Rice v. Honeywell International Inc et al, No. 6:05-cv-00330 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2006)

This claim construction opinion construes terms in U.S. Patent No. 4,896,499 and in

Reexamined U.S. Patent No. B1 4,896,499 (collectively referred to as “the ‘499 patent”). Plaintiff

Ivan G. Rice (“Rice”) asserts that Defendants Honeywell International, Inc.' and Rolls-Royce PLC

(“Rolls-Royce”) have infringed Claim 1 of the ‘499 patent.

The Patent

The ‘499 Patent is entitled “Compression Intercooled Gas Turbine Combined Cycle” and is

directed to a power system having a “twin spool” gas generator and a power turbine. The gas

generator has a low pressure turbine and a high pressure turbine with coaxial shafting to drive a low

pressure compressor and a high pressure compressor. An external intercooler is positioned between

the low pressure compressor and the high pressure compressor to boost efficiency. The intercooler

'Rice’s claims against Honeywell were dismissed on July 10, 2006. (Doc. No. 87)

2ow using a counter-flow coolant. The cooled air that is introduced to the inlet of the high cools air fl

mpressor has a greater density than the air compressed by the low pressure compressor. pressure co

sequence of the greater density of the air, the flow area of the low pressure compressor is As a con

increased in proportion to the decrease in the absolute temperature.

Applicable Law

ck principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to “Tt is a ‘bedro

patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 which the

) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc

111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s intrinsic F.3d 1

e patented invention’s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., evidence to define th

3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, 388 F.

F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, Inc., 262

fication, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; CLR. Bard, Inc., 388 the speci

1. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one F.3d at 86

ary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, of ordin

3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 415 F.

he claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particular T

ms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be very claim ter

ive. Jd. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning instruct

aim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. /d. Differences among because cl

terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. /d. For example, when a the claim

dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim3 does not include the limitation. Jd. at 1314-15.

aims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Jd. (quoting Cl

an v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “{T]he specification Markm

ighly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; itis the single ‘is always h

o the meaning of a disputed term.”” Jd. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., best guide t

Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (

true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is

meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. different

316. In these situations, the inventor’s lexicography governs. /d. Also, the Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1

ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of specification may resolve

aims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained the words used in the cl

e.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “although the specification may aid from the words alon

g the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and the court in interpretin

n the specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark examples appearing i

Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Phillips, 415 Communications, Inc. v.

osecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim F.3d at 1323. The pr

a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home construction because

scan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the Diagnostics, Inc., v. Life

pecification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). s

ce can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in Although extrinsic eviden

e meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting determining ‘the legally operativ

3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.

4ogy and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but the underlying technol

dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be technical

term is used in the patent. Jd. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid indicative of how the

g the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning ofa term a court in understandin

but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term’s definition is in the pertinent field,

court. Jd. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and entirely unhelpful to a

its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Jd.

The Terms

m being asserted in this case is Claim 1. The parties have agreed on the The only clai

al previously disputed terms, and the Court will construe the remaining disputed construction of sever

ed between,” “externally mounted intercooler,” “return duct from terms: “power turbine,” “position

flow to and from said intercooler in counterflow with coolant,” 9? 66“said outlet said intercooler,” “air

radially expand said air flow to a low velocity,” “said return duct being duct being configured to

dial flow return velocity to said high pressure compressor,” and the term “the configured for low ra

r having an inlet flow area directly proportional to the outlet flow area of high pressure compresso

ressor, and inversely proportional to the absolute temperature ratio between the low pressure comp

airflow discharged from the low pressure compressor compared to the low the high temperature

om the intercooler passing to the inlet area of the high pressure compressor.” temperature air flow fr

e asserted Claim is provided herein, with each disputed term or phrase in The complete text of th

underlined text:

In a power producing system comprising a twin spool gas generator and a power turbine, said gas generator having a low pressure compressor driven by a low pressure turbine, a high pressure compressor driven by a high pressure turbine, a

5combustor positioned between said high pressure compressor and said high pressure

said power turbine positioned downstream from said low pressure turbine, turbine, the improvement being characterized in that: said high and low pressure turbines being axially positioned and independently rotatable for driving said high and low pressure compressors respectively by means of concentric coaxial outer and inner shafting respectively said gas generator including at least one externally mounted

ooler positioned between said low pressure compressor and said high pressure interc

or, at least one compressor outlet duct from said low pressure compressor compress

municating with said intercooler and at least one return duct from said com intercooler communicating with said high pressure compressor, wherein said

sor outlet and return ducts and connections between said compressors and compres

rcooler are provided between said axially positioned low and high pressure said inte

sors for air flow to and from said intercooler in counterflow with coolant, compres

t duct being configured to radially expand said air flow to a low velocity said outle

return duct being configured for low radial flow return velocity to said high and said pressure compressor, the high pressure compressor having an inlet flow area directly

he outlet flow area of the low pressure compressor, and inversely proportional to t

nal to the absolute temperature ratio between the high temperature airflow proportio

m the low pressure compressor compared to the low temperature air discharged fro

om the intercooler passing to the inlet area of the high pressure compressor. flow fr

Power Turbine

construction that includes an activity of driving a mechanical or electrical Rice argues for a

and, Rolls-Royce wants the requirement that the turbine is producing power to load. On the other h

r. The specification distinguishes the power turbine as being a turbine that drive a fan or propelle

ombusted gas to do work. See col. 6, lines 39-44. The additional extracts energy from c

ffered by both Rice and Rolls-Royce do not provide meaningful aid to the characterizations pro

e, the Court construes “power turbine” as “a turbine that extracts construction of the term. Therefor

energy from combusted gas to do work.”

