A brighter view of Markman Ruling
Posted by: DDiligen on June 18, 2007 12:09AM
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/559266
Comment #1: Thanks to Walf to post the court ruling and color formated the text for eary reading. Paragraphs with the heading of Comment # … is my opinion. Thanks to Centurycom for your nice comments on my posting. I learned the markman news last night and have not read all posts so far. It took sometime to go through each of the claim terms. I felt good after finish the last one, since my conclusion is much more brighter than some earlier gloomy accessments. /DD
The parties have agreed to the construction of the following terms.
1. ‘336 Patent
“Oscillator” means “a circuit capable of maintaining an alternating output.”
“On-chip input/output interface” means “a circuit having logic for input/output communications, where that circuit is located on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU (claims 1-2, 6-10) or the microprocessor (claims 3-5).”
“Integrated circuit” means “a miniature circuit on a single semiconductor substrate.”
“External memory bus” means “a group of conductors coupled between the I/O interface and an external storage device.”
2. ‘148 Patent
“Integrated circuit substrate” means “a single supporting material upon or within which is formed a miniature circuit.”
3. ‘584 Patent
“Instruction” means “a command to a processor that tells the processor what operation to perform.”
“Boundary of said instruction groups” means “beginning or end of an instruction group.”
“Supplying, from said instruction groups, using the predetermined location, said operand or instruction or both to said central processing unit” means “using the results of the locating step in the step of transferring the bits from the accessed operand or instruction to the central processing unit.”
“Instruction register” means “a hardware element that receives and holds an instruction group as it is extracted from memory; the register either contains or is connected to circuits that interpret the instructions in the group.”
Comment #2: I have read some posts regarding on how much we won the Markman ruling. Some disregarded above section of “agreed to the construction of the following terms” or undisputed constructions -
4 for 336
1 for 148
4 for 584
That is total 9 of claim terms won by plaintiffs. These are not insignificant statistics. For apparent reasons, defendants didn't even bother to construct new definitions differently than plaintiffs' (or disbute claim terms constructed by plaintiffs). Why can we reagrd those terms won by plaintiffs? This is simple because juries will only hear those inteprations agreed by plaintiffs.
B. Disputed Constructions
1. ‘336 Patent
a. “central processing unit”
The first term for construction is “central processing unit.” The plaintiffs propose “an electronic circuit that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions.” The defendants propose “the central electronic circuit in a computer that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions.” There are two main disputes - 1) whether the circuit needs to be in a computer and 2) whether the circuit needs to be the “central electronic circuit.” In support of their construction, the plaintiffs argue that the specification teaches that the microprocessor can be used in applications other than a computer (e.g., HDTV and automobiles).‘336 patent, 9:61-10:12. The plaintiffs also observe that the specification states that the microprocessor can be part of a multiprocessor system and, therefore, no one CPU is the “central electronic circuit” for the computer. See ‘336 patent, 11:64-12:4. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that they did not intend to limit the use of the CPU to a computer. They assert, however, that a CPU must be part of a computer chip. The parties appear to agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a computer chip or other integrated circuit can be used in various devices, such as automobiles or televisions. The Court construes the term to mean “an electronic circuit on an integrated circuit that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions.”
Comment #a: Plaintiffs won this construction outright. Court added “on an integrated circuit” did not affect the infringement picture in anyways. Defendants arguments of limiting the scope to “computer” and “central electronic circuit” was rejected.
