Opinion ID: 2646089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Infringement of Claim 1 the ’539 Patent

Text: The Commission found that the accused product did not satisfy five of the seven limitations of claim 1 of the ’539. For this court to reverse the Commission’s noninfringement determination, we would have to find that the Commission erred in its findings with respect to all five limitations. We affirm the Commission’s non- infringement findings with respect to claim limitations 1 and 6, and thus do not reach the other claim limitations on appeal. Table 1: Limitations in claim 1 of the ’539 Patent Limitation Claim Language Commission Finding Preamble A method for determining the Satisfied presence or absence of at least one instance of a predetermined pattern in a run-time image, and for determining the multi- dimensional location (pose) of each present instance, the method comprising: 1 providing a model that repre- Not sents the pattern to be found, Satisfied the model including a plurality of probes, each probe represent- ing a relative position at which at least one test is performed in an image at a given pose, each such test contributing evidence that the pattern exists at the pose 2 providing the run-time image Satisfied 8 COGNEX CORP. v. ITC 3 comparing the model with the Satisfied run-time image at each of a plurality of poses 4 computing a match score at each Not pose to provide a match score satisfied surface 5 locating the local maxima in the Not match score surface; Satisfied 6 comparing the magnitude of Not each local maxima with an Satisfied accept threshold 7 returning the location of each Not local maxima with magnitude Satisfied that exceeds the accept thresh- old so as to provide the location [of] any instances of the pattern in the image i. Limitation 6: “comparing the magnitude of each local maxima with an accept threshold” The Appellees argue that Cognex has failed to challenge each of the independent grounds upon which the Commission found noninfringement, primarily the sixth limitation: “comparing the magnitude of the local maxima with an accept threshold.” ’539 Patent col. 40 ll. 9–14. The ALJ’s undisputed construction of the term “accept threshold” was “a value that a match must exceed to be considered an instance of a pattern.” Initial Decision at . Based thereon, the ALJ found that the accused software did not use an “accept threshold,” and thus did not practice the sixth claim limitation. Id. at 46–47. Cognex does not dispute, or even mention, the CommisCOGNEX CORP v. ITC 9 sion’s construction of “accept threshold” in its opening appeal brief; and in its reply brief, in response to the Appellee’s waiver argument, Cognex fails to point out where it presented the issue in its opening brief. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that waiver exists where, “in response to [the Appellees’] argument that the issue had been waived by failure to include it in the opening brief, [Appellant] did not point out . . . where the issue had been presented in its opening brief.”). Accordingly, Cognex waived any argument with respect to the Commission’s construction of “accept threshold.” Id. (“Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”). Based on Cognex’s waiver, this court affirms the Commission’s finding that the accused product does not practice claim limitation 6. ii. Limitation 1: “each probe representing a relative position at which at least one test is performed” The ALJ determined that, while the accused software “does have probes,” it does not practice the first limitation of claim 1 because “it does not perform a test at ‘each probe’ as required by claim 1.” Initial Decision at . Cognex asserts that the Commission erroneously equated data elements (which it asserts are not necessarily tested) with probes (which it admits must be tested). According to Cognex, a data element becomes a “probe” only when a test is actually performed at that data element, and thus the accused software necessarily tests “each probe” at a given pose. The Appellees counter that a data element is always a “probe,” ’539 Patent col. 5 ll. 5–6 (“According to the invention, a model includes a set of data elements called probes.”), and thus a test must be performed at each data element or “probe” at a given pose: “i.e., if there are 64 probes, 64 separate tests are performed,” MVTec Br. 26. 10 COGNEX CORP. v. ITC Cognex’s argument that a data element somehow transforms into a probe only upon testing is unavailing. The specification defines a data element as a “probe,” ’539 Patent col. 5 ll. 5–6, and the plain language of the claim requires that “at least one test is performed” at each “probe,” id. col. 40 ll.1–2 (emphasis added). The specification also confirms that “[e]ach probe represents a relative position at which certain measurements and tests are to be made in an image at a given pose.” Id. col. 5 ll. 6–9 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this court affirms the Commission’s claim construction with respect to this claim limitation. Because the Commission’s noninfringement determination based thereon is supported by substantial evidence, this court affirms the Commission’s finding of noninfringement with respect to claim 1 of the ’539 Patent. Further, because all other asserted claims depend from claim 1, and a dependent claim necessarily cannot be infringed if the independent claim is not infringed, Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“One who does not infringe an independent claim cannot infringe a claim dependent on (and thus containing all the limitations of) that claim”), we also affirm the Commission’s finding of noninfringement with respect to asserted claims 2–4, 18–21, and 24 of the ’539 patent.