IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANDREZJ BOBEL, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 12-cv-5346 

 ) 

MAXLITE, INC. f/k/a SK AMERICA, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge: 

 The parties in this patent infringement case dispute the construction of five terms in the 

patent-in-suit. After reviewing the parties’ respective submissions and conducting a Markman

hearing on January 16, 2014, see Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 

1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996), the Court 

construes the disputed claim terms as set forth below. 

BACKGROUND 

I. Procedural History 

 On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff Andrejz Bobel brought this suit against Defendant MaxLite, 

Inc. for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,434,480 (the “’480 patent”) pertaining to an 

electronic device for powering a gas discharge load from a low frequency source. (R. 1, Compl.) 

Bobel claims that MaxLite’s importation, sale, offering for sale, and use of various models of 

dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”), non-dimmable CFLs, and dimmable faux can 

fixtures infringes claims 9 and 10 of the ’480 patent. (R. 53, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-15, 25, 30-31; R. 

55, Am. Infringement Contentions § (ii).) Claims 9 provides: 
2 

An electronic device for powering a gas discharge load from a low frequency 

power line source wherein the device draws a current proportional to a voltage of 

the power line, the device comprising: 

 a resonant oscillator circuit having a switching transistor and adapted to 

 energize the gas discharge load; 

 a power line voltage rectifier; and 

 a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier 

 to perform boost switching and rectifying functions developed by and 

 synchronized with a pulsating current drawn from the rectifier by the 

 resonant oscillator circuit. 

(See Am. Compl. at Ex. A, ’480 Patent at col. 14, ll. 49-61.) Claim 10 provides: 

An inverter device for a high power factor current supply to a load, the device 

comprising: 

 rectifier means receiving an input voltage from an AC power source and 

 providing at an output a pulsating DC voltage source having voltage of 

 absolute peak magnitude higher than absolute peak magnitude of the 

 rectified input voltage; 

 unidirectional device means coupled to the pulsating DC voltage source; 

 energy storage means receiving energy from the pulsating DC voltage 

 source via the unidirectional device and providing at DC terminals a 

 relatively constant DC voltage; and 

 inverter circuit means connected in parallel with the energy storage means 

 and comprising: 

 (i) semiconductor switching means receiving the constant DC 

 voltage and operable in a periodical ON and OFF manner; and 

 (ii) resonant oscillator means coupled to the semi-conductor 

 switching means and providing a high frequency signal to the load. 

(Id. at col. 14, l. 62 – col. 16, l. 8.) 

 On September 20, 2012, MaxLite admitted that the dimmable CFLs it purchased from 

certain entities infringed claim 9 of the ’480 patent. (R. 30.) MaxLite, however, did not admit 

infringement of any claim for dimmable CFLs it purchased from Lux Electronic Products. (Id.) 

On January 25, 2013, the Court granted MaxLite summary judgment on Bobel’s claims 
3 

regarding the dimmable CFLs MaxLite purchased from Lux. (See R. 60, Memorandum Opinion 

and Order.) Bobel’s claims regarding MaxLite’s non-dimmable CFLs and dimmable faux can 

fixtures remain. 

II. Compact Fluorescent Lamps 

 Unlike traditional incandescent light bulbs, which convert heat into light, CFLs produce 

light by sending an electric current through ionized gas. See generally Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fluorescent Lighting Basics (Oct. 17, 2013), 

http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/fluorescent-lighting-basics (last visited 

Feb. 3, 2014); Office of Compliance, Fast Facts: Compact Fluorescent Lamps (Jan. 2009), 

http://www.compliance.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fastfacts_compactfluorescentlamps.pdf 

(last visited Feb. 3, 2014). CFLs generally consist of two main components: an electronic ballast 

and a gas-filled tube. The electronic ballast, which connects the gas-filled tube to the power line, 

regulates the current flowing through the lamp. Some CFLs have an electronic ballast 

permanently installed in the light fixture, in which case the bulb consists of only a gas-filled 

tube. See Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fluorescent 

Lighting Basics. Other CFLs, including those typically used in households, combine the 

electronic ballast and gas-filled tube into a single unit. Id. 

