Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Award Metals, Inc.
Counter-claimant
United States Gypsum Company
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 PACIFIC AWARD METALS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04941 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

FEBRUARY 3, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively overrules in part and sustains in part the objections to the

Klass Declaration. The Court tentatively denies the motion to strike the Klass Declaration to

the extent it is based on the issue of document production. 

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 110 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Court reserves issuing a tentative ruling on Award’s motion for summary judgment.

 1. a. Does Award concede that its accused products (1) have a “protective

coating” as the Court has construed that term, i.e. a “material applied to

the front paper layer to reinforce said front paper layer and to provide

surface protection against abrasion;” and (2) that the accused products’

protective coating “penetrates some of the fibers at the surface of the

front paper layer?”

b. Does USG contest Award’s position that it, USG, is not maintaining a

claim for literal infringement, given the Court’s Claim Construction

Order?

2. How does USG distinguish Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons

Company, 66 F.3d 285 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cited by Award in its reply brief? 

3. Is USG’s position that “[n]ew matter CIP claims cannot be considered to be

amendments for prosecution history estoppel purposes, when they are not

considered to be part of the original invention for validity purposes,” premised on

the assumption that what USG contends is new matter was not “subject matter

covered by the original” claim?

a. Does USG concede that Claim 1 as submitted in the Parent Application,

eventually evolved into Claim 1 of the ‘198 Patent? If not, what is the

basis for USG’s position?

b. Does USG concede that the “protective coating” and the bands of

protective coating are common subject matter to both the Parent

Application and the CIP application that issued as the ‘198 Patent? If not,

what is the basis for USG’s position?

c. Does USG concede that the Parent Application references the “thickness”

of various elements of the invention, including the bands of protective

coating 16, 17, and that in the response to the rejection over Dunlap,

Cooper and Miller, the inventors argued that something other than joint

cement was required as the protective coating because it would not serve

as a protective “layer” and made a similar argument regarding the need

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 110 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

for a protective “layer” with respect to the rejection of claim 7? If so, it

appears to the Court that the Parent Application discloses the “subject

matter” of protective coating that provides a film or barrier over the outer

surface of the paper layer. If USG does not concede these points, what is

USG’s best argument that the “thickness limitation” not an amendment to

the “subject matter” disclosed in the parent application? 

d. In the Parent Application, the inventors state in the “Detailed Description

of the Invention” that the protective coating may comprise a “fine particle

size, acrylic water-based emulsion” such as Synthemul, “diluted with

50% water.” Would a person of ordinary skill in the art conclude that

such a protective coating would create a film and/or barrier on the outer

paper layer? If the answer to this question is yes, where in the record

before the Court can the Court find support for that conclusion? 

4. For purposes of determining whether prosecution history estoppel applies in this

case, should the Court evaluate any individual limitations present in the clause

“said protective coating penetrating some of the fibers of said front paper layer

and having a thickness on the front surface of said front paper layer of about

0.001 to 0.005 inches?” See, e.g, Aclara Biosciences, Inc. v. Caliper Tech.

Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 391, 400-403 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (noting that claim

contained several components and evaluating each component as separate

limitation to determine whether patentee barred from asserting infringement by

way of equivalents because or prosecution history estoppel).

5. What is USG’s response to Award’s argument that the only technological

advance identified with respect to improved coatings was the addition of Teflon,

and that given the length of time Teflon has been used in various industries, this

does not demonstrate that thinner coatings were unforeseeable at the time the

‘198 Patent was drafted? (See Award Reply at 9.)

6. Award cites excerpts of the Klass Deposition and states that Mr. Klass testified

that a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1990-1991 would have known how to

protect paper with a coating of less than 1 mil. Award should be prepared to

explain this position at the hearing, because the Court does not read the Klass

Deposition to be as definitive on this point as Award contends it is.

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 110 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

7. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: February 1, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 110 Filed 02/01/06 Page 4 of 4