Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00893/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00893-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 07CV893 IEG (NLS)

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER 

Presently before the Court is the construction of disputed terms of the asserted claims of U.S.

Patent No. 6,816,356 (“the ‘356 patent”).

BACKGROUND

The disputed patent is entitled “Integrated Broadband Ceramic Capacitor Array.” A capacitor

is a device conventionally comprised of two metal plates separated by a non-conductor of direct

electric current. This non-conductive material is known as a “dielectric.” Dielectric material includes

air or ceramic. 

A capacitor is charged by coupling its plates to an electrical source. Since electricity passes

easily through the metal plates—which are electrical conductors—but not the dielectric, a positive

electrical charge accumulates on one plate and a negative charge accumulates on the other plate. Or,

put another way, electrons are introduced on one of the metal plates and electrons are depleted on the

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 16
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-

other. When thus charged, the capacitor stores energy which can then be released by connecting the

plates via an external path and permitting current to flow from one plate to the other. The electrons

will flow off the negatively charged plate and to the positively charged plate, bringing the two plates

to equal relative voltage. 

PARALLEL PLATE CAPACITOR

Below is an example of a typical “parallel plate capacitor” described above and utilized in the

356 patent. The capacitor is formed by positioning two conductive plates in parallel and separating

them by a dielectricic.

One other type of capacitor utilized by the subject patent is a “fringe-effect capacitor.” A

“fringe-effect capacitor” is formed by positioning the ends of two conductors in an edge-to-edge

relationship. Here is an illustration.

FRINGE-EFFECT CAPACITOR

The ability of a capacitor to store charge per unit of voltage applied across its plate is its

“capacitance.” Capacitance depends on the spacing of the conductive plates and the specific properties

of the dielectric material used.

The ‘356 patent discloses and claims a capacitor consisting of a network of capacitors. The

geometry and spacing of the multiple conductive and non-conductive layers of the multilayer capacitor

forms multiple parallel-plate capacitors and fringe-effect capacitors.

Below is an embodiment of the capacitor described by the ‘356 patent. The capacitor contains

several conductive plates positioned inside the dielectric body (e.g., structures 10 and 11). The

positioning of these plates form parallel plate capacitors. A fringe-effect capacitor is formed in the

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 16
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-

space between 72 and 74.

The parties seek construction of numerous limitations contained in the patent’s claims. The

following chart lists the disputed terms as well as the parties’ positions on proposed construction.

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

1 Substantially Monolithic

Dielectric Body

A largely, but not necessarily wholly onepiece dielectric bodyA dielectric body largely but not

wholly without seams from the

inclusion of conductive plates

within the dielectric body

2 A Conductive First

Contact Disposed

Externally on the

Dielectric Body and

Electrically Connected to

the First Plate

A conductive material arranged on an

external surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric body

having an electrical connection with the

first plate

A conductive layer for attaching

the capacitor (recited in the

preamble) to an external

conductor, the conductive layer

being present on an external

surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric

body and touching the conductive

first plate to establish electrical

connection

3 A Conductive Second

Contact Disposed

Externally on the

Dielectric Body and

Electrically Connected to

the Second Plate

A conductive material arranged on an

external surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric body

having an electrical connection with the

second plate

A conductive layer for attaching

the capacitor (recited in the

preamble) to an external

conductor, the conductive layer

being present on an external

surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric

body and touching the conductive

second plate to establish electrical

connection

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 16
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-

4 The Second Contact Being

Located Sufficiently Close

to the First Contact to

Form a First Fringe-Effect

Capacitance with the First

Contact

Forming a capacitance between or

proximate opposed ends of the first and

second conductive contacts which affects

the high frequency performance of the

capacitor as a whole

An end of the first conductive

contact and an end of the second

conductive contact are positioned

in an edge-to-edge relationship in

such proximity as to form a

determinable capacitance.

