Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 3732
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ABB, Ltd., ABB, Inc., MEADWESTVACO
`TEXAS, LP and MEADWESTVACO
`CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, LLC
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 6:11-cv-00622-LED
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS CORP., et al.
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 3733
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .....................................................................................1 
`A. 
`Generally ..................................................................................................................1 
`B. 
`The RGB Invention ..................................................................................................3 
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .....................................................6 
`CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS ..........................................................................................6 
`A. 
`Motion Control “Operation” and “Device” Terms (term Nos. 1-4) ........................6 
`1. 
`“motion control” (term no. 1) ......................................................................6 
`2. 
`“motion control operation” (term no. 2) ......................................................8 
`3. 
`“non-primitive operations” (term no. 3) ....................................................11 
`4. 
`“motion control device” (term no. 4) .........................................................13 
`The Top Layer “Application Program” Term (term No. 5) ...................................14 
`The Middle Layer “Component Code” Term (term No. 6) ...................................15 
`The Lower Layer “Driver” Terms (Term Nos. 7, 8(a), and 8(b)) ..........................17 
`1. 
`“driver functions” (term no. 7)...................................................................17 
`2. 
`“core driver functions” and “extended driver functions” (term
`nos. 8a and 8b) ...........................................................................................19 
`The “Network” Term (term no. 9) .........................................................................21 
`The “Means Plus Function” Terms (term nos. 10-14) ...........................................22 
`“means for determining” and “means for converting” (term nos.
`1. 
`10 and 11) ..................................................................................................24 
`“means for generating command data strings” and “means for
`parsing response data strings” (term nos. 12 and 13) ................................26 
`“stream control means” (term no. 14) ........................................................29 
`3. 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................31 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`F. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 3734
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
`
` 707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................ 21
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
`
` 616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010).............................................................................. 9, 12, 22
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.
`
` 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................ 23
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.
`
` 655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................................. 14, 22
`
`Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.
` 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................................... 20
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.
`
` 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................................... 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................................... 6
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. Fanuc Ltd. et al.
`
` Case No. 2:07-cv-00418-DF (E.D. Texas) ............................................................... passim
`
`TracBeam, L.L.C. v. AT&T, Inc.
`
` 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10103, (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2013) ................................................. 6
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ....................................................................................................................... 23
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 3735
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff RGB asserts four patents (“the RGB Patents”) that relate generally to motion
`
`control systems and, more specifically, to software for communicating with and controlling
`
`different motion control devices that may speak different “languages.” RGB’s patented approach
`
`to universal connectivity has become the industry standard. RGB previously asserted three of the
`
`RGB Patents in ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. Fanuc Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00418-DF (E.D. Texas)
`
`(“Fanuc”). Those patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 6,513,058 (“the ‘058 Patent”) (“Ex. 1”); 6,516,236
`
`(“the ‘236 Patent”) (“Ex. 2”); and 6,941,543 (“Ex. 3”). The fourth RGB Patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,073,557 (“the ‘557 Patent”) (“Ex. 4”) was not previously asserted.1
`
`In the earlier case, Judge Folsom construed most of the terms that are disputed here. Fanuc
`
`Markman Ruling (“Ex. 5”). Except for clarifications designed to head off anticipated mischief by
`
`Defendants, RGB urges this Court to adopt Judge Folsom’s constructions. RGB’s proposed
`
`constructions accord with the RGB Patents’ lexicography and contextual usage, and well-
`
`established claim construction canons. In contrast, Defendants’ proposed constructions are either
`
`attempts to limit the claims to a preferred embodiment, attempts to exclude preferred
`
`embodiments, or self-serving creations that have no basis in the RGB Patents.
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Generally
`
`RGB’s patents relate to “motion control” technology, in which the operation of motorized
`
`mechanical devices (“motion control devices”) is controlled with software. These motion control
`
`devices comprise “a controller and a mechanical system.” Ex. 2 at 1:19-21. The RGB Patents
`
`
`1 Because all four asserted patents share a nearly identical specification, this brief typically cites
`only to the ‘236 Patent.
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 3736
`
`
`explain that “the principles of the present invention are generally applicable to any mechanical
`
`system that generates movement based on a control signal.” Id. at 1:34-36.
