Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC, No. 6:05-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2006)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Case No.
No. 6:05-cv-00424, Dkt. No. 182
Decided
December 21, 2006
Judge
John D. Love, M.J. — Tyler
Document
Order
Length
44 pages

oeeeeCase 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Pagelof44PagelD#: ~~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ADVANCEME, INC. § §

Plaintiff §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:05cv424

VS. § §

RAPIDPAY, LLC, BUSINESS §

CAPITAL CORPORATION, FIRST §

FUNDS LLC, MERCHANT MONEY §

TREE, EINC., REACH FINANCIAL, §

LLC and FAST TRANSACT, INC. §

d/b/a SIMPLE CASH § §

Defendants, §

ADVANCEME, INC, § §

Plaintiff § §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:06cv082 §

AMERIMERCHANT, LLC, § §

Defendant §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

This claim construction opinion construes terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,941,281 (“the °281

patent”). Plaintiff AdvanceMe, Inc. (“AdvanceMe”) asserts that Defendants RapidPay, LLC,

Business Capital Corporation, First Funds LLC, Merchant Money Tree, Inc., Reach Financial, LLC,

Fast Transact, LLC d/b/a Simple Cash, and Amerimerchant, LLC have infringed the ‘281 patent.

The Patent

The ‘281 patent is entitled “Automated Payment” and relates to systems and processes for

automated repayment of a loan by a merchant borrower via fees levied through an entity that

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2sige 6:05-ev-00424-LED Document'182° Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 44 Pagel

processes payment transactions for the merchant. The systems and processes of the invention utilize

consumer payment transactions with the merchant to allow the merchant to reduce the outstanding

loan amount.

Applicable Law

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

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

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

F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s intrinsic

_ evidence to define the patented invention’s scope. See id.; CR. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,

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

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

the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C_R. Bard, Inc., 388

F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one

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

The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning ofp articular

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

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

because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Jd. Differences among

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

dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim

does not include the limitation. /d. at 1314-15.

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

3Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 44 PagelD #:

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

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

“is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, itis dispositive; it is the single

best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” /d. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,

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

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

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

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s lexicography governs. /d. Also, the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ng ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting determini

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

the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but

Figure on page 4 of the opinion

4Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page4of44PagelD#: —

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

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

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

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

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

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

The patent-in-suit also contains means-plus-function limitations that require construction.

Where a claim limitation is expressed in “means plus function” language and does not recite definite

structure in support ofits function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112,96. Braun Med., Inc.

Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, 35 U.S.C. § 112, | 6 v. Abbott

hat “such a claim limitation ‘be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . mandates t

described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Jd. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¥ 6).

Accordingly, when faced with means-plus-function limitations, courts “must turn to the written

description of the patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the

[limitations].” Jd.

Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple inquiries. “The first step in

ng [a means-plus-function] limitation is a determination of the function of the means-plus-construi

on limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 functi

2001). Once a court has determined the limitation’s function, “the next step is to (Fed. Cir.

ne the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. determi

A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or

prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Jd.

Figure on page 5 of the opinion

5Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page5of44PagelD#: ~

Moreover, the focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a structure is

performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is “clearly capable of

linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Jd.

The Terms

The parties have agreed on the construction of several previously disputed terms, and the

will construe the remaining disputed terms: “customer identifier,” “obligation,” “debit card,” Court

“smart card,” “accumulating payments until a predetermined amount is reached,“periodically

g,” “third party,” “means for accepting a customer identifier as payment from the customer forwardin

g means),” “means for electronically forwarding information related to the payment to a (acceptin

rized merchant processor (electronically forwarding means),” “means for receiving the compute

related to the payment from the merchant (receiving means),” and “means for information

forwarding a portion of the payment to the third party (portion forwarding means).”

Customer Identifier

tiff proposes the construction, “any information submitted to a merchant or its designee Plain

ment of goods or services.” Defendant advances a construction of “unique identifying for pay

wever, Plaintiff argues that while an account number may serve as a customer account number.” Ho

y skill in the art would clearly understand from reading the claims and the identifier, one of ordinar

1 patent that an account number is only one kind of identifying information specification of the ‘28

a merchant as payment for goods and services as recited in claims | and 10. that can be submitted to

y attempts by Defendant to limit this term to a single specific embodiment Plaintiff discounts an

disclosed in the ‘281 specification.

nters that the ‘281 specification consistently explains that the invention is Defendant cou

Figure on page 6 of the opinion

6Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 6 of 44 PagelD #:

concerned with the use of unique identifying account numbers. Defendant points to Column 1, lines

e ‘281 specification which provides several examples of “unique identifying account 31-32, in th

numbers” as “e.g., credit, debit, charge, payment, smart, etc. card numbers.”

specification notes that the payment information that is forwarded to the Indeed, the ‘281

ocessor “relates to a customer identifier” and “that identifier can be the account number merchant pr

example, a debit card, a smart card, a credit card (e.g., a Visa or MasterCard associated with, for

g., an American Express card), etc.” Col. 1, lines 55-61. The ‘281 patent card), a charge card (e.

s card transactions as the basic starting point of the invention. The summary of the invention identifie

sizes that the invention is based on transactions involving unique identifying account also empha

numbers, particularly card account numbers. See Col. 1, lines 17-25 and lines 29-33.

281 specification consistently refers to the use of account numbers, rather than Because the ‘

when explaining the loan repayment process, see Col. 2, lines 44-48, the just “any information,”

Defendants to be correct that Plaintiff's construction is overly broad and is incompatible Court finds

within which the invention operates. Thus, the Court adopts Defendant's with the environment

ues the term customer identifier as “unique identifying account number.” construction and constr

Obligation

s a construction of the term “obligation” as “an amount owed by a merchant Plaintiff advance

y costs or fees arising out of the use of customer identifiers as payment.” that is independent of an

er hand, originally asserted that “obligation” should be construed according Defendants, on the oth

g but then stated in their responsive briefing that the term should account for to its ordinary meanin

es. Defendants argue that the term should exclude only certain enumerated transactional costs and fe

scount rate, interchange fees and network fees), but not other fees and costs fees and costs (e.g., di

Figure on page 7 of the opinion

7Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page7of44PagelD#: |

normally associated with the typical transaction processing environment. Thus, Defendants propose

a construction of: “amount owed by merchant other than the processing fees, i.e., discount rate,

interchange fee, and network fee.”