Positioned between

s used twice in Claim 1. First, a combustor is recited as The term “positioned between” i

high pressure compressor and the high pressure turbine. Second, being “positioned between” the

6is “positioned between” the low pressure compressor and the high the externally mounted intercooler

Rice proposes to construe the term as “in an intermediate position relative to.” pressure compressor.

s this construction as improperly indicating a spatial relationship and proposes Rolls-Royce dispute

oned to receive the air flow directly from and to provide the air flow to construe the term as “positi

-Royce is misunderstanding its construction. Rice’s only dispute directly to.” Rice replies that Rolls

Rolls-Royce is the “directly” limitation. Rice agrees that as to the with the construction proposed by

ction proposed by Rolls-Royce correctly refers to “a position in the air flow intercooler, the constru

path.”

by Rolls-Royce for inclusion of the limitation “directly” Is a The only support offered

ntercoolers connected in the air flow path that extends from the low reference to Fig. 1 showing the i

pressure compressor. Apparently, Rolls-Royce’s position is that pressure compressor to the high

nothing in addition to the intercooler in that air flow path other than “directly” signifies that there is

ever, does not indicate any requirement to exclude additional ducting. The specification, how

path. Moreover, the inventor’s choice of the term “positioned equipment from that air flow

ore restrictive language to indicate that only the intercooler is in the between,” rather than some m

nclusion of the limitation “directly” in the construction is not air flow path, indicates that i

appropriate.

d between” as to the combustor to mean “positioned to receive The Court construes “positione

ssure compressor and to provide the combustion gas to the high the air flow from the high pre

pressure turbine.”

ed between” as to the intercooler to mean “positioned to The Court construes “position

w pressure compressor and to provide the air flow to the high pressure receive the air flow from the lo

7compressor.

“Externally mounted” Intercooler

he parties do not dispute that an intercooler is a heat exchanger.’ The dispute is what it T

he intercooler is “externally mounted.” Rice proposes that it simply means that the heat means that t

d anywhere outside either the low pressure compressor or the high pressure exchanger is mounte

oyce proposes that the heat exchanger must be not only outside the compressor compressor. Rolls-R

at it must be located away from them in a separately supported arrangement. structures but also th

support Rice argues for a plain meaning. In addition, Rice points to characterizations of In

examiner during the prosecution of the ‘204 patent, which is not at issue in the prior art made by an

cifically, Rice notes that the examiner there characterized prior art structures as this litigation. Spe

mounting.” See Rice Br. at 16. The particular prior art was the “745 Price patent being for “external

s Surreply Br. 1-3; Exh. 16. The intercoolers 23 in the “745 Price patent are (U.S. 2,563,745). Def’

gine housing 40. While the examiner’s comments during the prosecution of located outside the en

controlling as to the construction of the claim language in the “499 patent, as the ‘204 patent are not

be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that an Rice notes, it would

nted” intercooler is one such as shown in the ‘745 Price patent. Rice Br. 16. “externally mou

9 specification shows in Figs. 2 and 3 depictions of an intercooled gas Indeed, the ‘49

nt invention.” Col. 5, lines 40-45. As shown in them, the flanges on the ducts generator “oft he prese

be connected to the intercoolers 38 and 40 (not shown), establish a mounting 36 and 42, which are to

he casing 72. This indicates to one skilled in the art that the externally location that is outside t

s not only outside either compressor but is also outside the casing. However, mounted intercooler i

*Defendant’s proposed construction adds “for cooling air flow between compressors” but the Court finds the additional language unnecessary that can be ascertained from the rest of the claim.

8l by Rolls-Royce that the intercooler be “located away” from the compressors does not the proposa

capture with sufficient specificity the meaning that should be accorded the term.

he prosecution history, as an additional piece of intrinsic evidence, provides further insight T

meaning to be ascribed to the term “externally mounted intercooler.” During the into the

claim 69 was rejected as being anticipated by Hull (U.S. Patent No. 3,273,340) in an prosecution,

April 11, 1989. The examiner specifically identified Hull as having an Office Action dated

, the intercooler 16 is shown inside the casing 11 of the engine, which intercooler 16. In Hull

rs. Rice filed a response on July 7, 1989, amending claim 69 to include the encloses the compresso

the recited intercooler was “externally mounted.” Rice then remarked that further limitation that

ducting and intercooler and not separate piping to an externally mounted “Hull uses annular

The scope of Rice’s disclaimer during prosecution goes only to locating the intercooler.” Resp. 8.

utside the engine casing. Rice made no comment as to the mounting arrangement for intercooler o

the recited intercooler in contrast to the intercooler 16 of Hull.

e Court construes the term “externally mounted intercooler” to mean “a heat Accordingly, th

xchanger located outside the casing containing the low and high pressure compressors.” e

Return duct from said intercooler

t this term need not be construed in that the ordinary and customary Rice believes tha

the term is clear. However, to the extent the Court finds construction necessary, Rice meaning of

should be construed to read, “air duct through which air from the intercooler proposes that this term

h pressure compressor.” While Rolls-Royce agrees the term need not be passes toward the hig

e asserts its construction, “conduit for conveying air back from the externally construed, Rolls-Royc

fined).” The specification notes that “[a]ir is compressed in a low-pressure mounted intercooler (de

9or 24 which is driven coaxially by turbine 28. Said air is diffused and then ducted to compress

here said air is cooled before being ducted back to be further compressed intercoolers 38 and 40 w

ssor 44 driven by turbine 46.” See col. 16, lines 11-16 (emphasis added). by high-pressure compre

e precise that the air is not just passing through, but is being ducted back The specification is mor

or returned.

ourt construes “return duct from said intercooler” as “conduit for conveying Therefore, the C

air back from the externally mounted intercooler (defined).”

Airflow to and from said intercooler in counterflow with coolant

that “counterflow” means flowing in an opposite direction. The The parties do not dispute

r the frame of reference for determining the counterflow is outside essence of the dispute is whethe

he intercooler where there is heat transfer between the air flow and the intercooler (Rice) or within t

Rolls-Royce). Rice relies upon the recitation in the claim of air the coolant (i.e., thermal contact) (

e intercooler as indicating that it is the overall direction of the air flow between flow “to and from” th

by the outlet and return ducts that is in counterflow with the coolant. the compressors as established

That is, Rice focuses on the entry and exit points of each fluid. Rice Br. 22.

ints out that the plain meaning of the “to and from” recitation merely Rolls-Royce correctly po

sitioning is such that air flow is to the intercooler from the low specifies that the intercooler po

e intercooler to the high pressure compressor. Further, there is no pressure compressor and from th

d consider heat exchange with a coolant to only take place dispute that one skilled in the art woul

ermal contact. To one skilled in the art, reference to “in inside an intercooler where there is th

ld only have meaning in regard to the flow of air through the counterflow with coolant” wou

intercooler and not air flow that is to and from it.

