Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 7473
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-418 (DF)
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Construing Terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,691,897, 6,513,058, 6,516,236 and 6,941,543
`
`
`
`Before the Court are RGB’s Opening Brief on Claim Construction (Dkt. No. 100),
`
`FANUC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 105), RGB’s Reply Brief on Claim
`
`Construction (Dkt. No. 109), and FANUC’s Sur-reply Brief (Dkt. No. 117). Also before the
`
`Court are the Local Patent Rule (LPR) 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`(Dkt. No. 93) and the LPR 4-5 Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 119; Dkt.
`
`No. 119, Ex. B (Second Supplemental Exhibit B)). A claim-construction hearing, in accordance
`
`with Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S.
`
`370 (1996), was held in Texarkana on April 16, 2009. Dkt. No. 146 (hearing transcript). After
`
`hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the relevant pleadings, presentation materials,
`
`other papers, and case law, the Court finds the disputed terms of the patents-in-suit should be
`
`construed as set forth herein.
`
`
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORP.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`FANUC LTD., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 7474
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. - 1 - 
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... - 1 - 
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT ............................................................................................................. - 2 - 
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,691,897 ............................................................................................ - 4 - 
`A. 
`Overview ............................................................................................................. - 4 - 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................. - 5 - 
`1. 
`“application program” ....................................................................................... - 5 - 
`2. 
`“component function” ....................................................................................... - 7 - 
`3. 
`“component code” ........................................................................................... - 11 - 
`4. 
`“software driver(s)” / “drivers” ....................................................................... - 12 - 
`5. 
`“motion control operation(s)” ......................................................................... - 15 - 
`6. 
`“primitive operation(s)” .................................................................................. - 18 - 
`7. 
`“driver function(s)” ......................................................................................... - 19 - 
`8. 
`“core driver functions” .................................................................................... - 21 - 
`9. 
`“driver code” ................................................................................................... - 22 - 
`10. 
`“control command(s)” ..................................................................................... - 24 - 
`11. 
`“developing a set of software drivers” ............................................................ - 26 - 
`12. 
`“defining a [core/extended] set of [core/extended] driver functions” ............. - 28 - 
`13. 
`“defining a set of component functions” ........................................................ - 29 - 
`14. 
`“defining a set of motion control operations” ................................................. - 29 - 
`15. 
`“providing component code for each of the component functions” ............... - 30 - 
`16. 
`“providing response stream code” .................................................................. - 31 - 
`17. 
`“selecting at least one of the destinations” (“of control commands”) ............ - 32 - 
`18. 
`“selecting from the set of software drivers the software driver developed
`for the selected motion control device” .......................................................... - 37 - 
`“selecting one motion control device” ............................................................ - 38 - 
`19. 
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,513,058 .......................................................................................... - 38 - 
`A. 
`Overview ........................................................................................................... - 38 - 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................... - 40 - 
`1. “network” .......................................................................................................... - 40 - 
`“a control command generating module for generating control commands
`2. 
`based on the component functions of the application program, the
`component code associated with the component functions, and the driver
`code associated with the software drivers” ..................................................... - 41 - 
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 7475
`
`VI. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,516,236 .......................................................................................... - 44 - 
`A. Overview ........................................................................................................... - 44 - 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................... - 46 - 
`1. 
`“a selected destination of control commands” ................................................ - 46 - 
`2. 
`“a selected software driver” ............................................................................ - 47 - 
`3. 
`“motion control component” .......................................................................... - 47 - 
`4. 
`“a motion control component for generating the sequence of control
`commands for controlling the selected motion control device based on
`the component functions of the application program, the component code
`associated with the component functions, and the driver code associated
`with the selected software driver”................................................................... - 48 - 
`“stream control means for communicating the control commands to the
`selected destination of control commands based on the transmit stream
`code contained by the stream associated with the selected destination of
`control commands” ......................................................................................... - 51 - 
`“the stream control means processes the response data based on the
`response stream code” .................................................................................... - 54 - 
`VII.  U.S. PATENT NO. 6,941,543 .......................................................................................... - 55 - 
`A. 