 The electronic ballast operates the same way in either setup: it converts the lowfrequency alternating (“AC”) voltage of a conventional power line into a high-frequency AC 

output to power the lamp. (See ’480 patent at col. 1, ll. 38-44.) To do so, the electronic ballast 

first converts the AC input voltage to direct (“DC”) voltage and then converts the DC voltage 

into a high-frequency AC voltage. (See id.) The high-frequency AC voltage excites the 

molecules in the gas-filled tube and causes the molecules to produce invisible ultraviolet light. 
4 

See Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fluorescent 

Lighting Basics. When the ultraviolet light strikes the phosphor coating on the gas-filled tube, 

the phosphor emits visible light. Id. 

 CFLs produce the same amount of visible light as traditional incandescent lamps but use 

less electrical power overall and last several times longer than incandescent lamps. See, e.g., id.; 

Office of Compliance, Fast Facts: Compact Fluorescent Lamps. CFLs, however, typically have 

a lower power factor than their incandescent counterparts. Power factor, which is the ratio of 

real power to apparent power, measures the effectiveness with which a device converts the 

electrical power drawn from the power line to useful energy. See, e.g., INSTITUTE OF 

ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, INC., THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE

STANDARDS TERMS 852 (7th ed. 2000); P. HOROWITZ & W. HILL, THE ART OF ELECTRONICS 34 

(2d ed. 1989). In simplified terms, a lamp with a low power factor draws more current from the 

power line to produce the same amount of energy in the form of light and heat than a lamp with a 

high power factor. The invention at issue in this case pertains to an electronic ballast designed to 

improve the power factor of CFLs. (’480 patent at col. 2, ll. 52-56.) 

III. The Patent-In-Suit 

The U.S. Patent Office issued the ’480 patent to Andrezj Bobel on July 18, 1995 from 

Application No. 134,976. The invention in the ’480 patent focuses on a design for electronic 

ballasts that improves the power factor of CFLs while avoiding the shortcomings of prior art, 

which relied on large inductors, complex and expensive circuitry, or re-directing power from the 

output of the device to the input resulting in the dissipation of power within the ballast. (See id.

at col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 56.) The present invention teaches the use of “an integrated, singlestage electronic energy converter wherein the energy used to correct the power factor is not re-
5 

directed from the output to the input of the device,” but rather is stored within and released by “a 

resonant boosting circuit integrated into a power line voltage rectifier” at the input of the device. 

(See id. at col. 3, ll. 1-7, col. 9, ll. 32-57.) The ’480 patent provides three embodiments of this 

“resonant boosting circuit integrated into a power line voltage rectifier:” Figure 1, Figure 11, and 

Figure 12. 

 Figure 1 illustrates the invention in its preferred embodiment. The “boosting inductor” 

(BI) and the “boosting and rectifying bridge” (BRB) of Figure 1 are most relevant to construing 

the disputed claim terms. The boosting inductor consists of two power input terminals (1 and 2), 

two output terminals (3 and 4), and two inductors (L1 and L2). (Id. at col. 5, ll. 38-43.) Inductor 

L1 is connected between terminals 1 and 3, and inductor L2 is connected between terminals 2 

and 4. (Id.) The boosting and rectifying bridge includes a full-wave rectifier bridge formed by 

diodes D1-D4, four capacitors (C1-C4) connected across each diode, respectively, AC input 

terminals 5 and 6, and DC output terminals 7 and 8. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 29-37.) Terminal 7 is the 

positive DC output terminal, and terminal 8 is the negative DC output terminal. (Id.) Each of 

the four capacitors in the boosting and rectifying bridge has a value of approximately 10 nF, 

which is 3,300 times less than the value of the storage capacitor (SC) located outside the 

boosting and rectifying bridge (33 uF). (Id.) 
6 

 Figures 11 and 12 provide alternative embodiments of the boosting and rectifying bridge 

(BRB) in Figure 1. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 13-22.) The alternative embodiment in Figure 11 (BRB11) 

replaces capacitors C2 and C4 with “capacitor C5 connected between terminals 7 and 8.” (Id. at 

col. 7, ll. 15-17.) Figure 12 depicts a boosting and rectifying voltage doubler (BRVD), which 

also may substitute for the boosting and rectifying bridge of Figure 1. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 18-22.) 