10n supports a construction that the counterflow with coolant exists for air flow The specificatio

ntercooler. In Fig. 1, the ‘499 patent provides a schematic diagram of the that is through the i

well as the outlet duct 36 from the low pressure compressor 24 and the return intercoolers 38, 40 as

ssure compressor 44. As shown, the flow to the intercooler through duct 36 duct 42 to the high pre

as the flow of the coolant out of the intercooler through line 70. Similarly, is in the same direction

ugh duct 42 is in the same direction as the flow of the coolant into the flow out of the intercooler thro

Only the flow within the intercooler is consistent throughout the the intercooler through line 68.

m with the plain meaning of “counterflow” as being in an opposite direction. schematic diagra

provides further guidance as to the manner in which the term The prosecution history

onstrued. In the response Rice filed on July 7, 1989, a further amendment “counterflow” is to be c

recitation “in counterflow with coolant.” See Resp. 2. Rice then to claim 69 was inclusion of the

Hull patent disclosure “the heat exchanger 16 does not and cannot readily apply remarked that in the

pressed air to the coolant.” Rice further remarked that, “Therefore, a close counterflow of the com

• o the coolant at its entrance temperature is not possible because the partially approach temperature t

ated coolant flows in the same direction as the compressed air being cooled.” compressed air and he

Resp. 8.

Hull patent, air is divided into an outer stream and an inner stream. In the disclosure of the

applied to the input of a heat exchanger 16 as the coolant. The inner The outer stream of cooler air is

ses a temperature increase, and is input to the heat exchanger in stream is compressed, which cau

am. The airflow of both streams through the heat exchanger is parallel with the cooler outer stre

n, as stated by Rice. The disclosure in Hull and Rice’s remarks shown to be in the same directio

terflow with coolant means air flow through the intercooler is in an support a construction that coun

11opposite direction to the flow of coolant through the intercooler.

Rice contends that the prosecution history is consistent with its proposed definition in that

it was the flows to and from the heat exchanger 16 in Hull, which are in the same direction, that were

being distinguished. However, Rice’s remarks when read closely identify reference is being made

to the direction of “the compressed air being cooled.” The compressed air is being cooled only

inside the heat exchanger. Rice’s comment, therefore, only has meaning in regard to flow inside the

anger 16. Rice also contends that Rice’s remarks should be taken in the context of other heat exch

n Hull concerning alternative flow arrangements. However, the examiner’s rejection disclosures i

d heat exchanger 16 and Rice’s remarks specified heat exchanger 16. Moreover, there is no specifie

escription given in Hull ofan alternative flow arrangement beyond a generalized statement specific d

that the streams could be passed through the heat exchanger twice wherein the bypass fluid flows

of passages and the compressed fluid flows through the other set of passages “in radial in one set

passes.” This by no means clearly identifies the structure of such a heat exchanger. counterflow

r, the description is that “each” stream is directed through the heat exchanger twice in radial Moreove

w passes. This does not suggest that the compressed fluid is moving in the opposite counterflo

direction to the bypass fluid.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the construction proposed by Rolls-Royce.

nfigured to radially expand said air flow to a low velocity and said return Said outlet duct being co

being configured for low radial flow return velocity to said high pressure compressor duct

Key to both phrases above is the term “low velocity.” While a person or ordinary skill in the

stand that the air flow exiting the low pressure compressor is at a very high art arguably would under

ree as to how the outlet and return ducts in the ‘499 Patent are designed to velocity, the parties disag

12slow the velocity. Thus, the Court will construe the term “low velocity” first.

Low velocity

Claim | specifies that the outlet duct of the low pressure compressor is configured to radially

expand air flow “to a low velocity” and the return duct is configured for “low radial flow return

velocity.” Rice contends that the term “low velocity” should be construed to mean “a decreased air

flow velocity.” Rolls-Royce, on the other hand, wants a specific numerical value and contends that

the low velocity term means air flow velocity “less than approximately 200 ft./sec.”

Notably, the claim language is not “to a lower velocity” or “to a reduced velocity.” Rice,

however, points out that dependant claim 9 includes the specific numerical limitation of less than

approximately 200 ft./sec. Rolls-Royce counters that claim 9 specifies “said low velocity of less than

approximately 200 ft./sec.” which indicates that the prior use of low velocity was meant as “less than

approximately 200 ft./sec.” Rolls-Royce further identifies in the specification where Rice described

the preferred embodiment as having air flow velocity of about 200 ft./sec. See Def’s Br. 33-35.

However, there is no indication in the descriptive passages cited by Rolls-Royce that a

velocity less than approximately 200 ft./sec. is critical to the invention. While the reduction in

velocity is identified as being advantageous to “reduce inlet pressure loss” (col. 8, line 27), nowhere

does the specification indicate that the velocity of 200 ft./sec. is in and of itself a necessary parameter

to be met in order to realize the gas generator of the invention. Rather, the specification indicates

that the low pressure loss benefit resulting from a lower air flow velocity between the low and high

pressure compressors is made possible by the additional radial space made available by the increased

pitch-line radius, r, as a consequence of the intercooler. See col. 8, lines 28-38. The description in

the ‘499 patent specification of the air flow velocity is unlike the situation identified in Toro Co. v.

13White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999), wherein the specification

described the advantages of a unitary structure of a ring permanently attached to a cover as being

important to the invention.

Rolls-Royce also relies upon the prosecution history for support of its proposed construction

of “low velocity.” Specifically, Rolls-Royce identifies that the July 7, 1989 Amendment added the

“low velocity” recitation to the claims and argues that Rice’s remarks indicate that a low velocity

of less than 200 ft./sec. was needed. Examination of Rice’s remarks indicate that Hull was being

distinguished on the basis of an absence of an external counterflow intercooler. Rice first points out

that the compressed air being cooled in Hull’s heat exchanger 16 and the coolant flow in the same

direction. Rice then offered that Hull did not have a low pressure drop heat exchanger and ducting,

which are realized by the claimed counterflow externally mounted intercooler. Amendment 8.

