UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RANIR, LLC and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,

 Defendants.

07 CV 3302-WP4-LMS

(Consolidated)

MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DENTEK ORAL CARE, INC.,

 Defendant.

MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

POWER PRODUCTS, INC.,

 Defendant.

 

REPLY OF DEFENDANT DENTEK ORAL CARE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF MEDTECH 

PRODUCTS INC.’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 15
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

ADDITIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION........ 2

A. The Proper Construction Follows From The Stated Problem, The Stated 

Objectives, The Solution Stated In The Summary Of Invention, And 

The Examiner’s Stated Reasons For Allowance......................................... 2

The Purpose of the ‘051 invention.............................................................. 2

The Summary of the ‘051 invention ............................................................ 3

The Abstract of the ‘051 invention.............................................................. 3

The Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance ..................................................... 3

B. The Accused Product and Statements to the FDA Under Section 510(k) 

Are Not Relevant To Claim Construction .................................................. 4

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 5

I. AN INTEROCCLUSAL APPLIANCE............................................................ 5

II. MOLDING OVER THE BASE....................................................................... 6

III. AN IMPRESSION PREFORM ....................................................................... 8

IV. HAVING APPROXIMATELY 30% 

 BY WEIGHT VINYL ACETATE................................................................... 9

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 10

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 15
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Devices, Inc.,

346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................4, 8

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,

358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................7

Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp.,

988 F. Supp. 1109 (N.D. Ill. 1997)................................................................................5

Cytyc Corp. v. TriPath Imaging, Inc.,

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29850 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2005)..............................................4

Elkay Manufacturing Co. v. Ebco Manufacturing Co.,

192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................4

Haynes International v. Jessop Steel Co.,

8 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..........................................................................................3

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.,

222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................2, 6, 7

Hoganas AB v. Dresser Industrial,

9 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1993)............................................................................................3

Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,

383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................9

Koepnick Med. & Educ. Research Found. v. Alcon Labs., 

162 Fed. Appx. 967 (Fed. Cir. 2005).............................................................................4

Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.,

357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................2, 7

Pourchez v. Diatek, Inc.,

265 F. Supp. 2d 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)............................................................................3

Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,

274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................3

Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,

414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................4

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 15
iii

SciMed Life System, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular System, Inc.,

242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................3

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,

442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................5, 10

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 15
1

INTRODUCTION

Medtech Products, Inc.’s (“Medtech”) opening brief (“Medtech Br.”) is directed to what 

Plaintiff wishes its invention were rather than what it actually is. At page 2, Medtech informs 

the Court: “In layman’s terms, the subject of the ‘051 Patent is a dental protector whose primary 

purpose is to prevent bruxing, i.e., grinding, and clenching, i.e., closing tightly of the teeth. The 

dental protector is unique in that it may be fitted without the need for a dental professional.” 

Yet, the patent itself expressly contradicts Medtech’s claim that a self-fitting device is “unique.” 

The ‘051 Patent states that “[i]nterocclusal appliances, such as nightguards, have been 

long recognized as beneficial for the alleviation of the adverse effects of bruxism and clenching” 

and that these devices included those fitted by dentists and those that were self-fitted. (Col. 1, ll. 

23-28.) Clearly, the inventors did not invent self-fitting nightguards. They sought to improve the 

fit and durability of a well-known device. The patent leaves no doubt in this regard. (Col. 1 at ll. 

43-45.) The fitting problem involved the user’s inability to center and align the preform material 

to take a dental impression. (Col. 1 at ll. 46-52.) The durability problem involved separation of 

the liner from the base due to shear forces exerted by grinding teeth. (Col. 1, ll. 46-62.)

The inventors’ solution was a small step from the close prior art cited by the Patent 

Examiner. See DenTek’s Opening Brief at pp. 8-9. The Summary of the Invention, as well as 

the Abstract, and the full specification of the ‘051 patent define it:

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A self fitting interocclusal appliance includes a base having a generally 

planar, smooth, occlusal face and a pair of parallel curved side walls. The 

base is molded of a thermoplastic having a Vicat softening temperature of 

at least 65o C. and a Shore A hardness of at least 80. 

Molded into the base between and above the side walls is an impression 

preform comprising an EVA copolymer having approximately thirty 

percent vinyl acetate, a Vicat softening temperature of approximately 

36o C. and a Shore A hardness below 80. 