b. “microprocessor”
The plaintiffs propose “an electronic circuit that executes programmed instructions and is capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry.” The defendants propose “an electronic circuit that uses a central processing unit to interpret and execute programmed instructions.” The main disputes are whether the microprocessor must be capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry, and whether the microprocessor needs to use a central processing unit. The plaintiffs argue that the patent discloses a microprocessor that communicates with memory circuitry. ‘336 patent, 8:56-58, 11:49-54. The plaintiffs also argue that the claim language does not support the fact that a microprocessor is required to use a central processing unit because claim 3 does not recite the use of a central processing unit whereas all other independent claims require the use of a central processing unit. The defendants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that microprocessors include a central processing unit. In addition, the defendants contend that not all microprocessors need to interface with input/output circuitry because some microprocessors communicate solely with external memory. The defendants also contend that microprocessors do not need to connect to external memory because some microprocessors rely solely on on-chip memory. The Court is not persuaded that the additional limitations proposed by the plaintiffs or the defendants are appropriate. The input/output interface and the central processing unit limitations are included in other portions of the claims and, therefore, adding those limitations to the construction would be superfluous. See, e.g., ‘336 patent, 32:12-13, 25-26. The court construes “microprocessor” to mean “an electronic circuit that interprets and executes programmed instructions.”
Comment #b: Plaintiffs won this construction. Court delete “and is capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry.” did not affect the infringement picture in any significant ways. Since most (if not all) microprocessors are “capable of interfacing with input/output circuitry and/or memory circuitry” practically, the deletion did not expand/restrict the claim scope much. Defendants arguments of limiting the scope to “uses a central processing unit” was rejected.
c. “ring oscillator”
The next term is “ring oscillator.” The plaintiffs contend that this term means “an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop.” The defendants propose “an [oscillator] having an odd number of inverting logic stages connected in a loop.” The main dispute is whether a ring oscillator is required to have multiple inverters or whether it can have just one. The plaintiffs argue that a single inverter would not be appropriate because it could not maintain an oscillating output. The defendants, on the other hand, rely on extrinsic evidence to support their proposed construction. Specifically, the defendants cite to a semiconductor textbook depicting a ring oscillator with only one inverter. The plaintiffs have the better argument. The extrinsic evidence cited by the defendants also supports the plaintiffs’ construction. It states that timers are built as “chains of inverters,” not just one inverter. Defendants’ Claim Construction Brief, Ex. U, MEAD & CONWAY, INTRODUCTION TO VLSI SYSTEMS (1980), at 234. Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.
Comment #c: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
d. “an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in said integrated circuit” The plaintiffs argue that this term means “a ring oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU, capable of operating at speeds that can change, where the ring oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU.” The defendants’ proposed construction is “a [ring oscillator variable speed system clock] that is completely on-chip and does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator.” The dispute is whether the ring oscillator may rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator. In support of their construction, the defendants argue that the applicant disclaimed use of a control signal and a external crystal/clock generator in order to distinguish over prior art. The plaintiffs contend that it did not disclaim all types of control signals, such as voltage and current controlled oscillators; there was only a disclaimer of the more narrow “command input.” In addition, the plaintiffs argue that, although an external crystal is not directly used to generate a system clock signal, the external crystal can be used as a reference signal to account for delay across certain circuit elements. The Court agrees with the defendants that the applicant disclaimed the use of an input control signal and an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal. See Response to Office Action, April 11, 1996, at 8; Response to Office Action, January 13, 1997, at 4; Response to Office Action, July 7, 1997, at 3-4. Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “a ring oscillator variable speed system clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU and does not directly rely on a command input control signal or an external crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal.”
Comment #d: Plaintiffs won this construction with a smaller margin than b. “microprocessor”. There are three things in this construction:
1. ring oscillator variable speed system clock;
2. (ring oscillator ) is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU;
3. (ring oscillator ) does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator.”
Court agreed #1 to plaintiffs’ “(ring oscillator) capable of operating at speeds that can change”. Court also agreed #2 to plaintiffs’ “where the ring oscillator is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU”. Court agreed #3 to Defendants’ “does not rely on a control signal or an external crystal/clock generator” with certain reservation. Please note the difference of “does not directly rely” (court) to “does not rely” (Defendants). Court construction did not exclude the “indirect” relying. To find a clue, please read the following: “In addition, the plaintiffs argue that, although an external crystal is not directly used to generate a system clock signal, the external crystal can be used as a reference signal to account for delay across certain circuit elements.” We know that the ring oscillator is used to generate the system clock signal directly. This precludes the need to use crystal/clock generator to generate a clock signal directly, and the indirect usage is still within the scope of the claim. Some people gave #d a win to Defendants’ by just look on the surface. A closer look at it may give you a different conclusion.
