NOTE: Pursuant to Fed . Cir. R. 47.6, this dispo s ition is not citable as precede nt. It is a pu blic record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-1129

MSTAR SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Appellant,

v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and GENESIS MICROCHIP (DELAWARE) INC., Intervenor.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: May 25, 2006

______ ____________________ Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge , CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and BRYSON, Circuit Judge

. CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge

. MStar Semiconductor, Inc. (MStar) appeals the determination of the International Trade Commission (Commission) finding that the importation of certain semiconductor devices known as "upscalers" infringed U. S. Patent No. 5,739, 867 (the '867 patent), owned by Genesis Microchip (D elaware), Inc. (Genesis). In particular, MStar argues that the Commission erred in construing claim 1 of the patent. Be cause we agree with the Commission's construction of the disputed claim language, we affirm

.I MStar appeals from two consolidated in vestigations of t he Commission. The Commission instituted Investigation No

. 337-TA-481 (the 481 Investigation) on October 18, 2002, based on Genesis 's allegation that the importation of certain video display controllers inf r inged the '867 patent in v i olation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. MStar was not named in the 481 Investigation. On October 20, 2003, the Adminis t rative Law Judge (ALJ ) concluded that the accused dev ices in the 481 Investigat ion did not infringe any of the asserted claims of '867 patent and that claims 1 and 9 of the '867 patent were invalid as anticipated. Certain Disp l ay Co ntrollers wi th Upscaling Functionality an d Products Containing Same , Inv. No. 337-TA-481 (Int'l Trade Comm'n, Oct. 20, 2003) ( 481 Initial Determination ). On appeal, however, t he Commission reversed certain aspects of the ALJ's claim construction and remanded the case to the ALJ to reassess infringement and invalidity in light of the new claim construction. Certain Display Controllers with Upscaling Functiona lity and Products Containing Same , In v. No. 337

- TA-481 (Int'l Trade Comm' n, Jan. 27, 2004) ( 481 Com m ission Decision ). On May 20, 2004, in its decision on remand, the ALJ found that the accused devices did infringe the '867 patent. Certain Display Controllers with Up sc aling Func tionality and Product s Containing Same , Inv. No. 337-TA-481 (Int'l Trade Comm'n, May 20, 2004) ( 481 Remand Initial Determination ). This remand decision was then sent to the C o mmission for review. In April 2003, while the 481 Invest igatio n was pend ing, the Co mmis s ion instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-491 (the 491 Invest igation). MStar was not named in the initial complaint, but in J une 2003, Genesis amended its co mplaint to assert, among

05-1129 2other claims, that MStar infringed certain cl aims of the '867 pat ent. Applying the Commission's claim c onstruction from the 481 Investigation, the ALJ determined that the asserted claims were not inv a lid and that MStar infringed claim 1 and depende nt claims 2, 9, and 33-36 of the '867 patent. Certain Display Cont rollers and Products Containing Same , Inv. No. 337- TA-491 (Int'l Tr ade Comm'n, April 14, 2004) ( 491 Initia l Determination ). On August 27, 2004, the Commission consolidated the 481 and 491 Investigations and iss ued an opinion addre ssing the 481 Remand Initial Determination and the 491 Initial Determination. Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same and Certain Display Controllers wit h Upsc alin g Func tionality and Produc t s Containing Same , Inv. Nos. 337-TA-481 and 337-TA- 4981 (Int'l Trade Comm'n, Aug. 27, 2004) ( Consolidated Com m ission Decision ). With respect to the 491 Initial Determination, the Commission reversed the AL J's decision on validit y, holding that claims 1 and 9 of the '867 paten t were inv a lid. Howev e r, the Commission affirmed the ALJ's determination that MStar's products infringed dependent claims 2 and 33-36 of the '867 patent. MStar now appeals the determi nation that it infr inged dependent claim s 2 and 33-36. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6).
II The patent at issue claims a method and a device for "upscaling, " or increasing the resolution of a video image for displa y on a computer monitor. A video image consists of a series o f still p i ctures, or imag e frames. Those images are c o mprised of rows, or scan lines, of dots of col o r, or pi xels, which may be red, green or blue and are of varying intensity. T he re solution of a pic t ure refers to the number of scan lines an d the number of pixels per scan line in that picture, such as 800x600; higher resolution

