Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01403/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01403-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General Nanotechnology, LLC
Counter-defendant
KLA-Tencor Corporation
Counter-claimant
Toho Technology Corporation
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENERAL NANOTECHNOLOGY, LLC,

a California Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, a Delaware

Corporation, and TOHO TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01403 WHA

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

INTRODUCTION

This is a claim-construction order for United States Patent Nos. 6,144,028, 6,242,734,

6,281,491, 6,369,379, 6,396,054 and 6,515,277 (“the ’028 patent,” “the ’734 patent,” “the ’491

patent,” “the ’379 patent,” “the ’054 patent” and “the ’277 patent,” respectively). All other

terms having been resolved by agreement, the claim term “endpoint cursors” is construed

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

order.

STATEMENT

On September 30, 2005, plaintiff General Nanotechnology, LLC (“GenNano”) filed its

first amended complaint alleging that defendants KLA-Tencor Corporation and Toho

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 93 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Technology Corporation infringed certain of plaintiff’s copyrights and also alleging that KLATencor infringed plaintiff’s patents. GenNano develops and provides software and components

for equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing, testing and repair. Defendant

KLA-Tencor Corporation is a supplier of software and hardware for semiconductor and

microelectronics manufacture. Plaintiff alleged that KLA-Tencor violated 35 U.S.C. 271 by

making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing infringing devices that are covered by

the patents in suit.

These patents all provide software inventions for use in scanning-probe microscopes that

gather, process and display image data. The software tools described in the patents allow for

manipulation of images produced by the microscopes. The ’491 and ’054 patents are directed

to a software tool that allows a microscope user to select and manipulate a cross section of the

microscope’s image data. The ’379 and ’277 patents are directed to a software tool for filtering

the scan data by performing a linear or “Fourier” transform and a series of inverse Fourier

transforms. Finally, the ’028 and ’734 patents are directed to a software tool for coloring

elements of the image data. All of these patents stem from the same parent application and

contain virtually identical prefatory language.

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 is 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

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 93 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 6
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

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. at1317

(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.

2. APPLICATION.

In accordance with these principles of claim construction, this order construes the

disputed term “endpoint cursors.” This term is used frequently in the claims of the ’491 patent

and the ’054 patent. Claim 1 of the ’491 patent states (emphasis added):

1. A microscope assembly comprising:

scanning and measurement means to:

scan an object;

make measurements of the object while the object is

scanned; and

generate measurement data representing the measurements;

a pointing device;

a controller configured to:

control the scanning and measurement means in scanning and making measurements of the object;

generate first image data representing a first image

associated with the object in response to the measurement data;

generate second image data representing a second image 

of the first image and a measuring tool projected on the

first image in response to the first image data, the

measuring tool including endpoint cursors that can be

manipulated with the pointing device to position the

measuring tool so as to select a cross section of the first

image between the endpoint cursors;

generate cross section data representing cross section 

information about the selected cross section between 

the endpoint cursors of the measuring tool;

format the second image data for display of the second

image; and 

format the cross section data for display of the cross

section information; and

a display configured to:

display the second image in response to the formatted

second image data; and 

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 93 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 6
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

display the cross section information in response to the

formatted cross section data.

GenNano proposes that “endpoint cursors” should be construed as “end points that,

when selected with a pointing device, become cursors that can be positioned with the pointing

device.” KLA-Tencor offers a two-part definition. According to defendant, “cursor” means “a

visual cue on a display that indicates position.” In turn, the term “endpoint cursors” purportedly

means “user-manipulated cursors used to define the position of opposing ends of a measuring

tool on an image.” In its opposition brief, defendant notes that its proposed construction can be

simplified to “visual cues defining the ends.” This order finds that defendant’s proposed

construction, as modified herein, “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns

with the patent’s description of the invention.”

The difference between the parties’ proposed constructions turns on whether a user

“creates” the endpoint cursors by clicking on two endpoints, or whether the endpoint cursors are

a component of the measuring tool described in the claim language. On plaintiff’s view, the

endpoint cursors are not cursors at all until a user clicks on two points. Then these two points

become cursors—a sort of computerized actualization.

The fatal flaw in plaintiff’s interpretation is that the plain language of the claim requires

that the measuring tool include endpoint cursors. The claim language quoted above describes a

measuring tool which is transposed onto the initial image created by the microscope. In the

language of the claims, this is a “second image”—basically the microscopic data image with a

computerized ruler including the endpoint cursors placed on top of it. 

The description of this measuring tool in the claim indicates that the endpoint cursors

are a part of the computerized ruler: “The measuring tool including endpoint cursors that can

be manipulated with the pointing device.” The straightforward meaning of this claim is that

these endpoint cursors, which allow for selecting cross sections of the image data, are a

component of the measuring tool just waiting for the user to maneuver them with a pointing

device.

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 93 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Plaintiff argues that this is a case in which the patentee served as his own lexicographer. 

In this regard, plaintiff points to three portions of the specification that supposedly redefine the

plain meaning of the claim language. The first embodiment described in the ’491 patent

indicates that 24:33–36: 

Similar to the cutting planes 534 and 546 of the 3D measuring

tool routines 532 and 544, the end points 550 of the ruler 549 are

magnifying cursors with crosshairs when selected by the user with

the pointing device.

Again (23:23–30): 

When selected, the end points 536 of the cutting plane 534 are

circular magnifying cursors with crosshairs (similar to that shown

in FIG. 17) for accurate positioning of the end points

536 of the cutting plane 534.

 And again (23:3–7): 

The 3D surface measuring tool routine 532 is responsive to

commands issued with the pointing device 117 such that a user

can select and manipulate the end points 536 of the cutting plane

534 to position the cutting plane with respect to the image 533.

In this embodiment, the patent arguably envisions the cursors actualizing after a

selection by the user with a pointing device. This does not equate to a case where the patentee

has redefined the word blue to mean red. This language does not refer to the phrase “endpoint

cursors” at all. Moreover, the embodiment, if read according to plaintiff’s view, clashes with

the straightforward limitations to the measuring tool in the claim itself. This is impermissible

under Phillips, supra.

Neither party points to any portion of the patent prosecution history as useful for

construing “endpoint cursors.” This order does not rely on that history in construing this term.

Extrinsic-dictionary evidence, however, bolsters the validity of KLA-Tencor’s proposed

construction. “Cursor” is defined as “a visual cue (as a flashing rectangle) on a video display

that indicates position (as for data entry).” Merriam-Webster, Collegiate Dictionary 307 (11th

ed. 2003). GenNano’s reading is at odds with this definition of cursor given that, on its view,

the microscope user creates the cursor with a pointing device rather than merely moving the

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 93 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 6
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

cursor around the display with a pointing device. While courts may not rely on dictionary

definitions in a vacuum, reference to these definitions is appropriate where, as here, “the

dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of

the patent documents.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.

This order thus construes “endpoint cursors” as “visual cues used to define the

positions of opposing ends of the measuring tool on an image,” a modification of KLATencor’s proposed construction. KLA-Tencor’s construction includes the superfluous language

“user-manipulated” which would render redundant contextual language surrounding “endpoint

cursors” in the claim. The claim already indicates that there is a “measuring tool including

endpoint cursors that can be manipulated.” Morever, there is no reason to provide a two-part

definition for “endpoint cursors.” This order simply includes “visual cues,” the plain language

definition of cursors, in the construction of “endpoint cursors.” 

CONCLUSION

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 93 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 6