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 15
2

The preform includes a thick footing having a planar upper face and a 

shallow bight shaped centric relation pilot channel defined by peripheral 

walls which are sloped downwardly and inwardly from an elevation above 

the side walls of the base. The upper face of the footing defines the 

bottom of the pilot channel. (Col 1, l. 65 – Col. 2, l. 13.)

Furthermore, DenTek’s interpretation of the invention is not only consistent with the Examiner’s 

stated Reasons For Allowance, it is the only interpretation presented that is consistent with them. 

ADDITIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

A. The Proper Construction Follows From The Stated Problem, The Stated 

Objectives, The Solution Stated In The Summary Of Invention, And The 

Examiner’s Stated Reasons For Allowance

Medtech devotes pages to a general summary of cases on claim construction, but fails to 

identify any that bear meaningfully on the present case. Controlling case precedents establish 

that where, as here, the patent clearly states the problem faced, clearly states the inventors’ 

objective, and clearly states a solution in the Summary of the Invention and Abstract that 

matches the language of the claim, the correct construction becomes clear. Microsoft Corp. v. 

Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (upon examining the Abstract, 

Statement of the Invention, other parts of the specification, as well as the prosecution history in 

supporting defendant’s construction of claim language, the court found that the specification 

“repeatedly and consistently describes the. . .claimed inventions as communicating directly over 

a telephone line”). This becomes all the more so when it is consistent with, indeed required by, 

the Examiner’s stated Reasons for Allowance in issuing the claim. 

The Purpose of the ‘051 invention

A court’s interpretation of a claim phrase should be “consonant with the purpose of the 

invention.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 

2000). Poor fitting and lack of durability were problems the inventors identified with the prior 

art. (Col. 1, ll. 44-46.)

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 15
3

The Summary of the ‘051 invention

The Summary of the Invention casts light upon what the patentee has claimed. Rexnord 

Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is a particularly important part 

of the specification from which to properly determine the scope of a claim term. See authorities 

cited at p. 10 of DenTek’s opening brief on claim construction (“DenTek Br.” at 10.) 

The Abstract of the ‘051 invention

The Federal Circuit has indicated that the Abstract of a patent should also be considered 

to determine the scope of the invention. SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 

Inc., 242 F. 3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Pourchez v. Diatek, Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 192, 197 

(S.D.N.Y. 2003).

The Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance 

37 C.F.R. §1.104(e) provides that an examiner may provide a reason for allowance of the 

claims if the examiner believes that the record of the prosecution as a whole does not make clear 

his or her reasons for allowing the claims. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 

(“MPEP”) §1302.14 (8th ed. 2001 (Latest Revision August 2006)) advises that this information 

“facilitates evaluation of the scope and strength of a patent by the patentee and the public and 

may help avoid or simplify litigation of a patent.” This comports with the policy of providing a 

competitor fair notice from the prosecution history as to the scope of the claim so that he may 

conduct his affairs with knowledge where he may tread without trespassing. Hoganas AB v. 

Dresser Indus., 9 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Haynes Int'l v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573, 

1578 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The legal standard for determining what subject matter was relinquished 

is an objective one, measured from the vantage point of what a competitor was reasonably 

entitled to conclude, from the prosecution history, that the applicant gave up to procure issuance 

of the patent.”) 

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 15
4

The weight of Federal Circuit precedent establishes the importance of the Reasons For 

Allowance in construing the claims. See Koepnick Med. & Educ. Research Found. v. Alcon 

Labs., 162 Fed. Appx. 967, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The prosecution history further confirms the 

district court’s construction of ‘excising’ as ‘cutting out.’ The PTO examiner asserted in the 

Notice of Allowance of the ‘303 patent that ‘the primary reason for allowance is that the prior art 

of record fails to teach or adequately disclose the steps of cutting two disks from the eye.’

