Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02732/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02732-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Panoptx, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Protective Optics, Inc.
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PANOPTX, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-2732 CRB

ORDER

Oral argument on the claim construction hearing is scheduled for hearing at 2:30 p.m.

on October 5, 2006. At oral argument, the parties should focus their discussion on the issues

raised by the following questions.

1. What intrinsic evidence supports or refutes a claim construction of any of the disputed

terms requiring the eye shield system to “absolutely exclude” liquids or solids? 

2. Does the intrinsic evidence require that the claim scope be restricted to the

embodiment of protecting medical workers from highly dangerous microorganisms? 

If not, and other embodiments are included within the scope of the invention, do the

claim terms then warrant a broader interpretation such as “substantially exclude”

rather than “absolutely exclude”?

Case 3:05-cv-02732-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2005\2732\Orderreclaimconstr.wpd 2

3. (a) If the claim terms “blocks” and “resists” are determined to mean “hinder” or

“partially stop” the passage of fluid, is this construction necessarily inconsistent with

the purpose of the claimed invention? (b) If liquid is splashed on the shield, and the

shield is detached and disposed of before the liquid would make it through the

material, then is the shield acting to “block” or “resist” the passage of the liquid?

4. Is the teaching in the specification regarding how the eye shield system is to be held in

place consistent with the understanding that one skilled in the art would have about

how to “prevent” passage of liquids between the shield and the face, or how “to seal”

the shield against the face?

Each side will be permitted thirty minutes for argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02732-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2