‘281 specification describes a number of fees and costs that are usually incurred by a The

merchant, including merchant processor fees, discount rates or surcharges, interchange fees, network

rd service fees, transaction fees, and card issuer fees. Col. 4, line 21 - Col. 5, line 3. fees, ca

r, the term “obligation,” as used in the context of the ‘281 patent consistently refers to an Howeve

merchant that is independent of any particular purchase and outside of any of amount owed by the

d/or costs normally imposed on the merchant for a typical processing transaction. The the fees an

es an example of the kinds of fees that are incurred in a typical transaction ‘281 specification provid

processing environment:

The merchant processor 300 thus pays the merchant 20 some amount less than what the merchant 20 would receive in the [typical transaction processing environment described in relation to FIGS. 1A and 1B]... . For example, carrying on with the example introduced above with reference to FIGS. 1A and 1B, instead of paying

to the merchant 20 on a $100 original card purchase, the merchant processor $98.10 30 might send $88.10 to the merchant 20 and the other $10.00 to the [payment receiver or third party].

See Col. 5, lines 29-37.

e context of authorization and settlement of a customer payment for goods When read in th

from the illustrations that the “obligation” recited in the claims of the ‘281 or services, it is clear

ny of the fees or costs deducted for using the typical transaction processing patent does not include a

“overhead” amounts that are incurred as a result of merely handling the environment, i.e., the

g a customer identifier, not just the discount rate, interchange fees and customer payment usin

dants claim. To limit the “overhead” amounts exclusion to just those things network fees as Defen

Figure on page 8 of the opinion

8~ Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 8 of 44 PagelD #: ©

specifically enumerated in the ‘281 patent specification would amount to expanding the scope of the

claim language beyond the restrictions fairly articulated in the ‘281 patent specification.

Plaintiff also directs the Court to the prosecution history of the ‘281 patent, and notes that

during the prosecution, the Applicant articulated that “[t]he existence of the loan in the present

invention is independent of and unrelated to the consummation of any particular purchase [by a

customer].” ‘544 Patent File History, 1/20.99 Am. and Resp., p. 3. Defendants assert that this

portion of the prosecution history can be ignored because it was made “during prosecution of a

different patent and with respect to a different term in a different claim” Defs.’ Resp. Claim

Construction Br., p. 8. However, the prosecution history of a parent patent is part of the prosecution

history of the child patent. See Goldenberg v. Cytogen, 373 F.3d 1158, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

(holding that the prosecution history of the parent application is treated “as part of the instrinsic

evidence” of the child application when construing claim terms). The ‘281 Patent is a continuation

of the ‘544 Patent, and as Plaintiff points out, both patents contain identical disclosures. Thus, the

statements made during the prosecution of the ‘544 Patent apply to the construction of “obligation”

in the ‘281 Patent.

ordingly, the Court construes the term “obligation” as “an amount owed by a merchant Acc

that is independent of any costs or fees arising out of the use of customer identifiers as payment.”

Debit card

h parties agree that this term should be construed as “‘a card linked to a deposit account.” Bot

However, Defendants propose a construction that includes the phrase “that can be used to make

purchases.” Without this phrase, Defendants argue that “debit card” could be read illogically to

include such things as ATM cards that are linked to deposit account but can only be used to

Figure on page 9 of the opinion

9oe" Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 9 of 44 PagelD #: ©

withdraw cash from those linked deposit accounts, and not to make purchases at a merchant that are

processed using the system and method of the invention.

that including the phrase “that can be used to make purchases” to the Plaintiffs assert

construction of debit card would make the “as payment” portions of claims | and 10 superfluous.

rrect that Defendants’ construction referencing “used to make purchases” is superfluous Plaintiff is co

because the use of the customer identifier to make payment is already specified. See, e.g., Elekta

Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Intern., Inc.,214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brainy Ideas,

Inc. v. Media Group, 169 F. Supp.2d 361, 363 n.2 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

Defendants’ argument that otherwise the card could be an ATM card ignores the context of

usage of the term in the claim. The “debit card” is already limited by the claim to use to make

Moreover, the claim is directed to structure. To add the phrase “that can be used to make purchases.

ses” goes beyond mere structure and makes a statement of intended use, which is not a purcha

structural limitation.

Thus, the Court declines to include the additional phrase proposed by Defendants and

construes the term “debit card” as “a card linked to a deposit account.”

Smart card

es propose similar constructions except that Defendants seek to impose an Again, the parti

al limiting phrase. Plaintiff proposes the construction, “a card that contains an integrated addition

as a microprocessor or a memory,” while Defendants advance the construction, “card circuit such

n integrated circuit, such as a microprocessor or a memory, that can be used to make containing a

purchases.”

his is the same issue as presented by “debit card,” although the term “smart,” unlike the T

Figure on page 10 of the opinion

10~~~ Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Pagei0o0f44PagelID#:° ©

e a structural aspect. Likewise, the Court declines to include the additional term “debit” does connot

efendants and construes the term “smart card” as “a card that contains an phrase proposed by D

integrated circuit such as a microprocessor or a memory.”

Accumulating the payments until a predetermined amount is reached

s that the phrase “accumulating the payments until a predetermined amount Plaintiff assert

onstrued as “holding a payment or payments until a predetermined monetary is reached” should be c

Defendants agree with the ending of Plaintiffs proposed construction “. . . until amount is reached.”

ary amount is reached.” However, Defendants assert that the construction a predetermined monet

umulating the payments . . .” rather than “holding a payment or payments . . should start with “acc

.” as proposed by Plaintiff.

pressly uses “payments” in the plural. This requires that there must The claim term itself ex

ent, and that more than one payment, i.e., at least two payments, have to be be more than one paym

Defendants are correct that more than a single payment must be held, and the accumulated. Thus,

se “accumulating the payments until a predetermined amount is reached” Court construes the phra

umulating the payments until a predetermine monetary amount is reached.” as “acc

Periodically forwarding

nstruction for “periodically forwarding” of “forwarding at intervals Plaintiff advances a co

ned amount.” Plaintiff points to two specific situations described in defined by time or predetermi

the illustrated embodiments in the ‘281 specification:

ther embodiment, the merchant processor may periodically forward at least a In ano

f the payment to the lender or designee. For example, the merchant portion o processor may forward payment amounts every month, or based on an amount such

ach one thousand dollars ($1000) worth of transactions. Col. 2, lines 20-25. as after e

Figure on page 11 of the opinion

11~ Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page11 of 44 PagelD#: —

Also, as another example, the merchant processor 300 can periodically forward payment to the lender 60, such as upon every other payment received from the card issuer 50. Col. 5, lines 45-48.