The boosting and rectifying voltage doubler omits diodes D2 and D4 from Figure 1. (Id.) 

 
7 

IV. The Disputed Terms 

In their claim construction briefs, the parties raised four disputed terms for the Court to 

construe: (1) “resonant boosting circuit;” (2) “power line voltage rectifier;” (3) “integrated into;” 

and (4) “a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier.” 

Additionally, the parties raised a fifth disputed term during the Markman hearing: “parallel.” 

The parties’ initial proposed constructions of these five disputed terms are set forth below. 

Claim Term MaxLite’s Proposed 

Construction 

Bobel’s Proposed Construction 

resonant boosting 

circuit 

A component of a circuit 

including an inductor connected 

in circuit between AC input 

terminals of a power line rectifier 

and an alternating voltage source, 

and capacitors connected to the 

inductor and in parallel across 

each diode of the rectifier from 

the power line to the output of the 

power line rectifier. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. A 

resonant boosting circuit to one of 

ordinary skill means a circuit with 

some inductance and some 

capacitance that outputs a voltage 

higher than the voltage of the 

input. 

power line voltage 

rectifier 

A device including at least two 

diodes, with each diode being 

connected on one side to an AC 

power line that convert an AC 

signal from alternating voltage 

source into a pulsating DC signal 

at the output of the rectifier. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. A 

power line voltage rectifier to one 

of ordinary skill means a rectifier 

that rectifies AC voltage to DC 

voltage. 

integrated into Physically combined into. Plain and ordinary meaning. The 

term means combined into. 

a resonant boosting 

circuit integrated into 

the power line 

voltage rectifier 

An electrical circuit having 

capacitors physically combined 

into a power line voltage rectifier, 

which permits current to flow 

from a power line through an 

inductor on the power line and the 

diodes of the rectifier to the 

output of the rectifier as well as 

through an alternate path through 

the capacitors to increase the 

amount of current exiting the 

output of the rectifier. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. One 

of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand “a resonant boosting 

circuit integrated into the power 

line voltage rectifier” to mean 

that the boosting inductance and 

the boosting capacitance of the 

resonant boosting circuit is 

combined into the rectifier. 
8 

parallel Of or denoting electrical 

components connected to 

common points at each end, 

rather than one to another in 

sequence. 

Of or denoting electrical 

components or circuits connected 

to common points at each end, 

rather than one to another in 

sequence. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 Because the claims of a patent define the invention, claim construction—the process of 

giving meaning to the claim language—defines the scope of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law 

that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to 

exclude.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112)). Claim construction is a matter of law for the court to 

determine. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 391; Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 

F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012). When construing claim terms, the Court “first look[s] to, and 

primarily rel[ies] on, the intrinsic evidence, including the prosecution history and the 

specification—which is usually dispositive.” SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 

1195 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315). “The words of a claim are generally 

given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art 

when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Id. (quoting Thorner v. 

Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also Phillips, 

415 F.3d at 1312-13. 

Although “less significant than the intrinsic record,” extrinsic evidence, which consists of 

“all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor 

testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises,” may “shed useful light on the relevant art.” See

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted); see also Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. 

Int’l Gaming Tech., 709 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013); HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., 
9 

KG, 667 F.3d 1270, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In particular, “[d]ictionaries or comparable sources 

are often useful to assist in understanding the commonly understood meaning of words and have 

been used both by [the Federal Circuit] and the Supreme Court in claim interpretation.” Phillips, 

415 F.3d at 1322-23; see also Aristocrat Techs., 709 F.3d at 1358 (affirming that the district 

court’s reliance on a dictionary definition to inform its understanding of the “ordinary and 

customary” meaning of a claim term was proper). “[J]udges are free to consult dictionaries . . . 

to better understand the underlying technology and [they] may also rely on dictionary definitions 

when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any 

definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1322-23 (internal quotations and citation omitted)); see also Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. 