5 The Second Contact Being

Located Sufficiently Close

to the First Contact on the

Second Side of the

Dielectric Body to Form a

Second Fringe-Effect

Capacitance with the First

Contact.

Forming a capacitance between or

proximate opposed ends of the first and

second conductive contacts on a second

side of the substantially monolithic

dielectric body which affects the high

frequency performance of the capacitor as

a whole

Another end of the first

conductive contact and another

end of the second conductive

contact are present on the second

side of the substantially

monolithic dielectric body and are

positioned in an edge-to-edge

relationship in such proximity as

to form a determinable

capacitance.

6 The dielectric body has a

hexahedron shape

The dielectric body has six major surfaces The substantially monolithic

dielectric body has six sides.

LEGAL STANDARD

In construing claims, the Court must look first to the language of the claims themselves.

Middleton, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To that end,

“the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the

art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation.”

Id. More specifically, “the ordinary and customary meaning 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, as of

the effective date f the patent application.” Id. at 1313. 

The specification is “‘always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is

dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315

(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); accord Yoon Ja

Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Phillips invited courts “to rely

heavily on the written description [in the specification] for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”

415 F.3d at 1317. For example, the specification may show that the inventor assigned a meaning to

a claim term that differs from the claim’s ordinary meaning, and, in that case, “the inventor’s

lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316; accord Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 4 of 16
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-

(Fed. Cir. 2007).

Under Federal Circuit precedent, a patentee’s choice of embodiments can shed light on the

intended scope of the claim, but a patent claim term is not limited merely because the embodiments

in the specification all contain a particular feature. On the other hand, a construction that excludes a

preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 388

F.3d 858, 865 (Fed Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The decision whether to limit

a claim to the embodiments in the specification “depends in each case on the specificity of the

description of the invention and on the prosecution history.” Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 224

F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed Cir. 2000). The mere fact that a specification discloses a single embodiment is

not enough. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, 358 F.3d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The court should rely on extrinsic evidence “[o]nly if a disputed claim term remains ambiguous

after analysis of the intrinsic evidence.” Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc., 284 F.3d 1365,

1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Extrinsic evidence is defined as “‘all evidence external to the patent and

prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’”

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed

Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). Extrinsic evidence is separate from the patent, prepared for

litigation purposes, and not necessarily reflective of the perspective of an ordinary person skilled in the

art. Id. at 1318. A court must not use extrinsic evidence “to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim

language from how it is defined, even implicitly, in the specification or [prosecution] history.” Dow

Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., Ltd., 257 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 5 of 16
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-

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

I. Disputed Term 1: Substantially Monolithic Dielectric Body

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

1 Substantially Monolithic

Dielectric Body

A largely, but not necessarily wholly onepiece dielectric bodyA dielectric body largely but not

wholly without seams from the

inclusion of conductive plates

within the dielectric body

i. Parties’ Arguments 

Presidio argues this term, “a substantially monolithic dielectric body” should be defined as “a

largely, but not necessarily wholly, one piece dielectric body.” Presidio relies on lay dictionary

definitions for asserting “substantially” means “of ample or considerable amount” and “monolithic”

means “consisting of one piece.” Presidio explains that this definition captures the idea that the

capacitor is not wholly a monolithic dielectric body because conductive structures may be placed on

an external surface of the dielectric body, or inside the dielectric body. In support they cite portions

of the patent specification which state that a dielectirc body “includes a series of conductive plates

arranged in a substantially parallel and opposed configuration in one region of the body” and that

“conductive structures may be one or more conductive plates positioned inside the dielectric body . .

. . [Or] the conductive structures may be placed either on an external surface of the dielectric body,

or inside the dielectric body . . . .” (the ‘356 patent, at col. 4, ln. 29-58.) 