Plaintiff interprets these two statements to require that “periodically forwarding” occurs

(1) after a period of time has elapsed (e.g., every month), or (2) after an event has occurred either:

an amount has been reached or after a certain number of payments have been received). (e.g., after

g to Plaintiff, the proper construction of the term “periodically forwarding” must therefore Accordin

encompass both of these scenarios.

endants, however, argue that “periodically forwarding” should be construed as Def

ding at an interval other than upon every payment,” according to its ordinary and customary “forwar

efendants argue that Plaintiff's proposed construction violates the principle of claim meaning. D

ion in that dependant Claims 8 and 17 refer to accumulation to a predetermined amount, differentiat

r Plaintiff's construction, Claims 9 and 18 will improperly include the scope of Claims 8 but unde

Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's construction is premised on an incomplete excerpt and 17.

from the ‘281 specification.

that Plaintiff improperly seeks to limit the claim language to only those The Court finds

he above-mentioned illustrated embodiments. The claim language is broader situations described in t

= with

ndent claims are specific that forwarding is conducted contemporaneously it a ° © t ) D n

a t S a bk c — o owt en aa Teain d Soma Se fest

endent claims’ use of the “periodically” limitation only distinguishes that each payment. The dep

is not done contemporaneously with each payment. Thus, the Court finds Defendants’ forwarding

rect and construes the term “periodically forwarding” as “forwarding at an construction to be cor

interval other than upon every payment.”

Third party

Figure on page 12 of the opinion

12"Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Documenti182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 12 of 44 PagelD #:

Plaintiff sets forth a construction for the term “third party” of “a payment receiver, L.e., a

merchant or merchant processor.” Defendants, on the other hand, argue for party that is neither the

tion, “party other than the merchant.” The main distinction between Defendants’ and the construc

onstruction is that Plaintiff seeks to exclude merchant processors from the Plaintiff’s proposed c

y,” whereas Defendants’ position is that the “third party” can be the merchant definition of “third part

processor itself.

ird party” is expressly recited in the second element of claim 10 as follows: The term “th

ng a portion of the payment to the third party to reduce the obligation.” Col. 8, “means for forwardi

, the portion of the payment that would otherwise go to the merchant from lines 19-20. In claim 10

r is instead sent to a separate party that is the payment receiver, i.e., the “third the merchant processo

y,” as this claim language indicates, is that party which receives the portion party.” The “third part

s forwarded by the merchant processor. The payment receiver is referred to as of the payment that i

10 because the payment receiver is a party other than the merchant or a “third party” in claim

merchant processor.

t specification describes the environment of the invention as the purchase The ‘281 paten

Figs. 1A and 1B. Both the merchant and the merchant processor are shown. transaction diagramed in

ment system of the invention is shown in Fig. 1C, which illustrates an The automated repay

r 60) that receives a payment from the merchant processor. Because the additional party (lende

dentified as a principal, it cannot also be a third party to the same transaction. merchant processor is i

nds support only in construing “third party” to be an entity that is not the The claim language fi

merchant or the merchant processor.

the Court adopts Plaintiffs construction and construes the term “third party” Accordingly,

Figure on page 13 of the opinion

13~~ Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page13o0f44PagelID#: ~~

to mean a “payment receiver, i.e., a party that is neither the merchant or the merchant processor.”

at a merchant) for accepting a customer identifier as paymentf rom the customer and means Means (

arding information related to the payment to a computerized merchant for electronically forw

processor

The parties have addressed this single “means-plus-function” claim limitation as two separate

means for accepting” and the other being “means for forwarding.” However, limitations, one being “

as written, clearly sets forth dual functions and requires the corresponding structure to the claim,

iac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Jude Med. Inc., 296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002). perform both. See Card

rties advance a construction that includes a telephone and a World Wide Web Also, both pa

orresponding structures. Initially, itis to be noted that the claim clearly specifies page as alternative c

a merchant.” The ‘281 patent specification only identifies that a modality for that the structure is “at

de a customer identifier as payment to a merchant can be use of a telephone or a customer to provi

eb. These modalities are alternatives to a customer being “at a merchant use of the World Wide W

retail establishment. See Col. 2, lines 7-11 and Col. 3, lines 20-27. Therefore, location,” such as a

d Wide Web page are not linked as structure “at a merchant” that performs a telephone and a Worl

fier accepting function specified in the claim, nor is such structure linked to the customer identi

performing the “forwarding” function.

dentifies corresponding structure as being consumer data input device 316 and The Plaintiff i

22 as the “accepting means” and “forwarding means,” respectively. Defendants input/output device 3

pting means” is a keyboard or magnetic card reader but no structure is contend that the “acce

arding means.” According to Defendants, the absence of structure is because disclosed for the “forw

figured software, and a communications device are required to perform the a computer, properly con

the ‘281 patent specification fails to provide an algorithm according to forwarding function but

Figure on page 14 of the opinion

14~ "Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 14 of 44 PagelD #:

which software performs the forwarding function. See Defs.’ Br. at 23-28.

In support of their position, Defendants rely upon WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,

184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253 (Fed. Cir.

2005). According to Defendants, the corresponding structure cannot be just a general purpose

computer alone but must also include the algorithm being executed in realization of the specified

function. Plaintiff sidesteps WMS Gaming and Harris by contending that the function is not

computer-implemented. Rather, according to Plaintiff’s view, the “forwarding” function simply

requires a transmission of the payment-related information, which function is adequately

ed by just the modem. Although the parties purport to have “agreed” as to the function, accomplish

they have staked out positions as to the corresponding structure based on differing views of the

ng” function. Plaintiff contends it is simply a transfer of data between the merchant “forwardi

location and the merchant processor, whereas Defendants consider it to involve a complex,

algorithmic processing operation.