When Rice turned to the DuPont prior art, Rice again argued that a counterflow externally

mounted intercooler was absent just as in Hull. Rice also pointed out that the discharge of the axial

flow fan 18 of DuPont was directly to heat exchanger 26 and would be high. Similarly, the velocity

to downstream heat exchanger 28 would be high “because there is very little change in the cross-

sectional flow area shown.” Amendment 9. Rice’s remarks indicate nothing more than the prior art

ude the ducting that would radially expand the air flow to a lower velocity. His remarks did not incl

do not indicate that either Hull or DuPont were being distinguished on the basis of the specific air

city through the heat exchanger and ducting of each. The import of Rice’s remarks do not flow velo

extend beyond the requirement that the ducting radially expand the air flow to slow it to a lesser

velocity. The remarks clearly do not amount to a clear disclaimer of air flow velocities through the

intercooler and associated ducting above 200 ft/sec. Thus, the Court adopts Rice’s construction for14 “low velocity” as being “a decreased air flow velocity.”

Having adopted Rice’s construction of low velocity, the Court turns to the disputed term “fo

y expand.” Rice proposes the construction “to cause air flowing away from the axis of the radiall

shafting to increase in volume.” Rice argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would

d that “radially expand” means something expands as it moves away from the axis, in understan

“axial” which indicates a direction along the axis. Rolls-Royce, on the other hand, contrast to

es the construction “to increase the cross-sectional flow area in a direction generally propos

perpendicular to the axis of the gas generator.”

However, the embodiment disclosed in figure 7a of the ‘499 patent depicts a duct that

“radially expands” the air flow from the low pressure compressor. The air flowing radially through

the duct in figure 7a is not perpendicular to the axis of the gas generator. Further, the specification

describes how the direction of the flow with respect to the radial position can be “curved backwards”

and vary in angle to accommodate the different structures. Col. 14, lines 44-50. Nothing requires

that the expansion occur only when the air is flowing perpendicular to the axis. Thus, the Court

Rice’s plain meaning “to cause air flowing away from the axis of the shafting to increase in adopts

volume.”

arties previously requested no construction for the term “outlet duct;” therefore, the The p

not construe that term. The Court previously construed “return duct” to mean “conduit Court will

for conveying air back from the externally mounted intercooler.”

m, the Court construes the disputed term, “said outlet duct being configured to radially In su

aid air flow to a low velocity” to mean “said outlet duct shaped and positioned to cause air expand s

away from the axis of the shafting to increase in volume resulting in a decreased air flow flowing

15velocity.”

The Court construes the disputed term, “said return duct being configured for low radial flow

return velocity to said high pressure compressor” to mean “the conduit conveying air back from the

externally mounted intercooler being shaped and positioned to result in a velocity of air flowing

toward the axis of the shafting that is lower than the velocity of that air when it enters the high

pressure compressor.”

“The high pressure compressor having an inlet flow area directly proportional to the outlet flow area of the low pressure compressor, and inversely proportional to the absolute temperature ratio between the high temperature air flow discharged from the low pressure compressor compared to the low temperature air flow from the intercooler passing to the inlet area of the high pressure

compressor”

To the extent the parties seek construction term-by-term, the Court finds that approach to be

ng and unnecessary and declines to do so. Rather, the claim language in dispute clearly confusi

relationship between two specified structures: the inlet flow area of the high pressure expresses a

or (AHPC) and the outlet flow area of the low pressure compressor (ALPC). As depicted compress

ification in Fig. 2, the pitch line radius “r” establishes the flow area of the low pressure in the spec

compressor 24 outlet (ALPC). The pitch line radius “r3" establishes, as shown in Fig. 4, the flow area

of the high pressure compressor 44 inlet (AHPC). See col. 8, lines 51-53. The specified relationship

d in terms of a direct proportioning of the flow areas. Thus, a direct proportioning exists is expresse

line radii, r and r3, [i.e., as the outlet flow area of the low pressure compressor gets larger of the pitch

ger), the inlet flow area of the high pressure compressor gets correspondingly larger (x3 (r gets big

gets bigger) in accordance with some constant ratio].

However,b ecause of the intercooler, the proportioning constant between (AHPC) and (ALPC)

des an additional proportioning factor established by the ratio of the absolute temperature also inchi

16ow pressure compressor (TLPc) and the low temperature air flow discharged from the l of the high

nlet area of the high pressure compressor ow from the intercooler passing to the i

temperature air fl

ec). However, the relationship of the inlet mperature ratio is expressed as (TLPc/Tu

(Tupc). This te

and the outlet flow area of the low pressure ea of the high pressure compressor (AHPC) flow ar

mperature ratio (TLec/TuPc). That is, as PC) changes in inverse proportion to the te

compressor (AL

he high pressure compressor (AHPC) gets C/THPC) gets larger, the inlet flow area of t

the ratio of (TLP

smaller.

m limitation can be expressed mathematically as:

The clai

C/THPc) or ALPC/AHPC « (TLPC/THPC)

Anpc « ALpc /(TLP

r flow from the outlet of the low pressure ercooler provides more cooling of the ai

Thus, as the int

ure of the air flow from the intercooler ch is at a temperature TLPC, the temperat

compressor, whi

r (THpc) is further reduced relative to nlet area of the high pressure compresso

passing to the i

compressor (TLec). Accordingly, the flow discharged from the low pressure

temperature air

orrespondingly larger. The consequence is the ratio gets smaller and the ratio gets c

denominator of

compressor (AHPC) changes in inverse he inlet flow area of the high pressure

that, because t

: o _ ressure compressor (AHPC) gets smaller.

his ratio, the inlet flow area of the high p o o t ir ayd TM aa he a -

ination prosecution of the ‘499 patent. In m language was added during the reexam