ATC suggests the claim language, “a substantial monolithic dielectric body,” is indefinite or,

alternatively, ought to be construed to mean “a dielectric body largely but not wholly without seams

from the inclusion of plates within the dielectric body.” At the claim construction hearing, ATC

presented the testimony of Dr. Joseph P. Dougherty, who explained that a monolithic capacitor is

formed by “sintering” (i.e. fusing) together multiple conductive and dielectric layers into a single block

and then dipping that structure into a conductive liquid to form conductive contacts. Dr. Dougherty

stated that, in his experience, there are no degrees of monolithicness; rather, a capacitor is either

monolithic or it is not. As for the term, “substantially monolithic dielectric body,” Dr. Dougherty said

the term would mean nothing to a skilled artisan. However, in Dr. Doughtery’s Rule 4.2 statement,

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 6 of 16
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-

he suggests the Court adopt the alternative construction put forth by ATC, explaining that the sintering

of conductive plates forms the “seams” mentioned in ATC’s construction and it is these seams which

makes the dielectric body not entirely (i.e. only substantially) monolithic. ATC says the concept of

seams is understood by skilled artisans based on its use in another Presidio patent to define the meaning

of an “essentially” monolithic structure. (ATC’s Opening Brief at 12, citing Presidio’s U.S. Patent NO.

6,661,639 from a different patent family which states that “[t]he resulting capacitor is a plated,

essentially monolithic structure . . . . By essentially we refer to the presence of the internal

metallizations that create a partial boundry or seam within the structure . . . .”). 

ii. Analysis

As an initial matter, the Court declines to address ATC’s indefiniteness argument at this point

with respect to this and other disputed terms and concludes such analysis would be more appropriate

at the summary judgment stage. See Kowalski v. Ocean Duek Corp., 2007 WL 4104259, *3 (D.

Hawai’i, November 19, 2007); Intergraph Hardware Technologies Co. v. Toshiba Corp., 508

F.Supp.2d 752, 773 n.3 (N.D. Cal. August 2, 2007); Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co., 289 F.Supp.2d 1048,

1050 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (noting that in the vast majority of cases, claim indefinitness is decided in

connection with a summary judgment motion); STX Inc. v. Brine, Inc., 37 F.Supp.2d 740, 754 (D.Md.

1999) (stating that “it would be error to collapse claim construction . . . into a statutory indefiniteness

analysis.”).

The term “substantially monolithic dielectric body” is not defined in the ‘356 patent and the

Court finds the term remains ambiguous even after examination of specifications, embodiments, and

other instrinsic evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds the use of extrinsic evidence appropriate in

construing this disputed phrase.

The Court finds some guidance on how to interpret the disputed term by referencing the use

of the term “monolithic” as used to characterize an entire multilayer capacitor structure. For instance,

in the‘356 patent section titled “Background of the Invention,” the concept of monolithic ceramic

structure is discussed. (‘356 patent, col. 1, 2.) This discussion comes in the context of describing prior

art, a structure shown in figure 2A, termed a “multilayer ceramic capacitor.” The specification explains

that such a structure is formed by stacking layers of a powdered ceramic dielectric material and holding

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 7 of 16
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-

those layers together by applying an organic binder. After all layers have been stacked and conductive

structures are printed on top of various layers to form the desired capacitance, the layers are

compressed and diced into capacitors. At this point, the capacitors are heated to drive off the organic

binder and fuse the powdered ceramic material into a “monolithic” structure. (Id., at col. 2, ln 12.)

Later, in the summary of invention for the ‘356 patent, it is explained that the disclosed embodiments

have “substantially monolithic dielectric body” formed from a plurality of ceramic tape layers

laminated together and fired to form a sintered or fused monolithic ceramic structure. (Id., at col. 4,

ln 61-65.) The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms similarly defines a

monolithic ceramic capacitor as a “capacitor that consists of thin dielectric layers interleaved with

staggered metal-film electrodes . . . compressed and sintered to form a solid monolithic block.” 

