1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

MARLOWE PATENT HOLDINGS LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DICE ELECTRONICS, LLC; AAMP OF 

FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a AAMP OF AMERICA, 

INC. and d/b/a PACIFIC ACCESSORY 

CORPORATION; PRECISION INTERFACE 

ELECTRONICS, INC.; LTI ENTERPRISES, 

INC. d/b/a USA SPEC, AND VAIS 

TECHNOLOGY, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA 

OPINION 

INTRODUCTION 

 There are two cases wherein Marlowe alleges that several entities infringed upon the ’786 

patent. One is this case, and the other is Marlowe Patent Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 

11-07044 (D.N.J.) (“Ford Motor”). As a result, a Markman1 decision is rendered in each case. 

On July 31, 2014, the Court conducted a Markman hearing for disputed claim terms in U.S. 

Patent No. 7,489,786, titled “Audio Device Integration System” filed December 11, 2002 (“the 

’786 Patent”), between Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC (hereinafter “Marlowe”) and Ford Motor 

Company (hereinafter “Ford”). Ford Motor, ECF No. 98. Thereafter, a draft opinion of the 

Markman Ruling was issued to the parties, and a telephone conference was conducted. Based 

upon all of the proceedings, the Court finalizes its Markman Ruling as follows. 

In Ford Motor, Marlowe and Ford have filed the appropriate Markman claim 

construction briefs, presenting the disputed claim language and the meaning that one of ordinary 

skill in the art should employ in light of the specification, custom and usage. (Ford Motor, ECF 

 

1 Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 42 PageID: 5426
2 

No. 90 and 93.) In Marlowe Patent Holdings, LLC v. Dice Electronics, LLC, No. 10-01199 

(D.N.J.) (“Dice Electronics”), LTI Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter “LTI”), has filed supplemental 

Markman brief that disputes additional claim language in the ’786 Patent. (Dice Electronics, 

ECF No. 221.) 

The ’786 Patent, issued to inventor Ira Marlowe, pertains to an audio device integration 

system that enables after-market audio products such as a CD player, a CD changer, an MP3 

player, and other auxiliary sources to be connected to, operate with, and be controlled from, an 

existing stereo system in an automobile. (Ford Motor, ECF No. 93, Exhibit A). 

This Court has considered the claim construction briefs filed by the parties, and made 

claim construction determinations for the claim terms that remain in dispute in light of the 

evidence and arguments presented. 

I. STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

There is a two-step analysis for determining patent infringement: “first, the court 

determines the meaning of the disputed claim terms, then the accused device is compared to the 

claims as construed to determine infringement.” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 

804 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). When the court engages in claim construction to 

determine the meaning of disputed claim terms, it is decided as a matter of law. Markman, 517 

U.S. at 372. It is well established that “the construction of a patent, including terms of art within 

its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.” Id. When construing claims, the court 

must focus on the claim language. As explained by the Federal Circuit: 

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. Attending this principle, a claim 

construction analysis must begin and remain centered on 

the claim language itself, for that is the language the 

patentee has chosen to particularly point out and distinctly 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 42 PageID: 5427
3 

claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his 

invention. 

Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

(citations omitted). When looking at the words of a claim, the words “are generally given their 

ordinary and customary meaning,” which has been defined as “the meaning that the term would 

have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the 

effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 

(Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006). The Federal Circuit has counseled: 

It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention 

through whose eyes the claims are construed. Such person 

is deemed to read the words used in the patent documents 

with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to 

have knowledge of any special meaning usage in the field. 

The inventor’s words that are used to describe the 

invention—the inventor’s lexicography—must be 

understood and interpreted by the court as they would be 

understood and interpreted by a person in that field of 

technology. Thus the court starts the decision making 

process by reviewing the same resources as would that 

person, viz., the patent specification and prosecution 

history. 

Id. at 1313 (quoting Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 

1998)). Those resources, called intrinsic evidence, include the claim language, the specification, 

and the prosecution history. See id. at 1314. 

However, when intrinsic evidence alone does not resolve the ambiguities in a disputed 

claim term, extrinsic evidence—evidence that is outside the patent and prosecution history—may 

also be used to construe a claim. See id. at 1317; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 

1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[E]xtrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, 

the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art” may be consulted; for example, expert 

testimony, dictionaries, and treatises. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. However, when a court relies on 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 42 PageID: 5428
4 

extrinsic evidence to construe a claim, it is guided by the principle that extrinsic evidence may 

never conflict with intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1319. Courts “have viewed extrinsic evidence in 

general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read 

claim terms.” Id. Thus, a court should take care to “attach the appropriate weight to be assigned 

to those sources.” Id. at 1322-24. 

II. THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS – ’786 PATENT 

A. “Interface” 

The ’786 Patent relates to an audio device integration system, wherein one or more aftermarket audio devices such as CD player, CD changer, MP3 player, satellite receiver, digital 

audio broadcast (DAB) receiver, or the like, (hereinafter “after-market audio device”), can be 

integrated with factory-installed or after-market car stereo systems. (’786 Patent, col. 1, ll. 5-12; 

col. 4, ll. 26-32.) The ’786 Patent explains that the whole objective of the invention is to 

“achieve[] integration of various audio devices that are alien to a given OEM2

 or after-market 

stereo system.” (’786 Patent, col. 1, ll. 60-64; Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 11.) The disputed claim 

term is described in all independent device claims, which provides “an interface” connected 

between said first and second electrical connectors. 

an interface connected between said first and second 

electrical connectors for channeling audio signals to the car 

stereo from the after-market audio device, said interface 

including a microcontroller in electrical communication 

with said first and second electrical connectors, said 

microcontroller pre-programmed to execute 

(’786 Patent, claim 1, l. 8; claim 25, l. 5; claim 44, l. 10; claim 57, l. 5; claim 66, l. 5; claim 76, l. 

5; claim 86, l. 6; claim 92, l. 4; claim 99, l. 7 (emphasis added).) The disputed term is also 

 

2

 Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEM”), ’786 Patent, col. 1, ll. 22-23. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 4 of 42 PageID: 5429
5 

found in the method claims, which recites the step of “providing an interface having a first 

electrical connector connectable to a car stereo...” (’786 Patent, claim 33, l. 3; claim 49, l. 4.) 

Marlowe’s proposed construction for the disputed term is—“a device including a 

microcontroller.” (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 5.) Ford’s proposed construction for the disputed term 

is—“a device separate from the vehicle and car stereo.” (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 7 (emphasis 

added).) The main dispute between the parties as to this term is whether the interface can be part 

of the OEM or after-market stereo system, or whether it is separate. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 8.) 

Marlowe argues that if an interface is integrated to a car stereo, the interface becomes a 

part of the “car stereo,” based on the definition of the “car stereo” of the ’786 Patent. (Ford 

Motor, Pl. Br. at 6 (emphasis added).) The “car stereo” of the ’786 Patent is defined such that its 

configuration determines whether an interface is part of the car stereo. The ’786 Patent defines 

“car stereo” as follows: 

Also, as used herein, the terms “car stereo” and “car radio” 

are used interchangeably and are intended to include all 

presently existing car stereos and radios, such as physical 

devices that are present at any location within a vehicle, 

in addition to software and/or graphically-or displaydriven receivers. An example of such a receiver is a 

software-driven receiver that operates on a universal LCD 

panel within a vehicle and is operable by a user via a 

graphical user interface displayed on the universal LCD 

panel. Further, any future receiver, whether a hardwired or 

a software/graphical receiver operable on one or more 

displays, is considered within the definition of the terms 

“car stereo” and “car radio,” as used herein, and is within 

the spirit and scope of the present invention. 

(’786 Patent, col. 5, ll. 1-14 (emphasis added); see also Supp. Joint Claim Construction at 2.) 

From this disclosure, it is evident that “car stereo” is a physical device present within a vehicle 

that is a software-driven receiver operating on a universal LCD panel and is operable by a user 

via a graphical user interface displayed on the universal LCD panel. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 5 of 42 PageID: 5430
6 

 In further support of its position that the after-market device becomes a part of the carstereo, Marlowe points to the definition of “integration” or “integrated” discussed in the 

specification: 

As used herein, the term “integration” or “integrated” is 

intended to mean connecting one or more external devices 

or inputs to an existing car radio or stereo via an 

interface, processing and handling signals and audio 

channels, allowing a user to control the devices via the 

car stereo, and displaying data from the devices on the 

radio. Thus, for example, integration of a CD player with a 

car stereo system allows for the CD player to be remotely 

controlled via the control panel of the stereo system, and 

data from the CD player to be sent to the display of the 

stereo. 