The parties, however, do agree that any corresponding structure must be clearly linked to the

claimed function by the ‘281 patent specification. See Pl.’s Br. at 9; Defs.’ Br. at 30. The parties

also agree that the diagram of Fig. 3B illustrates the structure that is disclosed as being “at a

merchant.” The structure of Fig. 3B is further identified as being in accordance with Verifone

merchant-location equipment. See Col. 6, lines 57-59. Moreover, the ‘281 patent specification

es the linking of Verifone equipment to the accepting and forwarding functions in the reiterat

he Invention. See Col. 2, lines 31-43. Neither of the parties disputed at oral argument Summary of t

e merchant-location equipment includes a keypad, magnetic card reader, processor, that Verifon

memory and modem. All of these components are shown in Fig. 3B. Also, such equipment would15 ~ Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 15 of 44 PagelD #:

Figure on page 15 of the opinion

killed in the art to include the necessary software algorithms for execution be understood by one s

ducting the necessary point-of-sale operations attendant accepting a customer by a processor in con

identifier and forwarding payment information.

on is with respect to “information related to the payment” from the The “forwarding” functi

atent specification describes the equipment of Fig. 3B as including a cash customer. The ‘281 p

which permits a sales clerk to enter the amount of the customer purchase and register device 318,

information.” See Col. 6, lines 34-39. The description continues with an “nossibly other related

on data entered through the keypad/card reader and the cash register explanation that the transacti

ory along with merchant data including information identifying, for example, may be stored in mem

e. See Col. 6, lines 43-49. Throughout the description of Fig. 3B in the time or location of the sal

mation related to the payment,” the ‘281 patent specification does not mention relation to the “infor

cuses on the processor and memory elements of Fig. 3B. Thus, the /O modem 322 and instead fo

oes not link the modem 322 standing alone to “information related to the ‘281 patent specification d

the payment.”

312 is part of the corresponding structure linked to forwarding Because the processor

nt, in accordance with WMS Gaming and Harris, any disclosed information related to the payme

he corresponding structure. Defendants contend that there is no algorithm is necessarily part of t

‘281 patent specification identifies Verifone merchant-location algorithm disclosed. However, the

y available and is identified in the 281 patent as including all the equipment, which was generall

tware to be executed by the processor, for implementing the accepting and structure, including sof

his is a description of sufficient disclosure to one skilled in the art. See forwarding functions. T

Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Figure on page 16 of the opinion

16~~" ‘Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182_ Filed 12/21/06 Page 16 of 44 PagelD#:

udes therefore that the corresponding structure “at a merchant” linked by the The Court concl

on to the accepting and forwarding functions is a combination of processor ‘281 patent specificati

dem 322, and a keypad or magnetic card reader 316, together with software 312, memory 320, mo

hm as implemented by Verifone merchant-location equipment available as of the executing an algorit

te of the parent application, serial no. 08/890,398. Consequently, the limitation July 9, 1997, filing da

ns for accepting a customer identifier as payment from the customer and for of “at a merchant, mea

lly forwarding information related to the payment to a computerized merchant processor” electronica

combination of processor 312, memory 320, modem 322, and a keypad or magnetic card covers a

software executing an algorithm as implemented by Verifone merchant-reader 316 together with

available as of the July 9, 1997 filing date of the parent application, serial no. location equipment

08/890,398, and equivalents thereof.

Means for receiving the information related to the payment from the merchant

The parties agree that the function of the “receiving means” is “receiving the information

from the merchant.” However, Plaintiffs claim that the corresponding related to the payment

eiving means” is “input/output device 306 or telephone,” while Defendants structure for the “rec

nding structure is a combination of a computer, software, and a physical argue that the correspo

ce. However, Defendants claim that the specification fails to identify any communications devi

software.

only that of “receiving,” which is separate from the functions of authorizing The function is

patent speaks in terms of an authorization request going to a merchant and settling. The ‘281

by transmission through the telephone system or other network prior to processor electronically

on. See Col. 3, lines 31-36. The authorization based on the received information involves authorizati

Figure on page 17 of the opinion

17~~" Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182_ Filed 12/21/06 Page 17 of 44 PagelD #:

processing of the information and thus stands apart from the receiving of the information.

he structure that is clearly linked to the receiving function is a modem. Plaintiff’s T

rly generalized and ignores that the patentee specifically linked the particular construction is ove

performance of the receiving function. The I/O device disclosed is one for modem I/O device to

tions between computers over a telephone line or a network. Thus, the device 306 is an communica

cation between computers for both input and output. Also, there is no linking interface for communi

hone to communication between the merchant 20 and the merchant processor of the use of a telep

300.

trap their argument by positing that modem driver software is required. Defendants boots

he receiving means is necessarily computer-implemented and software must Defendants assert that t

of the disclosure of corresponding structure. Defendants then advance that be included as part

plicit construction of the receiving function as being part of the functionality argument into an im

referenced as being performed by execution of software on processor 300.

ion is without merit. A software driver merely provides the functionality Defendant’s posit

eneral I/O instructions of a computer’s operating system to messages of a type of converting more g

ce can understand. A modem has a particular chipset that implements the that the peripheral devi

nctions. In order for the modem to transmit data, the modem modulation and demodulation fu

priately controlled. This control functionality is outside the recited receiving chipset must be appro

ed information is received following demodulation of the transmission signal function. The forward

to extract the original data signals containing the information.

rues the corresponding structure for the “receiving means” to be the Thus, the Court const

modem 306.

Figure on page 18 of the opinion

18~~" Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Pagei8o0f44PagelID#: ~—

warding a portion of the payment to the third party to reduce the obligation Means for for

ate that they agree as to the function of the “portion forwarding Again, the parties indic

hird party.” However, their dispute as to the corresponding structure means” other than the term “t

pecification derives from divergent views as to the scope of that disclosed in the ‘281 patent s

roposed construction that the corresponding structure is simply I/O function. Plaintiff advances a p

nt with their argument as to the “payment forwarding means,” device 306 in Fig. 3A. Consiste

forwarding function is computer-implemented but no algorithm is Defendants maintain that the

erforms the function. According to Defendants, without disclosed according to which software p

fficient structure disclosed and the claim is invalid for indefiniteness. such an algorithm, there is insu

means is specified as being at the computerized merchant First, the portion forwarding

or 300 of Fig. 3A is thus linked to the function. Second, the claim processor. The merchant process

is forwarded to the third party. None of the preceding claim specifies that “‘a portion of the payment”

n of the payment.” Therefore, the portion forwarding means limitations provides “a portio

portion of the payment.” The I/O device 306, which is necessarily involves derivation of “a

derivation of “a portion of the payment.” The modem 306 disclosed as a modem, is not linked to a

ith the merchant 20 or a third party lender. Col. 6, lines 60-63; is linked only to the communication w

patent specification links ethe broader functionality of the merchant Col. 5, lines 53-58. The ‘281 t

mory 304, modem 306, merchant accounts database and bus 310, processor to processor 302, me

ming “all of the functionality described herein.” Col. 5, lines 58-61. which are described as perfor

s forwarding a portion of the payment to a third party lender. Such functionality necessarily include

tion describes the environment of the invention as a purchase The ‘281 patent specifica

of a $100 customer purchase. See Col. 4, line 44 to Col. 5, line 3. transaction and uses an example