I’m sure if this case will drag on to jury trail, expecting big arguments on how to interpret “does not directly rely” by both plaintiffs and Defendants.
e. “variable speed”
The next term is “variable speed.” The plaintiffs’ proposed construction is “capable of operating at speeds that can change.” The defendants argue that the term means “a speed (frequency) that is not tightly controlled and varies more than minimally.” The plaintiffs contend that the specification discloses a ring oscillator that is capable of operating at various speeds based on variations in operating conditions. ‘336 patent, 16:59-63. The plaintiffs also argue that the defendants’ proposed construction is too restrictive. The defendants, on the other hand, point to the prosecution where the applicant describes fixed-frequency as a speed that is “tightly controlled” and “var[ies] minimally.” Amendment, July 7, 1997, at 3-4. According the parties appear to agree that these two terms should have the same construction to the dfendants, “variable speed” is the opposite of fixed-frequency. Notwithstanding the defendants’ arguments, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “variable speed” to describe a component capable of operating at different speeds. Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “capable of operating at different speeds.”
Comment #e: Plaintiffs won this construction. Defendants’ limitations were rejected.
f. “system clock” and “variable speed clock”1
The plaintiffs propose “a circuit that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” The defendants contend that the term means “a circuit that is itself responsible for determining the frequency of the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” The dispute is whether the circuit alone is responsible for determining the frequency of the signal. A system clock does not generate the signal alone because the timing can be derived from the ring oscillator. ‘336 patent, 16:63-67. Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.
Comment #f: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
g. “oscillator . . . clocking”
The plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary, but if a construction is required, they propose “the oscillator generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.” The defendants propose “an oscillator that is itself determining the frequency of the signal(s) used for timing.” The Court agrees that the term requires construction. The Court construes the term to mean “an oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.”
Comment #g: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
h. “processing frequency”
The plaintiffs propose “the speed at which the CPU operates.” The defendants propose “fastest safe operating speed.” The issue is whether the term refers to the “fastest safe operating speed.” The plaintiffs contend that the specification uses leanguage “maximum possible frequency” with regard to one embodiment of the CPU. The plaintiffs also point out that “fastest safe operating speed” was mentioned in response to an office action. Response to Office Action, January 8, 1997, at 4. The response to the office action states that the present invention provides a variable speed clock for the microprocessor, with the clock speed varying in the same way as variations in the operating characteristics of the electronic devices making up the microprocessor. This allows the microprocessor to operate at its fastest safe operating speed, given its manufacturing process or changes in its operating temperature or voltage. Id. at 3-4. According to the plaintiffs, this does not mean that the CPU must operate at the fastest safe operating speed, but that it is capable of operating at its fastest safe operating speed. In support of their proposed construction, the defendants point to the specification which states that the “CPU will always execute at the maximum frequency possible, but never too fast.” ‘336 patent, 17:1-2. The defendants also point to a portion of the prosecution history which states that these claims further state that the plurality of transistors included within the ring oscillator clock have operating characteristics which vary similarly to operating characteristics of transistors included within the microprocessor, thereby enabling the processing frequency of the microprocessor to track the speed of the ring oscillator clock: ‘...CPU clock 70 executes at the fastest speed possible using the adaptive ring counter clock 430. Speed may vary by a factor of four depending upon temperature, voltage, and process. Response to Office Action, April 11, 1996, at 8-9. Frequency is not limited to the fastest safe operating speed. The portion of the prosecution history cited by the defendants refers to varying the processing frequency based on operating this construction would also include 2 the terms “vary together,” “varying . . . in the same way,” and “varying in the same way.” conditions. In the Court’s view, the applicants did not clearly define or limit the term “processing frequency.” Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.
