elongate tubular member being

movable from said second position to said first position, wherein said end when in said

second position is further distant from said vehicle than said end in said first position,

wherein said movement of said end is in response to air pressure. 

The Court finds that Claim 10 is identical to Claim 9 and is invalid. The Court invites the

parties to show cause, if any, why all claims based on Claim 10 should not be dismissed from the

case.

H. The '009 Patent - Claim 11

Claim 11 of the '009 Patent reads:

A liquid water materials system for a vehicle comprising: 

(a) a storage container for liquid waste materials; 

(b) an elongate tubular member through which said waste materials may flow,

wherein said elongate tubular member has an end; 

(c) said end of said elongate tubular member is movable from a first position to a

second position, wherein said end when in said second position is further distant from

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 11 of 14
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

said vehicle than said end in said first position; and 

(d) wherein said movement of said end is slidably engaged with said vehicle free

from engagement with external ribs of said tubular member. 

1. "slidably engaged with said vehicle"

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "slidably engaged." In using the

phrase "slidably engaged," the patentee combined two words which have ordinary and customary

meanings. For two objects to be "engaged," means that they are "together" or "acting together." To

be "slidable" means that the surface of an object is able to move along the plane of the surface of

another object. The written description discloses a preferred embodiment of the system in which in

response to air pressure the surface of a waste hose "slides" out of the vehicle: 

When the user desires to extend the waste hose 42, a check valve 50 is opened which permits

air pressure to flow through the check valve 50 and into the drain pipe 30. A vent check

valve 52 is preferably closed to primarily restrict the air flow through the drain pipe 30. 

Likewise, preferably the black waste valve 26 and the grey waste valve 28 are closed. 

Accordingly, substantially all the air flow will be acting upon the waste hose 42 which is

preferably slidably engaged with the waste system. More preferably the waste hose 42 (or a

majority thereof) is freely slidably engaged with the waste system over a majority of its

extension. Moreover, the waste hose 42 may notably extend or move based upon other

mechanisms in such a manner as to extend from the vehicle. The pressure exerted on the end

portion of the waste hose 42, capped by a detachably engageable cover 54, will cause the

waste hose 42 to slide outwardly from the recreational vehicle 20, as illustrated in FIG 2. In

this manner, by simply opening the valve 50 the waste hose may be slidably extended in a

manner that is free from the user having to manually pull or otherwise extend the waste hose.

('009 Patent, Col. 3:25-44.)

The Court construes "slidably engaged with said vehicle" to mean:

"an elongate tubular member which is configured in a manner which allows it to

slide along the surface of another structure in a waste system of a vehicle."

2. "external ribs"

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "external ribs." Claim 11 discloses

an elongate tubular member with "external ribs." In the context of this claim, one skilled in the art

would understand "external" to mean "on the outside of." The ordinary and customary use of the

word "rib" is a stiffening structure. 

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 12 of 14
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 13

Figures 1 and 3 show a waste hose 42 with circumferential rings. The written description

does not discuss these rings. However, the Court finds that one skilled in the art would understand

these rings as embodiments of stiffening ribs of a waste hose. 

The Court construes "external ribs" to mean:

"stiffening structures on the outside of the elongate tubular member."

3. "free from engagement"

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "free from engagement." Claim 11

discloses an elongate tubular member with external ribs which is "moveable." In this last element,

Claim 11 discloses that "said movement" is "free from engagement" with the external ribs of "said

tubular member." Although as pointed out in Section H2 above, the written description does not

disclose "ribs." It does, however, disclose movement of a waste hose: 

More preferably the waste hose 42 (or a majority thereof) is freely slidably engaged

with the waste system over a majority of its extension. Moreover, the waste hose 42

may notably extend or move based upon other mechanisms in such a manner as to

extend from the vehicle.

('009 Patent, Col. 33-38.) The Court gives this phrase its ordinary and customary meaning.

The Court construes "free from engagement with external ribs" as follows:

"movement of the elongate tubular member without interference from its

external ribs."

V. CONCLUSION

The Court has completed claim construction of the terms presented by the parties. The parties

shall meet and confer and submit supplemental or additional briefing addressing the terms and

phrases that remain at issue given the constructions set forth above. The parties shall appear for a

case management conference on January 22, 2007 at 10 A.M. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of

the Court, the parties shall file a case management conference statement no later than ten (10) days

before the date of the conference.

Dated: December 19, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 13 of 14
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

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

Alan Heimlich alanheimlich@heimlichlaw.com

Brenna Legaard brenna@chernofflaw.com

David Michael Zeff Zefflaw1@aol.com

Nicholas Heimlich nickheimlich@nickheimlichlaw.com

Susan D. Pitchford sdp@chernofflaw.com

William O. Geny bill@chernofflaw.com

Dated: December 19, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-04801-JW Document 121 Filed 12/19/06 Page 14 of 14