Figure on page 19 of the opinion

19"Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 _ Filed 12/21/06 Page 19 of 44 PagelD #:

vides specifics of payment authorization and settlement. Defendants agree that The description pro

cification reasonably describes the algorithm according to which software the ‘281 patent spe

ng and settling functions recited in the claim. See Defs.’ Br. at 34-operates to perform the authorizi

of a portion of the customer payment to a third party lender, the 35. In relation to the forwarding

es in the context of the $100 customer purchase example the ‘281 patent specification describ

ayment that is sent to the lender. See Col. 5, lines 21-37. In that derivation of a portion of the p

orth in which the $98.10 payment amount that exists after settlement description, an algorithm is set f

s applied has a $10.00 amount subtracted from it that is sent to the of the merchant processor fees i

81 patent specification also reasonably describes the algorithm lender. This description in the ‘2

erates to perform the function of “forwarding a portion of the according to which software op

payment to the third party.”

refore that the corresponding structure linked by the ‘281 patent The Court concludes the

portion of the payment function is a combination of processor 302, specification to the forwarding a

gether with software executing an algorithm as described at column memory 304, and modem 306 to

the limitation of “means for forwarding a portion of the payment to 5, lines 21-37. Consequently,

gation” covers a combination of processor 302, memory 304, and the third party to reduce the obli

and equivalents thereof.

Conclusion

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

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

attached to this opinion.

Figure on page 20 of the opinion

20aoe" Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Documenti182_ Filed 12/21/06 Page 20 of 44 PagelD#: ~

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Figure on page 21 of the opinion

21L :

O >v-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 21 of 44 PagelD #

: Lic

bHPEaB G at SWaYCTLs e en eroes RUeB
na eeR e g eaureBeOaee D

h A e eee TUO

ea aa e ‘SU su IIO9 J :eeoS: aa o IP oy [A O i TeEE sn NO do J O “sS e UL [a} o

a eaRE A

U a EDU padd UO

eeuH Ter inbo HeU

:o es -sayn IqU sa

eeS o duro IOS rm

eeBasAa y s b

r eaO eyue } oe

eUeord

SEE a asey

e enBgn

E aaueREf Y STE ee pCO JS sn eAy ! oGS qu om I9
eA an y Yy a nas R w ) ‘ & jO e UPeai SoT eSet Beeen OIO

eiese A] ‘ay

bi 3 du y irad ne rex e

S sians eenaee e y} 2TE e an ae aS ant JO

eseCU aae

si S 1

e:tssaa JU ul 0 aa peaeoe NO pu U so
S eee AE SIB e IS ny eaUaa s }s A ue e e AS
0EEdP mt ee U E eee eceaaeea S e yers

) e a I eeee e J o aas eBG LH w O } y eEaeey ae

eaGuniiee

e epertRe e eRanT . aeeeie pusL

t ee

eies _jeeeee

(C Teot aupe A a eano D E ae sie

eee eoe

( 2g ea

d 9 Ln se a' Se2 D 1 e-ay i A

u

oe

P 4

ZF-A

9-$0 (D eg? :9 M S Lag

7 s u ae 8-49 -p IAee -90 PA

:9 U s

Oedoe Pat E e

a y

61 Bemm25‘ceere

‘U -7 o ieai ' es 3 d y i a an|Latalee4

yi meB:

94

“ e a O aeee N " O SA Ha g s O L D 5 a oBn$4 aq q e

N Vd i e Aer nbaSe ua o a l e;e EHeeg iueEs nu C C

e 9pT y Eo e) L

A #S E tndlstO S INVO E B eeieee VO ASUN e* yieycbary A Ad wn3 at F: V v

S I eg asaeap T O V V T e bee:jee D D - s es Hns R d a

l ie asisau e

— pSeBae eeses e a :ore

y ;

A B8x S e

T I see RES a IA SH NO seeetre HO es ju IO T O g e ey ow IA Vd a|fan se A

ID aaiy ed SOO e o)yttGe IA

o4aie IBS

p ias es e cuee s

ce e S n e Za

LA Sea a

- VH IAI ne 5

O V'ID . B

“ - — x T :

V LN ye O I VHOU A’ uue o

AIATY IN :if } } JO AY O A a&

aceea p CH L eL ayr A

s a uq s S O

A tescee ns ou p Alee si o

ehpee sa o e

NOL ew p s a LOMLL e C

O SNOO NOLLON

T D S DA-SAT

T NOL d-SNVaA LINE A

TAG V

J O

    • o D V A a Vd GId

id

SU

oa NG

pi l ) SUE] poaas e

OEH EgOe

4S e PtaBas

ueHatN

V 9 eas a D Ay

a e IB[ yeot

a “ , ae OSe UU uo3 }

A a ene TAn eEa S }99 u l eee B e ]9 U a e nepeeS l ‘ n eHan e U L A CO WI EO su a } (

N VT aNeaaeS eo e 9 O ] T D eE eSE esSe e: p O

ee Aa ( o} ] ‘O Ge eeeEd 90 N et e ROSeBe y ( T E ereSOeBE ) l tt o p

a e aeS: e u

S S gS eEEane u e A eeTEae a C a p e W ee acee op u

ant e OSe AY s p e “ rS ei H T y) ] ro0 | bo ¢ H L ea oy ndu n I N e eae to c | uoi uii N IO a na4 pai poz d

£ eatreueeSScaseeasaa

A Hai crtiSenStBee “ E ea

O a w: N e Re Ja JO S ® o ‘r u y juR VA e Rinne MO WO UIP oss e e Yyo G H a js JsN IV y 90 JOU Y n na o MI } 0jd L ON oeeaibs Z O] 0 VA ine ee cb : p CY te } u