05-1129 3pictures are clearer and more detailed. T hus, a 800x600 resolution picture might be enlarged or "upscaled" to a 1024x768 resolut i on picture. Although t he vis i ble image on a computer screen is co mprised of the rows of pixels, the data used to produce an image c ontains both active pixel data, which provides the information about the color and int ensity of each vis i ble pixel, and blanking pixel data, which controls the timing of active pix e l data. In traditional cathode-ray-tube monitors (CRT monitors), images are creat ed using an electron gun, which scans from side to side, placing electrons on the screen' s phosphor layer to create visible pixels along a sc an line. The active pi xel data indicates the c o lor and intensity of these p i xels

. At the end of a scan line, the electron gun sweeps bac k to the beginning of the next line, during which time no electrons are plac ed on the phosphor layer. T he horizontal
sweeps ar e known as the "horiz ontal retrace per iod" or "horizontal blanking period" and are directed by the horizontal blanking pixel data. After a ll the lines in the image are completed, the gun s w eeps bac k to the beginning of the fi rst line during the "vertical retrace period" or the "vertical blanking period ," which is directed by the vertical blanking pixel data. Once the vertical retrace peri od is complet e , the electron gun can begin to create a new image. Most graphic controllers, which c onvert information from a computer into a frame of image data that a monitor can display, were designed to wor k with the image data used by a CRT monitor. Because flat pa nel monitors (FPMs) use a fundamentally different technology, a "display c ontroller" c onverts image data s u ited for a CRT monitor so that the image can be di splayed on the FPM. FPMs do not use an electron gun and phosphor screen. Rather, liquid crystal displays (LCDs ) have a fi xed number of pixels

05-1129 4with three active cells , red, green and blue. 1 Images are created by sending a small electrical c harge to each pixel, which determines the color and intensity of the pixel. Because the number of pixels is set by the number of three-cell sets, the resolution of an FPM cannot change. If an image of smaller re solution is projected onto the screen, it will only take up a portion of the screen; an im age with greater resolution will be cropped. Thus, upsc a ling is a c r ucial proc ess in c o nverting signals formatted for CRT monitors to the proper resolu tion required for an FPM. In order to function pr operly, ups calers mus t avoid underflow and overflow, which

occur w h en the i m age data fl ows i n to the di sp lay cont roller either more slowly or more quickly than it flows out. Traditionally, th is problem was solv ed with exce ss memory; display controllers contained an external frame buffer, which stored the data for a complete image while all the mathematical c o mputations required t o upscale t he image were calculated. The ' 867 patent, in contra st, is directed towards a method of upscaling that prevents underflow and ov erflow by regul ating the timing of da ta flowing into the display controller (the input or source dat a) and the data flowing out of the display controller (the output or destination data), usi ng an input clock signal (the first cloc k signal) and an output clock signal (the second clock signal), thus eliminating the need for an external frame buffer. Specifically , representative clai m 1 of the '867 patent claims: A method of upscaling a source image fr ame in both vertical and horizontal directions to generate a destination im age frame, the sour ce image frame including a plurality of s ource scan lines, wit h each of said plurality of source

1 Although there is no physical retr ace period involved with an FPM, because there is no electron gun, image data for FPMs enters the upscaler in the sam e format as image data for CRT m onitors. Thus, it contains both act i ve and blanking pixel data.

05-1129 5scan lines including a plural ity of source pixel data, the destination image frame including a plurality of desti nation lines, each of said pl urality of destination lines including a plurality of des tination pixel data, said me thod comprising the steps of: (a) receiving said plur ality of source pixel dat a included in said source image frame using a first clock si gnal; (b) generating a second clock signal; (c) upscaling said source image fram e in both vertical and horizont al directions to generate said pluralit y of destination pixel data representative of said destination image frame; and (d) providing said plur ality of destinat ion pixel data repres entative of said destination image frame using said second clock signal, w h erein said secon d clock signal is ge nerated to have a clock period such that the time to prov ide said plurality of destination pixel da ta is equal to a period to receive said source pixel data in said source image frame. '867 patent, col. 21, l. 62 – col. 22, l. 18 (emphasis added). This appeal centers on the "wherein" claus e of claim 1, which st ates that "said second c l ock signal is generated to have a clo ck period such that the time to provide said plurality of destination pi xel data is equal to a period to receive said source pixel data in said source image frame." In t he 481 Investigation the Commission determined that the "generated . . . such that" limitation required only that a s e cond cloc k signal be "generated so as to be consist ent with an equality of the source image frame and destination image frame periods." 481 Commission Decis i on , slip op. at 14-16 (emphasis added). Further, in the 481 Investigation, t he ALJ had determined that the "equality" referenced in the claim languag e required that the period of tim e to input active pixel data must equal the period of tim e to output active pixel data. 4 81 Initial Determination , slip op. at 90. Howev e r, the Commission reje cted this construction, determining that the phrase required an "equality of the periods to receive the sourc e image frame and t o provide the destination image frame." 481 Commission Decision , slip op. at 12.