This clai

he specification to be found at column 9, he examiner, Rice identified support in t

his statement to t

ed claim, Rice characterized the limitation line 1. As to the patentability of the amend

beginning with

flow area to the high pressure compressor power producing system wherein “the inlet

as expressing a

ow pressure compressor,” which was said the conditions of the air flow exiting the l is matched to

otes that other factors could be changed by Boyle’s Law.” Statement 4. Rice also n

to be “governed

17ng the speed of the compressor could be used, although “a to satisfy Boyle’s Law, such as changi

n the desired substantial matching to satisfy Boyle’s Law.” change in speed is not used to obtai

hing of the low and high pressure compressors is uniquely Statement 5. Rice was specific that “matc

mperature relationships recited in the amended claims.” Jd. obtained by satisfying the area and te

in support of the claim amendment describes the matching Indeed, the disclosure in column9 cited

w based upon the low and high pressure compressors of the flow areas according to Boyle’s La

running at a constant RPM.

because the air from the low pressure compressor is cooled The disclosure explains that,

pressure compressor, the density of the cooled air is before being admitted to the inlet of the high

use of the constant RPM, there is the necessity to size increased accordingly to Boyle’s Law. Beca

ording to the change in density. In the illustrated the pitch line radii of the compressors acc

e high pressure compressor remains constant and the pitch embodiment, the pitch line radius 13 of th

ressor is sized (i.e., matched to the inlet of the high pressure line radius r of the low pressure comp

f AHPC « ALPC / (TLPc/TuPc) and the specified operating compressor) based on the relationship o

conditions of the intercooler.

faction of the relationship of AHPC « ALPc /(TLPC/THPC) arties dispute whether satis

ng power (Rice) or whether it is evaluated as a design is to be evaluated while the system is produci

pparatus and not a method. Thus, the focus is on the ule (RR). Claim 1 is clearly directed to a

not on any sequence of steps conducted by a system in structure of the power producing system and

ng condition. More specifically, the claim limitation producing power or attaining a particular operati

structures of the low and high pressure compressors as to concerns defining the relationship of the

respectively. The structure is thereby established and does the size of the outlet and inlet flow areas,

18not change during operation of the system while producing power.

m limitation embraces a dynamic operating environment Rice argues that the subject clai

ermodynamic analysis of the invention. See PIl.’s Br. 39. because the specification presents a th

“of this invention” and for “optimum efficiency” presented However, the thermodynamic analysis

3, line 3, is premised on the intercooler being sized to effect in column 16, line 1, through column 2

fied environmental conditions for a particular approach a specified exit temperature under speci

This supports Rolls-Royce’s argument that the relationship temperature. See col. 16, lines 54-57.

gn rule applied to obtain low and high pressure compressor of AHPC « ALPC /(TLPC/THPC) is a desi

ptimized for a predetermined operating condition of the intercooler. structures o

n to mean “a design rule applied to optimize the cross-The Court construes the claim limitatio

e high pressure compressor in relation to the cross-sectional sectional area of the air flow inlet of th

essure compressor for a predetermined operating condition area of the air flow outlet of the low pr

eas increase or decrease together on a constant ratio basis of the intercooler (1) by having the ar

oss-sectional area of the air flow inlet of the high pressure between them and (2) by having the cr

osite to the ratio of the absolute temperature of the air compressor also increase or decrease in opp

air flow outlet of the low pressure divided by the absolute flow at the cross-sectional area of the

nal area of the air flow inlet of the high pressure temperature of the air flow at the cross-sectio

he ratio gets smaller and decreases as the ratio gets larger), compressor (i.¢., the area increases as t

xpressed mathematically as: AHPC « ALPc / (TLPc/THPC).”

which can be e

Conclusion

urt interprets the claim language in this case in the manner For the foregoing reasons, the Co

, the Court’s claim interpretations are set forth in a table set forth above. For ease of reference

19attached to this opinion.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2006.

bpn oPe J f UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20f p be a tu d a tu dr lo s posp sy I ro os tw r riv rb iv w ai weo ste n m itio een bi en in en d r o m ned com ne h e l bu , ig , a

ster h C p p la

res g ow im sur as er s e g a b p b ta id res urs co y sur y g bin mp

e ene e ris

s ra g ing a a a tor ene

lo id ra w h l tor pr down i o od La strea po g w uci n m siti h ng gu

h one com a p ig d pres ge ress h sor ure pre

pr com ssu ess pres re ure sor h

pr av a ess in a ure g n

d tw

in

a

a

|

p h h lo lo po po Cl osi i ig w w we we a tion g h r r im ed h

pre pre

pr pre ssu ssu ess ssu re re ure re t p urb rod

ine uci T ned ng e itio rm pos

bet wee n t c

urb omp

tur com in ress bi pres e or ne sor U

sy .S ste . m

am Pa nstre ten dow t

m ro f N

o .

i A A A AG tur AG Pla n G GR GR R bin REE int 4 Cl

RE E E EE e D iff' .89 aim E ED ED D s 6.4 a D 99 n Co

nst interve ruc medati tio iate rel t n C P h onst a ED o a ructi ge RE t t on AG

d & riv es Pr op

• o U 1 se .S

d .

o po a f sit Pa ion ten

t

Ch 1 ar 0 t

N o .

4,8 p A A A A pr (tu A De 96, di os G GR GR GR od Trb G fen 499 re itio R EE EE EED uc hine RE dan ctl ne EE D D ing e ED t’s y d D

Con cl stru ai ction m f

fr o om r

B p 1 t ow tpro

• o er erdu mcin

g

a rec nd eiv e

“ Pr po op t t w os

• o o er ed d pr riv ov a e p ide i ow

r er flo w a

} | | |

hh t fl ped hh t t a t l t t a t en A sy C’s i h o osi i h o h o h o t h er st o u g e w tion g e t e w e e gy em rt th a th a t urbin

com tu e h com tur e l com e bu rbi ig pre pre bi ow pres pr stion f pre ne h ssor ssu ne e sor ess ro ss e re r ure m ure ot r ot he he f f

r r ro o m r

p th C th t p res a pro ons e o th res th sur t du truc a com sur a com e cin tion t pre e t pres com g r ssor com sor bus

tu h ece com pres ted ex rbi i ive pre sor tra ne g ssor d t d t cts

g h ri h riv ha as ve a es t s t

pre rel

to ssu re op ati op

re lat er ve era

t ive ate te p t h t s t s ow h e h h er e e e

g

a as ir

21h com fr a in com prou o com sa preposmoa sa ig mu o t terc mu esstl r p i ssuitiountt i