Comment #g: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
i. “processing frequency capability”
The plaintiffs propose “the range of speeds at which the CPU can operate.” The defendants propose “fastest safe operating speed at which the CPU can operate.” As discussed in the previous section, “processing frequency” is not limited to the “fastest safe operating speed.” In addition, “capability” is not limited to a range or to the fastest speed. Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “the speeds at which the CPU can operate.”
Comment #i: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
j. “varying together”2
The next term is “varying together.” The plaintiffs contend that the term means “both increase or both decrease.” The defendants’ proposed construction is “increasing and decreasing by the same amount.” The dispute is whether this term is limited to “the same amount.” The defendants claim that the only way for the invention to work is to match the clock speed to the CPU’s processing speed capability. According to the defendants, if the frequency capability increased from 50 MHz to 100 MHZ but the clock rate only increased from 25 MHz to 150 MHZ, then the CPU would not be operable. In addition, the defendants argue that there are numerous statements in the prosecution history stating that the processing frequency should “track” or “vary correspondingly with” the clock rate. See Response to Office Action, April 11, 1996, at 6, 8; Response to Office Action, January 8, 1997, at 4. There is no limitation in the intrinsic evidence requiring the variation between the frequency capability and the clock to match exactly. The Court construes the term to mean “increasing and decreasing proportionally.”
Comment #j: Plaintiffs won this construction. First, defendants’ proposed construction “increasing and decreasing by the same amount.” is rejected by court. This implies that "proportionally" does not mean "same amount". Second, "proportionally" cannot mean one increase and another decrease, otherwise "reversely" should be used. Third, if court rejects the "same amount", it implies to reject the "same percentage".
k. “second clock”
The plaintiffs’ proposed construction is “a clock not derived from the first clock.” The defendants contend that no construction is necessary, but if construction is necessary, then they propose “another clock.” The plaintiffs argue that the claims state that the second clock is independent of the first clock. According to the plaintiffs, a second clock derived from the first clock would not be independent as required by the claims. The defendants appear to agree that the first clock is independent of the second clock. In any event, the independence of the second clock is required by the claim language. Accordingly, the Court declines to construe this term.
Comment #k: Plaintiffs won this construction. Why is it not a draw? "The defendants appear to agree that the first clock is independent of the second clock. In any event, the independence of the second clock is required by the claim language." Without new construction, the original claim language is used, not defendants' “another clock” definition.
l. “external clock”
The plaintiffs propose “a clock not derived from the first clock, and which is not originated on the same semiconductor substrate upon which the entire variable speed clock is located.” The defendants contend that no construction is necessary, but if a construction is necessary, then they propose “a clock not on the integrated circuit substrate.” As discussed previously, the defendants appear to agree that, like the second clock, the external clock is independent of the first clock. The plaintiffs’ proposed construction includes limitations already in the claims. The Court construes “external clock” to mean “a clock not on the integrated circuit substrate.” “second clock independent of said ring oscillator system clock” and “second clock independent of the ring oscillator system clock” The plaintiffs propose “a change in the frequency of the ring oscillator does not affect the frequency of the second clock.” The defendants propose “a second clock wherein a change in the frequency of one of the second clock or the ring oscillator system clock does not affect the frequency of the other.” The dispute is whether the term “independent” means “one-way independence” or “two-way independence.” The plaintiffs argue that the specification only refers to one-way independence because it describes the situation where the I/O clock has a fixed speed while the CPU clock has a variable speed. According to the plaintiffs, there is no discussion about the situation where the I/O clock speed can be modified without affecting the CPU clock speed; the specification only states that varying the CPU clock speed would not affect the I/O clock speed. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ construction would conflict with the purpose of the invention of having a first clock function independently from the second clock. According to the defendants, the specification describes the first and second clock as functioning independently from one another. The defendants have the better argument. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “independence” to mean “two-way independence.” Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “a second clock wherein a change in the frequency of either the second clock or ring oscillator system clock does not affect the frequency of the other.”