(’786 Patent, col. 4, ll. 47-56 (emphasis added).) From this disclosure, it is evident that upon 

connecting one or more after-market devices to a car stereo, the after-market device becomes 

part of the car stereo, or integrated with the car stereo, as it allows a user to control the devices 

via the car stereo. In essence, connecting the after-market device to the car-stereo results in an 

extension of car radio, as a user can operate the after-market device using the car stereo. 

 Ford argues that the disputed term “interface” is not part of the “car stereo” because 

independent claim 1 recites said terms as different terms, as they are physically separated by 

“first” and “second” “connectors.” (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 8 (emphasis added).) In support of 

its argument, Ford cites to Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 

1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996), which held that it was improper to construe two different terms in the 

same claim as synonyms. 

 Ford further asserts the point that “interface” is separate from “car stereo” by relying on 

Figure 2A of the ’786 Patent. Ford argues that because Figure 2A of the specification illustrates 

the “interface” and the “car stereo” in different blocks, the “interface” represented by block (20) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 6 of 42 PageID: 5431
7 

and the “car stereo” as block (10), the two components represent different structural elements 

that are separate from each other. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 9.) As a result of such structural 

separation, Ford argues that the “interface” is not integrated into the “car stereo.” (Id.) 

Ford draws such inference by relying in particular upon the continuation-in-part 

application filed by Marlowe, Application No. 11/071,667, filed Mar. 3, 2005, (hereinafter “ 

‘667 CIP”), where Figure 10 of said ’667 CIP application has interface, represented by block 

630, integrated or built into the car stereo system, represented by block 610. (Ford Motor, Def. 

Br. at 9; see also PG Pub ¶ [0127] of ‘667 CIP; Ford Motor, LeRoy Dec., ECF No. 90, Exhibit 

B.) Ford alleges that “[t]he fact that Marlow added an example in which the interface is part of 

the car stereo in a later patent application confirms that such a configuration was not part of the 

earlier ’786 Patent.” (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 9-10.) 

 Ford has also brought to this Court’s attention the PCT application prosecuted in 

Singapore, which has the same disclosure as the ’786 Patent, where during examination in order 

to overcome a rejection, Marlowe argued that the PCT application did not disclose positioning 

the interface within the car stereo system. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 10-11.) 

 Claim Construction 

 The Court adopts the claim construction for the disputed term “interface” to be construed 

as “a microcontroller, functionally and structurally separate from the car stereo, which integrates 

an after-market device with a car stereo.” The primary purpose and objective of the ’786 Patent 

is to achieve integration of various after-market devices with the car stereo system such that 

information can be exchanged between the after-market device and the car stereo. (’786 Patent, 

col. 1, ll. 5-12; col. 1, ll. 60-64; col. 4, ll. 26-32; see also Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 11.) 

In construing the claims of a patent, the Court must look to three sources known as the 

“intrinsic evidence”: the claim language, the patent specification and the prosecution history of 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 7 of 42 PageID: 5432
8 

the patent. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 

U.S. 370 (1996); Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). 

The claim terms are to be given their ordinary meaning as would be apparent to a person 

of ordinary skill in the art unless it is clear from the patent itself that the inventor intended to use 

certain terms differently. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582). 

The inventor’s words that are used to describe the invention—the inventor's lexicography —

must be understood and interpreted by the court as they would be understood and interpreted by 

a person in that field of technology. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (citing Multiform Desiccants, Inc., 

133 F.3d at 1477). The specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the 

patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's 

lexicography governs. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 

288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

 Here, the intrinsic evidence of claim language, clearly illustrates the “interface” to be 

defined as: a microcontroller, functionally separate from the car stereo, that integrates an aftermarket device with the car stereo.3

 From the specification, it is evident that “interface” is 

synonymous with “integration,”4

 as the interface, represented by block 20 in Fig. 1A, integrates

the after-market devices with the car stereo form a “device integration system.” (’786 Patent, 

col. 5, ll. 17-19.) As noted above, the inventor, being his own lexicographer, has defined and 

 

3

 ’786 Patent, col. 1, ll. 60-64 (“It would be desirable to provide an integration system that not only achieves 

integration of various audio devices that are alien to a given OEM or after-market stereo system, but also allows for 

information to be exchanged between the after-market device and the car stereo.”); col. 2, ll. 28-32 (“The integration 

system connects to and interacts with the car stereo at any available port of the car stereo, such as a CD input port, a 

satellite input, or other known type of connection.”); col. 5, ll. 38-41 (“Fig. 2 a is a block diagram of an alternate 

embodiment of the audio device interface system of the present invention, wherein a CD player/changer 15 is 

integrated with an OEM or after-market car radio 10.”); see also Claims 1, 25, 57, & 66, for instance, where the 

preamble recites “integration system.” 

4

 ’786 Patent, col. 5, ll. 15-17 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the audio device integration (or interface) system 

of the present invention, generally indicated at 20.”(emphasis added)). 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 8 of 42 PageID: 5433
9 

given special meaning to the term integration: “connecting one or more external devices or 

inputs to an existing car radio or stereo via an interface, processing and handling signals and 

audio channels, allowing a user to control the devices via the car stereo, and displaying data from 

the devices on the radio.” (’786 Patent, col. 4, ll. 47-56.) 

 As noted from Figures 1, 2A, and 2B, for instance, the “interface” (20), acts as an 

extension to the car radio or car stereo’s (10) circuitry such that an after-market device can be 

connected and integrated to the car stereo (10) via the interface. After all, the ’786 Patent clearly 

states “it would be desirable to provide an integration system that . . . achieves integration of 

various audio devices that are alien to a given OEM or after-market stereo system.” (’786 Patent, 

col. 1, ll. 60-63.) As a result, the after-market device in connection with the car stereo via the 

interface, results in a “device integration system.” (’786 Patent, Claim 1 preamble.) 

Therefore, based on the intrinsic evidence provided in the’786 Patent, Marlowe’s 

argument that the interface becomes a part of the “car stereo” is found to be persuasive, as the 

connecting of the after-market device with the car stereo, via the interface, forms an extension to 

the car stereo as said after-market devices are inter-operable with the car stereo, and capable of 

exchanging commands and data via the interface. (’786 Patent, col. 3, ll. 1-5.) 

A further question to consider regarding “interface” is whether it is: (i) physically 

separate; and/or (ii) functionally separate from the car stereo. Here, based on the intrinsic 

evidence, “interface” is considered functionally separate, rather than physically separate from 

the car stereo. 

The “interface” is used as a communicator or signal converter between the car stereo and 

the after-market device. (’786 Patent, col. 5, ll. 41-45.) The “interface” allows a user to control 

the after-market device from control panel buttons (14) on the car stereo (10), and accordingly 

process and format information from the after-market device and send it to the car stereo (10). 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 9 of 42 PageID: 5434
10 

(’786 Patent, Figure 2A col. 5, ll. 45-55; see also Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 4-5 (“[T]he ’786 patent 

discloses and claims an interface which outputs to the car stereo a CD player ‘presence signal’ 

that the car stereo understands. Upon receiving this ‘presence signal,’ the car stereo enters the 

CD player mode, enabling control of the after-market CD player using the car stereo”).) 

 Representing the “car stereo” and “interface” in separate blocks in Figure 2A illustrates 

two components that represent different structural elements that perform different function; and 

not necessarily physical separation per se. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 9-10.) Figure 2A of ’786 

Patent is directed to “audio device interface system,” wherein the different structural components 

comprise: “car stereo,” “interface,” “CD player,” “display,” and “control panel buttons.” (’786 

Patent, col. 5, ll. 38-41.) All the different structural components are integrated together to form 

an “audio device interface system.” (Id.) 

Taking Ford’s position that “interface” and “car stereo” are two components that are 

physically separated, or separated by distance, from each other would be contrary to the 

understanding and interpretation by a person in this field of technology. If this Court takes Ford’s 

interpretation of structural separation with regards to “interface” and “car stereo,” then 

interpretation of display (13) and control panel buttons (14), would run afoul, as persuasively 

argued by Marlowe. (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 6-7.) 