`
`Both at the time of RGB’s invention and now, motion control devices interface with
`
`computers and are driven by “low level [software] programs” often referred to as drivers. Id. at
`
`1:65-2:1. These low level programs “work directly with the motion control command language
`
`specific to a given motion control device.” Id. at 1:65-2:1. The software “generate[s] control
`
`commands that are passed to the controller” of the motion control device. Id. at 1:57-59. The
`
`controllers in different motion control devices often rely on different sets of control commands—
`
`i.e., they speak different “languages.” Thus, the driver associated with a particular motion control
`
`device is typically “highly hardware dependent,” id. at 2:1-3, meaning that it can communicate
`
`only in the particular “language” of the motion control device(s) with which it is associated.
`
`The human users that operate motion control devices do not interact directly with the driver
`
`that is associated with that device. Instead, they interact with the driver and associated motion
`
`control device using “high level software programs” often referred to as “application programs.”
`
`Id. at 2:4-15. Prior to the inventions of the RGB Patents, after the human user selected the desired
`
`operations for a motion control device, the application program then either generated appropriate
`
`commands for the motion control device (see graphical depiction in Exhibit 6) or called drivers,
`
`which in turn generated appropriate control commands for the motion control device (see graphical
`
`depiction in Exhibit 7). Because drivers are hardware dependent, application programs were
`
`tailored to specific drivers. As a result, the human user who wished to control multiple motion
`
`control devices would need multiple application programs, each one of which could communicate
`
`with a different group of motion control devices. This was inefficient and caused increasing
`
`complexity as the number and different types of proprietary motion control devices increased.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 3737
`
`
`B.
`
`The RGB Invention
`
`In the early 1990s, inventors Dave Brown and Jay Clark conceived of a novel three-tier
`
`software system for motion control, whereby a “middleware” layer of software “sat” between the
`
`application program and the driver, thereby permitting an application program to control multiple
`
`motion control devices that speak different “languages.” In the preferred embodiments, depicted
`
`graphically in Exhibit 8 (“Ex. 8”), the application program does not communicate directly with the
`
`motion control device or drivers. Instead, the application program “calls the component functions”
`
`(Ex. 2, Abstract) located in the middleware layer referred to as the “motion control component.”
`
`This motion control component contains “component code that makes the association between the
`
`component functions contained in the application program 26 and the driver functions” (Id. at
`
`9:29-34) on the drivers. “The use of component functions that are separate from driver functions
`
`isolates the [application] programmer from the complexities of programming to a specific motion
`
`control device.” Id. at 4:3-5.
`
`A key to resolving the parties’ disputed claim constructions is understanding the important
`
`interrelationship between “component functions” and “driver functions,” and their associated
`
`“motion control operations.” The RGB Patents describe “motion control operations” as “abstract
`
`operations” (Id. at 7:22-26) and as “not related to a specific hardware configuration” (Id. at 7:46-
`
`48). As explained below, these “motion control operations” are generic operations performed on
`
`or by motion control devices such as, for example, initializing the device, controlling the
`
`movement of the device, setting the attributes of the device, querying the device for its error status,
`
`and shutting the device down. The RGB Patents teach that “motion control operations” can be
`
`categorized as either “primitive operations” or “non-primitive operations”:
`
`Motion control operations may either be primitive operations or non-primitive
`operations. Primitive operations are operations that are necessary for motion
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 3738
`
`
`control and cannot be simulated using a combination of other motion control
`operations. . . . Nonprimitive operations are motion control operations that do not
`meet the definition of a primitive operations.
`
`Id. at 7:28-37. The RGB Patents’ specifications disclose three exemplary motion control
`
`operations: GET POSITION, MOVE RELATIVE, and CONTOUR MOVE. Id. at 7:32-39. And
`
`as described below, the Appendices filed with and referenced in the RGB Patents describe many
`
`more motion control operations.
`
`“As with motion control operations, driver functions are not related to a specific hardware
`
`configuration; basically, the driver functions define parameters necessary to implement motion
`
`control operations. . . .” Id. at 7:46-51. More specifically, the RGB Patents teach that “[t]he driver
`
`functions are grouped into core driver functions and extended driver functions.” Id. at 4:9-10.