Comment #l: Defendants won this construction by narrowing the scope of claim.
n. “external clock is operative at a frequency independent of a clock frequency of said oscillator”
The plaintiffs propose “a change in the frequency of the oscillator (claims 6-9) or the variable speed clock (claim 10) does not affect the frequency of the external clock.” The defendants propose “an external clock wherein a change in the frequency of one of the external clock or oscillator does not affect the frequency of the other (claim 6).” The Court construes the term to mean “an external clock wherein a change in the frequency of either the external clock or oscillator does not affect the frequency of the other.”
Comment #n: Defendants won this construction by narrowing the scope of claim. Defendants didn't win this construction outright, since "one of the external clock or oscillator " is not the same as "either the external clock or oscillator ".
o. “fixed frequency”
The plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary, but if the court determines that a construction is needed, then they propose “a non-variable frequency.” The defendants propose “having a speed that is tightly controlled and varies inimally.” This term is not a technical term and can be understood according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Accordingly, the Court declines to construe this term.
Comment #o: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
2. ‘148 Patent
a. “processing unit”
The plaintiffs propose “an electronic circuit that controls the interpretation and execution of programmed instructions.” The defendants do not appear to dispute the plaintiffs’ proposal. Accordingly, the Court adopts the plaintiffs’ proposed construction.
Comment #a: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
b. “memory” and “a memory”
The plaintiffs propose “all of the storage elements on the substrate and the control circuitry configured to access the storage elements.” The defendants claim that this term is indefinite, but if construction is possible, they propose “an information storing array that does not include registers, The defendants do not present their 3 arguments for indefiniteness in their claim construction briefing. Cache or column latches.”3 The main dispute appears to be whether or not memory can include registers, cache, or column latches. The defendants contend that “memory” and “column latches” must have different meanings because when two claim terms are used, they are presumed to mean different things. See ‘148 patent, claim 1. The defendants, therefore, argue that “memory” cannot include “column latches.” The defendants also point out that the specification recognizes that latches, registers and cache can exist within the CPU which is separate from the memory. See ‘148 patent, 4:5-10, 4:14-19, 5:58-60. The plaintiffs contend that the specification describes DRAM to include registers and column latches. ‘148 patent, 8:65-9:4. The defendants, moreover, agree that registers, cache, and column latches may be considered part of the memory when they are included in the storage array. Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief, at 34. In the Court’s view, the plaintiffs’ proposal is too broad because it would include storage elements that are within the CPU. On the other hand, the defendants’ proposed construction is too limiting because it would exclude registers and cache that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be types of memory. The claim language, however, does indicate that “memory” does not include “column latches.” “Memory” and “column latches” are two distinct elements in Claim 1 of the ‘148 patent. The claim also states, in relevant part, that “a plurality of column latches [is] coupled to . . . the memory . . . .” ‘148 patent, 31:11-12. If “memory” included “column latches,” then the claim would not need to specify that “column latches” are coupled to the “memory.” Accordingly, the Court construes “memory” to mean “storage elements other than column latches.”
Comment #b: Plaintiffs won this construction. First, defendants' "information storing array" definition is rejected. Second, defendants' "does not include registers" is rejected ("other than column latches" means including registers but excluding column latches.) Court construction did limit the scope of claim by excluding column latches as part of memory.
c. “total area of said single substrate” or “total area of said substrate” The plaintiffs propose “the total surface of the supporting material upon or within which is formed an interconnected array of circuit elements.” The defendants propose “area enclosed by the outermost edges of the substrate.” This term is used in the context of memory which is claimed to occupy “a majority” of the “total area” of the substrate. The issue is what constitutes the “area.” The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ proposal would include areas of the substrate that are not being actively used (e.g., the sides and back of the substrate). According to the plaintiffs, the proper approach is to refer to the portion of the substrate that has active circuitry as depicted in Figure 9 of the ‘148 patent. The area of the substrate refers to the top portion of the substrate, and not the sides or back. See ‘148 patent, Fig. 9. The Court construes the term to mean “the total top surface area of the substrate.”