The use of the term “monolithic” in both the background section of the ‘356 patent and this

technical dictionary suggests that, contrary to Presidio’s assertion, an experienced artisan would not

discount a dielectric body’s “monolithicness” based on the presence of conductive plates inside the

dielectric. Further, as ATC persuasively argues, the addition of conductive contacts to the exterior of

the dielectric body would have no impact on whether the dielectric body itself is monolithic.

Dr. Dougherty testified that the degraded “monolithicness” of the dielectric body referenced

by the disputed claim term would be understood by a capacitor designer to refer to seams caused by

metal plates protruding out of the dielectric body. Presido’s briefing, while stating the extrinsic

evidence in general is less reliable than intrinsic evidence, gives no reason to discount Dr. Doughtery’s

assertion. Presidio’s reliance on a non-technical dictionary definition to refute Dr. Doughtery, a

learned artisan, is unpersuasive.

iii. Construction

Based on the forgoing, the Court construes the term “substantially monolithic dielectric body”

as “a dielectric body largely but not wholly without seams from the inclusion of plates within the

dielectric body.”

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 8 of 16
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-

II. Disputed Term 2: A Conductive First Contact Disposed Externally on the Dielectric

Body and Electrically Connected to the First Plate

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

2 A Conductive First

Contact Disposed

Externally on the

Dielectric Body and

Electrically Connected to

the First Plate

A conductive material arranged on an

external surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric body

having an electrical connection with the

first plate

A conductive layer for attaching

the capacitor (recited in the

preamble) to an external

conductor, the conductive layer

being present on an external

surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric

body and touching the conductive

first plate to establish electrical

connection

The major differences between the parties’ construction involves alternative construction

for four separate sub-phrases within the disputed term:

i. the “conductive first contact” is conductive “material” versus a “conductive

“layer.”

a. Parties’ Arguments

Presidio argues the conductive first contact should be construed as a conductive “material.”

In support, Presidio cites the summary of invention, which teaches that multiple conductive structures

may be formed on the exterior of the capacitor. (See ‘356 patent, col. 4:52-56 (“conductive structures

may be one or more conductive plates positioned inside the dielectric body [or] placed [] on an external

surface of the dielectric body . . .”). By envisioning the use of multiple conductive structures, Presidio

argues this specification makes clear that the first contact is not necessarily of uniform composition,

i.e., a single layer. Precidio asserts that attempting to define the term “contact” to a single structure of

uniform construction is an attempt to define the term more precisely than is warranted by the claim.

ATC argues “conductive first contact” should be construed as a “a conductive layer” because

the specification does not disclose an instance of a multi-layer contact. ATC cites 37 C.F.R. §

1.84(h)(3) which requires that a “cross section set out . . . all of the materials as they are shown in the

view from which the cross section is taken.” And which states that “parts in cross section must show

proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes . . . .” ATC also notes that

in every instance in which a “contact” is shown in a cross-section, the contact is shown as having a

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 9 of 16
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-

uniform composition, i.e., a uniform cross hatching. ATC argues this construction is consistent with

the only description in the specification of how contacts are created, which is “dipping” the device in

a conductive material (‘356 patent, col. 2, lines 13-16). In the alternative, ATC suggests modifying

Presidio’s construction so that a contact would be defined as “a single conductive material of uniform

composition.” 

b. Analysis 

The summary of invention teaches that conductive structures used in the invention may be one

or more conductive plates and explains that such structures may be placed on an external surface of

the dielectric body. (col 4, 52-56). The language of the specification includes no limitation that such

structures be comprised of only a single layer. Nor does the Court construe the language of 37 C.F.R.