`
`“Core driver functions are associated with primitive operations, while extended driver functions
`
`are associated with non-primitive operations.” Id. at 7:44-46. In RGB’s preferred embodiments,
`
`the drivers include “a service provider interface (SPI) comprising a number of driver functions.”
`
`Id. at 7:40-44. The RGB Patents further note that “[t]he SPI for the exemplary software system 22
`
`is attached hereto as Appendix A.” Id. at 7:51-53. All interfaces in the Appendix A that “are
`
`XMCSPI specific” are “used for the sole purpose of performing motion control operations.” Id.
`
`at 44:34-36 (emphasis added). This tight nexus between “driver functions” and “motion control
`
`operations” is also reflected in Defendants’ proposed constructions for “core driver function” and
`
`“extended driver function.” April 25, 2013 Second Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`(“JCCS”) Exhibit B (“Ex. 9”).
`
`The SPI (Appendix A to the RGB Patents) discloses many driver functions and their
`
`corresponding motion control operations. See, e.g., Appendix A (“Ex. 10”), Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
`
`The SPI includes “Core Interfaces” of core driver functions associated with primitive operations
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 3739
`
`
`(Section 3.1) and “Extended Interfaces” of extended driver functions associated with non-primitive
`
`operations (Section 3.2). See id. For example, the motion control operations “Initialize,” “Reset,”
`
`“ShutDown,” and “GetErrorStatus” are in the “Core Interface” of core driver functions (see id. §
`
`3.1.3), meaning that they are primitive operations. In contrast, the motion control operations
`
`“IsinterpolationOn,” “SetFeedRate,” and “GoHome” are in the “Extended Interface” of extended
`
`driver functions (see id. § 3.2.10), meaning that they are non-primitive operations.2
`
`Like “driver functions,” “component functions” also correspond to “motion control
`
`operations.” Indeed, that close relationship is reflected in the parties’ agreed construction that a
`
`component function “corresponds to a motion control operation.” JCCS Ex. A (“Ex. 11). In
`
`addition to Appendix A, the RGB Patents further teach that there is “an application programming
`
`interface (API) comprising a set of component functions” and that “[t]he API for the exemplary
`
`software system 22 is attached hereto as Appendix B.” Id. at 7:54-65. Thus, analogous to
`
`Appendix A, Appendix B discloses an exemplary set of “component functions” and their
`
`corresponding “motion control operations.” See, e.g., Appendix B (“Ex. 12”), Section 4.2. The
`
`exemplary motion control operations include: “Initialize”; “GetErrorStatus”; “IsinterpolationOn”;
`
`“MovRel” (move relative); and “MovAbs” (move absolute). Id. at section 4.2.8.
`
`The Appendices generally categorize motion control operations as, for example,
`
`“Configuration,” “Querying Attributes,” “Setting Attributes,” and “Actions.” See id. As their
`
`names suggest, some of these motion control operations control movement (e.g., MovRel and
`
`MovAbs). Other motion control operations (e.g., “Reset,” “Initialize,” “IsInterpolationOn,” and
`
`
`2 The motion control operations “MovRel” (move relative) and “MovAbs” (move absolute) were
`erroneously interchanged in the Appendices. As reflected in the RGB Patents, MovRel is a
`primitive operation. Ex. 2 at 7:32-35. And, MovAbs is a non-primitive operation. This is
`explained in greater detail in RGB’s letter brief on indefiniteness, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 3740
`
`
`“GetErrorStatus”) do not; they are simply operations performed on or by a motion control device.
`
`In general, the motion control operations denominated as “Actions” may control movement.
`
`Exhibit 8, which describes RGB’s preferred three-tier system, reflects that to perform a
`
`“motion control operation,” (1) the application program calls a component function, which the
`
`parties agree “corresponds to a motion control operation;” (2) the component code in the motion
`
`control component (i.e., the middleware layer) associates that component function with one or
`
`more corresponding driver functions; and (3) the driver function(s) are called on the driver,
`
`resulting in the driver issuing one or more appropriate control command(s) to the selected motion
`
`control device to achieve the motion control operation. RGB’s system has numerous advantages,
`
`including enabling application programs to be designed irrespective of the motion control devices
`
`they will operate, and facilitating interoperability and standardization. See Ex. 2 at 3:27-42.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`This Court is very familiar with claim construction principles, which are not repeated here.