SEALS al 1 j e

M o

A OUHee JU “ eraTAUsia O WO : Ste WA ES

“eeoe en Rd ‘1 ‘ju I_G

vel Rper oss e O eaeNaER ooo w yo e ctUS id on iou

See z l OaaS neon od
E ei O poz e tP Y uay eCees eao } ndu et eEereSio e@ ros eriSeast raCl y
ecratrSaest a eSgiyjV
lettreaata e W =ju e es a Sun o eY

a g te yd y 9 yoIo

aa e aos 4 w

i ytH e a oe } S ephtt a A[ e
    • o saHeeoea [BO & o Y rd eee eaCaD IUO yu O i unabeeoiER I]IO RY y n
    • o AeHe eep [O 0 IoU ) s aeonn JU r jy e eeeBei ou } se

seee IAe oy

uee etea d A

s aHSeagac p idSE: LBigee _a ay g so eeriPse ee:e ef np ne aB eegeca eI a eO eee o l

eC eua sp y hi grysnedi ns ‘ey = e } de o aS :e yu je ul

sren oIo pez

teee U rise

bn bespn po yn d A e e eeea zuo wo itpuee esr.a s mn s j q e ee ee teeS e U dut o O

asoaga eau OTR oo o es rs eUTI UO } a e ABea OTU Le po Pa US AV I sI pre JU no IFH Tg MJo RY s USp ju o y OI

Be I ou OW

de d

v p u

re

IOD

yCU eISTI

u4 *SU

2aaoi3iyH

3sifd BHHe:

Figure on page 22 of the opinion

22‘Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 22 of 44 PagelD#

S

a P5a WaOot |

e > D —

-ese ee

eepiJt ee eOes sG3 u 0 Jo sj S yr ses orj so Y o}ee oes } o

s elEfis uey Jos }

a soo y S ndebs po oid sju B uo ee UO£Ees yp sut J w H IssTaRes olo deo O Ae aei ULe Ev d e A d e IOde a ed A

fsH ai J9 S q q

Hy uW at u e O}sN e JN

E d i p O

eSE J om

O UN S

seR CS U OU o J aOU BOCSELESEI 5LL } E T o

:S euG d S ) aO eee038 J u Je U y AGAUEn U2 B o JU iy I s

0s Et E J RY Ay } y S e e USa Bi: O DIO SU uo ’ 1 N e } J LE IA ju pus Agas ASGE n o p IS no do

he a eI aLa O00 ur pul S e sr ys 1 1 I9 e Ialj

uree J uey OIDI JUB yUo rs REeGuuee o OIp LU YO pt

SeeesUeig telnt Y WU v U [BO IOU eseeFCiaa } Sp e e “AT a a qP I d een Oe S

aea e o Do aiA egy S H Z

EaeON erere u O

enSE r I

a yee e s o Y eeCeebgte eE n y 9 u

pelan ieS eeON ] ao eei , } JO o y JO

etSU DOY ar

cu ae e NO }Ip Se ybGe yu S cuaeaBasCeeeataeaSryrtersre

f ree Derr

eHe

e e eee o estees ce el

ee esegHo

eaeyara ju

e ae eyo ao eeeaeewre sio

af ie Uaaae u aea H

aceee sreeee r%

aa U nHee n IO

a sne OM

aa a yI eeg e ea

O LRAe1H:Dx

HSe

e i :OTL e e NeWOD r b[es Ee A pu

a :

0 q

A ]

e po 9 i y m o ia|L o ‘ fte ay
sieee a¢a C

H

utiton! a ju osee n

ow y

a D

V O

    • o V 4H osuUL 90j u OV OIO q Hed PY

C

7 |

m ae

Reta.e e sensaeEaats

a e aya ee s A ae SnEPoe S eni ee q A UI s o 4cb u SL Lo asses e IV eonn aaas p : ft:3 eHes o sB o o as B

L a e J j Pe eeee e akee o

e ae

n a e H S

a yuo O

}ae eAe j pua 9 n yeeLGha eeuy uno da J os

et es, wr put O eaHM C e ae a e H Aee HeE a } a l: a i e sWE 1 y e ,Ser UeeR o p BREGpo Mee AApy 0

EET eee o y e ta E $ e e BnTR e }S J p s a 0 e DReU IS oO 0 e UGEi ag A V u r e P ant y 2e Gnn Y o e B, e BE IL n e ele E ER e a E

nhetetiiieseee A tspe |ia ae e aEs ea e aH|ee e sien ea eert | et bee e o acfS a sG S

ie5 eeei e ECe SU UU See ea eeL aieain ] II IR e e e st B{ IQ y e t i et ) fy t S nsa aee UM aepa pe ee E

2 eicsoe enena D)

la ef H

p a ee vc e ( eef eeeae k 6 a eeA ee o aSer 1 e eeS L fUes H o ASperi U U ea n e S DEE U T e e e EEs I O es Ces He p

4 Ss se sI]G p u ese e po po O a e oiee eee }1 ( j19 yo LBae e eeenEEEO o) O ay a s8ee eoRa 9y f) y)

eN=e ee ] O e e ADE< ui e Ei e a a p r a B oreseusrsctneeieey u a s es y efcovev r e HOz eea B lie ed e ‘ REe eea wA (I t U ete yres o se aBs Saiv yu a e eats f eaae [ ye aeee iSe: a eRa

sae noBI e atSp D aB a

aERT B

aERSISTED

P

OLA

ARE

aey

eeiSSTAR

asE

2EOEa eaeaeTSI Re maIcSEs

o G Dt t

Uun

ea aEato ea eRie esEtUsEIT s we c

cey e aee a e a e eiRTT e c eeaee a eep aisES aS ESeei aaED ySe E ene eS ee HS e eay

e e P aeCE eso 1 aeAV eeE ee oe CeeaST y n eEB hoe eA e e E s n o f a tenE ee eeei StrEED

eaW ne s EC “ pEPepeateeetssesrevesrsesorce r E eCS a U a eU a eL epI bn SU eyne e M s u ae t ee e BCCT § u yaGeeesU sR S eT p ulHOS E

aaT eEEa a n G: RAD

SS aCsaEE

N r URT ee

eep B A

eBet MUeV eu eEaes aetiet OUE s L BYs Bier A Dta

epEBeR R de Ae G acaE e s UBAonts re eOSAIT

eG eca eTRaneE : eN Z H eE e e eBESA e aosE or dR a ESS Le TR Laae S Eerence s eyee STe

aedde Cee

te e nGGui|aESTED SeEL l io T

Figure on page 23 of the opinion

23Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Pagé 23 of 44 PagélD #:

Le

SEE He s e BES <pagePAL ee e u

iade ats

f

a m

SS e2 aes S se hi e Teeb a t !Seias ay e 3E d n } ee a 0

e a ee oa e u eaiaaties eEea e a resreeESS Ee y

ye E e Es U e S

a RP

U p OU

Ee O goad d YOI

iT e 0 yuR

Se osb na } ‘

fe eU bc e r

y GANat o old

H MELa w ossoo y} h s Se J a ) aeee ERaPrer e ue aN ULBe } e S Rg U q P C a d

la c g A

s eaayaBe ae e :AMca een re a0 e F .1K

5EES s : eegveeeoghg u a a) g a S

ac ey e UL mo

eue iso DIO M etea URY po aeeaee J sGCan

tes

Searieets

Heh

eee4

oe e

e

q a e

ooo yun

spr yyu Eeke casted uld <A S iit:e a:e Jequinu

by A p, Hu S iu e Enb

ER o

  • o C

cee

e Sete aH y

a

B-pei B

5.9

Hnee h }

  • o O ed a 8 wA uSe oo oa y She } S d 0 o y H o E o J .Sape rere

ul] au x us po a

BAg a

d a

eter d

a d es eg pl

s op ( v V qn sts e W O ayu ou e d p s a c :H oef cee eaeeoar Hude S eeGe a as em BuUIt q ise itenueA S Be S e e e oerEU A W E eaee eena ii pau& e E SUT av ai eBU I o i aaSES U e ) a e arr D eeq stiaee ] 2eBe eeeuEg ID [D UE T igna Ss ee iare NIB Ie ey a e PB e U SU S G U eeehoae ) y} p S pt SPT aES rd e ce y a o U US l l WYU L S e 4 e e L Ip U U O U I S eia T U Ja T J Q ke er ePe y Q ( aleae ee vieEe } s Z s e ee eEEs e 0 n p I ( ( e G ) HO o s1 es I s I es GES y 19 i ( e e S S 9y p pl aE S [) s BeeeSeSE p e ie eefe ES: e u r e s aG u e u enaah S e p p e O a f u

eeete sas aE os p ) y) y) { ta a e d go qo yl ay T P oa Nd oe ¢ e ea o t[ el TT C io aj Z sno to o G t O}s yl e ae rj es np eEs pe p roy oy W ol OUI pa ee eS e o on o or y Jou p p I

i eeee u u s w 2 2 : e

e

£ Sppeeee enOuNGasSpreeease } u

o

if eiB

apPe R sao tena sy:

ee e 5

I SND

JsN WO} aa eEni WIO AIJ g aeNeBe:‘2 JI e ee e M o o co Oy das a da oI un

r uy UL B : en B | } fee } Y e Y o aiie o ee ae ea asks l ie v A ae e s

s

:

D e[ a U

oo oo

f e us O dui aa e uid su ea ost J sa s aae s a S U EC N

HeUPST U re oquIHU s JOqUI Bs EI s J i

y a a a d

d

l

E ou LS d yj s

e po w ps pa gEes nes G

I u V A B

‘ o “

r oe p so o ! ¢ ao e pl do ol sp nd G o un p U “ su JI u PSaeCSn SearaSnSge aae. S j

SeeS| & ae ‘Bohae

Wa tasranpcpdosaaten e SPLt rOsaLekE SS ‘Se

Figure on page 24 of the opinion

24Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Documenti182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 24 of 44 PagelD #

Pe WW|

eeeEEoSrieere pag i re eseepnas es

cise SEES:eee

  • o e

ue

Ce< acee eas HS

oSCooeaSE

% oPereaa ose

foresSta pRooarteewsioe See

inne herbmeesse:

C$ Ranccreese tatnotevear Cn pt

oe i uo

RcrueedrsawiRS Ajy

HaSpEeed En a S:h Ssul

e anaee

: a sHee

,0a|ea © eSee

Heea eer e

Ffey1aHens e ue uy) "9]OAO O) ae eme s bi a on

u |

‘AIO

UIO

UI q

5é uNO

SoR

h e B

u SU

e J LA

e2 O JUS p!

a a

U Jo

ssa d01 d

E

e

ee

b MsAeG , H ea aOy C ja

Oie nens on qu

ee oat syupsaeine b in

i Hamiep ce I u u e i o Uy

aa eP casse e g Heo

- ea aOna

ee v

ea o a a a eew

mae

u

yu ow Ae SUe 8 d ne pBe nee
gs, a}Ue:a a uaere0e o 3ee O a aiaaaae I

P e IT d rEALE ee N I ed Ae }i

W } urd S ow OS S e e S uo AIO yu TAI

ce y OOT OO J i a oz S S o eeS @ ea } 0

s Bo aye O } 0 1j e s le eee 0 0 1 O e nyy J 1 1 J

a a) s y c 0u sts ee op spS ojul aeertes ew

Ratnane ine r uoy s

s yu od o eaSesOS ee4H de o o

Petes aeHos yei p p 3Serer e pa S S

cei een p y p

B Lear oTU L O o V sA o OW SCaneeeeVeeet doI OUL OU Is Dv u USI OI oe W P 00I WI DI us eau A 0 J URY aaepeeerBeese u ssa IO UBY sd J CH 9 y eit Rapncaee e Jo A J enee

q e Ne aH LEENa Peel : a i THSren e M e e s ie y S eaa U a en i We toraHe H p ITE a a e aee I [D

i: na L e e es e E e ‘

e t e e e o a e O p B e GleaPp ]D L a y e a t aieann NE E a ae rte, U ! a e A Te S ‘ Ap a e ese U fIU a esu ee u Ul “ Pa ( OI (T e ee I L T J Gee e Z O Q a es yd a tey e r a

i p y) e Re T - a aes e e ap He ie g e T u u e2 Pou ee p p B Eu e eee a u e e eengee eLoe y{) L t No T

e ws d9 O c O}sS S haa c e o} OUMI e Ae ree y p ‘ J

t

Hec e a n e

e } ) pES o U u a ies O o ela e EDN ae

ee

Se EOc 9

en s L eea o OU e y I ND YOI Bie B u }JSH OJS JUR ESneaa QUO VUI u ae AJ A l e oe M oe e a es NY as e y yd OI yd co la u UI Zu ao qee S } { } yde

e [ Y Y Bu oeaa o O

e e

ee e srnio B s et e « e e e e

Rs & S s

n r P ina n e u e A u Ee s E ae ev u el WI e o Be k W aESS ear gea n t eice es o oo b s ioc o wui o e BiH o du ud wo eEaas2 o su as uid as E e ees J so J s os

e s B es a U U eoe e N IN e e s eeeerrer qUI qu e s oreics O Jo T e ie J USP 5 e s s s IH n Soi y ay y «A