Bodum, Inc., 690 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (same). 

ANALYSIS 

 In their briefs, the parties raised four disputed terms for the Court to construe. During the 

course of the Markman hearing, the parties resolved their disputes regarding those original four 

terms but raised a fifth term for the Court to construe: “parallel.” For completeness, the Court 

will construe all five disputed terms. 

I. Resonant Boosting Circuit 

MaxLite’s Proposed Construction Bobel’s Proposed Construction 

A component of a circuit including an inductor 

connected in circuit between AC input 

terminals of a power line rectifier and an 

alternating voltage source, and capacitors 

connected to the inductor and in parallel across 

each diode of the rectifier from the power line 

to the output of the power line rectifier. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. A resonant 

boosting circuit to one of ordinary skill 

means a circuit with some inductance and 

some capacitance that outputs a voltage 

higher than the voltage of the input. 

The ’480 patent specification describes the “resonant boosting circuit” in the invention at 

issue as “comprising[] (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC input 
10 

terminals and the alternative voltage source, and (ii) bosting [sic] capacitance connected in 

parallel with the unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.” (’480 patent at col. 3, ll. 26-31.) 

This definition comports with the embodiments of the invention in the ’480 patent. In Figure 1, 

for example, the boosting inductors (L1 and L2) are connected in circuit between the AC input 

terminals (5 and 6) and the alternative voltage source (AVS), and the boosting capacitors (C1-

C4) are connected in parallel with the unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit (diodes D1-

D4). Furthermore, each alternative embodiment of the “boosting inductor” depicted in 

Figures 8-10 of the ’480 patent contains at least one inductor connected in circuit between the 

AC input terminals and the alternative voltage source. (Id. at Figs. 8-10.) 

The alternative embodiments of the “boosting and rectifying bridge” in Figures 11 and 12 

also contain at least one boosting capacitor connected in parallel with at least one diode of the 

rectifier circuit. (Id. at Figs. 11-12.) With respect to Figure 11, the parties disagree regarding 

whether capacitor C5 is connected “in parallel” with diodes D2 and D4, but both acknowledge 

that capacitor C1 is connected in parallel with D1 and C3 is connected in parallel with D3. (See 

1/16/14 Markman Hearing Transcript (“1/16/14 Hrg. Tr.”) at 15:7-12; 53:22-54:3.) With 

respect to Figure 12, the parties do not dispute that capacitor C11 is connected in parallel with 

D1 and C33 with D3. (’480 patent at Fig. 12.)

The construction of “resonant boosting circuit” that MaxLite proposes in its briefs 

suggests that each capacitor in the resonant boosting circuit must connect in parallel with one 

and only one diode. This construction conflicts with the specification, which states that the 

boosting capacitance comprises “one or more capacitors” and “is connected in parallel with 

selected one or more unidirectional devices of the rectifier means.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 61-64 

(emphasis added).) According to this plain language, a single capacitor may be connected in 
11 

parallel with multiple diodes. MaxLite backed away from this construction during the Markman

hearing, acknowledging that the patent does not require each capacitor to be connected across 

one diode. (1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 48:11-49:5.) Rather, as both parties agree, the circuit requires “at 

least one capacitor in parallel with a diode in order to get the boost function.” (See id. (emphasis 

added); see also id. at 44:21-24.) The Court, therefore, rejects the construction of “resonant 

boosting circuit” that MaxLite initially proposed in its briefs. 

The Court also rejects the construction Bobel proposes in its brief. Bobel states that “[a] 

resonant boosting circuit to one of ordinary skill means a circuit with some inductance and some 

capacitance that outputs a voltage higher than the voltage of the input.” (See Am. Joint Claim 

Constr. Chart ¶ 1.) The patent, however, does not support such a broad construction. It provides 

specific requirements regarding the location and connection of the inductors and capacitors in the 

resonant boosting circuit. (See ’480 patent at col. 3, ll. 22-31, col. 4, ll. 53-57, 61-64.) The 

Court, therefore, rejects Bobel’s proposed construction as overbroad. 