`
`See TracBeam, L.L.C. v. AT&T, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10103, *5-9 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2013;
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS
`
`This brief uses the same numbering for disputed terms as is used in the Second Amended
`
`JCCS. Ex. 9. Where practical, this brief discusses related claim terms in the same section.
`
`A. Motion Control “Operation” and “Device” Terms (Term Nos. 1-4)
`
`1.
`
`“motion control” (term no. 1)
`
`Claim Term
`
`RGB’s Position
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`“motion control”
`
`no construction necessary; in the
`alternative, “controlled
`movement”
`
`“control of movement of an
`object along a desired path”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 3741
`
`
`Because the noun “motion control” appears nowhere in the claims of the asserted RGB
`
`Patents, this Court might wonder why Defendants are seeking to construe it. The short answer is
`
`that Defendants’ request is part of a circuitous attempt to persuade the Court to construe “motion
`
`control operation” and “motion control device” —two claim limitations that do appear in the
`
`claims and which are separately discussed below—in a manner that will assist Defendants’ non-
`
`infringement arguments. Specifically, Defendants are trying to persuade the Court to insert
`
`Defendants’ construction of the noun “motion control” into the Court’s definition of the two claim
`
`limitations in which “motion control” is used as an adjective. By so doing, Defendants hope to
`
`exclude certain “motion control operations” that RGB’s Patents describe as preferred
`
`embodiments. RGB respectfully asks that the Court rebuff this strategy. Indeed, there is no need
`
`to construe the noun “motion control” by itself. The Court should instead construe the limitations
`
`that are actually in the claims, “motion control operation” and “motion control device.”
`
`If the Court nevertheless believes that there is value in construing the noun “motion
`
`control,” the term should be considered to be self-explanatory, or defined to mean “controlled
`
`movement.” Indeed, that meaning is the common denominator of RGB’s and Defendants’
`
`proposed constructions. It is also consistent with the RGB Patents, whose specifications teach that
`
`“the principles of the present invention are generally applicable to any mechanical system that
`
`generates movement based on a control signal.” Ex. 2, col.1:34-36 (emphasis added).
`
`In contrast, Defendants’ proposed construction would include a reference to an “object”
`
`and a “desired path.” This is improper. As the quote immediately above demonstrates, motion
`
`control is not limited to a particular “object” but rather extends to “movement based on a control
`
`signal,” irrespective of what it being moved. Moreover, Defendants’ attempt to incorporate a
`
`“desired path” requirement introduces a subjective element into the claims that would confuse the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 3742
`
`
`jury. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The
`
`scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a
`
`particular individual purportedly practicing the invention.”).
`
`2.
`
`“motion control operation” (term no. 2)
`
`Claim Term
`
`RGB’s Position
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`“motion control
`operation”
`
`“abstract operations (such as
`GET POSITION, MOVE
`RELATIVE, or CONTOUR
`MOVE) that are performed on or
`by a motion control device”
`
`“hardware independent
`operations used to perform
`motion control (such as GET
`POSITION, MOVE RELATIVE,
`or CONTOUR MOVE)”
`
` The parties agree that “motion control operations” are operations such as GET POSITION,
`
`MOVE RELATIVE, or CONTOUR MOVE. The parties disagree on two issues: (1) whether
`
`motion control operations should be defined as “performed on or by a motion control device”
`
`(RGB’s position) or “used to perform motion control” (Defendants’ position); and (2) whether
`
`motion control operations are “abstract” operations (RGB’s position) or “hardware independent”
`
`operations (Defendants’ position).
`
`The RGB Patents teach that “[t]he software system designer initially defines a set of
`
`motion control operations that are used to perform motion control.” Ex. 2 at 7:20–22. And, it
`
`characterizes “motion control operations” as “abstract operations.” Id. at 7:22-23. The RGB
`
`Patents also teach that GET POSITION, MOVE RELATIVE, and CONTOUR MOVE are
`
`exemplary “motion control operations”:
`
`Motion control operations may either be primitive operations or non-primitive
`operations. . . . Examples of primitive operations include GET POSITION and
`MOVE RELATIVE. . . . Examples of nonprimitive operations include CONTOUR
`MOVE. . . .
