Opinion ID: 614788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stanley’s Products

Text: Zircon alleges that Stanley’s Stud Sensor 200 and FatMax® Stud Sensor 400 infringe the ’091 patent. As explained by Stanley’s expert: Stanley’s Stud Finders compare the two capaci- tances (via the voltages Va and Vb) by subtraction, not division. Stanley’s Stud Finders never generate or compute a ratio of the capacitances through plates A and B or a ratio of the voltages Va and Vb for determining the presence or detection of a stud or other object behind a wall. J.A. 315. While Stanley’s stud finders utilize a method that is very similar to that claimed in the ’091 patent, Zircon admits that Stanley’s products utilize the subtraction method of comparing capacitances. Appellant’s Br. 3 Claims 21 and 22 of the ’091 patent issued from amended claims 23 and 24 of the ’356 application, respectively. J.A. 67; J.A. 281. As in the ’091 patent, in the ’356 application, amended claims 23 and 24 where dependent upon amended claim 21, which became claim 19 in the ’091 patent. Id. ZIRCON v. STANLEY 8 25 (“The subtraction approach used by the accused products performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result as the division approach.”).