BACKGROUND

The ‘726 patent is a pneumatic support system used to inflate portable mattresses.
Claims 9 and 12 are the only independent claims asserted in the present actions. The remaining

contested claims, Claims 13-15, depend on Claim 12.
Claim 9

The parties dispute several terms in Claim 9. Claim 9 states (with the contested terms

emphasized):

An inflatable support system, comprising:

an inflatable body having an interior, an exterior, and inflation input for
transfer of air between the interior and the exterior; and

a one-way valve, disposed between the interior and the inflation input, for
controlling the transfer of air, providing a substantially hermetic seal under low
pressure conditions, such valve including:

a circular lip, disposed peripherally in the passageway and protruding
radially inward, having a first surface generally facing the interior, defining a
valve seat;

a flexible circular diaphragm, having an interior surface generally facing
the interior and an outer surface facing away from the interior mounted for axial
movement in the passageway away from and against the valve seat in respectively
open and closed positions of the valve, so that an outer annular region of the outer
surface of the diaphragm engages against the valve seat in the closed position; and

a generally circular coupling defining the passageway, the coupling
having an open end defining the inflation input and a flared end, contiguous
therewith, providing the circular lip, so that the (i) coupling at the open end has a
smaller internal diameter than at the flared end and (ii) the diaphragm can be
pushed axially to open the valve by reaching into the open end of the coupling.



Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ construction is

proper.
Circular Lip, Protruding Radially Inward, and Substantially Hermetic Seal

The parties agree on what the term circular lips means: a lip that is circular that juts from
the surrounding surface towards the interior of the passageway. The only disagreement about
this claim is the construction of the passageway, which has been previously construed.

Similarly, the parties do not dispute the definition of protruding radially inward. The lip

is positioned towards the center of the device in question and remains placed along the whole

radius throughout the whole piece.

The parties also agree on the construction of substantially hermetic seal. According to

both parties, a substantially hermetic seal is a seal that is nearly or largely impervious to air.
Complete Hermetic Seal

Lastly, the parties differ on their construction of the term complete hermetic seal.
Plaintiffs assert that a complete hermetic seal is a seal that does not require any additional parts
to retain nearly or largely all of the air in the bed. Defendants contend that a complete hermetic

seal is impervious to air.

Defendants base their construction on the intrinsic record. According to Defendants, the
term “substantially” is used to modify hermetic seal earlier. In that term, substantial allows for
some leakage of air. Conversely, when the word complete is placed in front of hermetic seal, the

seal now provides for no air leakage.

Plaintiffs’ construction depends on the grammatical syntax and the context of the

9



terms are not related to the construction of each other. These terms are: (6) reaching into the
open end of the coupling, (7) circular lip, (8) protruding radially inward, (9) substantially

hermetic seal, and (10) complete hermetic seal.
The Interrelated Terms

The parties first dispute the meaning of the term “open end.” Plaintiffs assert the open

end is the end where air used to inflate the air mattress enters the passageway. Defendants

construe the term open end as the end defined by the ha portion of the coupling which also

constitutes the inflation input.

Claim 9 defines the open end as contiguous to the flared end, and neither party disputes
the construction or location of the term flared end. However, in Defendants’ definition, the open
end does not touch, and is thus not contiguous to, the flared end. Defendants’ brief states as
much: “[I]t can be seen that the ‘generally circular coupling’ consists of the structure between the
open end/inflation input and the flared end.” (Defs.’ Markman Br. at 11.) Ifa structure is

between the open end and the flared end, then these two pieces cannot be contiguous.

Plaintiffs also explain that, pursuant to the terms of claim 9, the coupling at the open end
must have a smaller internal diameter than at the flared end. Their construction shows that the
open end does have a smaller internal diameter than the flared end. Under Defendants’ proposed
construction, the open end does not have this same claim limitation. Therefore, Plaintiffs’

construction of the term open end properly construes the claim.

By defining the location and construction of the open end, the remaining interrelated

terms can be constructed. The term inflation input in Claim 9 is defined by the open end.



Claim 12

The parties dispute terms in Claim 12 as well. Many of these terms are also found in

Claim 9. Claim 12 states (with the contested terms emphasized):

An inflatable body comprising:
an inflatable bladder having an interior and an inflation input;

a one-way valve disposed between the interior and the inflation input
providing a substantially hermetic seal under low pressure conditions, such valve
including:

a passageway having a generally circular cross section and a first end in
communication with the interior and a second end in communication with the
inflation input;

a circular lip, disposed peripherally in the passageway and protruding
radially inward, having a first surface generally facing the interior, defining a
valve seat;

a flexible circular diaphragm, having an inner surface generally facing the
interior and an outer surface facing away from the interior, mounted for axial
movement in the passageway away from and against the valve seat in the
respectively open and closed positions of the valve, so that (i) the act of inflation
of the bladder under low pressure is sufficient to cause axial motion of the valve
into the open position to permit the large influx of air and (ii) following inflation
of the bladder, air pressure created in the interior the bladder by inflation thereof
causes an outer annular region of the outer surface of the diaphragm to be urged
into engagement against the valve seat to provide a complete hermetic seal when
the valve is in the closed position; and

stiffening means for reducing flexing of the diaphragm except in its outer
annular region.