Therefore, the block diagram represented in Figure 2A, illustrating car stereo as (10) and 

interface as (20), represents different structural components that perform different function, 

which therein work together in unison to form an “audio device integration system.” The block 

diagram of Figure 2A should not be construed to interpret physical separation from each other. 

Rather, it should be inferred as the representation of the “audio device interface system” as 

collectively formed by the different components. (’786 Patent, col. 5, ll. 38-40.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 10 of 42 PageID: 5435
11 

Ford’s argument as to structural separation between “interface” and “car stereo” based 

upon the ‘667 CIP application is persuasive in light of the claim construction of “interface” 

adopted by this Court. Figure 10 of ‘667 CIP application has “interface,” represented by block 

630, integrated or built into the car stereo system, as represented by block 610. The specification 

of the ‘667 application recites: 

FIG. 10 is a block diagram showing an alternate 

embodiment of the multimedia device integration system of 

the present invention, indicated generally at 600, wherein 

the interface 630 is incorporated within a car stereo or car 

video system 610. The interface 630 is in electrical 

communication with the control panel buttons 620, display 

615, and associated control circuitry 625 of the car stereo 

or video system 610. The interface 630 could be 

manufactured on a separate printed circuit board positioned 

within the stereo or video system 610, or on one or more 

existing circuit boards of the stereo or video system 610. 

An after-market device 635 can be put into electrical 

communication with the interface 630 via a port or 

connection on the car stereo or video system 610, and 

integrated for use with the car stereo or video system 610. 

(PG Pub ¶ [0127] of ‘667 CIP application; Ford Motor, LeRoy Dec., ECF No. 90, Exhibit B.) 

Based on the disclosure of the ‘667 CIP application it would be evident to one of ordinary skill in 

this field of technology that during manufacturing process the interface (630) could be placed on 

a separate or an existing circuit board of the car stereo or video system (610). 

This Court acknowledges the distinction between Figure 10 of the ‘667 CIP application, 

and Figure 2A of ’786 Patent. Figure 10 of the ‘667 CIP application explicitly illustrates the 

interface being built-in or manufactured into the car stereo system, making the system a single 

physical entity, wherein physical separation between “interface” and “car stereo” has been 

eliminated or reduced to none. In contrast, Figure 2A of ’786 Patent illustrates the unified 

functioning of the different structural components—“interface” (20), “car stereo” (10), “CD 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 11 of 42 PageID: 5436
12 

player” (15), “display” (13), and “control panel buttons” (14)—to form an “audio device 

integration system.” Figure 2A does not illustrate the physical separation or placement of the 

“interface” with respect to the “car stereo.” Interpreting Figure 2A as illustrating distance or 

separation between the different components would be contrary to the understanding and 

interpretation of the specification by a person in this field of technology. Figure 2A, instead, 

illustrates the integration of an after-market device with a car stereo, via an interface, which 

therein collectively forms an “audio device integration system.” (’786 Patent, col. 5, ll. 38-55.) 

As to the issue of physical and/or structural separation between the interface and the car 

stereo, based upon the claim language presented in independent claim 1 along with the response 

to Patent Office action, it is evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that the interface is a 

structurally separate device from the car stereo. (Ford Motor, ECF No. 102, Exhibit 2, 

Amendment to Claims & Remarks, 29-30.) In order to overcome prior art reference, Miyazaki et 

al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,613,079 (filed Dec. 19, 2000)), Mr. Marlowe amended the claim language 

to add, inter alia, a first connector, a second connector, and a third connector, wherein said 

connectors electrically connected the after-market device to the car stereo via the interface. (Ford 

Motor, ECF No. 102, at 2, 9, and 31.) Moreover, in its remarks, Mr. Marlowe differentiated the 

patented invention over the prior art reference by stating: 

wherein a code portion is executed by the microcontroller 

for receiving an incompatible control command issued a car 

stereo through a first electrical connector connected to the 

interface, processing the incompatible control command 

into a formatted control command compatible with an aftermarket audio device, and transmitting the formatted control 

command to an after-market audio device through a second 

electrical connector connected to the interface, as required 

by Claim 1. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 12 of 42 PageID: 5437
13 

(Id. at 32.) Having such first, second, and third electrical connectors between the interface, car 

stereo, and an after-market device indicates to one of ordinary skill in this field of technology the 

physical and structural separation between the interface and the car stereo. 

Marlowe’s argument as to Ford’s attempt to confusing the issue in bringing Miyazaki 

reference, used by examiner during prosecution, is not found to be persuasive. (Ford Motor, ECF 

No. 106, at 1-2.) In construing the claims of a patent, the Court must look to three sources known 

as the “intrinsic evidence”: the claim language, the patent specification and the prosecution 

history of the patent. Markman, 52 F.3d at 977. Here, the reference to the Miyazaki patent was 

applied by the examiner during prosecution, is part of the file wrapper and prosecution history, 

and is therefore considered intrinsic evidence. Thus, it is imperative for the Court to consider the 

Miyazaki reference, and the remarks and claim amendments made by Mr. Marlowe in his 

applications in order to define its claimed invention over the prior art reference. 

As noted above, and persuasively pointed out by Ford, Mr. Marlowe amended the claim 

language to add separate structural features, inter alia, a first connector, a second connector, and 

a third connector, wherein said connectors electrically connected the after-market device to the 

car stereo via the interface. 

Therefore, based on the intrinsic evidence presented, “interface” is interpreted as a device 

containing a microcontroller that is a functionally and structurally separate component from a 

“car stereo.” Upon connecting an after-market device with the “car stereo,” via the “interface,” 

the “interface” becomes part of the “car stereo,” as the “interface” is used as a communicator or 

signal converter between the “car stereo” and the after-market device. (’786 Patent, col. 5, ll. 41-

45.) 

B. “Device Presence Signal” 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 13 of 42 PageID: 5438
14 

The disputed term, “device presence signal” is recited in claims of the ’786 Patent, for 

maintaining the car stereo in a state responsive to processed data and audio signals. 

The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said interface generates a 

device presence signal for maintaining the car stereo in a 

state responsive to processed data and audio signals. 

(’786 Patent, claim 6 (emphasis added); see also claims 49, 57, 66, 76, 86, 92, and 99.) 

This Court construes the disputed term “Device Presence Signal” as “transmission of a 

continuous signal indicating an audio device is present.” The specification of the ’786 Patent 

states, when a patented interface is connected to the car stereo’s CD input port, the car stereo 

sends out a signal to the patented interface through the CD input port and the patented interface 

sends a CD changer device presence signal back to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an 

operational state and responsive to external data and signals.5

 (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 9 n.9.) 

When an after-market device is connected to the interface, the interface generates an audio 

device presence signal and continuously transmits such presence signal to the car stereo6

. 

In order for the device presence signal to be continuously transmitted, as illustrated in 

box 110 in Figure 4A, box 140 in Figure 4B, and box 170 in Figure 4C, a preliminary 

determination is first made by the interface. Such determination pertains to whether the car radio 

is powered on and in “CD player mode”, as illustrated by boxes 106, 136, and 166 in Figures 

4A-C. (’786 Patent, col 12, ll. 26-30.) Once a positive determination is made that the car radio 

is powered on, a “CD player presence signal” is generated and continuously transmitted in order 

 

5

 “The integration system connects to and interacts with the car stereo at any available port of the car stereo, such as 

a CD input port, a satellite input, or other known type of connection. If the car stereo system is an after-market car 

stereo system, the present invention generates a signal that is sent to the car stereo to keep same in an operational 

state and responsive to external data and signals.” (’786 Patent, col. 2, ll. 29-35 (emphasis added).) 

6

 “Beginning in step 110, a signal is generated by the present invention indicating that a CD play/changer is present, 

and the signal is continuously transmitted to the car stereo.” (’786 Patent, col. 12, ll. 29-32; see also col 13, ll. 15-

18; col 13, ll. 62-66; col 14, ll. 49-51; col 15, ll. 35-38; col 16, ll. 12-15; col 16, ll. 57-60.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 14 of 42 PageID: 5439
15 

to prevent the car stereo from shutting off, entering sleep mode, or otherwise being unresponsive 

to signals and/or data from an external source. (’786 Patent, col 12, ll. 32-35.) However, said 

“CD player presence signal” need not be generated if the car radio is an OEM car radio. (Id. at ll. 