During the Markman hearing, the Court asked whether the parties would agree to using 

the construction of “resonant boosting circuit” contained in the patent itself—namely, a circuit 

“comprising[] (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and 

the alternative voltage source and (ii) boosting capacitance connected in parallel with the 

unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.” (See 1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. at 30:7-23, 47:16-48:1.) 

MaxLite raised no objection to this construction. (Id. at 47:16-48:1.) Nor did Bobel, provided 

that the construction of “boosting capacitance” is “consistent with the definition provided in 

column 4, line 61 to 64.” (Id. at 30:7-23.) As explained above, column 4, lines 61-64 of the 

’480 patent state that “the boosting capacitance comprising one or more capacitors is connected 

in parallel with selected one or more unidirectional devices of the rectifier means.” (’480 patent 
12 

at col. 4, ll. 61-64.) Based on the patent specification and the parties’ agreement, the Court 

construes the term “resonant boosting circuit” as follows: “a circuit comprising (i) boosting 

inductance connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and (ii) boosting capacitance, 

comprising one or more capacitors, connected in parallel with selected one or more diodes of the 

rectifier circuit.”1 

II. Power Line Voltage Rectifier 

MaxLite’s Proposed Construction Bobel’s Proposed Construction 

A device including at least two diodes, with 

each diode being connected on one side to an 

AC power line that convert an AC signal from 

alternating voltage source into a pulsating DC 

signal at the output of the rectifier. 

A power line voltage rectifier to one of 

ordinary skill means a rectifier that rectifies 

AC voltage to DC voltage. 

In its opening brief, MaxLite proposes the following construction of the term “power line 

rectifier:” “a device including at least two diodes, with each diode being connected on one side 

to an AC power line that convert an AC signal from alternating voltage source into a pulsating 

DC signal at the output of the rectifier.” (MaxLite’s Revised Claim Constr. Br. at 11.) Bobel’s 

only objection to MaxLite’s proposed construction is that the patent refers to a “power line 

voltage rectifier,” not a “power line rectifier.” (See R. 114, Bobel’s Resp. Br. at 15.) 

Bobel’s objection is well-founded. The term “power line voltage rectifier” appears in 

claim 9 of the ’480 patent (see ’480 patent at col. 14, l. 56), but “power line rectifier” appears 

nowhere in the patent. Furthermore, MaxLite acknowledged during the Markman hearing that 

“power line voltage rectifier” is the proper term for the Court to construe. (See 1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 

47:12-14.) Bobel reiterated during the hearing that it has no objection to MaxLite’s proposed 

 

1

 The parties agree that the term “unidirectional devices” used in the ’480 patent refers to diodes. (See 

1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 21:16-18; R. 116, MaxLite’s Revised Claim Constr. Br. at 8-9.) The Court, therefore, 

replaces “unidirectional devices” with “diodes” in its construction. 
13 

construction “[p]rovided that we’re talking about a power line voltage rectifier,” rather than a 

“power line rectifier.” (1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 29:10:-30:5.) 

 The parties’ agreed construction comports with the plain meaning of a “rectifier”—“a 

device for converting alternating current into direct current.” See MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S 

COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 978 (10th ed. 1999); see also A.P. GODSE & U.A. BAKSHI, BASIC 

ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING at 2-1 (9th rev. ed. 2008) (“A rectifier is a device which converts 

a.c. voltage to pulsating d.c. voltage, using one or more p-n junction diodes.”). It also is 

consistent with the patent specification. The rectifying bridge depicted in Figures 1 and 11 and 

the voltage doubler in Figure 12 each include at least two diodes, and each diode is connected to 

the AC power line at terminal 5 or 6. Furthermore, as explained in the specification, the 

rectifying bridge operates to convert the AC signal from the alternating power source (AVS) into 

a “variable DC voltage” between terminals V+ and V-. (’480 patent at col. 7, l. 63 – col. 8, l. 8.) 