1.84(h)(3) to require that structures hatched in the same manner be of uniform construction. All the

regulation directs is that a particular cross-hatch be applied to demonstrate that a particular part or

structure exists, not that it must be of “uniform construction.” Finally, ATC’s reference to the

description of how contacts are created is inapposite, as the dipping procedure described therein

references prior art. (See ‘356 patent, col. 2., lines 13-16.) Accordingly, the Court declines to limit

the claim language as suggested by ATC and construes “the conductive first contact” as “a conductive

material.” Because the claim language may be construed by reference to the specification, extrinsic

evidence is not appropriate in construing this disputed phrase.

ii. the contact must be attachable to an external conductor

a. Parties Argument

Relying on a alleged admission by Presidio’s expert, Dr. Godshalk, ATC asserts the contact

would have to be attachable to a conductor to be a useful device.

b. Analysis

There is no language in the claim term that speaks to any relationship between the conductive

first material and an external conductor. Dr. Goldshalk did testify that to make the capacitor a useful

device, a conductive structure of the capacitor must attach to an external conductor. However, Dr.

Godshalk did not testify that the claim language requires that the conductive first material be attachable

to an external conductor. Accordingly, the Court rejects ATC’s proposed language. 

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 10 of 16
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-

iii. “disposed externally on” means “present on” versus “arranged on”

a. Parties Argument

Another difference between the parties’ construction of the claim is on the issue of whether

“disposed eternally on” (as between the conductive first contact, i.e. 12 in the figure 10A above, and

the dielectric body) should be construed as “present on,” meaning physically touching, or “arranged

on,” which would cover an indirect form of connection. ATC notes that the Federal Circuit has stated

that “on” means “in physical contact with” in the case Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Med. Indus., Inc.,

888 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989) disapproved on other grounds by Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l,

Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993). ATC also cites the Federal Circuit’s decision which interpreted the phrase

“mounted on” denotes a form of attachment, not simply an electrical connection.” Asyst Tech. Inc.

v. Emtrak, 402 F.3d 1188, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Presidio, citing a lay dictionary definition, contends that the definition of “disposed on,” is

“arranged on.” Presidio claims Senmed is inapposite since the court based its decision on evidence that

during prosecution of the patent-in-suit, the prosecuting attorney took inconsistent positions.

Presumably, argues Presidio, had no prosecution history estoppel been present, the term “on” would

have been appropriately defined as not requiring physical contact. Similarly, Presidio argues that the

citation to Asyst Tech is also unavailing because the claim term in dispute there was “mounted on” and

the context of its use in the specifications made it clear that it was used in those instances to mean

securely fixed to objects. Here, the disputed term is “disposed on” which has a broader connotation.

b. Analysis

ATC’s argument that the Federal Circuit decisions in Senmed and Asyst require “on” be

construed as “in physical contact with” is unpersuasive. No language in the specification implies such

a requirement. While the embodiments consistently show the contact physically touching the dielectric

body, it is improper to rely solely on these embodiments to impose limitations on the claim language.

See C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 865 (“”Under our precedent, a patentee’s choice of embodiments can shed

light on the intended scope of the claim, but a patent claim term is not limited merely because the

embodiments in the specification all contain a particular feature.”). Accordingly, the Court construes

“disposed externally on” consistent with definition set forth by Presidio as “arranged on.” 

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 11 of 16
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-

iv. “electrically connected to the first plate” means “having an electrical connection

with the first plate” versus “touching the conductive first plate to establish an

electrical connection” 

a. Parties Argument

ATC argues physical touching is required between the contact and the first plate because that

is the way that the contact and plate are repeatedly and consistently referenced in the specification and

figures. 

b. Analysis

Similar to the Court’s conclusion above, while several of the embodiments describe contacts

forming a common connection point for each plate extending to that side. (See e.g., ‘356 patent, col

6, line 25-28; col. 9, line 46-47), such embodiments do not compel a limitation of the claim language.

See C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 865. The language simply does not suggest such a requirement

Accordingly, the Court construes “electrically connected to the first plate” as “having an electrical

connection with the first plate.” 

v. Construction

Based on the forgoing, the Court construes the term “a conductive first contact disposed

externally on the dielectric body and electrically connected to the first plate” as “a conductive material

arranged on an external surface portion of the substantially monolithic dielectric body and having an

electrical connection with the first plate.” 