35-36; see also col 13, ll. 18-19.) Thus, the term “CD player presence signal” is not specifically 

added into the claim construction of device presence signal, as such a signal would not be 

generated if the car radio is an OEM car radio. 

Ford argues that the specification of ’786 Patent does not teach or mention generating a 

presence signal that indicates the presence of any device other than a CD player. (Ford Motor, 

Def. Br. at 12-13.) As to the claim term “device presence signal,” Ford has argued that the 

disputed term was missing from the original application and was added to the claims more than 

two years after the original application was filed. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 12.) Ford’s argument 

with regards to lack of support of the disputed term in the disclosure is not found to be 

persuasive. 

Original filing of claims and specification of the ’786 Patent recites the term “presence 

signal.” (’786 Patent, Specification at 26, ll. 15-20 and Claim 6,7

 filed Dec. 11, 2002; see also 

Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 12-13.) Here, “device presence signal” and “presence signal” are 

considered the same, as stating one or the other would not add a different meaning, or be 

construed differently, such that a person of ordinary skill in this field of technology would be 

confused or designate different meaning to these terms. 

 Ford has further argued that the disputed term should look to the description of CD 

changer presence signal in the specification and construe device presence signal to require a 

signal indicating that a CD changer is present. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 13.) In other words, Ford 

 

7

 “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interface generates a CD player presence signal for maintaining the car 

stereo in a state responsive to processed data and audio signals.” ’786 Patent, Claim 6. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 15 of 42 PageID: 5440
16 

is asking this Court to limit the device to the CD changer embodiment that generates the signal. 

In support of this position, Ford has directed Court’s attention to col. 13, ll. 15-18 of ’786 Patent. 

This Court disagrees with Ford’s argument that the disputed term should be limited to the CD 

player embodiment. 

Figure 6 of the specification illustrates a flowchart processing logic for determining and 

handling various device types connected to the auxiliary input ports. (’786 Patent, col. 20, ll. 5-

7.) The present invention can sense device types connected to the auxiliary input ports, and can 

integrate same with the car stereo. (Id. at ll. 8-10.) It is determined whether the device connected 

is CD player/charger, MP3 player, satellite receiver or a DAB receiver. (Id. at ll. 20-35.) Based 

on which device is connected to the auxiliary input, respective logic is invoked; for instance 

logic of block 108 of Fig. 4A is invoked for CD handling process, logic of block 138 of Fig. 4B 

is invoked for MP3 handling processes, etc. (Id. at 20-30.) 

Moreover, limiting claims to one embodiment would be contrary to the Federal Circuit’s 

formulation of the claim differentiation rule, which states: “when a patent claim does not contain 

a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim 

in determining either validity or infringement.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 

1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

Dependent claim 4, which depends off of independent claim 1, further defines the 

different types of after-market audio devices that can be connected, comprising a “CD player, 

CD changer, MP3 player, Digital Audio Broadcast (“DAB”) receiver, or satellite receiver.” (’786 

Patent, claim 4.) Independent claim 1, which recites an “after-market audio device,” is generic 

to the different types of “after-market audio devices” that can be connected with the interface, as 

it does not have a specific limitation to the type of after-market audio device that can be 

connected. (’786 Patent, claim 1.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 16 of 42 PageID: 5441
17 

Thus, based on the claim differentiation doctrine formulated by the Federal Circuit, 

limitation of a CD changer expressly present in dependent claim 4 should not be read into 

independent claim 1, particularly where the narrower dependent claim 4 is dependent upon the 

broader independent claim 1. 

Limiting the claim scope to one embodiment, CD changer, would be improper in light of 

the guidelines set forth by the Federal Circuit, the intrinsic evidence, and when independent 

claims are generic to all embodiments. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that even when 

the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims will not be limited to that 

embodiment unless there is a clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope. Liebel Flarsheim 

Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004); ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 

F.3d 1082, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Apex Inc. v. Rarotam Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1377 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court construes the disputed term “Device Presence 

Signal” as “transmission of a continuous signal indicating an audio device is present.” 

C. “Auxiliary Input Source” 

The disputed term, “auxiliary input source” is recited in claims of the ’786 Patent, for 

electrically connecting one or more auxiliary input sources external to the car stereo and the 

after-market audio device: 

a third connector electrically connectable to one or more 

auxiliary input sources external to the car stereo and the 

after-market audio device. 

(’786 Patent, claim 1, ll. 6 (emphasis added)). 

This Court construes the disputed term “auxiliary input source” as “a device that outputs 

audio by headphone jack or other connector.” Both parties, Ford and Marlowe, have agreed on 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 17 of 42 PageID: 5442
18 

the definition of this claim term in the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed by the parties, 

pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.3. (Ford Motor, ECF No. 89 at 2.) 

In Dice Electronics, LTI has submitted a supplemental Markman brief to address the 

“auxiliary input source” term used in the claims of ’786 Patent. (Dice Electronics, ECF No. 221, 

at 2-3.) LTI acknowledges the agreement between Marlowe and Ford regarding the “input 

sources” term, as stated in the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed by the parties. (Dice 

Electronics, ECF No. 221 at 3 (citing Ford Motor, ECF No. 89).) However, LTI fails to 

acknowledge that Marlowe and Ford have also agreed to the claim term “auxiliary input 

sources,” which is being defined as a portable device that outputs audio by headphone jack or 

connector. (Ford Motor, ECF No. 89 at 2). 

LTI has proposed a different claim construction for the disputed term, and has asked the 

Court to break up the claim term into two terms – “auxiliary” and “input sources,” wherein 

“auxiliary” is defined as supplementary. (Dice Electronics, ECF No. 221 at 3.) In support, LTI 

has provided the dictionary definition of auxiliary. (Id.) 

In construing the claims of a patent, the inventor’s words that are used to describe the 

invention—the inventor's lexicography—must be understood and interpreted by the court as they 

would be understood and interpreted by a person in that field of technology. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1313 (citing Multiform Desiccants, Inc., 133 F.3d at 1477). However, the specification may 

reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it 

would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs. Phillips, 415 F.3d 

at 1313 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc., 288 F.3d at 1366). 

Here, taking the dictionary definition of the term “auxiliary” would be improper in light 

of the specialized meaning in the context in the specification and through industry usage. 

Throughout the specification of the ’786 Patent, “auxiliary input source” is used synonymously 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 18 of 42 PageID: 5443
19 

with after-market devices such as digital MP3 players, CD changers, and/or audio broadcast 

(DAB) receivers. (’786 Patent, col. 2, ll. 22-29 and ll. 60-67.) Moreover, figures 2D, 2E, 2F, and 

2G, which represent alternate embodiments of the invention, illustrate auxiliary input sources 

(35) being “integrated” with an after-market car stereo, just like a CD player. (’786 Patent col. 

6, ll. 44-67 to col. 7, ll. 61.) 

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “supplementary” or “supplement” as: something 

that is added to something else in order to make it complete.8

 The device, which is going to be 

integrated with the “interface,” like any after-market audio device, will be supplementary, in 

functional and structural sense, as it completes the connection and integrates with the car-stereo. 

(See “Interface” under section A.) 

The Court’s construction of “auxiliary input source” as meaning “a device that outputs 

audio by headphone jack or other connector,” inevitably infers “supplementary” from this 

definition because the interface, as discussed above, is a physically separate device that is 

introduced into the environment of the car for connecting audio devices that are alien to the car 

environment. (’786 Patent, col. 1, ll. 60-64 and col. 4, ll. 64-67.) 

LTI’s breaking apart of the disputed term into “auxiliary” and “input sources,” and 

defining it differently from what is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in this field of 

technology, would run counter to the industry custom and usage of said term. The ordinary and 

customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including “the words of 

the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic 

evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state 

of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. If extrinsic reference sources, such as dictionaries, 

 

8

 Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, Supplement, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supplement, 

last visited Sept. 18, 2014. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 19 of 42 PageID: 5444
20 

evidence more than one definition for the term, the intrinsic record must be consulted to identify 

which of the different possible definitions is most consistent with applicant’s use of the terms. 

Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Here, extrinsic evidence presented by Marlowe, which represents usage of the disputed 

claim term in its ordinary and customary meaning, defines the term to be “a device that outputs 

audio by headphone jack or other connector.” (Dice Electronics, Cho Dec., Exhibits C-Q.) 