 Accordingly, based on the patent specification and the parties’ agreement, the Court 

adopts MaxLite’s proposed construction of a “power line voltage rectifier,” with certain 

grammatical changes for clarity. The Court construes the term “power line voltage rectifier” as 

follows: “a device that converts the AC signal from an alternating voltage source into a pulsating 

DC signal at the output of the rectifier, with such device including at least two diodes, each of 

which connects on one side to the AC power line.” 

III. Integrated Into 

MaxLite’s Proposed Construction Bobel’s Proposed Construction 

Physically combined into. Plain and ordinary meaning. The term means 

combined into. 

MaxLite’s and Bobel’s proposed constructions of “integrated into” differ by only one 

word—physically. During the Markman hearing, Bobel’s counsel acknowledged that the 
14 

parties’ proposed constructions have the same meaning and stated that he did not “have a 

problem with” MaxLite’s proposed construction: 

I don’t think there’s a difference between the two [constructions]. . . . There is a 

word additionally in MaxLite’s. It says ‘physically.’ I don’t have a problem with 

that because [in] the resonant boosting circuit, the capacitance and the inductance 

have to be connected to the diodes of the rectifier. 

(1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 28:23-29:17.) MaxLite’s proposed construction is consistent with the patent 

specification: each embodiment of the invention in the patent physically combines the inductors 

(L1 and L2) and capacitors (C1-C4)2

 of the resonant boosting circuit with the rectifying bridge 

(D1-D4) of the power line voltage rectifier. (See ’480 patent at Figs. 1, 11, 12.) MaxLite’s 

proposed construction also comports with the plain meaning of “integrated into.” See MERRIAMWEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 608 (defining “integrate” as “to unite with something else” 

or “incorporate into a larger unit”). The Court, therefore, adopts the parties’ agreed construction 

and construes the term “integrated into” as “physically combined into.” 

IV. A Resonant Boosting Circuit Integrated into the Power Line Voltage Rectifier 

MaxLite’s Proposed Construction Bobel’s Proposed Construction 

An electrical circuit having capacitors 

physically combined into a power line voltage 

rectifier, which permits current to flow from a 

power line through an inductor on the power 

line and the diodes of the rectifier to the 

output of the rectifier as well as through an 

alternate path through the capacitors to 

increase the amount of current exiting the 

output of the rectifier. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. One of ordinary 

skill in the art would understand “a resonant 

boosting circuit integrated into the power line 

voltage rectifier” to mean that the boosting 

inductance and the boosting capacitance of 

the resonant boosting circuit is combined into 

the rectifier. 

The fourth disputed term—“a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line 

voltage rectifier”—is simply a combination of the previous three terms. Although MaxLite’s and 

Bobel’s proposed constructions for “a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line 

voltage rectifier” differs significantly in their briefs, the parties reached a compromise during the 

 

2

 The parties disagree regarding whether capacitor C5 in Figure 11 constitutes a “boosting capacitor.” 
15 

Markman hearing. Bobel agreed to use the construction MaxLite proposed in the conclusion of 

its reply brief, provided that the parties agree to construe the term “boosting capacitance” 

consistently with the definition provided in column 4, lines 61-64 of the ’480 patent. (See 

1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 5:6-7:11.) Specifically, the parties agreed to construe “a resonant boosting 

circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier” as 

a circuit operable to provide between the DC terminals a variable DC voltage 

having an absolute peak magnitude higher than the absolute peak magnitude of a 

rectified voltage of the alternative voltage source, and the resonant boosting 

circuit comprising: (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC 

input terminals and the alternating voltage source, and (ii) boosting capacitance 

comprising one or more capacitors connected in parallel with one or more 

unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit. 

(Id. at 8:13-9:4.) Although MaxLite agreed to the compromise at the Markman hearing, it noted 

that this construction would raise an issue regarding the construction of “parallel.” (Id. at 9:13-

10:7.) The Court addresses the construction of “parallel” in Part V below. 