Comment #c: Plaintiffs won this construction.
d. “area of said single substrate” or “area of said substrate” The Court construes this term to mean “the top surface area of the substrate.”
Comment #d: Plaintiffs won this construction.
e. “variable”
This is not a technical term that requires construction and may be understood according to its plain and ordinary meaning. The Court declines to construe this term.
Comment #e: Plaintiffs won this construction outright. No new construction means plaintiffs won.
f. “system clock”
The Court adopts its previous construction of this term in the ‘336 patent. See Section IV(B)(1)(f).
Comment #f: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
g. “ring oscillator”
The Court adopts its previous construction of this term in the ‘336 patent. See Section IV(B)(1)(c).
Comment #g: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
h. “a ring oscillator having a variable output frequency”
The Court adopts its previous construction of “ring oscillator” in the ‘336 patent. See Section IV(B)(1)(c). No further construction of this term is necessary.
Comment #h: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
I.“the [ring oscillator] disposed on said integrated circuit substrate” The Court adopts its previous construction of “ring oscillator” in the ‘336 patent. See Section IV(B)(1)(c). No further construction of this term is necessary.
Comment #I: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
j. “interface ports for interprocessor communication”
The plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary. Alternatively, if a construction is needed, then the plaintiffs propose “channels through which data can be transferred between two separate processing units.” The defendants propose “channels through which data is transferred between two separate processing units.” The dispute is whether the interface ports may be used for purposes other than to transfer data. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ construction would allow the interface ports to be used for any purpose and render the words “for interprocessor communication” meaningless. The plaintiffs contend that the specification describes interface ports for use other than interprocessor communication. See ‘148 patent, 9:64-10:12. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interface ports are not limited solely to the transfer of data. The Court construes the term to mean “channels through which data is allowed to be transferred between two separate processing units.”
Comment #I: Plaintiffs won this construction. Court rejected defendants construction to limit "transfer" to mean only data transfer by saying "One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interface ports are not limited solely to the transfer of data". "data is allowed" does not excluding "other things are allowed."
3. ‘584 Patent
a. “microprocessor”
The Court adopts its previous construction of this term in the ‘336 patent. See Section IV(B)(1)(b).
Comment #a: Plaintiffs won this construction.
b. “central processing unit”
The Court adopts its previous construction of this term in the ‘336 patent. See Section IV(B)(1)(a).
Comment #b: Plaintiffs won this construction outright.