D. “Operational State” 

The disputed term, “operational state” is recited in claims of the ’786 Patent, for 

responsive to signals generated by the after-market device. 

generating and transmitting a device presence signal to the 

car stereo using a first code portion pre-programmed into 

and executed by the microcontroller to maintain the car 

stereo in an operational state responsive to signals 

generated by the after-market device, the device presence 

signal based upon the car stereo 

(’786 Patent, claims 49, 57, 66, 76, 86, 92, and 99 (emphasis added).) 

This Court construes the disputed term “operational state” as “in a state responsive to 

data and/or command signals from the external device.” Both parties, Ford and Marlowe, have 

agreed on the definition of this claim term in the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed by the 

parties, pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.3. (Ford Motor, ECF No. 89 at 2.) 

However, in Dice Electronics, LTI has submitted a supplemental Markman brief to 

address the “operational state” term used in the claims of ’786 Patent. (Dice Electronics, ECF 

No. 221 at 5-6.) LTI contends that said disputed term should be construed as ready condition, 

and not responsive to data and/or command signals from the external device. (Id.) 

This Court adopts the definition agreed by Ford and Marlowe for “operational state” as 

including data and/or command signals from the external device because there is adequate 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 20 of 42 PageID: 5445
21 

support for such interpretation in the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand operational state in present disclosure to mean commands from an external device. 

The specification recites, if the car stereo system is an after-market car stereo system, the present 

invention generates a signal that is sent to the car stereo to keep same in an operational state and 

responsive to external data and signals. (’786 Patent, col. 2, ll. 32-35.) The primary purpose and 

objective of the ’786 Patent is to achieve integration of various after-market devices with the car 

stereo system such that information can be exchanged between the after-market device and the 

car stereo. (’786 Patent, col. 1, ll. 5-12; col. 1, ll. 60-64; col. 4, ll. 26-32; see also Ford Motor,

Def. Br. at 11.) 

As noted in the specification, and discussed below under means plus function section, the 

circuitry disclosed has plurality of discrete components such as resistors, diodes, capacitors, 

transistors, etc., that provide the hardware framework with the microcontroller to act as an 

interface in integrating an after-market device with a car stereo. (’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 45-60; 

col. 10, ll. 19-24.) 

Thus, in light of the teachings in the specification, one of ordinary skill in this field of 

technology would understand “operational state,” in the present invention, as “in a state 

responsive to data and/or command signals from the external device.” 

E. “Pre-Programmed” 

The disputed term, “pre-programmed,” is stated in various claims of the ’786 Patent, with 

reference to pre-programmed code to be executed: 

said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 21 of 42 PageID: 5446
22 

a first pre-programmed code portion for remotely 

controlling the after-market audio device using the car 

stereo . . . ; 

a second pre-programmed code portion for receiving data 

from the after-market audio device through said second 

connector in a format incompatible with the car stereo . . . ; 

a third pre-programmed code portion for switching to one 

or more auxiliary input sources connected to said third 

electrical connector. 

(’786 Patent, independent claims 1, 25, 33, 44, 49, 57, 66, 76, 86, 92 and 99 (emphasis added).) 

This Court adopts the claim construction for the disputed term “Pre-Programmed” to be 

construed as “programmed prior to its use in the normal course.” Both parties, Ford and 

Marlowe, have agreed to a similar definition but have included “by the consumer” in the 

definition, as noted in the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed by the parties, pursuant to 

Local Patent Rule 4.3. (Ford Motor, ECF No. 89 at 2.) 

In Dice Electronics, LTI has submitted a supplemental Markman brief to address the 

“pre-programmed” term used in the claims of ’786 Patent. (Dice Electronics, ECF No. 221 at 6-

7.) LTI contends that said disputed term should be construed as pre-programmed during 

manufacture. (Id.) 

The specification teaches that the microcontroller DD1 comprises the 16F872 

microcontroller manufactured by MICROCHIP, Inc. The 16F872 chip is a CMOS, flash-based, 

8-bit microcontroller having 64 bytes of EEPROM data memory, self-programming capability, 

an ICD, 5 channels of 10 bit Analog-to-Digital (A/D) converters, 2 timers, capture/compare/ 

PWM functions, a USART, and a synchronous serial port configurable as either a 3-wire serial 

peripheral interface or a 2-wire inter-integrated circuit bus. (’786 Patent, col. 10, ll. 1-12; col. 11, 

ll. 47-56.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 22 of 42 PageID: 5447
23 

Based on the teachings, a person of ordinary skill in this field of technology would be 

capable of self-programming or pre-programming the device based on the car stereo or aftermarket device that is going to be integrated with the microcontroller. Likewise, a consumer who 

is not technologically savvy in computer programming or coding would be able to use the 

microcontroller device as is, with a program already installed therein during manufacturing and 

assembly process. 

Thus, limiting the definition of pre-programmed to “by a consumer” or “during 

manufacture” would be inappropriate in light of the teachings in the specification, and custom 

and usage of such microcontrollers by a person of ordinary skill in this field of technology. 

F. “External” 

The disputed term, “external,” is stated in various claims of the ’786 Patent, with 

reference to an after-market device: 

a second connector electrically connectable to an aftermarket audio device external to the car stereo; 

a third connector electrically connectable to one or more 

auxiliary input sources external to the car stereo and the 

after-market audio device; 

(’786 Patent, independent claims 1, 33, 57, 86, 92, and 99.) 

 The Court construes the disputed term “external” as meaning “an after-market device that 

is outside and alien to the environment of an OEM or after-market stereo system.” As previously 

stated, the inventive concept of ’786 Patent relates to an audio device integration system, 

wherein one or more after-market audio devices such as CD player, CD changer, MP3 player, 

etc., can be integrated with factory-installed or after-market car stereo systems. (’786 Patent, col. 

1, ll. 5-12; col. 4, ll. 26-32.) The specification clearly states “allowing a device that is alien to 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 23 of 42 PageID: 5448
24 

the environment of an existing OEM or after-market car stereo to be utilized thereby.” (’786 

Patent, col. 4, ll. 66-67). 

 Precision Interface Electronics, Inc. (“Precision”), one of the defendants in the Dice 

Electronics matter, has persuasively argued in its brief that during prosecution history numerous 

U.S. Patents were made of record that taught and illustrated integrating an external audio device 

with a car stereo. (Dice Electronics, ECF No. 151, Precision Def. Br. at 15.) Disclosure of prior 

art references such as the Falcon Patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,993,615 (filed Oct. 11, 2005)), the 

Miyazaki, et al., Patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,163,079 (filed Mar. 14, 2002)); and the Owens, et al., 

Patent Application (Application No. 09/752,269 (filed Dec. 29, 2000)), clearly indicates that one 

of ordinary skill in this field of technology, at the time of the invention, would have understood 

said claim term to refer to devices that are external or alien to environment of an existing OEM, 

and that were being introduced into the environment and made compatible with OEM or aftermarket car stereo. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed term “external” as “an aftermarket device that is outside of and alien to the environment of an OEM or after-market stereo 

system.” 

G. “Portable” 

The disputed term, “portable,” is stated in various claims of the ’786 Patent, with 

reference to an after-market device: 

a storage area remote from a car stereo for storing the 

portable device; 

a second electrical connector connectable to a portable 

MP3 player external to the car stereo 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 24 of 42 PageID: 5449
25 

(’786 Patent, independent claims 44, 57, and 92.) The Court construes the disputed term 

“portable” as meaning “capable of being moved about,” which is consistent with inventive 

concept of ’786 Patent, intrinsic evidence, and Federal Circuit case law, i.e. Computer Docking 

Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The Court agrees that the 

plain meaning of “portable” and its use in the specification and prosecution history require the 

computer to be “capable of being moved about”.). 

The only reference in the specification of ’786 Patent to “portable” is noted in col. 20, ll. 

64-67 to col. 21, ll. 1-20, with respect to Figures 7A-7B. Other references to “portable” are found 

in the claims, inter alia: portable CD player, portable MP3 player, portable satellite receiver, 

portable Digital Audio Broadcast (DAB) receiver. (See ‘786 Patent, claims 93, 94, 95 and 96.) 