 The parties’ agreed construction of “a resonant boosting circuit integrated into a power 

line rectifier” comes directly from the patent specification (see ’480 patent at col. 3, ll. 22-31), 

and it is consistent with the Court’s constructions of the other disputed terms and the 

embodiments of the invention in Figures 1, 11 and 12. (See Parts I-III, supra.) The Court, 

therefore, adopts the parties’ compromise, and construes “a resonant boosting circuit integrated 

into a power line rectifier” as follows: “a circuit operable to provide between the DC terminals a 

variable DC voltage having an absolute peak magnitude higher than the absolute peak magnitude 

of a rectified voltage of the alternative voltage source, and the resonant boosting circuit 

comprising: (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and the 

alternating voltage source, and (ii) boosting capacitance comprising one or more capacitors 

connected in parallel with one or more unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.” 
16 

V. Parallel 

MaxLite’s Proposed Construction Bobel’s Proposed Construction 

Of or denoting electrical components 

connected to common points at each end, 

rather than one to another in sequence. 

Of or denoting electrical components or 

circuits connected to common points at each 

end, rather than one to another in sequence. 

Although the parties ultimately agreed to constructions of the four original disputed claim 

terms during the Markman hearing, the parties could not agree on a proposed construction of 

“parallel.” Both parties repeatedly refer to components being “in parallel” in their claim 

construction briefs, and MaxLite even provides a definition of “parallel” in the background 

section of its opening brief: 

Parallel – devices are in parallel when their endpoints share common points or 

nodes. In parallel devices a current entering a first common node connected to 

the two devices splits and portions flow through the various devices, according to 

the constitutive equations of each circuit element, then combine and leave the 

parallel circuit elements from the second common node connected to as an 

indistinguishable single current. 

(MaxLite’s Revised Claim Constr. Br. at 2.) Because the parties had not included “parallel” as a 

disputed term, however, neither party addressed the meaning of “parallel” in detail in their briefs 

or provided citations to the intrinsic and extrinsic record to support that meaning. 

 Nonetheless, at the Markman hearing, the parties agreed that the Court should adopt the 

commonly accepted dictionary definition of “parallel” used in the field of electronics: “of or 

denoting electrical components or circuits connected to common points at each end, rather than 

one to another in sequence.” (See 1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 63:6-22); see also NEW OXFORD AMERICAN 

DICTIONARY 1270 (3d ed. 2010). The parties agreed that this definition reflects how one of 

ordinary skill in the art would understand the customary meaning of “parallel.” The parties, 

however, disagreed regarding whether the Court should include the phrase “or circuits” in its 

construction. Bobel proposed adopting the dictionary definition verbatim, including the phrase 

“or circuits.” (1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 63:19-64:18, 65:9-24.) MaxLite, on the other hand, opposes 
17 

including the phrase “or circuits” in the Court’s construction because the patent discusses 

components connected in parallel, not circuits. (Id. at 64:21-65:8.) Thus, according to MaxLite, 

the phrase is irrelevant and including it in the Court’s construction “might unnecessarily confuse 

the definition” of “parallel” in later stages of the litigation. (Id. at 64:21-65:1.) 

Before deciding whether to include the phrase “or circuits” in its construction of 

“parallel,” the Court must assess whether the dictionary definition on which the parties rely is 

consistent with the meaning of “parallel” in the ’480 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322-23 

(“[J]udges . . . [may] rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the 

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

the patent documents.”); Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd., 690 F.3d at 1368 (same). The term 

“parallel” appears 19 times in the ’480 patent, including in claims 1-3, 6-7, 10. Although the 

patent does not explicitly define “parallel,” a comparison of several figures in the patent with 

their written descriptions supports adopting the dictionary definition in the Court’s construction. 