ANALYSIS
The parties dispute multiple terms in each claim. Six of these terms are interrelated; and,
therefore, construing the claims of one of these terms affects the construction of the remainder of
these terms. The six interrelated terms are: (1) open end, (2) inflation input, (3) generally

circular coupling, (4) passageway, and (5) axial movement in the passageway. The remaining

5



and out of, the passageway. The parties thus dispute whether the word “in” requires movement

wholly within the passageway or allows for some movement outside the passageway.

However, it appears that much of the parties’ disagreement concerning these claims
relates to the positioning of the passageway. Plaintiffs claim, based on their construction of the
term passageway, that the diaphragm is shown to be outside the passageway in Specification
Figures 16 and 19. Defendants assert that those drawings show the diaphragm within the
passageway with no capability to move outside of it. However, as has been determined,
Plaintiffs’ construction of the term passageway is correct. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ construction is
correct regarding the axial movement, which need not be contained wholly within the

passageway.
Reaching Into the Open End of the Coupling

The parties dispute the construction of reaching into the open end of the coupling.
Plaintiffs argue that this term means the diaphragm is able to be pushed axially by reaching one’s
finger, or another element, into the open end of the coupling. Defendants counter and state that

this term means that one’s hand must be able to reach into the open end of the coupling.

Defendants largely rely on Specification Figure 16, which shows a finger pressing directly
on a button, which then pushes the diaphragm down. However, other Specification Figures, such
as 3, 5, and 6, show that a button and a valve stem push down on the diaphragm. Moreover,
nothing in Claim 9 itself or the specification states that only a hand must reach into the open end
of the coupling. In the absence of exclusionary language, a court must “give the claim its full

breadth of ordinary meaning as understood by persons skilled in the art.” Rexnord Corp. v.



'

a

‘Minute Order Form (06/97) a
United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois
“Nur Magutrem dodge | _|_ "John W. Darra, «| Siesta Oe
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2590 DATE 1/27/2004
CASE Aero Products Intl vs. Intex Recreation Corp
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due__.
(3) a Answer briefto motion due__, Reply to answer briefdue___—.
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon__setfor___—__at
(5) go Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__——sat_—;
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on__set for at.
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on at
(8) Q [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_ at.
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) OFRCP41(a)(2).

the patent in dispute, U.S. Patent No. 5,367,726. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.

(il) (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

(ao) {Other docket entry] _ Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the claim construction of

‘No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of noti
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. J AN
Notified counsel by telephone. ‘tne 4
ov | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. eputy initia
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
axe maied notice
courtroom
MF deputy’s
initials =
OT Uprichinie redetted in _
central Clerk's Office frag deputy initia



(3) “the generally circular coupling” is a coupling that is generally circular and is formed by an
open end that is contiguous with the flared end; (4) “the passageway” is a way that allows
passage of air to and from the interior of the bed; (5) “axial movement in the passageway” means
that some axial movement of the diaphragm must be possible in the passageway; and the axial
movement need not be contained entirely within the passageway; (6) “reaching into the open end
of the coupling” means that the diaphragm is able to be pushed axially by reaching one’s finger,
or another element, into the open end of the coupling; (7) the “circular lip” is a lip that is circular
that juts from the surrounding surface towards the interior of the passageway, (8) “protruding
radially inward” means that the lip is positioned towards the center of the device in question and
remains placed along the whole radius throughout the whole piece; (9) a “substantially hermetic
seal” is a seal that is nearly or largely impervious to air; and (10) “complete hermetic seal” means

a seal that does not require any additional parts to retain nearly or largely all of the air in the bed.

Dated: / Jor gf

JOHN W. DARRAH
United-States District Judge

11



hermetic seal. According to Plaintiffs, the word “complete” only describes the status of the seal
and not the quality; if the Plaintiffs wanted a seal that would allow no air through, they would
have used the term “completely hermetic seal.” Claim 12 only discusses one seal, as well. The
valve helps create the substantially hermetic seal, and that seal becomes complete when air
pressure inside the bladder causes the outer surface of the diaphragm to push against the valve

seat.

The inconsistency presented by Defendants’ construction is illustrated by Plaintiffs’
definition of the term. There is only one seal that is used in Claim 12. That seal cannot be
substantially hermetic, or allowing some air to leak through, while at the same time being
complete, or allowing no air to leak through. This construction would be absurd and would

render the construction of the term substantially hermetic seal illusory.

The proper construction is the one proposed by Plaintiffs. The seal, which is largely
impervious to air, is finished once the bladder pushes the diaphragm against the valve seat. The
dictionary also confirms this meaning — Webster's defines complete as “possessing all necessary
parts, items, components, or elements: not lacking anything.” In contrast, the word completely is
defined as fully or entirely. Therefore, the term complete hermetic seal is construed as a seal that

does not require any additional parts to retain nearly or largely all of the air in the bed.
(0) SI

For the foregoing reasons, the disputed terms of the ‘726 patent are construed, consistent
with this opinion, as follows: (1) “the open end” is the end where air used to inflate the air

mattress enters the passageway; (2) “the inflation input” is where air enters the passageway,

10



Plaintiffs argue this term means a point at which air enters the passageway. Defendants argue
this term means the end of the coupling or passageway most distal from the interior, However,
based on the text of Claim 9, the inflation input must be placed where the open end exists; and

Plaintiffs’ proposed construction properly construes the claim.