Thus, keeping in mind that the inventive concept of present invention is to integrate an aftermarket audio device with factory-installed or after-market car stereo systems, and in light of the 

specification, it would be understood that the portable after-market device is capable of being 

moved about. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed term “portable” as “an aftermarket device that is capable of being moved about.” 

H. MEANS PLUS FUNCTION TERMS 

The construction of “means plus function” limitations in a claim language are governed 

by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): 

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed 

as a means or step for performing a specified function 

without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support 

thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the 

corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the 

specification and equivalents thereof. 

35 U.S.C. § 112(f). 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 25 of 42 PageID: 5450
26 

Construing claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is a two-step process. First, the Court 

must identify the function being performed and then the Court must determine the structure 

recited in the specification for performing that function. Medtronic, Inc. v. Adv. Cardiovascular 

Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (even though structure is capable of performing 

function, if it is not clearly linked, it is not a corresponding structure). If the specification does 

not contain a corresponding structure, the claim is invalid as indefinite. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. 

Carfusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

When the claim function is implemented by computer, the specification must disclose an 

“algorithm” for performing the claimed function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 

F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “[T]he corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a 

computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Id. at 1339. The 

algorithm may be disclosed “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, 

in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar 

Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

A claim is considered indefinite if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of 

its scope. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

If one skilled in the art would be able to identify the structure, material or acts from the 

description in the specification for performing the recited function, then the requirements of 35 

U.S.C. § 112(b) are satisfied. In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Compliance 

with the written description requirement is a question of fact which must be resolved on a caseby-case basis. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the 

specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function 

recited in the claim.” Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 26 of 42 PageID: 5451
27 

(citing B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even if the 

specification discloses a “corresponding structure,” the disclosure must be adequate; the patent’s 

specification must provide “an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that [claim] 

language. Noah Systems, 675 F.3d at 1311. 

The court in Noah Systems further explained: 

If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the 

applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly 

claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 

112. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 and ¶ 6, therefore, “a means-plusfunction clause is indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art 

would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and 

associate it with the corresponding function in the claim. 

Id. at 1311-12 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

The functional limitations recited in the claims, which remain in dispute, have been 

addressed below. 

1. “means for converting video information into a format compatible with the car 

stereo” 

The above claim language is recited in dependent claim 87. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is conversion of video information into a format compatible with the 

car stereo. 

Marlowe has pointed out various figures and sections in the specification that are 

supposed to recite structure for said means plus function language. (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 15.) 

Upon reviewing the designated sections in the specification, this Court finds that there is no 

corresponding structure that performs the function of converting video information into a format 

compatible with the car stereo. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 27 of 42 PageID: 5452
28 

Cited sections of the specification state conversion of commands into a format 

recognizable by the CD player/charger, issued by car stereos of various car manufacturers such 

as GM, Honda, Ford, etc. (’786 Patent, col. 12, ll. 55-65; col. 13, ll. 35-45; col. 14, ll. 20-25.) 

Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4G represent flowcharts showing processing logic according to the 

present invention. (’786 Patent col. 12, ll. 4.) In other words, flowcharts represented in such 

figures only illustrate the workflow or process, showing the steps as boxes of various kinds, and 

their order by connecting them with arrows. The boxes represented in the flowcharts do not 

represent any structure that would perform that function. 

As persuasively pointed out by Ford in its Markman brief: 

Courts have previously held that such high-level flowcharts do not 

constitute algorithms. For example, in Noah Systems . . . 675 F.3d 

[at] 1305 . . . , the patent contained a flow chart with a single box 

(“box 44”) that stated “enter change order(s), recording instruction 

adjustments, manual transactions including line item category 

code.” The Federal Circuit stated that the claimed function taking 

place within box 44 of the flowchart “merely recite[d] functional, 

not structural, language.” Id. at 1316-1317.” It has also been held 

that there is no structure where a flowchart and corresponding text 

only described the results to be obtained without describing how to 

achieve those results. In re Amoya, 656 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). 

(Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 19). 

Here, flowcharts illustrated in Figures 4A-G, 5, and 6 merely describe the results to be 

obtained without describing how to achieve the results of claimed function taking place; there is 

no recitation of the structure that will perform the function of conversion of video information 

into a format compatible with the car stereo. 

Even if the circuits and electric wiring illustrated in figures 3A-D are considered as 

appropriate “structure” that performs the function of converting the video into a format 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 28 of 42 PageID: 5453
29 

compatible with the car stereo, the disclosure is still silent on teaching an algorithm that can 

perform the function of converting video information compatible with the car stereo. 

The Federal Circuit has held that when the claim function is implemented by a computer, 

the specification must disclose an “algorithm” for performing the claimed function. WMS 

Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1999). An algorithm can 

take the form of a mathematical formula, prose, flow chart, or expression in any other manner 

that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 

(Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Transcript of Markman Hearing (“1T”), 1T103:20-104:3 (“Mr. LeRoy: 

[a]lgorithm is an open-ended type thing. It could be a flow chart, it could be a pseudo code, 

prose, you can describe it . . . it has to have some format . . . the public has to have been able to 

pick up his patent and find it.”). 

Here, there is no disclosure directed to the structure or algorithm that would perform the 

claimed function of converting video information into a format compatible with the car stereo. 

Since the flowcharts illustrated in figures 4A-G, 5 and 6, and their description in the 

specification do not provide adequate structure to perform the function of converting video 

information into a format compatible with the car stereo, said means plus function claim 

language is found indefinite as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claiming the 

invention as required by second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

2. “first pre-programmed means for generating a device presence signal” 

The above claim language is recited in independent claim 92. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is generating a device presence signal to the car stereo. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 29 of 42 PageID: 5454
30 

Marlowe has pointed out various figures and sections in the specification that are 

supposed to recite structure for said means plus function language. (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 15.) 

Upon reviewing the designated sections in the specification, this Court finds that there is 

adequate structure that performs the function of generating a device presence signal to the car 

stereo. 

 As discussed under Section B, this Court construes the disputed term “Device Presence 

Signal” as meaning “transmission of a continuous signal indicating an audio device is present.” 

Figure 6 of the specification illustrates a flowchart processing logic for determining and handling 

various device types connected to the auxiliary input ports. (’786 Patent, col. 20, ll. 5-7.) The 

present invention can sense device types connected to the auxiliary input ports, and can 

integrate same with the car stereo. (Id. at ll. 8-10.) The present invention determines whether the 

device connected is CD player/charger, MP3 player, satellite receiver or a DAB receiver. (Id. at 

ll. 20-35.) 

 As to the structure performing said function, Ford has argued the WMS Gaming case in 

support of its position that said means plus functional language, along with other functional 

languages in dispute, lack the teaching of an algorithm in the disclosure. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. 

at 15-17.) In WMS Gaming, the Federal Circuit held that in a means-plus-function claim in which 

the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, 

the disclosed structure is the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed 

algorithm, and not the general purpose computer. WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349. The Federal 

Circuit found that the structure of a microprocessor programmed to carry out an algorithm is 

limited by the disclosed algorithm. Id. A general purpose computer, or microprocessor, 

programmed to carry out an algorithm creates “a new machine, because a general purpose 

computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 30 of 42 PageID: 5455
31 

particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.” Id. (citing In re Alappat, 33 

F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed.Cir.1994) (en banc)); see also In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399–1400 

(C.C.P.A. 1969) (“[I]f a machine is programmed in a certain new and unobvious way, it is 

physically different from the machine without that program; its memory elements are differently 

arranged.”)). 

 The Court acknowledges that the WMS Gaming case requires disclosure of a programmed 

“algorithm” in the specification when the special purpose computer or microprocessor is 

programmed to carry out an algorithm. However, the Court does not agree with Ford’s argument 

that structure is limited to an algorithm when the function being performed is generating, 

receiving, or transmitting signals. 

For instance, the computer or microprocessor (U1), illustrated in Figure 3A, is used for 

processing or formatting a signal between a car stereo and an after-market device. (’786 Patent, 

col. 17, ll. 29-30 and 63-67; Table 1; col. 18, ll. 10-15; and Table 2.) The algorithm, which is the 

required structure under standard set forth by WMS Gaming, is disclosed in the respective tables. 