05-1129 6In the 491 Investigation, the parties disputed the meaning of "image frame; " Genesis contended that an "image frame" contains both acti ve and blank ing pixel data, while MStar contended that an "image fram e" only contains active and horizontal blank ing pixel data. However, the AL J agreed wit h Genesis t hat the "equality" referenced in the claim language "mean [t] an equality of full frame periods." 491 Initial Determination , slip op. at 110. That is, the period of time required to input all the active pixel data, horizontal blank ing pixel data and vertical blank ing pixel data asso ciated with an image must equal the amount of time required output all the active pixel data, horizontal blank ing pixe l data and vertical blanking pixel data associated wit h an image. The ALJ determined that, under such a construc tion, "i t is undisputed that the accused chips maintain an equality of equal source and destination image frame periods" an d that the "wherein" c l ause was me t by the accused devices. Id. , slip op at. 148. The Commission agreed with the ALJ's constructi on of the "wherein" clause and its infringement analysis. Consolidated Commission Dec i s i on , slip op. at 45-46. On appeal, MStar argues that the dec is ion below misconstrued these two aspects of the "wherein" claus e of claim 1. Firs t, MStar a r gue s that the phrase "generated . . . such that" requires that the second clo ck signal "cause" the required equality. Further, MStar argues that the " equality" of periods refers to the perio d required to input and output acti ve pixel data and horizontal blanking pixel data, but not vertical blanking pixel data. MS tar argues that if it is correct with regard to either aspect of the construction of claim 1, it does not infringe. Ho wever, MStar does not appeal the Commission's infringement analy s is under the claim c onstruction that the Commission adopted.

05-1129 7III We review legal conclusions of the ITC de novo SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 423 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000); Checkpoint Sys. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 54 F.3d 756, 760 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). As claim construction is a question of law, Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc. , 138 F.3d 1448, 1451 (Fed. Cir . 1998), we review t he Commission's c l aim construction without deference. The '867 patent requires that the upsca ler have a sec ond clock signal "wherein said second clock signal is generated to have a clock period such that the time to provide s a id plurality of destinat ion pixel data is equal to a period to receive said s o urc e pixel data in said source image frame." Noting that t he conjunction "such that" is defined as "having a quality to a degree to be indicated," see Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (10th ed. 1997) , the ALJ found during the 481 Investigation that "the plain language of t he claim requir e s generation of a second clock consistent with an equality of ac tive peri ods but does not require synch ronization of the first and second c l ocks or 'loc king the c l ocks' usin g a PLL [ phase-lock ed loop]. It merely requires . . . that the second clock, on average, is set so that the period to r e ceive the source pixel data is equal to the period to provide the desti nation pixel data." 481 Initial Determination , slip op. at 100. T he Commis s ion adopt ed this construction, determining that the "generated . . . such that" limitation requires only that a second cloc k signal be "generated so as to be consist ent with an equality of the source image frame and destination image frame periods." 481 Commission Decis i on , slip op. at 14-16 (emphasis added). F o r the 491 Investigat ion, both th e ALJ and Commission adopted

05-1129 8that same construction. 491 Initial Determination , slip op. at 109-10; Consolidated Comission Decision , slip op. at 30-40. MStar argues that this claim construction was in error. In its initial brief to this court, MStar emphasized that the "generated . . . such that" languag e requir e d that the second clock "cause" the claimed equality by being " l ocked" to the first clock. As such, MStar argued that the '867 paten t discloses only one method fo r causing equality, "the use of a second signal tightly sy nchroni zed to the first clock signal," and cit ed portions of the specification describing how the source and destination c l ocks might be locked and the formula used to lock the signals. In response, Genesis argued that signal-lock was merely a preferred embodiment. Further, Genesis noted that if claim 1 require s that the two clock signals are locked, claim 10 is redundant, as it contai ns only one additional limitation, that the "second c l ock is lock ed to said f i rst clock signal in a pr oportion." ' 867 patent, col. 22, ll. 54-55. In its reply brief to this court, M S tar disclaim ed the argument that claim 1 requires signal-lock. MStar argued that t he claim language only requires that the second s i gnal "cause" the equa lity and that it does not r equire that the signa ls be locked. Howev e r, MStar failed to explain how it s c l aim construction, which would require that the second clock signal be generated so as to "cause" the equality of the frame periods, dif f ers in any meaningful way from the Commis s ion's claim construction, whic h requires that the second cl ock signal be generated so as to be "consistent" with an equality of the source and destination image fr ame periods. Both claim constructions require a logical relat i onship bet ween the s e cond cloc k signal and the claim ed equa lity