`Overview ........................................................................................................... - 55 - 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................... - 57 - 
`1. 
`“selected from a plurality of software drivers” ............................................... - 57 - 
`2. 
`“selecting a software driver” ........................................................................... - 58 - 
`3. 
`“incremental motion step(s)” .......................................................................... - 58 - 
`4. 
`“identifies an incremental motion step” .......................................................... - 60 - 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. - 61 - 
`
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 7476
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`In the present lawsuit, ROY-G-BIV Corp. (“RGB”) contends certain software (and
`
`
`
`accompanying equipment) developed, sold, offered for sale, used or imported by FANUC Ltd.,
`
`FANUC Robotics America, Inc., GE Fanuc Automation Americas, Inc., and GE Fanuc
`
`Intelligent Platforms, Inc. (collectively, “FANUC”) infringe claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`5,691,897 (“the ’897 Patent), 6,513,058 (“the ’058 Patent”), 6,516,236 (“the ’236 Patent”), and
`
`6,941,543 (“the ’543 Patent”). Both the ’897 and ’236 Patents are entitled “Motion Control
`
`Systems,” while the ’058 Patent is entitled “Distribution of Motion Control Commands Over a
`
`Network,” and the ’543 Patent is entitled “Motion Control System and Method.” All three later
`
`patents are continuations-in-part of the ’897 Patent. ’058 at [63]; ’236 at [63]; ’543 at [63].
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A determination of patent infringement involves two steps: first, the patent claims are
`
`
`
`construed, and second, the claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device. Cybor Corp.
`
`v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The legal principles of
`
`claim construction were reexamined by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit in Phillips expressly reaffirmed the
`
`principles of claim construction as set forth in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim construction is a legal question for the courts. Markman,
`
`52 F.3d at 979.
`
`
`
`The Court, in accordance with the doctrines of claim construction that it has outlined in
`
`the past, will construe the claims of the RGB Patents below. See Pioneer v. Samsung, No.
`
`2:07-CV-170, Dkt. No. 94, at 2-8 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 10, 2008) (claim-construction order).
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 7477
`
`III. PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`The patents-in-suit are directed to a particular software program development toolkit for
`
`
`
`controlling the motion of equipment and hardware, independent of the nature of the mechanical
`
`system that controls that motion. ’897 Patent, 1:10-2:15. The ’897 Patent consists of methods
`
`claims that issued on Nov. 25, 1997 from an application filed on May 30, 1995. Id. at 33:60-
`
`38:40, [45], [22]. The ’897 Patent abstract reads:
`
`A system for motion control in which an application is developed that is
`independent from the actual motion control hardware used to implement the
`system. The system comprises a software system that employs an application
`programming interface comprising component functions and a service provider
`interface comprising driver functions. A system programmer writes an application
`that calls the component functions. Code associated with the component functions
`relates these functions to the driver functions. A hardware designer writes driver
`code that implements the driver functions on a given motion control hardware
`product. The driver functions are separated into core and extended driver
`functions. All software drivers implement the core driver functions, while the
`software drivers need not contain code for implementing the extended driver
`functions. If the software driver does not contain code to implement an extended
`driver function, the functionality of the extended driver function is obtained
`through a combination of core driver functions. The system programmer may also
`select one or more streams that allow the control commands to be communicated
`to, and response data to be communicated from, motion control hardware. A
`system for allowing an application program to communicate with any one of a
`group of supported hardware devices comprising a software system operating on
`at least one workstation and a network communications protocol. The software
`system includes a control command generating module for generating control
`commands based on component functions of an application program, component
`code associated with the component functions, and the driver code associated with
`software drivers associated with
`the hardware devices. The network
`communication protocol allows the control commands to be communicated from
`the control command generating module to at least one of the supported hardware
`devices over the network.
`
`Id. at [57].
`
`
`
`The ’058 Patent issued January 28, 2003 from an application filed on February 27, 2001.