nica m ool nica ureet res d re need d h ting er, ting sor d l C le a , ea la

as t s im t h t g pre le ig a ssure sai d ast h s

d o u o n ct ne g e co ene

c pr mpr ra omp o ess esso inte tor int ress n ure r rcoo La erco or e beler e ng oler ret a fr twe xte ua urn nd om en rnally ge com c pres omp sor, w res

w sor it ith h s

ai inc d d lud uc ing

s t s asa ai ai nid d d d

lo

w

lo w

| int re coms com ou pos inte e xt erco tur preai pre tl itio rcoo ern oler n ssord ssor et ned ler al

ly

lo w d

di u re ct ct

pre ssu re mo m

bet unt i

• o wee ed la u n C fro tle m t

sa du m id ct er

T

fro m

Pa | ge ca h P tow fr a RE N REQ N ompn e la

a o i QU O U O resy a int rd m r EST EST sor t Con iff’s ED ED str

uctio con n du CON CON stru e it STRU STRUC ctur xch 2 th CTION TION e an

e ge r th o e in f terc oole

h r t ig hr h ou 1 gh o P 0 uts ro

ide po m se

p ou d res nte sur d e

wh

pa ich sse eit s he

r

on a ir

(d mo b co RE N RE N re inte te com th o pre frsepcoma he Def efi un ac nd QU O QU O lat rco rm pres e ff ssu omarpresi a end ne ted k uit EST EST ive oler sors re atesors r t ant d) ED ED ly ’s

• o fl Con lo o stru CONS CONS w f w ex ctio f TRUC TRUCT ex , t ch n ro TION ION clud h ang m es a e er ) n

f ttor an d be

• o oera d com l tw inte r gen pres o een rco sors w oler t th re , a h c e mo mo n e onv unt h ved d ey ed ( ig su ing T h a pp e a a h n or xt x n is d loted ern is ca f all ted o P y p r rop

ann ress h os ula ure ig ed

• o r cla h co f im f oli ra ro ng t dia m a h lly , i

e .e aw ir a

., y g as

|

mo b co pre t com fl pos com thou he Co un ac nd ssu h pres o itio pressetsid a u ted k uit re e sor w ned ors e t rt’ s

a lo ir f w ex fr ro cha om m nge flo r f w ath

• o co ne int r mpr d erco esso oler t r th t Con h c e o ca stru e onv t a hs ctio ey o n igin n ing d re hg e lo ce xte th ive rn e w lo ally t ca
  • o p ted ress h p pr ureco ig ro ess nta h vi ure inin de g

th

a e ir

a ir

22w id w lo sa o t

fl tle

ou nd o in pa t ure een ere ex ess etw wh

pr ed b d on er n n m ed let siti cool ctio a gur ut oler d po nter s nne ai ty d nfi o erco n d i ssor co d Cl oci i co int a i mpre ai el sa sa co s v o n w e

t i o ar r ct l d n d i du n tur n a m a re a o d

fr n n

a lly ee ia etw ors ax id b w g press a s

• o y in d com s ct fl all be ai h ed du adi s g id d ge
• o r r hi ov ai ssor ua t o pr s mpre ng

f d co La a n

ow a nterfl r cou ai

• o r t ai

th w wi flo et

utl

• o o w t flo a ly d

al ure ct oler o adi fig u rco t r on d nt inte m

c ola ai w co n Cl

• o i d l n

a

nd pa ex m m

• o er fr T ity oc d vel ai

s d

ai r flow s i nter a cou

• o o t t

w m flo o et

fr utl w

• o e flo g e sit air tin se po ul h cau op o res t ED r se RE ct oole t n ea r AG u erc s ncr i d int iff’ y i i a int cit n is d Pla lo a ax n ve i a

f

• o n ion g ctio ect n stru e g dir wi m Con h win flo ro t flo f me n olu h i e d v it h ase w t ed ecre n os d y a op

wa Pr ir a a ng

afti sh

dire o e n e ctio t e h a h n h t n t m t

c ha o se t r fr y r t/ ai el h ai f as os act ug

g e e ) cl ont d) ro

al D sur h ed c ne th ion E res t fin efi ect RE p de (d w s se G t ( d e w

• o ge rea A dui ure ture n h o fl ne inc on erat pera a t fl

ra c emp em ularlly t t n ndic w e t r f f s erpe o h le o o o i d ant’ p fl t ut f n end

• o o g a Def ator win ner t f e es e o y ge o h ach h fl e atel ity a t pro t h xim oc e re sor ap n t ppro el h a res i ion a v t n - mp e r ruct

oss co h i e onst f i cr t e a sit ler C

• o h po rcoo 0 a t op inte 20 s g

xi w yin

ng a o nve ant w

ss lti l co ol o nt ed e esu f co fl al la os l r o m oo p

r t her c ro n i a t P i a

|

• o e t at d h is h an t ax t

let n r ed ut g h ai f ap o e i in ug

• o h h ow ro se s t fl th s cau rt’ e n ou h d ct oler e w C t r n du rco i h o ai a inte t fl

ite pos d p n

• o a g mal tin ng re her e haf wi ratu t h s o mpe t fl d te
• o ne r t itio f ole

pos o n interco m ctio

• o e dire fr h tact n

t on ant uctio

c ol nstr e co Co h t

23e e h e h h w d h t g o ai t t hi fi s

let ut o

ure

e et ely ess sur nl ers pr m res i nv red ai p ed i w gu n Cl

arg o rn onfi ur sch e ute fl etu c ret di atur sol r per ab ure

a tem ess r are pr o oler f erco ct f int m ea u

• o o ar d fr w

f y o , o cit l e e ssor lo h h ow mpre ve

r. t t irfl co e ng ge esso a nal o i ua mpr ng rtio h be g co si opo t t an

as pr d L h p w re n l g o ratu o a or dia hi o l mpe t w ress a t te o omp d r

l c ai

s

or f id et et g a nl nl n s i let i ei

ut w b

ly o ty ect oci o dir el l

a w v are o o n

w fl tur

• o essor t re m fl mpr ai

co al Cl

adi

ea d r t ar ai uc ea s red d ar figu

con

w

h flo m onal g er orti hi T rop p

urn ret

ure ess pr

n o

e t e e i h h ar n t t ge n ha ng Pa he t ei

w g b

, t e in

4 her t re i h ow ult

ot ec D ssu t fl es

ed an dir ED ED E pre r rn ss ing RE RE RE n etu pre y rib G G G ng r ex hip ctl esc A A A ti i s ons re d haf d iff’ of ati di s a pe int