Koepnick did not challenge the examiner’s characterization of its invention.” (internal citations 

omitted)); ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Devices, Inc., 346 F.3d 1075, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 

2003); Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

While a failure on the part of an applicant to dispute an Examiner’s Reasons For 

Allowance of a patent claim may not always work an absolute estoppel against a broader 

interpretation, what was said is always relevant to claim construction. See Salazar v. Procter & 

Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to the extent the Examiner 

characterizes the invention by reference to what the prior art failed to show, the Examiner’s 

Reasons For Allowance will generally work an estoppel against the patentholder’s attempts to 

advance a broader construction. See Koepnick Med etc., supra; Cytyc Corp. v. TriPath Imaging, 

Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29850 at *30, n.8 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2005) (Finding the patentee 

estopped to argue that the claim covered one image because: “Here, the examiner did not 

approve the 182 patent based on a narrow definition of ‘image’. The examiner approved the 182

patent because it contained a second image, where the prior art contained only one.”) 

B. The Accused Product and Statements to the FDA Under Section 510(k) Are 

Not Relevant To Claim Construction

Claim construction is directed to determining the meaning of the patent from its text, the 

prosecution history and prior art of record. Extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, may 

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 15
5

bear on the proper construction. However, the structure of the accused product, developed long 

after the patent was filed, is not relevant to construing the claim. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. 

Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“This court, of course, repeats 

its rule that ‘claims may not be construed with reference to the accused device.’”). Medtech 

points to DenTek’s submission to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), as well as some 

incorrect test data it purports to have on the accused device. (Medtech Br. at 3.) However, the 

DenTek 510(k) compares the accused product, the DenTek NightGuard, with Medtech’s 

commercial embodiment, the Doctor’s NightGuard, and not the narrow improvement stated in 

the claims. Nothing is said about the patent and reference to Medtech’s product, like DenTek’s, 

is irrelevant. Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp., 988 F. Supp. 1109, 1116 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (“It is 

error for a court to compare in its infringement analysis the accused product . . . with the 

patentee’s commercial embodiment.”). 

ARGUMENT

Following the exchange of initial claim construction briefs, the parties have jointly 

agreed upon several definitions and will file a stipulation shortly1. The following section 

discusses only those terms still in dispute. 

I. AN INTEROCCLUSAL APPLIANCE

Term or Phrase to be Construed DenTek’s Construction Medtech’s Revised Construction 

an interocclusal appliance a device that prevents full 

occlusion of all teeth

an appliance or device that is used or 

fitted, in whole or in part, between 

portions of the upper and lower teeth2

 

1 Remaining terms have been firmly agreed upon except for “resin.” DenTek is prepared to 

accept the definition of resin that Medtech proposed as a compromise (Medtech Br. at 15). Since 

then, Medtech has backed away from this definition and has proposed “any of a number of 

substances or compounds that are solid or semi-solid after molding and may be thermoplastic or 

thermosetting”, which would encompass plaster of Paris and concrete, and is plainly incorrect.

2

 Medtech revised its construction of this term by adding the words “or device” in its initial claim 

construction brief.

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 15
6

Medtech’s construction is directly contrary to the description contained in the ‘051 Patent 

insofar as it claims that the device may be fitted “in part” between “portions of” the upper and 

lower teeth. The ‘051 Patent only describes an appliance having a base in the general shape of 

the maxillary dental arch (something defined by all of the user’s teeth) and an impression 

preform, molded along the entire upper surface of the base, that is “transformed into a maxillary 

dentition encasement during self-fitting of the interocclusal appliance.” (Col. 2, ll. 18-21; Col. 3 

at ll. 59-66; Col. 4, ll. 46-60; Abstract.) There is not the slightest suggestion that some portion of 

that would suffice and serve the purpose of preventing damage from clenching or grinding. A

stated objective of the ‘051 patent is the prevention of tooth structure loss (col. 3 at ll. 6-9), and a

proper interpretation would be “consonant with the purpose of the invention.” HockersonHalberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. DenTek’s definition is consistent, by preventing full occlusion. 

Medtech’s is not.

II. MOLDING OVER THE BASE

Term or Phrase to be Construed DenTek’s Construction Medtech’s Revised Construction 

molding over the base contacting a heated resin 

with the entire upper surface 

of the appliance base 

the step of forming or shaping the 

impression preform of the 

appliance on the appliance base

In revising its construction from the original construction reproduced below in footnote 

3

3

, Medtech attempts to step back from the implications of its choice to use the word “over” in 

claim 17, a term that clearly conveys the impression preform is molded over the entire upper 

surface of the base. At col. 4, ll. 46-50, the patent expressly states that when the preform is 

“molded over the base,” all of the upper surface of the base and the opposed inner side walls of 

18, 20 are bonded to the impression preform 14. The ‘051 patent makes it clear that the top 

surface of the base serves as the mold to which the bottom of the preform impression conforms 

 

3

 “Plaintiff defines this term as ‘a step of molding over the base.’” (Medtech Br. at 17.)