III. A Conductive Second Contact Disposed externally on the Dielectric Body and

Electrically Connected to the Second Plate

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

3 A Conductive Second

Contact Disposed

Externally on the

Dielectric Body and

Electrically Connected to

the Second Plate

A conductive material arranged on an

external surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric body

having an electrical connection with the

second plate

A conductive layer for attaching

the capacitor (recited in the

preamble) to an external

conductor, the conductive layer

being present on an external

surface portion of the

substantially monolithic dielectric

body and touching the conductive

second plate to establish electrical

connection

As the parties conceded, this claim term should be defined consistent with the previous

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 12 of 16
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-

term. Accordingly, consistent with the reasoning and discussion above, the Court construes the

term “a conductive second contact disposed externally on the dielectric body and electrically

connected to the second plate” as “a conductive material arranged on an external surface portion of

the substantially monolithic dielectric body and having an electrical connection with the second

plate.” 

IV. The Second Contact Being Located Sufficiently Close to the First Contact to Form a

First Fringe-Effect Capacitance with the First Contact

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

4 The Second Contact Being

Located Sufficiently Close

to the First Contact to

Form a First Fringe-Effect

Capacitance with the First

Contact

Forming a capacitance between or

proximate opposed ends of the first and

second conductive contacts which affects

the high frequency performance of the

capacitor as a whole

An end of the first conductive

contact and an end of the second

conductive contact are positioned

in an edge-to-edge relationship in

such proximity as to form a

determinable capacitance.

i. Parties’ Arguments

Presidio asserts the claim term should be defined as “forming a capacitance between or

proximate opposed ends of the first and second conductive contacts which affects the high frequency

performance of the capacitor as a whole.” Presidio explains that the ‘356 patent solves the high

frequency problems of earlier capacitors and cites instances in the specification where the ‘356 patent

mentions that certain fringe capacitance may affect the very high frequency performance of the device.

(See e.g., ‘356 patent, col. 4, ln. 55, 60.) 

ATC asserts the disputed term should be interpreted as “an end of the first conductive contact

and an end of the second conductive contact are positioned in an edge-to-edge relationship in such

proximity as to form a determinable capacitance.” ATC argues its construction is consistent with the

plain meaning of the claim and argues Presidio’s construction should be rejected since claim 1 does

not recite any limitations or effects on high-frequency performance. At the claim construction hearing,

Dr. Dougherty testified that the’356 patent does not explain how forming a fringe-effect capacitance

would have a measurable effect on the high frequency performance of the capacitor. Further, ATC

argues this is an improper functional definition since it is impermissible to define an invention by

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 13 of 16
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-

“what it does rather than what it is” when no parameters are provided. Halliburton Energy Services,

Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255-1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

ii. Analysis

The effect on high frequency performance is not mentioned in claim 1 and nowhere in the

specification is the effect on high frequency performance explained. There is simply no justification

for introducing the language advanced by Presidio into the construction of the disputed claim term. 

iii. Construction

The Court construes the term “the second contact being located sufficiently close to the first

contact to form a first fringe-effect capacitance with the first contact” as “an end of the first conductive

contact and an end of the second conductive contact are positioned in an edge-to-edge relationship in

such proximity as to form a determinable capacitance.” 

V. The Second Contact Being Located Sufficiently Close to the First Contact on the

Second Side of the Dielectric Body to Form a Second Fringe-Effect capacitance with

the First Contact

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

5 The Second Contact Being

Located Sufficiently Close

to the First Contact on the

Second Side of the

Dielectric Body to Form a

Second Fringe-Effect

capacitance with the First

Contact.

Forming a capacitance between or

proximate opposed ends of the first and

second conductive contacts on a second

side of the substantially monolithic

dielectric body which affects the high

frequency performance of the capacitor as

a whole

Another end of the first

conductive contact and another

end of the second conductive

contact are present on the second

side of the substantially

monolithic dielectric body and are

positioned in an edge-to-edge

relationship in such proximity as

to form a determinable

capacitance.