05-1129 9without specifying precisely how that logical relationship s hould work. Further, MStar does not demonstrate how the Commission's cl aim construction is broader than it s proferred claim construction; MStar does not point to any embodiment of the invention that would fall within t he "consist ent" claim construction, but not within the " c ausation" claim construction. Finally, contrary to MS tar's arguments, the C o mmission' s claim construction does not read the "generated . . . such that" limi tation out of the claim language. MStar argues that if the second cl ock signal need only be consist ent with the claim ed equality , the wherein clause c ould simply read "wherein the time to provide said plurality of destination pixel data is equal t o a period to receive said sour ce pixel data in said source image frame." However , as noted above, th e "cons istent" claim c onstruction requires a logical relationshi p bet ween the s e cond c l oc k signa l and the equality of time periods. Thus, under the Commission's c l aim cons truction, it is not sufficient that the time periods are equal, as MStar contends; ra ther, there must be a logical relationship of some sort between the second clock si gnal and the equality of the time periods. MStar also argues that the Commission erred in construi ng the "equality" limitation. Claim 1 requires t hat "said second clock signal is generated to have a clock period suc h that the time to provide said plur ality of destination pi xel data is equal to a period to receive said source pixel data in said source image frame." '867 patent, col. 22, ll. 15-18. In the 481 In vestigation, the Commission dete rmined that this required a n "equality of the periods to re ceive the source image frame and to provide the destination image frame." 481 Commission Decis i on , slip. op. at 9. The ALJ adopt ed the same construction for the 491 Investigation, alt hough the parties disputed the meaning of

05-1129 10"image frame." However, both the ALJ and the Commission agreed with Genesis that this construction "mean[t] an equality of full frame periods," i.e. , there must be equa lity of the periods of time to input and output ac tive pixel dat a, horizont al blanking pixel data and vertical blank ing pixel data. On appeal, MStar argues that the "period to provide s a id plurality of destination pixel data" (which is "r epres entative of said destination im age frame") should not include the time to provide vertical bl ank ing pixel data. First of all, MStar notes that the ALJ had construed the phrase "pix el data" as used elsewhere in the claim language to include only active pixel data, and not blanking pixel data. Thus, MStar argues that the "period to provide said plurality of destination pixel data" only includes the time to provide activ e pixel data. However, MStar concedes that because horizontal bl ank ing pixel data is interspersed between active pixel data, the "period to provide said plurality of destination pixel data" must in clude the time period to prov ide both active pixel data an d horizontal blank ing pixel data. I n other wor d s, it is im possible to determine the period to input or output the ac tive pixel data of an image frame without in cluding the time to provide the horizontal blanking pixel data. However, because vertical blanking pixel data is at the end of an image fr am e, after all the activ e pixels, it is possible t o time the input or output of acti ve pixel data and horizontal blanking pixel data witho ut including vertical blanking pixel data. Thus, MStar pr oposes a construction that would include the time to provide activ e pixel data and horiz ontal blanking pixel dat a, but not vertical blank ing pixel data. Not only is such a construction strained, but it also ignores the fact that the claim language r e fers to the "period to provide said plurality of destination pixel data," which is

05-1129 11"representative of said desti nation image f r ame." MStar argues that bec ause "pixel data" as us ed els e where refers only to activ e pixel dat a, the "des tination pixel data . . . representative of said destinat ion image fr ame" must include only active pixel data. Howev e r, while the blanking pixe l data is not visible on the m onitors, it is part of the "destination image frame" as it affects the timing of the pi xel dat a flow. Indeed, MStar concedes t hat "upscalers must recognize the fa ct of vertical blank i ng lines." Appellant's Reply Br. at 21. In response to the char ge that its construction of the claim is "technologically implausible," MStar argues to no avail "that upscalers must operate in a given way does not mean that the claim language must cover that [necessary] operation." Id. Finally, we note that the whole specific ation re fers to equal frame rates ( i.e. , frames per second in versus frames pe r second out). The sp ecification does not teach that the invent or or one skilled in the art woul d seek to measure the strained subset advanced by MStar. Thus, because vertical blanking pixel data i s necessary to make an image appear on the screen properly, the " destination pixel data" which is "representative of said destination image frame" must include ac tive pixel data, horizontal blanking pixel data and vertical blanking pixel data. MSta r has failed to show any error in the Commission's claim construction. We agree with the Commission's construction of the "wherein" c l ause of claim 1 of the '867 patent. MStar does not dispute that, under the Commission's claim c onstruction, the accused devices infringe the '867 patent. We therefore affirm.

05-1129 12