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 15
7

and bonds. (‘051 patent, col. 5, ll. 6-12.) In every single example, the copolymer used to form 

the impression preform is injection molded into the occlusal appliance mold cavity that contains 

the molded base, such that the heated copolymer is molded over the molded base to form a 

unitary appliance. (See, e.g., ‘051 patent, col. 5, ll. 33-56, emphasis added.) In its construction of 

the term “impression preform,” discussed infra, Medtech even itself states that the impression 

preform is “a formable material overlying the base.” (Medtech Br. at 18, emphasis added.) 

The Summary of the Invention is also completely clear on the point, characterizing the 

invention as follows:

Molded into the base between and above the side walls is an impression 

preform comprising an EVA copolymer having approximately thirty 

percent vinyl acetate.... (Col. 2, ll. 3-4, emphasis added.)

The specific placement of the impression preform over the base, including the surfaces of 

its side walls, is consistent with the purpose of overcoming problems with durability of the 

appliance. As a result of being bonded to those walls as well as the entire top surface of the base, 

the impression preform is stabilized against shear forces that had previously led to separation of 

the impression preform from the base and a lack of durability. (Col. 1 at ll. 43-45 and 54-57; col. 

10, ll. 39-44.) The inventors stated their intent to provide an interocclusal appliance 

characterized by a high shear resistance bond. (Col. 3, ll. 1-5.) This too, then, supports DenTek’s 

construction. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., supra. 

The Statement of the Invention, the Abstract, every mention of the subject throughout the 

specification, and the Examiner’s stated Reasons For Allowance are in absolute harmony in 

supporting DenTek’s construction. Microsoft, 357 F.3d at 1348. So is the dictionary. (Sieczk. 

Decl. at Ex. C.) Seen for what it really is, Medtech’s revised construction is an impermissible 

attempt to rewrite clear claim language from what it is into what Medtech wishes it might be. 

Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“in accord with our 

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 15
8

settled practice we construe the claim as written, not as the patentees wish they had written it.”)

III. AN IMPRESSION PREFORM

Term or Phrase to be 

Construed

DenTek’s Construction Medtech’s Construction 

an impression 

preform 

a hardened resin structure containing a channel 

with curving sides and a flat bottom, and a footing 

that extends from a horizontal upper surface of the 

base to the channel face

a formable material 

overlying the base

Medtech’s definition fails to conform to what the patent says is the invention. As 

developed above, the problem was improper fitting and the solution was an impression preform 

with side walls defining a channel to guide the user. The Summary of the Invention sets out the 

importance of the structure of the impression preform to proper fitting:

The appliance is thereafter inserted in the oral cavity with the centric 

relation pilot channel substantially registered with the teeth of the 

maxillary arch. Light pressure is applied to seat the maxillary occlusal 

surfaces in the shallow preform pilot channel, after which biting pressure 

is applied to imbed the maxillary teeth in the preform footing. (See ‘051 

patent at Col. 2, ll. 18-25.) 

This pilot channel solved a major deficiency identified by the patent, the inability to center and 

align the impression preform relative to the user’s maxillary arch. In the Abstract, this channel is 

termed a “positioning channel,” which is indicative of its function in bringing the user’s teeth 

into alignment with the curving sides and a flat bottom of the impression preform.

Medtech criticizes the definition of “impression preform” supplied by DenTek as 

improper in that it seeks to import the limitations of Claim 1 into Claim 17. (Medtech Br. at 18.) 

To the contrary, DenTek has construed the term “impression preform” to be consistent with the 

specification and the PTO Examiner’s Reason For Allowance.4See ACCO Brands, Inc., 346 

 

4

 Those Reasons For Allowance read, in pertinent part,... [t]he prior art does not disclose or 

suggest in [sic] interocclusal appliance having a base... [an] impression material bonded to the 

base, the impression material has a pilot channel having a generally planar face and a pair of 

space [sic] peripheral walls, the impression material has a footing having a height extending 

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 12 of 15
9

F.3d at 1079 (“We conclude that the pin clause of claim 10 must be construed in the same way as 

the pin clause of claim 1, for the examiner’s Reasons for Allowance make clear that the 

examiner and the applicant understood that the invention requires that the pin extends (actively) 

into the slot after rotation.”) The impression preform is a hardened resin structure that may be 

softened to conform to the shape of the maxillary dentition and encase it during self-fitting. 