c. “instruction groups”
The next term is “instruction groups.” The plaintiffs’ proposed construction is “sets of from 1 to a maximum number of sequential instructions, each set being provided to the instruction register as a unit and having a boundary.” The defendants propose “sets of from 1 to a maximum number of sequential instructions, in which the execution of the instruction depends on each set being provided to the instruction register as a unit and in which any operand that is present must be right justified and which cannot encompass a single 32-bit traditional conventional instruction.” The dispute is whether an operand that is present in the instruction group must be right justified and whether the instruction group may encompass a single 32-bit traditional conventional instruction. The plaintiffs contend that right justified operands are a feature of the preferred embodiment. The plaintiffs also argue that the claim language was broadened during prosecution history when the language “selecting, in accordance with position in said instruction register of one of said instructions of one of said instruction groups, an operand from said one of said instruction groups” was removed from the claim. Amendment, June 12, 1997, at 6. In addition, the plaintiffs point out that the specification includes 32-bit instructions. See ‘584 patent, 20:41-42. The defendants argue that the specification states that “operands must be right justified in the instruction register.” ‘584 patent, 16:15-16. In addition, the defendants argue that the applicants limited operands in this manner to overcome prior art rejections. See Amendment, June 17, 1997, at 13; Amendment, February 5, 1998, at 7. The defendants also contend that although the specification includes 32-bit instructions, the specification never identifies a single 32-bit instruction as instruction groups. According to the defendants, the specification defines “instruction group” as “being 8-bit and 16 or 24-bit instructions.” ‘584 patent, 23:4-7. The specification and prosecution history refer to the fact that operands in the instruction register must be right justified. The applicants, however, did not exclude a single 32-bit instruction as an instruction group. In a preferred embodiment, a microprocessor fetches instructions “in 32-bit chunks called 4-byte instruction groups” where an “instruction group may contain from one to four instructions.” ‘584 patent, 23:4-5, 19:18-19. If a 4-byte (or 32-bit) instruction group contains one instruction, then the instruction group may contain a single 32-bit instruction. The Court construes “instruction groups” to mean “sets of from 1 to a maximum number of sequential instructions, each set being provided to the instruction register as a unit and having a boundary, and in which any operand that is present must be right justified.”
Comment #c: Plaintiffs won this construction. Court largely rejected defendants' construction and rejected "cannot encompass a single 32-bit traditional conventional instruction" limitation outright. Court also limit the Plaintiffs' claim by adding "and in which any operand that is present must be right justified” limitation.
d. “operand”
The plaintiffs argue that the term means
“an input to an operation specified by an instruction that is encoded as part of the instruction.” The defendants propose “an input to a single operation specified by an instruction that is encoded as part of the instruction where the size of the input can vary depending on the value of the input.” The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ proposed construction would exclude a preferred embodiment which includes fixed length operands. See ‘584 patent, 29:62-27:7. However, the plaintiffs appear to agree that the size of the input can vary. The intrinsic evidence does not show a clear limitation where the size of the input needs to vary depending on the value of the input. The Court construes the term to mean “an input to a single operation specified by an instruction that is encoded as part of the instruction where the size of the input can vary.”
Comment #d: Plaintiffs had a small margin win, or at the worst, a draw with the defendants. Court added "where the size of the input can vary.” limitation but adapted plaintiffs "an input to an operation specified by an instruction that is encoded as part of the instruction" with a slight twist - "an operation" vs "a single operation".
e. “said instruction groups include at least one instruction that, when executed, causes an access to an operand or instruction or both” The plaintiffs propose “the instruction being executed causes the CPU to use an immediate operand or execute a second instruction which is not the next sequential instruction.” The defendants’ proposed construction is “the instruction being executed causes the CPU to use data or execute a second instruction.” The main dispute is whether the second instruction can be the next sequential instruction. The plaintiffs argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would regard the normal program flow of going from one instruction to the next sequential instruction as “causing an access to an instruction.” The defendants contend that the specification describes a SKIP instruction where the second instruction accessed is the next sequential instruction. ‘584 patent, 23:12- In reply, the plaintiffs contend that claim 29 refers to control flow instructions, not ordinary instructions. The intrinsic evidence does not support the limitation proposed by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court construes the term to mean “the instruction being executed causes the CPU to use an operand or execute a second instruction.”
Comment #e: Defendants won this construction.