`
`’058 Patent at [45], [22]. The ’058 Patent consists of system claims directed to the
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 7478
`
`communication aspect of the software program development toolkit, which transmits commands
`
`to control the motion. Id. at 49:50-52:18. The ’058 Patent abstract reads:
`
`A system for allowing an application program to communicate with any one of a
`group of supported hardware devices comprising a software system operating on
`at least one workstation and a network communications protocol. The software
`system includes a control command generating module for generating control
`commands based on component functions of an application program, component
`code associated with the component functions, and the driver code associated with
`software drivers associated with
`the hardware devices. The network
`communication protocol allows the control commands to be communicated from
`the control command generating module to at least one of the supported hardware
`devices over the network.
`
`Id. at [57].
`
`
`
`The ’236 Patent issued with system claims on February 4, 2003 from an application filed
`
`December 10, 2001. ’236 Patent, 48:10-50:41, [45], [22]. The abstract from the ’236 Patent
`
`mirrors that of the ’897 Patent. Id. at [57].
`
`
`
`The ’543 Patent issued September 6, 2005 from an application filed on August 7, 2000.
`
`’543 Patent at [45], [22]. The ’543 Patent consists of method and system claims directed to the
`
`drivers aspect of the software program development toolkit. Id. at 47:17-48:60. The ’543 Patent
`
`abstract reads:
`
`A system for motion control in which an application is developed that is
`independent from the actual motion control hardware used to implement the
`system. A software system employs an application programming interface
`comprising component functions and a service provider interface comprising
`driver functions. Code associated with the component functions relates these
`functions to the driver functions. Driver functions are separated into core and
`extended driver functions. All software drivers implement the core driver
`functions, and optionally implement the extended driver functions. Extended
`driver functionality may be obtained through a combination of core driver
`functions.
`
`Id. at [57].
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 7479
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,691,897
`
`A.
`
`Overview
`
`RGB has asserted claim 25 (dependent on claims 17 and 24) of the ’897 Patent against
`
`FANUC in this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 119. For reference, claims 17, 24 and 25 are reproduced
`
`below (terms to be construed emphasized):
`
`
`
`17. A method of generating a sequence of control commands for controlling a
`motion control device to perform a given series of motion steps based on an
`application program defining the given series of motion steps, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`defining a set of motion control operations, where each motion control
`operation is either a primitive operation that is necessary to perform motion
`control and that cannot be simulated using other motion control operations or a
`non-primitive operation that does not meet the definition of a primitive
`operation;
`
`defining a core set of core driver functions, where each core driver function
`identifies one of the primitive operations;
`
`defining an extended set of extended driver functions, where each extended
`driver function identifies one of the non-primitive operations;
`
`defining a set of component functions;
`
`providing component code for each of the component functions, where the
`component code cross-references at least some of the component function(s)
`with at least some of the driver functions;
`
`developing a set of software drivers, where (i) each software driver is
`developed for a motion control device in a supported group of motion control
`devices and (ii) each software driver comprises driver code for implementing
`the motion control operations identified by at least some of the driver
`functions;
`
`selecting one motion control device from the group of supported motion control
`devices;
`
`selecting from the set of software drivers the software driver developed for
`the selected motion control device; and
`
`the application program,
`generating control commands based on
`component code, and the driver code of the selected software driver.
`
`
`the
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 7480
`
`
`
`
`
`24. A method as recited in claim 17, further comprising the steps of:
`
`providing a plurality of destinations of control commands;
`
`providing a plurality of streams, where each stream contains transmit stream code
`that determines how the control commands are to be transferred to at least one of
`the destinations of control commands;
`
`selecting at least one of the destinations of control commands; and
`
`transferring the control commands to the selected destination of control
`commands based on the transmit stream code contained by the stream associated
`with the selected destination of control commands.
`
`A method as recited in claim 24, in which certain of the destinations of
`25.