Regarding the term “generally circular coupling” with respect to the term open end,
Plaintiffs argue that the generally circular coupling is a coupling that is generally circular and is
formed by an open end that is contiguous with the flared end. Defendants use essentially the
same definition; the generally circular coupling consists of the structure between the open
end/inflation input and the flared end. The term open end has already been construed as
consistent with Plaintiffs’ construction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ construction of the term

generally circular coupling and, more importantly, its placement, are proper.

The passageway depends on the construction of the open end as well. According to
Plaintiffs, the passageway is a way that allows passage of air to and from the interior of the bed.
Defendants argue that the passageway is a path that runs along the entire length of the coupling.
Claim 9 states that the generally circular coupling defines the passageway; thus, Plaintiffs’

construction and positioning of the passageway are proper.

The parties dispute the construction of the term axial movement in the passageway.
Plaintiffs define this term as meaning some axial movement of the diaphragm must be possible in
the passageway; however, the axial movement need not be contained entirely within the
passageway from the time the diaphragm moves from the valve seat to the time the diaphragm

retums to the valve seat. Defendants argue that the diaphragm must move wholly in, and not in



2002). However, while the claims must be read in view of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claim. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326.

Reliance on extrinsic evidence is improper if the intrinsic evidence unambiguously
describes the scope of the patented invention. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Vitronics’”).. However, the court is not barred from ever
considering extrinsic evidence. See Plant Genetic Sys. v. Dekalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335,
1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Dekalb”); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,
1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Pitney Bowes’). The court may not rely on extrinsic evidence in claim
construction to contradict the meaning of the claims discernible from the intrinsic evidence. See
Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1308; Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. Extrinsic evidence, including expert
testimony, may be consulted to ensure that the court’s claim construction is not inconsistent with
the expressed and widely held understanding to one in the field. See Dekalb, 315 F.3d at 1346;
Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1308. For example, a court may rely on extrinsic evidence to
understand the underlying technology to ensure that the court’s interpretation is not inconsistent
with one skilled in the art. See Dekalb, 315 F.3d at 1346; Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1308-09.

Dictionaries can help define a term but should not be used exclusively. “[B]ecause words
often have multiple dictionary definitions, some having no relation to the claimed invention, the
intrinsic record must always be consulted to identify which of the different possible dictionary
meanings of the claim terms in issue is most consistent with the use of the words by the
inventor.” Intellectual Prop. Dev. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision, 336 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir.

2003) (citations omitted).


accustomed meaning of the disputed term would deprive the claim of clarity — then extrinsic
evidence may be used to ascertain the proper meaning of the term. K-2, 191 F.3d at 1362-63.
Limitations that do not exist in a claim should not be read into that claim. However, claim
language must be read consistently with the totality of the patent’s applicable prosecution history.
Biovail Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 239 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Biovail”).
“Tn judicial ‘claim construction’ the court must achieve the same understanding of the patent . . .
as would a person experienced in the technology of the invention. Such a person would not rely
solely on a dictionary of general linguistic usage, but would understand the claims in light of the
specification and the prior art, guided by the prosecution history and experience in the
technological field.” Toro Co, v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir.
1999).

To construe a patent claim, a court analyzes the intrinsic evidence of the record, which
includes the claims and written description of the patent itself, and the prosecution history if it is
in evidence. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Biovail,
239 F.3d at 1300. Dictionary definitions may also be consulted in establishing a claim term’s
ordinary meaning. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1369.

When analyzing the intrinsic evidence, the court starts with the language of the claims
and engages in a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their ordinary meanings as viewed
by one of ordinary skill in the art. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1369. The specification is highly relevant
to the claim construction analysis. The specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a

disputed term. See Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AERO PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

a Florida corporation, and

ROBERT B. CHAFFEE, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

v. No: 02 C 2590

a California corporation;
QUALITY TRADING, INC.,
a California corporation; and
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,

La
“Ay i Men (2)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION, ) —_—<Judge John W. Darrah
)
)
)
)
)
) 8 2004
)

Defendants.

The Plaintiffs, Aero Products International, Inc. (“Aero”) and Robert B. Chaffee, filed
suit against the Defendants, Intex Recreation Corporation (“Intex”); Quality Trading, Inc.
(“Quality Trading”); and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”). In November 2003, a Markman
hearing was held. Presently before the Court is the claim construction of the patent in dispute,
USS. Patent No. 5,367,726 (“the ‘726 patent”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Terms in a claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. K-2 Corp. v.
Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (K-2). The ordinary and accustomed
meaning of a disputed claim term is presumed to be the correct one unless either a different

meaning is clearly and deliberately set forth in the intrinsic evidence or the ordinary and