Opinion ID: 2758265
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “cross-point measuring means”

Text: Nintendo argues that the 3DS cannot satisfy the function of this claim element because of the following syllogism: camera bodies arranged in parallel have parallel optical axes that can never intersect to have a “crosspoint”; the camera bodies of the 3DS are arranged in parallel; so, the 3DS has parallel optical axes that do not have a “cross-point.” Nintendo thus insists that the 3DS cannot measure “cross-point information.” Nintendo contends instead that the accused software application uses image processing, which cannot provide “cross-point information.” We cannot agree with Nintendo. The major premise of Nintendo’s syllogism was disproved by Tomita’s submission of a 1993 technical paper. That paper shows cameras arranged in parallel can have intersecting optical axes under particular optical configurations. Indeed, 12 TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO., LTD. claim 8—dependent from claim 1—explicitly claims cameras “disposed in a parallel relationship.” Parent claim 1 cannot exclude the scope of dependent claim 8. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ([“A] claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.”). Claim 1 thus cannot be read to exclude cameras that are arranged in parallel. What is important is that the optical axes of the accused cameras intersect, and Tomita presented a theory of how that is so which the jury apparently credited. Moreover, Nintendo does not dispute that Tomita presented evidence to support the allegation that the “focus value” in the 3DS satisfies “cross-point information.” Instead, Nintendo argues that Tomita failed to prove certain factual issues under Nintendo’s own interpretation. See, e.g., Reply Br. 12 (“Tomita provides no evidence showing how the ‘focus value’ . . . is used to determine any distance relating to a cross-point of optical axes, as opposed to the convergence of displayed images.”). Failure to abide by Nintendo’s own interpretation of facts does not mean that there was a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict. Nintendo next contends that the 3DS does not satisfy the “cross-point measuring means” because the 3DS does not have the corresponding structure that uses any of the three techniques purportedly required by the district court’s construction. Instead, Tomita’s infringement theory was based on a fourth technique “based upon the position of picking up of an object.” Nintendo contends that this “fourth technique” was outside of the district court’s construction. Nintendo also disputes that the 3DS uses this “fourth technique” because “the 3DS does not recognize objects in images.” Appellants’ Br. 44-47. Nintendo is mistaken. The district court’s construction includes the description in column 3 lines 50–67 of TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO., LTD. 13 the ’664 patent. 2 This cited portion of the specification mentions “said cross-point measuring means calculates the cross-point based upon the position of picking-up of an object.” ’664 patent col. 3 ll. 64–66. Calculating the crosspoint “based upon the position of picking up of an object” is what Nintendo refers to as the “fourth technique” and it is included in the district court’s construction. Moreover, Nintendo does not rebut Tomita’s citation of evidence— including source code documentation, patent application, and Tomita’s expert testimony—used to show that the 3DS measures “focus value” based on objects in the scene thus allegedly satisfying the technique of “calculat[ing] the cross-point based upon the position of picking-up of an object.” Accordingly, we conclude that the jury’s finding that the 3DS satisfies the “cross-point measuring means” was supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of JMOL on the infringement of “cross-point measuring means.”