`control commands generate response data, the method further comprising the
`steps of:
`
`providing response stream code for the streams associated with the destinations
`of control commands that generate response data; and
`
`processing the response data based on the response stream code.
`
`
`’897 Patent, 36:65-37:12, 38:17-39 (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`1.
`“application program”
`a.
`Parties’ Positions
`The parties offer the following constructions for the term “application program,” which
`
`appears in claim 17. Dkt. No. 119-3.
`
`RGB
`“a software program designed to handle specific
`tasks”
`
`FANUC
`“a hardware-independent program designed
`move an object in a desired manner”
`
`to
`
`
`
`RGB contends the term is used generically in both the specification and the industry.
`
`Dkt. No. 100 at 39-40. To support its position, RGB cites examples in the specification that
`
`arguably use the term in a generic manner. Id. (citing ’897 Patent, 8:6-8 (application program 26
`
`“is any application that uses the system 22 by programming the motion control component 34”
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 7481
`
`(emphasis added))). RGB also relies on a technical dictionary, which defines an application
`
`program as “a program that is specific to the solution of an application problem.” Id. (citing
`
`IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING 28 (10th ed., 1993). RGB argues FANUC’s definition imports
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims even though the specification uses the term
`
`broadly. Id.
`
`
`
`In response, FANUC also relies on the specification to support its construction that the
`
`application program is for the specific task of “moving” and is “hardware-independent.” Dkt.
`
`No. 105 at 12-14; Dkt. No. 117 at 4-5. For example, FANUC argues that the “Objects of the
`
`Invention” section supports its construction when it states the invention “allow[s] the creation of
`
`high level motion control programs that are hardware independent.” Dkt. No. 105 at 13 (citing
`
`’897 Patent, 3:25-31 (emphasis added)). In addition, the first sentence of the specification states
`
`that “[t]he present invention relates to motion control systems and, more particularly, to interface
`
`software that facilitates the creation of hardware independent motion control software.” Id. at 12
`
`(citing ’897 Patent, 1:1-4 (emphasis added)). FANUC argues that its use of intrinsic evidence is
`
`superior to RGB’s extrinsic evidence based on a dictionary meaning. Id. at 13. In sum, FANUC
`
`contends the application program provided by the patented invention is not a general purpose
`
`application. Dkt. No. 146 at 31. Rather the entire purpose of the patented software is to have a
`
`single application program control particular motions of any machine or hardware. Id.
`
`
`
`RGB replies that it is improper to limit the term to the various features that FANUC
`
`desires because those features are already recited in Patent’s dependent claims. Dkt. No. 109 at
`
`21-22. Regarding the issue of hardware independency, RGB argues that FANUC’s descriptions
`
`are merely exemplary because the specification describes a preferred embodiment. RGB Hearing
`
`Slides at 47 (citing ’897 Patent, 6:27-32).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 7482
`
`Court’s Construction
`b.
`The Court is not persuaded to include FANUC’s suggested limitations based upon a
`
`
`
`preferred embodiment. The Court finds no basis in the specification to narrow the ordinary
`
`meaning of the term “application program.” Claim language is generally given its “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning” unless the term has no generally accepted meaning, the patentee has given
`
`the term a specific meaning, or the patentee has disavowed all or part of the scope otherwise
`
`encompassed by the ordinary meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313, 1316-17. Based on
`
`Plaintiff’s evidence, the Court finds that the term “application program” had an ordinary
`
`meaning within the field at the time of the ’897 Patent’s filing. The patentee is entitled to that
`
`ordinary meaning unless it has given the term a specific meaning or disavowed all or part of the
`
`scope otherwise encompassed by the ordinary meaning. Here the patentee has neither given the
`
`term a specific meaning or disavowed part of the ordinary meaning. Instead, the specification
`
`uses the term broadly and it should be given its full meaning. See ’897 Patent, 8:6-8 (“[t]he
`
`application program 26 is any application that uses the system . . .”).
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that “application program” means “a
`
`software program designed to handle specific tasks.”
`
`2.
`
`“component function”
`a.
