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

Heading: AAT1151 and AAT1265 devices

Text: As the last infringement ruling regarding claims 2, 3, and 34 of the '258 patent, the Commission found that the AAT1151 and AAT1265 do not infringe. Concerning claims 2 and 3, despite admitting that the AAT1151 and AAT1265 do not contain the ZC comparator circuitry, Linear contends that it sufficiently identified other circuitry that maintains the two transistors OFF. Thus, according to Linear, it presented sufficient evidence showing that the third circuit claim limitation is met and, therefore, the Commission's finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Linear makes an additional argument specific to claim 34  that the Commission's opinion is internally inconsistent and provides no explanation why the AAT1151 and AAT1265 do not infringe other than the absence of the third circuit limitation, which undisputedly is not required by claim 34. In response, the Commission and AATI argue that Linear made the same argument below as it makes on appealan argument the Commission correctly rejected. Specifically, the Commission and AATI point out that it is undisputed that both the AAT1151 and the AAT1265 devices lack the ZC comparator circuitry. Next, they contend that the other circuitry identified by Linear does not meet the required third circuit limitation. Because there is substantial evidence that neither the AAT1151 nor the AAT1265 meet the third circuit limitation, we affirm the Commission's finding of noninfringement with regards to claims 2 and 3. As noted, Linear concedes that neither accused product contains the ZC comparator circuitry of the AAT1143 or AAT1146, which causes both transistors to be OFF. In contrast, Linear argues that the CLK circuitry in the AAT1151 and the STPCLK circuitry in the AAT1265 cause both transistors to be OFF. As pointed out by the Commission, however, not only did Linear fail to provide specified testimony explaining how the CLK and STPCLK circuits meet the claim limitations, there was also substantial evidence and testimony expounding that those circuits were operably different from the ZC circuitry in marked ways. In short, in addition to the absence of particularized evidence of infringement, there is evidence that the CLK and STPCLK signals have nothing to do with the third circuit. We therefore affirm the Commission's finding that the AAT1151 and AAT1265 do not infringe claims 2 and 3. At the same time, however, we think the Commission's finding that the AAT1151 and AAT1265 do not infringe claim 34 is internally inconsistent and not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore vacate its finding of noninfringement with regard to claim 34. As pointed out by Linear, the Commission first noted that method claim 34 was broader than apparatus claims 2 and 3 namely, that method claim 34 simply does not contain the limitations of `a second circuit for generating a first control signal...' and `a third circuit for generating a second control signal.' Final Determination, slip op. at 46. Thus, the Commission stated that it was erroneous to interpret[ ] claim 34 as requiring second and third circuits and first and second control signals. In addition, the Commission also stated that all of the accused products had two different states of circuit operation. Id. at 45. Inconsistently, on that same page the Commission ruled that the AAT1265 does not infringe claim 34 because it does not have two separate states of operation. [7] Id. Other than this contradictory statement, the Commission failed to provide any further rationale explaining why the AAT1265 does not infringe claim 34, let alone any reason why the AAT1151 does not infringe claim 34. Indeed, other than the ultimate conclusion of noninfringement, the Commission's opinion is devoid of any statement that the AAT1151 does not include a particular limitation required by claim 34. The only other possible explanation as to why these products do not infringe is the Commission's statement that both the AAT1151 and the AAT1265 do not meet the third circuit or second control signal limitations. Id. at 48-51. As noted by the Commission itself, however, method claim 34 does not require these limitations and therefore these omissions cannot be the basis for a finding of noninfringement. In short, the Commission's finding of noninfringement is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the AAT1151 and AAT1265 infringe method claim 34. [8] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Commission's finding that the AAT1151 and AAT1265 devices do not infringe claims 2 and 3. However, we vacate its finding regarding claim 34 and remand for further consideration of whether the AAT1151 and AAT1265 infringe claim 34. [9]