`
`Id. at 7:27–38. Based on these passages, Judge Folsom previously construed “motion control
`
`operations” as “abstract operations (such as GET POSITION, MOVE RELATIVE, or CONTOUR
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 3743
`
`
`MOVE) used to perform motion control.” Ex. 5 at 18.
`
`Although the Fanuc construction is correct if applied reasonably, it appears that the
`
`Defendants intend to try to twist the construction to exclude the preferred XMC embodiments
`
`described in the RGB Patents and accompanying Appendices. Specifically, inserting Defendants’
`
`proposed construction for the noun “motion control” (in red) into Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction for “motion control operations” yields:
`
`hardware independent operations used to perform control of movement of an object
`along a desired path (such as GET POSITION, MOVE RELATIVE, or CONTOUR
`MOVE)
`
`Ex. 9 (red for “motion control”). Defendants apparently plan to argue that many of the exemplary
`
`“motion control operations” disclosed in the Appendices are not “used to perform control of
`
`movement of an object along a desired path” (e.g., Initialize; Reset; Shutdown; GetErrorStatus;
`
`GetPathScaling; and IsinterpolationOn). But, as explained above in Section II(B), these operations
`
`are motion control operations in RGB’s preferred XMC embodiment. Defendants’ request to
`
`exclude these preferred embodiments is therefore improper. Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A claim construction that excludes the
`
`preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct. . . .”) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`To ensure that Defendants cannot use the Fanuc construction to confuse the jury, RGB
`
`proposes a simple clarification—namely, substituting “performed on or by a motion control
`
`device” for “used to perform motion control.” This is not a substantive change. Motion control
`
`devices typically enable motion control. In furtherance of that objective, a motion control device
`
`makes available a set of operations. Because the set of “operations performed on or by the motion
`
`control device” advance the objective of performing motion control, they are “used to perform
`
`motion control.” Looking at the list of exemplary functions and motion control operations
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 3744
`
`
`disclosed in the Appendices, it is clear that they are operations performed on or by the motion
`
`control device (e.g., Initialize, Reset, Shutdown, and GetErrorStatus), rather than merely operations
`
`used to cause or control movement (e.g., Move Relative). Thus, the RGB Patents explicitly teach
`
`that “motion control operations” are operations that motion control devices “perform,” rather than
`
`merely those that initiate or directly control movement.
`
`Moreover, through their agreed construction of “component function,” Defendants concede
`
`that RGB’s proposed construction for “motion control operations” is correct. Specifically, the
`
`Fanuc court construed a “component function” as “a hardware independent instruction that
`
`corresponds to an operation performed on or by a motion control device.” Ex. 5 at 11 (emphasis
`
`added). This construction is correct, and the parties have agreed to the following synonymous
`
`construction for “component function”: “a hardware independent function that corresponds to a
`
`motion control operation.” JCCS Exhibit A (“Ex. 11”) (emphasis added). Comparing these
`
`synonymous constructions, it is clear that the terms “motion control operation” and “an operation
`
`performed on or by a motion control device” mean the same thing. Thus, RGB’s construction is
`
`correct.
`
`
`
`The other point of disagreement between RGB and Defendants is whether “motion control
`
`operations” are “abstract operations” or “hardware independent” operations. The RGB Patents
`
`definitively resolve the issue, characterizing them as “abstract operations.” Ex. 2 at 7:24. The
`
`problem with the phrase “hardware independent” is that Defendants might argue that it excludes
`
`operations that the RGB Patents define as “motion control operations.” Merely by way of
`
`example, CONTOUR MOVE involves movement along a curve (e.g., an arc) rather than a line.
`
`Accordingly, CONTOUR MOVE typically involves the coordinated movement of two motors in
`
`two dimensions (e.g., the arc of a circle). Thus, CONTOUR MOVE is not “hardware
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 3745
`
`
`independent” in the sense that it involves systems with two motors versus systems with, e.g., one
`
`motor. Although it is unclear whether Defendants intend to take this strained view of “hardware
`
`independent,” RGB respectfully requests that this Court use the term “abstract operations,” the
`
`language in the RGB Patents. This approach will avoid any potential for confusion.
`
`3.