In contrast, when it comes to generating, receiving, and transmitting signals, the microcontroller 

is working in conjunction with numerous discrete connectors such as ports, power sources, 

resistors, diodes, capacitors, transistors, transformers amplifiers, and oscillators, among other 

structural components that aid in generating, receiving and transmitting signals. (’786 Patent, 

col. 9, ll. 45-60; col. 10, ll. 19-24.) Said discrete components provide the structural hardware 

framework for the microcontroller to act as an interface in integrating an after-market device 

with a car stereo. (’786 Patent , col. 1, ll. 5-12; col. 1, ll. 60-64; col. 4, ll. 26-32.) 

In Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 

2004), the Federal Circuit determined that the term “circuit” itself connotes structure, and the 

contextual language that describes the objective and operation of the claimed “circuit” conveys 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 31 of 42 PageID: 5456
32 

the structural arrangement of the circuit’s components and provides additional limiting structure. 

The Federal Circuit further stated that “The Dictionary of Computing 75 (4th ed.1996) defines 

‘circuit’ as ‘the combination of a number of electrical devices and conductors that, when 

interconnected to form a conducting path, fulfill some desired function.’” Id. at 1320 (citations 

omitted). 

Thus, when the structure-connoting term “circuit” is coupled with a description of the 

circuit’s operation, sufficient structural meaning generally will be conveyed to persons of 

ordinary skill in the art, and § 112 ¶ 6 presumptively will not apply. Id. at 1320. 

 This Court finds structure associated with generating a device presence signal, ’786 

Patent, col. 8, ll. 31-45 discloses that ports J2A1, X2, RCH, and LCH, connected to a power 

source (i.e. battery) that are provided for allowing connection between the interface system of the 

present invention and an after-market device, or an auxiliary input source. Figure 3A of the ’786 

Patent illustrates ports J2A1, X2, RCH, and LCH as connected to an after-market device or to an 

auxiliary input source. (’786 Patent, col. 8, ll. 42-45.) 

 Specification of ’786 Patent further teaches that plurality of ports J2A1, X2, RCH, and 

LCH are connected to and interface with a microcontroller (U1) with hardware components such 

as resistors, diodes, capacitors, and oscillators. (’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 9-13.) The microcontroller 

(U1), which is a 16F628 microcontroller manufactured by MICROCHIP, Inc., comprises 8-bit 

microcontroller having an internal 4MHz internal oscillator, 128 bytes of EEPROM data 

memory, a capture/compare/PWM, a USART, 2 comparators, and a programmable voltage 

reference. (’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 1-5.) 

It would be appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in this field that upon connection of 

an after-market device with one of the plurality of ports, which interface with the microcontroller 

via hardware illustrated in Figure 3A, for instance, forms a complete functioning circuit that 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 32 of 42 PageID: 5457
33 

results in generation of a device presence signal. (’786 Patent, col. 2, ll. 29-35; col. 8, ll. 65-67 to 

col. 9, ll. 1-8.) 

Since the circuit diagrams illustrated in Figure 3A, for instance, accompanied with 

description in the specification, and guidance by the Federal Circuit on circuitry, constitutes 

sufficient structure to perform the desired function, said means plus functional claim language is 

found definite as it particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention as required by 

second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

3. “first pre-programmed means for...transmitting the signal to the car stereo to 

maintain the car stereo in an operational state” 

The above claim language is recited in independent claim 92. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is transmitting the signal to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo 

in an operational state. 

Marlowe has pointed out various figures and sections in the specification that are 

supposed to recite structure for said means plus function language. (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 15.) 

Upon reviewing the designated sections in the specification, this Court finds that there is 

corresponding adequate structure and an algorithm that performs the function of transmitting the 

signal to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an operational state. 

The specification of ’786 Patent explicitly provides an algorithm, disclosed in Table 2, 

which is in the form of computer code that illustrates how data is converted from the aftermarket device into a format understandable by the car stereo, in this case car stereo of a BMW. 

As stated in the specification, the after-market device and the car stereo are in communication 

with each other via the interface: 

The code portion shown in Table 2 receives a STOP 

confirmation message from the CD player, in a format 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 33 of 42 PageID: 5458
34 

proprietary to the CD player. Preferably, the received 

command is stored in a first buffer, such as 

BMW_Send_buff. The procedure “Load_CD_stop_msg” 

retrieves status information, magazine information, current 

disc, and current track information from the CD changer, 

and constructs a response containing this information. 

Then, a checksum is calculated and stored in another 

buffer. The response and checksum are in a format 

compatible with the BMW stereo, and are ready for 

dispatching to the car stereo. 

(’786 Patent, col. 18, ll. 51-62 (emphasis added).) Thus, there is an algorithm disclosed in the 

specification that performs the function of transmitting the signal to the car stereo to maintain 

the car stereo in an operational state. 

 Moreover, the specification discloses that the circuit disclosed in Figure 3B, for instance, 

has a plurality of resistors, diodes, capacitors, transistors, transformers, amplifiers, oscillator, 

among other structural components that provide the hardware framework, for the microcontroller 

to act as an interface in integrating an after-market device with a car stereo. (’786 Patent, col. 9, 

ll. 45-60; col. 10, ll. 19-24.) The interconnected framework of structural components, i.e. power 

source, amplifiers, transistors, capacitors, etc., between the after-market device and the car 

stereo, via the microcontroller, completes the circuitry, which teaches one of ordinary skill in the 

art that said structural components allow the channels of communication for receiving and 

transmitting signals. 

In view of the computer code algorithm provided in Table 2, structural features disclosed 

in various circuitry embodiments in the specification, and guidance by the Federal Circuit in 

Linear Technology Corp, 379 F.3d at 1320-21, as discussed above, the Declaration of Thomas 

Matheson regarding specification lacking algorithm for the microcontroller for transmitting the 

signal after it is generated by the microcontroller, is not found to be persuasive. (Ford Motor, 

Matheson Dec., at ¶ 8.) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 34 of 42 PageID: 5459
35 

Since the computer code illustrated in Table 2, and structural features disclosed in various 

circuitry embodiments in the specification, constitutes sufficient structure, said means plus 

function claim language is found to be definite as it particularly points out and distinctly claims 

the invention as required by second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

4. “means for remotely controlling the portable audio device using the car stereo 

by receiving a control command from the car stereo in a format incompatible 

with the portable audio device” 

The above claim language is recited in independent claim 92. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is remotely controlling the portable audio device by receiving a 

control command from the car stereo in a format incompatible with portable audio device. The 

key function being performed by said claim limitations is the receiving of the commands by the 

interface system. 

Marlowe has pointed out various figures and sections in the specification that are 

supposed to recite structure for said means plus function language. (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 16.) 

Upon reviewing the designated sections in the specification, this Court finds that there is 

adequate structure that performs the function of receiving the signal from the car stereo in a 

format incompatible with portable audio device. 

Ford has argued that ’786 Patent does not disclose an algorithm for receiving the signal 

from the car stereo, which is the structure required to perform the functional claim language of 

receiving signal from the car stereo. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 17.) In response, Marlowe has 

argued that ’786 Patent discloses algorithm by using text, description, prose, flow chart, table, 

diagram, figure, code portion and other manners in combination to provide sufficient structure 

for the claim elements having means plus function terms. (Ford Motor, Pl. Br. at 18 n.14.) 

Marlowe further purports that since Ford has agreed to the claim language having structure in the 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 35 of 42 PageID: 5460
36 

specification – “means for . . . processing the control command into a formatted control 

command” – the disputed claim term pertaining to means for receiving a control command, 

should be attributed the same structure because they both pertain to the same function. (Id. at 5 

(emphasis added).) 

As an initial matter, this Court does not attribute receiving and processing of a control 

command from a car stereo in order to control a portable audio device as the same function. The 

specification of ’786 Patent recites that the interface monitors the control buttons of the car 

stereo for CD operational commands. (’786 Patent col. 12, ll. 50-51.) When a command, such as 

forward, reverse, play, stop, etc., is received by the interface, it is then converted into a format 

recognized by a CD player/changer. (Id. at ll. 52-59.) There are two different functional steps 

taking place – receiving of the command and converting or processing of the command that can 

be interpreted by the after-market device such as a CD player/changer. 