(DenTek Br. at 22) (See ‘051 patent at Col. 3, ll. 64-67; and Col. 4, ll. 55-58.) That definition or 

DenTek’s original definition are each accurate. Every example in the specification, as well as 

the Reasons For Allowance, consistently point to such a definition. Irdeto Access, Inc. v. 

Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

IV. HAVING APPROXIMATELY 30% BY WEIGHT VINYL ACETATE

Term or Phrase to be Construed DenTek’s Construction Medtech’s Revised Construction 

having approximately 

30% by weight vinyl 

acetate.

having at least 25.0% by weight 

vinyl acetate but not more than 

33.0% by weight vinyl acetate 

having about, roughly, or 

around 30% by weight 

vinyl acetate

Medtech would muddy the waters by defining the term “approximately” with equally 

murky terms such as “about, roughly, or around.” (Medtech Br. at 20.) This adds nothing for a 

jury. Both dictionaries and judicial decisions have found the terms “about” and “approximately” 

to be synonyms. See generally Dilworth, About ‘about’ and Other Imprecise Claim Terms, 78 J. 

Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 423 (1996).

DenTek states in its claim construction brief that “having approximately 30% by weight 

vinyl acetate” means “having at least 25.0% by weight vinyl acetate but not more than 33.0% by 

weight vinyl acetate.” This precise range is directly derived from the ‘051 Patent, which sets the

absolute minimum vinyl acetate (VA) content at 25% by weight (‘051 Patent at Col. 5, ll. 13-16), 

and also discloses a single EVA-containing resin, ELVAX®150, which is claimed in the ‘051 

 

from the opposite face of the base to the face of the pilot channel, the height of the footing being 

at least twice the distance between the occlusal face of the base and the opposite face of the base.

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 13 of 15
10

patent to be 33% VA by weight (e.g., ‘051 patent, col. 5, ll. 13-17.) Clearly, a VA content below 

25% would not be “approximately 30%”, but would instead be closer to, and therefore more 

properly termed, “approximately 20%,” which is not present in the specification. For the same 

reason, the upper range of VA content cannot approach 40%. More to the point, the Summary of 

Invention and claims do not claim approximately 33% but rather approximately 30%. There is 

no suggestion anywhere in the patent that approximately 30% may exceed 33% on the upside. 

Medtech’s assertion that there is a vinyl acetate concentration in the DenTek nightguard 

which is 34.3% by weight (Medtech Br. at 21) is factually incorrect and legally irrelevant. 

Wilson Sporting Goods Co., supra. Where, as here, the claims and the specification of the ‘051 

Patent fail to suggest any range other than that propounded by DenTek, the percentages stated in 

the body of the patent are the only appropriate guide for defining the boundary of the claim in 

accordance with the requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in DenTek’s Memorandum on 

Claim Construction of Claim 17 of the ‘051 Patent, DenTek respectfully requests that each of its 

proposed constructions be adopted.

Dated: July 20, 2007 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

By: s/ Alan Federbush

James H. Shalek 

Alan Federbush 

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036-8299

(212) 969-3000 (phone)

(212) 969-2900 (fax)

Attorneys for Defendant

DenTek Oral Care, Inc. 

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 14 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2007, I caused a true and correct copy of the REPLY OF 

DEFENDANT DENTEK ORAL CARE, INC. TO PLAINTIFF MEDTECH PRODUCTS 

INC.’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF to be served upon the following parties, unless 

otherwise noted, by use of the Court’s ECF system:

Attorneys for Plaintiff Medtech Products, Inc.:

Karl Geercken

Amy Manning

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

90 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016

 AND

W. Edward Ramage (BY E-MAIL)

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN

 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.

Commerce Center, Suite 1000

211 Commerce Street

Nashville, TN 37201

Attorneys for Consolidated Defendant Power Products, Inc.:

Kathy Dutton Helmer

Anthony P. La Rocco

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP 

One Newark Center, 10th Floor 

Newark, NJ 07102 

 s/ Alan Federbush

Alan Federbush

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 49 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 15 of 15