`
`“non-primitive operations” (term no. 3)
`
`Claim Term
`
`RGB’s Position
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`“non-primitive
`operations”/ “non-
`primitive motion
`operations”
`
`“motion control operations that
`do not meet the definition of
`primitive operations”
`
`“motion control operation(s) that
`can be simulated using a
`combination of primitive
`operations”
`
`The parties agree that the terms “non-primitive operations” and “non-primitive motion
`
`operations” are synonymous. And, the RGB Patents provide a straightforward definition of the
`
`term “non-primitive operations”: “Nonprimitive operations are motion control operations that do
`
`not meet the definition of a primitive operations [sic].” Ex. 2 at 7:35-37. Thus, all “motion control
`
`operations” that do not qualify as “primitive” are, by definition, “non-primitive.” This is RGB’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction fails to account for the lexicography of the RGB
`
`Patents, and is demonstrably wrong. The RGB Patents define “primitive operations” as those that
`
`are both (1) “necessary for motion control” and (2) “cannot be simulated using a combination of
`
`other motion control operations.”3 Id. at 7:29-32. This is shown graphically in the table below. A
`
`motion control operation is “non-primitive” if either (1) it is not necessary for motion control; or
`
`(2) it can be simulated using a combination of other motion control operations. Defendants’
`
`proposed construction erroneously focuses exclusively on the second group of non-primitive
`
`
`3 Although Defendants contend the term “primitive operations” is indefinite, they agree with
`RGB’s construction, which is based on the RGB Patents’ lexicography. Ex. 11.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 3746
`
`
`operations and ignores the first. As a result, Defendants’ proposed construction would exclude
`
`Capable of Being Simulated
`YES
`NO
`
`NON-PRIMITIVE NON-PRIMITIVE
`
`NON-PRIMITIVE
`
`PRIMITIVE
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`
`
`
` Necessary
`
`
`
`non-primitive operations (reflected in the shaded box in the table above) that cannot be simulated,
`
`but are nevertheless non-primitive because they are not necessary for motion control.
`
`The RGB Patents and Appendices provide specific examples of both types of “non-
`
`primitive operations.” First, the RGB Patents state that CONTOUR MOVE is an example of a
`
`non-primitive operation because “it may be emulated using a combination of primitive motion
`
`control operations.” Ex. 2 at 7:37-39.4 Second, the RGB Patents also disclose “motion control
`
`operations” that are “non-primitive” because they are not necessary for motion control, even
`
`though they cannot be simulated. For example, “GetPathScaling” and “IsinterpolationOn” are in
`
`the “extended interface” of non-primitive operations. Ex. 10 at 3.2.10. As Appendix A explains,
`
`these are in the “extended interface” of extended driver functions corresponding to non-primitive
`
`operations because they are “extra motion control functions that may or may not be implemented
`
`by the motion control hardware” (i.e., they are not necessary for motion control, and therefore are
`
`not “primitive”). Id. Defendants are improperly seeking to exclude these and other examples of
`
`non-primitive operations in the preferred embodiment. Adams Respiratory, 616 F.3d at 1283.
`
`
`4 Specifically, a contoured (curved) movement in two dimensions such as an arc can be emulated
`by controlling independently two motors, each of which causes movement in a single dimension.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00622-LED Document 151 Filed 04/26/13 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 3747
`
`
`4.
`
`“motion control device” (term no. 4)
`
`Claim Term
`
`RGB’s Position
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`“motion control
`device”
`
`“a device comprising a
`controller and a mechanical
`system”
`
`“a controller and mechanical system
`for performing motion control”
`
`The RGB Patents explain that “[t]he basic components of a motion control device are a
`
`controller and a mechanical system.” Ex. 2 at 1:19-21. Accordingly, RGB proposes that “motion
`
`control device” be construed as “a device comprising a controller and a mechanical system.”
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction adds that the device is used “for performing motion control.”
`
`While seemingly innocuous, Defendants’ additional phrase “for performing motion
`
`control” is intended to bootstrap their proposed construction for the noun “motion control.” Thus,
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction for “motion control device” is actually “a controller and
`
`mechanical system for performing control of movement of an object along a desired path.” Ex. 9
`
`(red for “motion control”). But, as discussed above, the RGB Patents teach that “the principles of
`
`the present invention are generally applicable to any mechanical system that generates movement
`
`based on a control signal.” Ex. 2 at 1:34-36.