rel ha Pla

ers s ct re o ent rd u he w y t wa d n w t cit ha to

0 ca e elo t d 1 h v s n

d t e a

e te on f i h n b h ela orti o t tio c r op ssor ity uc su pr mpre oc str

• o es co h el on t lu , g v C va o i t s

t h a xi f d

th er a o se y w po ticall e t lo f ro ema ct n a r o r P math re o h i i

di t a a ned

itio pos

n

e i or e h h t a f k t

ng ac g ei b n s s b

n avi a s tio h g le ure d) d ela a ess ne nte r ED ED ED pr efi mou m

• o RE RE RE (d o G AG AG r uit t A n o f nd

a d t co ar on h pe icul cti t ha e end dire s h s perp e t ant’

h end r o t Def ato t d

nt ner n nsta ge a co

e h ler h ssor g rcoo t mpre hi nte ng

co i eyi n

• o lly nv uctio ti era co str ra en ally Con

is g ern n ax ly ext air i mate ed

f roxi ed os

• o app osition Prop

p | flo to wie

O ngh N w w n t re g

• o ha su n

flo fl t lt i

be

e uit h d ond t nte c s t t mou rt’ le le to i ou n in gwa n r C i tinrd o

haf d f s a pe

ha

RY al al nal v s SSA ction ection ectio elo NECE ss-se oss-s oss-s ty at ci

cro cr cr ci h ty

elo tt d v sh n

e a

f i r ea ea ea o oole ar ar ar a terc ng

x in eyi f f f is onv

• o o o t o c CTION a NSTRU th er f CO w ir

e e e loo a a h h h r f i ion t t t ai r d ruct

one onst siti C r ir ir po ai a a

24Cl ai m

La ng ua ge

predis h h ab co inv C ssch ig ig solu mp er la urearg h h te are sel im ed d y

tem temp pera erat ture ure

c te Te omp mpe pr rm resso ratu t opo r re o rtio fr nal o m

th e air air flo flo

w w

lo w ra tio

Pa ge th predis air po th pre dis air i (de tem tem (de tem tem th AG exp an ar des in Co Pla

ssucha flo we ssu cha flo s fin pera pera fin pera pera e R re ot e cri nst int e rerg w r e re rge w ed tur ture ed ture ture EE sse he bin ru iff' ed d p ), e ) D d r, g cti s

rod inv on s uc r in ers sys ys ing a ve e teer te tio rs owm m ely 5 p th th o co a co at o wh

mpre t mpr t er f sso esso w o f m e pr i r, i r, h athe tw opo

s fr s fr ile t mat rti

om i om i a o t a o h ical o on s s p h e ly 1 pro pro ow ir f e ir f r Pr 0 du b du b er ela op

cin e cin e t t a te v os g in g in fl h fl h bso su d al ed

g g t o e abs o e lut c ue th th his w olute w e h s e e lo h

w ig

lo lo sy h inv ww w w st er t t hil hil em se o th o, e e a

on t e

d pre ar th d pre ar th (de tem tem (de tem tem ra AG rel ha Con Def es ssu ea es ssu ea e fin per pera fin per per ti Ratio vi str end ig re e ig re ed atur ture ed atur atur o EE n ng uctio ant n n ), e ) e e D n ’s

a a

(d ir (d ir efi efi o ne ne f

p d) fl p d) fl a

• o o o ow t in w in h to t com t com e con pres pres t sta sor, sor, a o t nt t h

a a abs e

t a o th a o olu t t h i e i te

e r f r f

• o t o t re h h t t cip f e f e fl h a fl h roc d o e bso o e al Pr t t es w lut w op h o h o ig e ra os e u e u n l h ti ed tle tle o i on t t w g l l h
• o a o

a w w t t p th fl th fl o i e o e o rt o n

w w f

| | |

NEC N NEC N NEC N di NEC N Co ESS O ESS O ESS O vid ESSA O u ARY ARY ARY ed RY rt’

s

CONS CON CONS CONS

TRUC STRUC TRUC TRUC

TION TION TION TION

b y

Con side ratio n

25Cl ai m

Lan gu ag e

pre t fr lo lo ssure o om w w th e t te emp mpe Cl t erat ratu ai i h ure re m nl e et

com inte pres rco sor oler

a rea T

er m o f air air flo flo

w w th e p as

sin

h g ig h

P | ag e di a in di ai C Pl

s ch irfl terc sch rfl on ain arg ow oo arg ow str tiff ed ler, ed uct ’s a a ion re are a

em f f 6 st o o

sy

s t t o i h e ha

e at h t f h sor, t t

pres f f com ro t ro i

m i ow m s 1 h s arh

g d g Pro 0 i be hi be po

h in in se e g g d hil t t ng w h h uci e e od pr t e h h e t ure ure ess iness pr lepr er t ow p |

pre ar th pre ar th Def ssu ea e ssu ea e end re re ant’

s

a n a Con (d ir ig (d ir stru efi es efi ction ne d ne d) fl d) fl ow ow com com pres prest sor, sor, n

oi a p a t t

• o th o th f e f e Pro th th po e inl e inle sed et t h h a ig a ig t h t h flo flo th w th w e e

| | | NEC N NEC N Co ESS O ESSA O u ARY RY rt’

s

CON CONS

STRUC TRUC

TION TION

Con stru ction

26th tem tem ra th pre flo th e per per ti e ssu w e atu atur o re re e

inte abs h rco olu ig oler b te are h etw a

een

pre com ssu pressor, o re f

tem th

a air pe e i flo t ratu r w h re

pa e ss lo in flo w g w

h

ig h

fro a m nd

to

pre dis

e ssu cha h re rge t d h

g t hi tle g ou y in ctl av en re h d twe di are be n mpco w a e compr re o atur esso ratu e fl mper or mpe h te t fr te t ure

