Opinion ID: 208680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: second circuit and third circuit

Text: We now turn to the second circuit and third circuit limitations, which appear in apparatus claims 2, 3, and 35, but not method claim 34. The Commission modified the ALJ's initial construction because the ALJ too narrowly construed the asserted claims as requiring that the `second' and `third' circuits be entirely distinct without common circuit elements, that every element in the second circuit be completely distinct from every element in the third circuit, and as precluding shared use of the same circuitry by the `second' and `third' circuits of the asserted sleep mode claims. Final Determination, slip op. at 46. Accordingly, the Commission found that even a difference such as having an additional [component] can cause the circuits to be different and distinct in their topology and their operation. Id. AATI does not appear to take issue with allowing the second and third circuits to differ by merely including an additional component, but instead contends that the proper construction requires that the additional component must participate[ ] in performing the claimed function. More specifically according to AATI, the additional component in the third circuit must at least help perform the function of that circuit and cannot be an arbitrary component, which is unrelated to the function of the third circuit. In contrast, both Linear and the Commission advocate that the Commission's construction is correct. We agree with the Commission's construction of second circuit and third circuit, defining the terms broadly to not require entirely separate and distinct circuits. Indeed, there is nothing in the claim language or specification that supports narrowly construing the terms to require a specific structural requirement or entirely distinct second and third circuits. Rather, the second and third circuits must only perform their stated functions. For example, what is required is that the second circuit generat[es] a first control signal ... to vary the duty cycle, not that any particular components make up this circuit. '258 patent col.16 ll.48-52. In fact, the '258 patent's specification expressly discloses that the second circuit and third circuit can share common components. For example, figure 2 shows that components of the second circuitsuch as the reference circuit 37 can also be part of the third circuit. See id. fig.2 (disclosing that the reference circuit 37 sends a signal to the hysteretic comparator 74, which can be a part of the third circuit for generating a second control signal). Accordingly, we think the terms second circuit and third circuit should be accorded their full scope. See, e.g., Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2004) (Absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed.Cir.2004) (construing the term circuit in the parent '178 patent of this case and acknowledging that the term is normally recognized broadly as the combination of a number of electrical devices and conductors that, when interconnected to form a conducting path, fulfill some desired function); cf. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257-58 (Fed.Cir.2007) (construing input terminals coupled to receive without a specific structural requirement because the claim terms [did] not specify any structural connection for the input terminals ... and the... figures show[ed] no structural connection for the input terminals ... or the control input terminals). Moreover, AATI does not contest that the second circuit and third circuit can contain overlapping components. Rather, it advocates that the distinct component must aid in the function of the claimed circuit. [3] As pointed out by the Commission, however, the claim language itself mandates that the components comprising the claimed second and third circuits must aid in the claimed functione.g., the third circuit must cause both switching transistors to be OFF. '258 patent col.16 ll.53-57. Thus, because the claim language already requires the components to aid in the circuit's function, AATI's proposed additional language is unnecessary. See, e.g., Linear Tech., 379 F.3d at 1320 (construing the nearly identical claim limitations second circuit and third circuit of the '178 patent, although under § 112 ¶ 6 analysis, to not require additional structural clarification because the limitations ... are accompanied by ... language [in the claims] reciting their respective objectives or operations). The Commission did not err in its construction of the second circuit and third circuit limitations.