As the parties conceded, this claim term should be defined consistent with the previous term.

Accordingly, consistent with the reasoning and discussion above Court construes “the second contact

being located sufficiently close to the first contact on the second side of the dielectric body to form a

second fringe-effect capacitance with the first contact” as “another end of the first conductive contact

and another end of the second conductive contact are present on the second side of the substantially

monolithic dielectric body and are positioned in an edge-to-edge relationship in such proximity as to

form a determinable capacitance.”

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 14 of 16
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-

VI. The dielectric body has a hexahedron shape

# TERM PRESIDIO’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

ATC’S PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION

6 The dielectric body has a

hexahedron shape

The dielectric body has six major surfaces The substantially monolithic

dielectric body has six sides.

i. Parties’ Argument

Presidio proposes the term be defined as “the dielectric body has six major surfaces.” Presidio

argues that structures that are not hexahedrons were contemplated by the claim term, otherwise the

claim language would not include the term “shape.” Presidio adds that the majority of the figures in

the ‘356 patent have channels and other features that define more than six sides. (See e.g., Figs. 9a,

10A, 11A, 12A, 20A). Presidio argues it would be impermissible to adopt a construction that would

exclude these embodiments. 

ATC proposes the following construction: “the substantially monolithic dielectric body has six

sides.” ATC says hexahedron is a mathematical term which is precise, namely, a three-dimensional

object with 6 sides or faces. As such, there should be no room for a definition that calls for six major

surfaces with the option for other “minor” surfaces or additional major surfaces. ATC notes that Dr.

Godshalk (Plaintiff’s expert) admitted that the ‘356 patent does not disclose an objective standard for

determining the difference between “major” and “minor” surfaces.

ii. Analysis

Where the ‘356 patent does not teach how to distinguish between a “major” and “minor”

surface, the disputed term’s use of the term “shape” does not expand the definition of hexahedron to

include all objects with six major surfaces. The two dimensional views of dielectric bodies in the

embodiments cited by Presidio do not establish an expansion of the claim language. Accordingly,

Presidio’s proposed construction is rejected.

iii. Construction

The Court construes the disputed term “the dielectric body has a hexahedron shape” as “the

substantially monolithic dielectric body has six sides.”

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 15 of 16
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-

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the amended joint claim chart and the patents-in-suit, the Court

CONSTRUES the disputed terms as follows:

I. Substantially Monolithic Dielectric Body: a dielectric body largely but not wholly without

seams from the inclusion of plates within the dielectric body.

II. A Conductive First contact Disposed Externally on the Dielectric Body and Electrically

Connected to the First Plate: a conductive material arranged on an external surface portion

of the substantially monolithic dielectric body and having an electrical connection with the first

plate. 

III. A Conductive Second Contact Disposed Externally on the Dielectric Body and

Electrically Connected to the Second Plate: a conductive material arranged on an external

surface portion of the substantially monolithic dielectric body and having an electrical

connection with the second plate.

IV. The Second Contact Being Located Sufficiently Close to the First Contact to Form a First

Fringe-Effect Capacitance with the First Contact: an end of the first conductive contact and

an end of the second conductive contact are positioned in an edge-to-edge relationship in such

proximity as to form a determinable capacitance. 

V. The Second Contact Being Located Sufficiently Close to the First Contact on the Second

Side of the Dielectric Body to Form a Second Fringe-Effect Capacitance with the First

Contact: another end of the first conductive contact and another end of the second conductive

contact are present on the second side of the substantially monolithic dielectric body and are

positioned in an edge-to-edge relationship in such proximity as to form a determinable

capacitance.

VI. the dielectric body has a hexahedron shape: the substantially monolithic dielectric body has

six sides.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00893-IEG-NLS Document 67 Filed 06/11/08 Page 16 of 16