As for the structure that performs the disputed functional language - remotely controlling 

the portable audio device by receiving a control command from the car stereo in a format 

incompatible with portable audio device, Marlowe has directed this Court’s attention to Figure 

3D, col. 11, lines 19-46. Figure 3D represents a circuit diagram for integrating a satellite or DAB 

receiver with a car radio. The specification teaches how ports J1 and J2, which are connected to 

an after-market device and a car radio; a microcontroller, which is comprised of a 16F873 

microcontroller manufactured by MICROCHIP, Inc.; and a plurality of resistors (R1-R7), 

capacitors (C1-C2), and amplifier (A1), among other components, receive, process, format, and 

dispatch formatted commands to and from car stereo and the after-market device. (’786 Patent 

col. 11, ll. 30-67.) 

The specification also teaches that microcontroller receives control commands such as 

button or key sequences, initiated by a user at control panel of the car radio and received at the 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 36 of 42 PageID: 5461
37 

connectors J4A and J4B or J3. (’786 Patent col. 9, ll. 49-55.) Discrete connectors, such as 

resistors, diodes, capacitors, transistors, transformers, amplifiers, oscillator, among other 

components, are provided for interfacing the microcontroller with the hardware connected to 

ports J4A, J4B, J3, J5L1, etc. (’786 Patent col. 10, ll. 19-25.) 

The interconnected framework of structural components, i.e. amplifiers, transistors, 

capacitors, etc., between the after-market device and the car stereo, via the microcontroller, 

teaches that a person of ordinary skill in the art that said structural components allow the 

channels of communication for receiving and transmitting signals. (’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 45-60; 

col. 10, ll. 19-24; see also Linear Technology Corp., 379 F.3d at 1320-21, (“term “circuit” itself 

connotes structure and the contextual language that describes the objective and operation of the 

claimed “circuit” conveys the structural arrangement of the circuit's components and provides 

additional limiting structure”).) 

The argument presented by Ford as to the disclosure lacking an algorithm, which is the 

required structure for a computer or microcontroller, under guidelines of WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d 

at 1349, is not persuasive when the claimed function is only receiving a control command and 

not processing or formatting the signal. The circuit diagrams, illustrating various discrete 

connectors, such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, transformers, amplifiers, are the structural 

components that interface the microcontroller with the hardware connected to ports J4A, J4B, J3, 

J5L1, etc., to receive a control command. (’786 Patent col. 10, ll. 19-25.) 

Since the structural features disclosed in various circuitry embodiments in the 

specification constitutes sufficient structure, the means-plus-function claim language is found to 

be definite as it particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention as required by second 

paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 37 of 42 PageID: 5462
38 

5. “means for remotely controlling the portable audio device using the car stereo 

by . . . processing the control command into a formatted control command 

compatible with the portable audio device” 

The above claim language is recited in independent claim 92. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is remotely controlling the portable audio device by processing a 

control command from the car stereo in a format compatible with portable audio device. The 

key function being performed by said claim limitations is the processing of the commands by the 

interface system. 

As agreed by both parties, said functional claim language has adequate structure recited 

in the specification of ’786 Patent. (Ford Motor, Def. Br. at 16-17; Pl. Br. at 18-19.) 

This Court adopts both parties position that the algorithm performing the function of 

processing a control command from the car stereo in a format compatible with portable audio 

device, is recited in Table 1 of the specification. (’786 Patent, col. 17, ll. 29-30 and 63-67 (“[A] 

sample code portion is shown in Table 1, below, for converting control signals from a BMW car 

stereo into a format understandable by a CD changer.”).) 

Here, the microprocessor performing the function of processing the control command 

into a “formatted” command results in a new machine and a special purpose computer because it 

takes in a control signal and converts it into a format understandable by the after-market device, 

and vice versa. (’786 Patent, col. 17, ll. 29-30 and 63-67; see also WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 

1348 (“A general purpose computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm 

creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose 

computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from 

program software.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).) 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 38 of 42 PageID: 5463
39 

Only when the microprocessor is performing the function of processing or formatting a 

command signal, it results in transformation of the device from a general purpose computer into 

a special purpose computer. As a result, under the guidelines of WMS Gaming, the structure of 

special purpose computer or microcontroller is dictated by the code or algorithm illustrated in 

Tables 1 and 2 of ’786 Patent. Since the computer code illustrated in Table 1 constitutes an 

algorithm that will perform the function of processing a control command from the car stereo 

in a format compatible with portable audio device, said means plus function claim language is 

found to be definite as it particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention as required by 

second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

6. “means for remotely controlling the portable audio device using the car stereo 

by . . . transmitting the formatted control command to the portable audio device 

for execution thereby” 

The above claim language is recited in independent claim 92. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is transmitting the formatted control command to the portable audio 

device for execution thereby. The key function being performed by said claim limitations is the 

transmitting of the commands by the interface system to the portable audio device or aftermarket device. 

As discussed above, the specification discloses a circuit in Figure 3B, for instance, having 

a plurality of resistors, diodes, capacitors, transistors, transformers, amplifiers, oscillator, among 

other structural components that provide the hardware framework, for the microcontroller to act 

as an interface in integrating an after-market device with a car stereo. (’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 45-

60; col. 10, ll. 19-24.) The ’786 Patent recites, “microcontroller DD1 receives control 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 39 of 42 PageID: 5464
40 

commands, such as button or key sequences, initiated by a user at control panel of the car radio 

and received at the connectors J4A and J4B or J3, processes and formats same, and dispatches

the formatted commands to the CD player and auxiliary input source via connectors J1 or J2.” 

(’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 49-55.) Plurality of discrete connectors as noted above, i.e. resistors, 

transformers, amplifiers, etc., allow the interfacing of microcontroller with the after-market 

device in order to transmit signals. (’786 Patent, col. 10, ll. 20-30.) 

Thus, the interconnected framework of structural components, i.e. amplifiers, transistors, 

capacitors, etc., between the after-market device and the car-stereo, via the microcontroller, 

teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that said structural components allow the channels of 

communication for receiving and transmitting signals. 

Since the discrete components interconnected to form a framework to interface the 

microcontroller with the after-market device, to perform the function of transmitting the 

formatted control command to the portable audio device, said means plus function claim 

language is found to be definite as it particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention as 

required by second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

7. “means for transmitting audio from the portable audio device to the car stereo” 

The above claim language is recited in independent claim 92. The above claim element is 

recited in a mean-plus-function limitation and is thus subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f) analysis. The 

function being performed is transmitting audio from the portable audio device to the car radio. 

The key function being performed by said claim limitations is the transmitting of the commands 

by the interface system to the portable audio device or after-market device. 

Analysis for said means plus functional language mirrors that of the above functional 

language discussed under sections 3, 4 and 6. As discussed above, under section 6, the 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 40 of 42 PageID: 5465
41 

specification discloses circuit in Figure 3B, for instance, having plurality of resistors, diodes, 

capacitors, transistors, transformers, amplifiers, oscillator, among other structural components 

that provide the hardware framework, for the microcontroller to act as an interface in integrating 

an after-market device with a car stereo. (’786 Patent, col. 9, ll. 45-60; col. 10, ll. 19-24.) 

The ’786 Patent states, “microcontroller DD1 receives control commands, such as button 

or key sequences, initiated by a user at control panel of the car radio and received at the 

connectors J4A and J4B or J3, processes and formats same, and dispatches the formatted 

commands to the CD player and auxiliary input source via connectors J1 or J2.” (’786 Patent, 

col. 9, ll. 49-55.) A plurality of discrete connectors as noted above, i.e. resistors, transformers, 

amplifiers, etc., allow the interfacing of microcontroller with the after-market device in order to 

transmit signals. (’786 Patent, col. 10, ll. 20-30.) 

Thus, the interconnected framework of structural components, i.e. amplifiers, transistors, 

capacitors, etc., between the after-market device and the car-stereo, via the microcontroller, 

teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art that said structural components allow a channel of 

communication for receiving and transmitting signals. 

Since the discrete components interconnected to form a framework to interface the 

microcontroller with the after-market device, to perform the function of transmitting audio from 

the portable audio device to the car radio, said means plus function claim language is found to 

be definite as it particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention as required by the 

second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

January 16, 2015 s/Peter G. Sheridan 

 PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J. 

 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 41 of 42 PageID: 5466
42 

 

Case 3:10-cv-01199-PGS-DEA Document 225 Filed 01/20/15 Page 42 of 42 PageID: 5467