f. “said operand or instruction being located at a predetermined position from a boundary of said instruction groups” The plaintiffs propose “the immediate operand or the instruction that is accessed has a position, relative to the beginning or end of the instruction group that includes the operand or instruction being accessed, that is determined based on a portion of an accessing instruction that identifies an operation to be performed and without reference to operand or address bits in the accessing instruction.” The defendants propose “the bits forming the accessed operand or instruction either begin or end at a position defined in relation to the boundaries of the instruction group in the instruction register rather than the currently executing instruction.” The principal dispute is whether the instruction group refers to the group in which the currently executing instruction is located or whether it refers to the group in which the instruction or operand being accessed is located. The plaintiffs argue that, during prosecution, the applicants referred to the predetermined position of the accessed operand or instruction. See Supplemental Amendment, February 5, 1998, at 6-8. The plaintiffs also argue that instruction location is determined based on the particular place for instructions of that type. In addition, the plaintiffs contend that the target address specified by the instruction has no effect on the decision to begin executing at the beginning boundary of a target group. The defendants argue that the Abstract explains the meaning of this phrase. It states A high-performance microprocessor system using instruction that access operands and instructions located relative to the current instruction group rather than located relative to the current instructions, as is the convention, is disclosed herein. ‘584 patent, Abstract. The defendants also contend that the plaintiffs add limitations that are not supported by the intrinsic evidence. In reply, the plaintiffs contend that the term “current” in the Abstract refers to the target group, not the accessing group. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would, in the case of a BRANCH instruction, determine the target instruction relative to the boundary of the target group, not the accessing group. A “predetermined position” refers to a position based on the instruction group being accessed. See ‘584 patent, 2:29-35. The Court construes the term to mean
“the operand or instruction is accessed at a position defined in relation to the boundaries of the instruction group that includes the operand or instruction being accessed.”
Comment #f: Plaintiffs won this construction. Court rejected defendants' construction, and at the same time, took out plaintiffs' limitation - "that is determined based on a portion of an accessing instruction that identifies an operation to be performed and without reference to operand or address bits in the accessing instruction.” By doing so, the claim scope is broadened. The drawback for Plaintiffs is that the broader of the scope of claim, the easier to invalidate that claim. The good side is that broader of the scope of claim, the easier to catch more infringers, provided that the claim is valid.
g. “decoding said at least one instruction to determine said predetermined position” The plaintiffs contend that the term means “interpreting an instruction, in particular the portion thereof that signifies the operation to be performed, in order to identify a position relative to the beginning or end of the instruction group that includes the operand or instruction being accessed, without reference to the operand or address bits in the instruction being interpreted.” The defendants propose “interpreting an instruction, in particular the portion thereof that signifies the operation to be performed, in order to identify a position relative to the beginning or end of the current instruction group.” The Court construes the term to mean “interpreting an instruction, in particular the portion therefor that signifies the operation to be performed, in order to identify a position relative to the beginning or end of the instruction group that includes the operand or instruction being accessed.”
Comment #g: Plaintiffs won this construction. The situation is similar to #f. Plaintiffs' limitation -"without reference to the operand or address bits in the instruction being interpreted" was taking out by the court.
h. “locating said predetermined position”
The next term is “locating said predetermined position.” The plaintiffs argue that this term means “establishing operand or instruction supply within the instruction group that includes the operand or instruction being accessed at the predetermined position.” The defendants argue that the term means “using the results of the decoding step to ascertain the address of the accessed operand or instruction by referencing the current instruction group address rather than the current executing instruction address without adding or subtracting an operand with the current Program Counter.” The parties make similar arguments with regards to “predetermined position” as discussed in the previous section. The plaintiffs oppose the additional limitation in the defendants’ proposed construction of “without adding or subtracting an operand with the current Program Counter.” According to the plaintiffs, this would exclude a preferred embodiment from the specification stating that the processor “treats the three operands similarly by adding or subtracting them to the current program counter.” ‘584 patent, 11:13-15. In support of this additional limitation, the defendants argue that additions and subtractions are done only at assembly/linking and not at run time. See ‘584 patent, 20:43-50. The defendants’ construction improperly incorporates a limitation from the preferred embodiment. The Court construes the term to mean “locating the operand or instruction within the instruction group that includes the operand or instruction being accessed at the predetermined position.”
Comment #h: Plaintiffs won this construction.
Comment #V: I only found #l, #n of 336 and #e of 584 gave a win the defendants. Compare to other Markman rulings I've read so far (BRST as I posted earlier, for example), this is a big win for us.