`Parties’ Positions
`The parties offer the following constructions for the term “component function,” which
`
`
`
`appears in claim 17. Dkt. No. 119-3.
`
`RGB
`“a controller independent function corresponding to
`a motion control operation and available on the
`motion control component”
`
`
`
`FANUC
`“a hardware independent function that defines
`motion steps to be performed by a motion control
`device to move an object along a desired path and
`permits the application programmer to control the
`hardware in base incremental steps”
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 7483
`
`
`
`RGB considers this term a key phrase. Dkt. No. 100 at 11. Both parties agree the term is
`
`hardware independent. Id. at 19. Other than this point of agreement, RGB adopts a broad
`
`construction and argues that it encompasses FANUC’s construction. Id. at 20. RGB contends
`
`there are different types of component functions, some defining “motion control operations” that
`
`also include “read” operations. Id. (citing ’897 Patent, 8:2-6).
`
`RGB also argues that its construction is the only one that takes into account the fact that
`
`component functions are “available on the motion control component.” See id. RGB relies on a
`
`portion of the specification, which states that the motion control component “is the portion of the
`
`software system 22 that relates the component functions to the driver functions.” Id. (citing ’897
`
`Patent, 9:3-5 (emphasis added)). Moreover, RGB alleges that FANUC’s expert, Mr. Mercer
`
`admitted that “component functions” perform “motion control operations” in his declaration.
`
`Dkt. No. 146 at 18. Finally, RGB asserts FANUC is construing the term too narrowly by
`
`importing limitations from the specification or from dependent claims. Dkt. No. 100 at 20.
`
`FANUC maintains there is no commonly understood definition for the term to those of
`
`skill in the art. Dkt. No. 105 at 23-24. FANUC therefore bases its construction on two parts of
`
`the specification. Id. First, FANUC relies on the statement “[a]n application program comprising
`
`a series of component functions defines a sequence of motion steps that must be performed by the
`
`motion control device to move the object along the desired path.” Id. at 23 (citing ‘897 Patent, 3:51-
`
`53 (emphasis added)). Second, FANUC contends that RBG defined the invention as one meant to
`
`“control the hardware in base incremental steps” and to “allow the creation of high-level motion
`
`control programs that are hardware independent, but offer programmability of base motion
`
`operations.” Id. at 24 (citing ‘897 Patent, 2:62-3:14, 3:25-27 (emphasis added)). According to
`
`FANUC, the base motion operations relate to base incremental steps. FANUC Hearing Slides at 70
`
`(citing ‘897 Patent, 2:62-3:14). Finally, FANUC argues it is incorrect to state that the component
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 7484
`
`functions are “available on the motion control component” because some “component functions”
`
`require a separate Motion Control Driver Stub Module. Dkt. No. 117 at 10-11.
`
`In reply, RGB explains that it is wrong to incorporate FANUC’s “requirement that the
`
`component function defines motion steps to be performed by a motion control device to move an
`
`object along a desired path” based on FANUC’s own admission that “GET POSITION” is a
`
`component function but is not a motion step. Dkt. No. 100 at 18.
`
`Court’s Construction
`b.
`Neither party submits that the term “component function” is a term that has an ordinary
`
`
`
`meaning in the art. Indeed, FANUC argues there is not commonly understood definition for the
`
`term. The Court concludes that “component function” is a coined term; thus, its potential
`
`meaning must be found in the specification or file history. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar
`
`Satellite Corp., 338 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (one must look to the specification to
`
`discern the meaning of “coined” terms).
`
`
`
`The term “component function” appears nearly two-dozen times in the ’897 Patent’s
`
`specification. In nearly every use, the specification clearly distinguishes high-level component
`
`functions from more specific, hardware-dependent driver functions. Id. at 3:62-65 (“The use of
`
`component functions that are separate from driver functions isolates the programmer from the
`
`complexities of programming to a specific motion control device.”). Thus, as both parties agree,
`
`component functions are hardware independent.