With respect to Figure 2, for example, the patent states that “[t]he lamps FL21, FL22 

have resonant capacitors RC21, RC22 connected in parallel, respectively” (’480 patent at col. 6, 

ll. 8-13), and the drawing of Figure 2 shows that FL21 and RC21 “connect to common points at 

each end,” as do FL22 and RC22: 
18 

(Id. at Fig. 2.) Similarly, the patent describes Figures 5 and 6 each as having a resonant capacitor 

(RC5 and RC6) “connected in parallel” with a primary winding of the resonant inductor (L15 

and L16) (see id. at col. 6, ll. 39-68), and the drawings of Figures 5 and 6 show that the resonant 

capacitors and primary windings at issue “connect to common points at each end”—output 

terminals OT1 and OT2: 

(Id. at Figs. 5, 6.) Finally, the patent explains that the circuit in Figure 5 “is identical in 

operation to the one [in] FIG. 1, with the exception that the resonant elements”—i.e., the 

resonant capacitor and the resonant inductor—“are connected here in parallel.” (Id. at col. 9, 
19 

ll. 3-10.) The resonant elements in Figure 5 (RC5 and RI5) connect at common end points OT1 

and OT2 (id. at col. 6, ll. 39-54 & Fig. 5), while the resonant elements in Figure 1 (RC1 and RI1) 

do not; rather, the resonant elements in Figure 1 are connected “in series.” (See id. at col. 5, l. 62 

– col. 6, l. 7 & Fig. 1.) The descriptions of Figures 1, 5, and 6 and corresponding drawings, 

therefore, support the parties’ position that the Court should adopt the dictionary definition of 

“parallel” in its construction. 

 Turning to the specific dispute at hand, the Court rejects MaxLite’s proposal to omit the 

phrase “or circuits” found in the dictionary definition from the construction of “parallel.” The 

Court must construe the term “parallel” in the context of the entire patent, not just in the context 

of the specific occurrence at issue in this case. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (“Importantly, the 

person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in context of the 

particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, 

including the specification.”). Contrary to MaxLite’s representation during the Markman 

hearing, the ‘480 patent explicitly discusses “parallel circuits” as well as “parallel components.” 

(See ’480 patent at col. 4, ll. 35-52, col. 11, l. 66 – col. 12, l. 19.) Specifically, in claim 2 and the 

specification, the patent describes one embodiment of the resonant oscillator means as 

comprising, among other things, “an inductor, a capacitor and the gas discharge load being 

effectively connected in a parallel circuit adapted to power the gas discharge load and the 

parallel circuit being connected between the output terminals.” (Id. at col. 11, l. 66 col. 12, l. 19 

(emphasis added); see also id. at col. 4, ll. 35-52 (same).) Because the patent uses the term 

“parallel” interchangeably with respect to “components” and “circuits,” MaxLite’s proposal to 

exclude the phrase “or circuits” from the Court’s construction is inappropriate. See id.; see also 

Tele-Cons, Inc. v. General Elec. Co., No. 6:10-cv-451 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 3112299, at *8 (E.D. 
20 

Tex. July 31, 2012) (“Although Claim 4 describes ‘a feedback capacitor connected in parallel 

with said line voltage,’ the term ‘connected in parallel’ is not exclusive to capacitors or Claim 4. 

. . . Thus, ‘connected in parallel’ should not be limited to a capacitor.”). The Court, therefore, 

construes “parallel” as follows: “of or denoting electrical components or circuits connected to 

common points at each end, rather than one to another in sequence.” 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as follows: 

 Resonant boosting circuit: a circuit comprising (i) boosting inductance 

connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and (ii) boosting capacitance, 

comprising one or more capacitors, connected in parallel with selected one or 

more diodes of the rectifier circuit; 

 Power line voltage rectifier: a device that converts the AC voltage from an 

alternating voltage source into a pulsating DC voltage at the output of the 

rectifier, with such device including at least two diodes, each of which connects 

on one side to the AC power line; 

 Integrated into: physically combined into; 

 A resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier: a 

circuit operable to provide between the DC terminals a variable DC voltage 

having an absolute peak magnitude higher than the absolute peak magnitude of a 

rectified voltage of the alternative voltage source, and the resonant boosting 

circuit comprising: (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC 

input terminals and the alternating voltage source, and (ii) boosting capacitance 

comprising one or more capacitors connected in parallel with one or more 

unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit; and 

 Parallel: of or denoting electrical components or circuits connected to common 

points at each end, rather than one to another in sequence. 

DATED: February 5, 2014 ENTERED 

 ______________________________ 

 AMY J. ST. EVE 

 U.S. District Court Judge