om ess oler et pr erco r nl int ai e h ea i

h g ar t hi

th of e ow al w w w irfl tion o flo o a por fl g l l e pro sin o h as w t o p t

• o m ea or

w ar press t ro e om f o h c

l t e h t

(d ha efi vi e d ne ng h n d) t ge a Pa Co

nstr t y h ucti 7 a ctl d) g on

ng h re nea hi wi t di efin lo ‘ (d fol

hip: tureto

f ns era ‘in o atio emp tle

rel tt at

h th ec) e s c/Tu s /(Tie sfie i ure 0 Avpc c ati o’ fl ess 1 xr s ti‘abs o pr

A raolu w

e te = h th

t onal’ bo

porti al pro ar matic ea mathe ’

d),

ne efi ssor (d mpre

co

te p co a t re la tw pre b (’Ti tem th o a o Def mp res mpr n h -si c i ssu ec/T per e f f end erat sur esso e zed ks n re y uec atur c ant ure. e r ”’), e ons ’s t tant th

inte w r h rco de hic eci e e oler s h pro Con . ig sp ca stru

n a o l h ctio

n o lo i n l w g

h a int co

com ri erco mpr t pres d ole esso h sor p r rs e pre ra

• o g ssu ti pre

e in as r re o ssu nt t re a re ers -mat lo tio A ched w o s g wh

I ene ic f i

n rat h n Pr

to or t op dis a (d h os clos a n efi e re ed ed th d ne lati d) on

e tw a a w i re m bs ith n h a olu ou h o i y te t i f g

g t h h a o a

t th

b a b

t e to

in e

b ra sm in se a ab a ar ha o inc ( con pred com ou sec in th are op Co e t a l ctio i sol ls ea v n re 1 dit eter pres tle tion e a tim ur io lle et na r ute o ing ase ion mine sor t al iz t’s

r l ) d r e

ela

ex fl a b tio h pre o n i sse w in o co y g o d g o cre nst h e ase f ant o f ts f ha t t v f t a th h h in h n e a te e e o g t pre e d a t mp r h ar ssu th la re erat o e ea re e rg a t ure c t a Con er h h a ross-s de f o stru ), d i e ir ection cre f ir ction ecr g al ase th o lo cr

m eas h o r r w th oss-se ath es o r a th e o fl ction ema cro flo ti e o e o al tically f ss- d w o pera a f w

pre ec inte tin p t ssu th rea rcoo g res h cro c

w re e se are ler sur e ss- omp hi b as e ress ch a or i in si n

a le s t a le i o t og i t r eth r

a f er s fl

c flo th o o a t w o w n h e i f f e n

27Pa ge

8

o f ff's inti

Pla

1 0 n

uctio nstr Co

ed os op Pr

C ( i A in t a r t sp o re tem t in ra d com th tem de com a inte ex Def o 4 ncre xrc ve h dd 1. at h eci su pe h crea tio es pre a per crea pres n rco pla end l 1 ase /An nti en itio 41 io e ficat f lti ratu e sed n ig ssor t atu se sors d oler ine ant . d rc on , n ion ng re n . re d ’s

, , t

a h i C

p bs e ncr e h ons 9 erc olu eas nte ig truc

en i (4 inc te e rs h tion t). n rea in A

, 1 ses ter vrc r li coo /An u n ac ler. pc le es cord o p i p ance er fr n res

b f ce om in sur i m t nt) t e n y us h a i h t bet t e n r i p s e o h we 1 tem at n ro e ca en th 6 th pera io por t Th f use -2 ( e a ture fo tio h e h s e 1). 4 r inte b th t n a i t

9 e rco r e h t g h abs 9 a a oler y e h e olu pr Pr fa ls , m te ose op c o ex T u c cut os to d th am a irc/ st t lai ion ed r r u p A dd Tur abs h me a

P a e e le, itio c olu e d pr i ate t w s n te ess r a t n b io it ure h t, e h f a e

t ac b re fr

• o to e a om

1 r t l .4 t o o 1 th h w

e e

i f

Co ur t’s

Con stru ction

28Cl ai m

La ng ua ge

m ai Cl

m er T

Pa ge P lain

tiff ’s

9

o f

1 Pr 0 op

os ed

te p d r t fi th T tem pro ra d Fur o t th sp exc pro Pa reex b Ba Def mpe rop u at h x a h pe po t oe the o e lud por te amin se end rat ort rin io e ed t is ratu rtio io s rmo f e e es tion nt ation y d ant ure ion g re nal re, d al , ’s a acc P

n omm v la spe odate el int cific ar oc iff Con ca atio ea i Au n i ity stru nn n, nu s pc/A o nter o ctio ot m upc t coo o n s be c ler. f t n yst r, le h em ar m t e ra ea h mo d

tio n e dif iscla yin c ime t g laim d rs

• o p r o e u ra o fr a t lo re d rin ti t ssi o tio o t f w lati g
• o h bl A m h ons e op y a rc/A t e t hip o era s npr t i h h f tio c h s at e Pr n e t an op T s disc Ti cla h d/ th os irc o los t ec/ ime e a or e ed /Tu ed h Tur a d rc e c bs th ir , t olu e a th

h te dd e 4 ch e f itio fl 9 m an a n o 9 ad ge ct are w e a a , h

i rea i ig n s h

i a n

Co ur t’s

Con stru ction

29Cl ai m

La ng ua ge

Cl ai m

Te rm

Pa ge

Pla int iff’s

1 0

o f

1 Pro 0 po

setion dtruc Cons

Pla 4 th ne con a n a con op Tie m pro N De int 9 ith dit o ten era c/T e por o fen iff's 9 e er ion. s t p ds. tin urc a tion r dan p rop g n al C t’s

ec orti ons p ific ona truc P rose a l d tion at cut n o en ion t e t h s

eq a th ua e tio t n

• o p a th con per T o Are e struc su spe M at h in t c/An tion pp cifi ore ing e t, ec . or cati ov a ts on er, n rela cl

y tion aim rel ship ed t atio cla

hi h nsh im a P sto a ip, s sp ro r ec po y t ifi se

P c d lain d tiff = efi r ne eci s tes

o f no r th e

Co ur t’s

Con stru ction