`
`
`
`In addition, the specification defines the term based on its functionality. In one of the
`
`specification’s first use of the term, the invention is summarized as “a high-level motion control
`
`application program comprising a sequence of component functions that describe a desired
`
`object path . . . .” ’897 Patent, 3:38-40. The end goal of the high-level program is to merely
`
`move an “object along the desired object path.” Id. at 3:46-47. Later the high-level application
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 7485
`
`program is said to comprise “a sequence of component functions arranged to define the motion
`
`control operations necessary to control a motion control device to move an object in a desired
`
`manner.” Id. at 8:3-6. Thus, component functions are nothing more than high-level instructions
`
`used to describe the path eventually taken by a downstream device.
`
`
`
`Due to fact that component functions are high-level instructions, it is not necessary that
`
`each component function actually correspond to a motion step or a base incremental step.
`
`Instead, a component function might serve an administrative purpose. See id. at 7:29-38 (“The
`
`relationship between component function and driver functions need not be one to one: for
`
`example, certain component functions are provided for administrative purposes and do not have
`
`a corresponding driver function.”). Such administrative purposes might include a “GET
`
`POSITION” operation, which merely queries the system for the current position of the
`
`downstream device. See id. at 16:22-24. The Court thus finds it inappropriate to include
`
`FANUC’s requested “base incremental step” limitation in the term’s construction.
`
`
`
`Finally, the specification makes it clear that component functions are used by the “motion
`
`control component” to relate component functions to driver functions. Id. at 9:1-5 (“The motion
`
`control component module 35 is the portion of the software system 22 that relates the component
`
`functions to the driver functions.”). As such, the component functions are available on the
`
`motion control component. They are, however, also used elsewhere—and thus available
`
`elsewhere—in the program hierarchy. Id. at 7:29-31 (“The software system designer next
`
`defines an application programming interface (API) comprising a set of component functions.”).
`
`Thus, the Court finds that RGB’s “available on the motion control component” limitation is too
`
`restrictive and could potentially be misleading to the jury.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 7486
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that “component function” means “a
`
`hardware independent instruction that corresponds to an operation performed on or by a motion
`
`control device.”
`
`3.
`
` “component code”
`a.
`Parties’ Positions
`The parties offer the following constructions for the term “component code,” which
`
`
`
`appears in claim 17. Dkt. No. 119-3. There are only minor disagreements between the two
`
`parties regarding the phrases “many” and “motion control component” within the proposed
`
`constructions.
`
`RGB
`“software code in the motion control component
`that associates component functions with driver
`functions”
`
`FANUC
`“code that associates many of the component
`functions with the driver functions”
`
`
`
`RGB considers this term another key phrase. Dkt. No. 100 at 11. RGB argues the
`
`component software code is in the “motion control component” because the specification states
`
`the “motion control component module 35 thus contains the component code that makes the
`
`association between the component functions contained in the application program 26 and the
`
`driver functions.” Id. at 21 (citing ’897 Patent, 9:1-9).
`
`
`
`FANUC argues that the word “many” should be in the definition of the term because the
`
`specification states the component code associates many—rather than all—component functions
`
`with driver functions. Dkt. No. 105 at 26 (citing ’897 Patent, 8:11-12 (“As mentioned above, the
`
`component code associates many of the component functions with the driver functions . . .”)).
`
`Court’s Construction
`b.
`In the Patent’s first use of the term, the specification states that “the software system
`
`
`
`designer writes component code that associates at least some of the component functions with at
`
`least some of the driver functions.” Id. at 7:31-34. The specification later references this
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00418-DF Document 194 Filed 08/25/09 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 7487
`
`definition. Id. at 8:11-12 (“As mentioned above, the component code associates many of the
`
`component functions with the driver functions . . . .”). Thus, the specification’s use of the word
`
`“many” is controlled by the Patent’s previous definition. Accordingly, the Court finds it more
`
`appropriate to use the specification’s initial definition of the term in its construction.
`
`
`
`In addition, the Court finds that the specification locates the component code in the
`
`motion control