RG E e a d da e n N e d a 5g E sEct E\s AE eo d ESNEYS S L u ow e , a e a e o d yj l a e oyj Av o p e eiie a Peso p p p aBee yeae u i y I aee e BGED B

reS UeUSRE eie t EET ReE y a esnS u g t A eOUrn o

a eetSE LE s

weees S r n poete S e or O oo D va eaie p so S spl ¢ as eY do }STI

soaereered Re a do UI HU nd BI un 9UO Ree emaa. e Cho “ un v OY “ su s s =. aeae. a Srd S jI ‘A

Pseaeayvse ore: tHeu G Si irerock u )

Figure on page 25 of the opinion

25Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 25 of 44 PagelD #:

nooo

a Fai Poy} e

ni a

Ser ninian

aa euee e S

Ter uld

ie ju

IG “SO ep

ea T t }

S e AS Ja y ee P P qu o

titiiacre inu

or:

Is eae S a

a

e eeE

a

n eE STU G ease OI

reHET s OI[

E O yu

a eee on NoD

ai b Ne NeO ra

e UeRG y

ne Ea B

oh re .a 7 eepe ' Yy n aeer NDO

es2 e NUU de eo UlyEI e S

s o

se en

3

aSES

E

ooe d uno Ae y owi

sju

y} o

op! yyu d lA pol Su ojo
ulu po v e

s R core y

s

p Oy d i y) Ns n Ae t 82 a oiu SuNUI [u ow ee nb yep y qu

ua ea

a :

ee aea epeee

ar na e o baeeiaeee J

oa feW eu ayse

eE S Leee oacH af

e S 2eao es1 e 4 ey-aeaeaee

z8e efue naHaBoai m1S aea d

oNS o e I Ae 39u we e ® } w OS Se eeh S uo AI

B ee y ODT d i e e k ea e O S Ae tius na eaea ow e aBG e e } 0 } yu

MOsuSERRAaG e 4 0 O uEESB V S p 1 I & s aSe Fei: oym esayno sLO aoe uuq A ne a e ns

e o:seene Je eheBoeea y O s peis u NSeyu a yur ete shSA c C euo J e p AH uon s

OO

eSaebieresesiaceeUDreerCi o

eeSeetcs Sp e a e V H Oe a e O y op O O T} aa es LEZ u UW Is Pl UI e WetatCE d A OIO us UI O

s a URY so J S

ee u J

a aa e eBdaebesiaeeAi aa e aerscepts eEi a aKeas a

ees en S S . e el U UI

e e S e H IR TR

EEG aa U I TD T)

eea al 3 L P ® b e eSEN O

t e cET e J “ } oy ds e ‘ u a 4eeeMaee 9 o aas l

e eaBEe D [D E R aSe IE] IIe ‘ iE a ner UI SU ¢ ‘ n ro eB e e Sseir pl S pt u yo U e Fee eOob US T S L po U 5ea eRE TJI HU ‘ [ i T L eA eeWeee Ja U U b I y e eeve e Z O s 1 aeee p I pa

eee 2f ee T “ ( a L y g epSee O yt to

Ag LeoESsa ¢ 9 ( oy ( e es S Pats ( a ) 3 eBe es3See “ I

eiEehsa e I e ea eeom % ur

Se d ‘ p r e Z ere e u e SyGpee 9]9 u ‘ p CaenEales aea n9 ) p ) | L se y od IOJ 6

EE aSe a r o. ay £ oy y mos ed e es pou VM e ee ru no o sNd to O c mu wA OW f u or PI eeeea ens. yeo O}s oy LO}S oy yep us N p jye SUI

Hy e e AT OW p JOU p Su sy Ju ) A e2e eeseo J

gSeaGPen B uae s S ES u O ae ES eye LPea e le AOe Bas aBe AaE UUEU esce } } } y}

aa SEEee } U e y y aG a G ES GBBDEEC U O u o o a

ATE GBR: Aai O p eie se Oee o egae NA o SSAnea eeOA J : PAGU Ha aeoUU j tns Se aAAE n ed

eeAe L ou td S e3 adas y ou L 1 Ses Asa nee ow yu IoU s UEa aEeGH e yoi Ryo T e aasi A ur yu eceee meaHHON y o ct E t D M io M s e SEe M IY dw ) oy

re E Ue es OY y9 DD sti ed y lsI a N Eeesesta pi dI nse UL a yov d o U ed

aito Uaeos Es Ul uo po Io [ ota ee D iDeS | eot | oK atp d

euAB aesTA A]j } u } Ayv o ya EG esANe y i y oi a Ceecr E, nLe o s v } o u ehereenUGGaisEU e 0 001 c eeBaeSS had ee TQ aH b UIP! QA eterre as M e “I e gee e oe RaMetR e AIY es PielEeetEa ‘ d e

e eFy eET e de H at y ow > y aae:ae e e l D sju y ey enie EgO e ene e R vo r eUe SpeaneBae W WI s w eS erE y B R seH

PeeU e tesaeian O e o o] e p EE TEeR e o os g IY e aSReE ee u iw yIn ) OW j J s E E netSe a ud J sy y uN j A ENe e e LE2RW J sos Id o J TT eiee eeEEin ~ d oo uo dir v r eeeeEE Ae w e J eeE acsrninm d ow id tenitien g eE aeEREaeSelenrir }sn yu ast j

eieoE erecliee UL0 s i neeere e Ao Y} nts n s e l s o Bhe o j u E ttME a ) A taEae)O d y 7 e N D rGINGEe o d hoEee i TS u od ut io 0 v eo eeeevTSe m o oji yje uoj eCEaeEaeaee jo oyj ull po w ae oSBE onOt ou p po po a ToeSE eoOinti p } eina etSn sO

i enieU eM spon feaBe Ips 11 t ents h SU eSU eT Efete ] ] ee ae: DRimag y y q e nnL e UBuea e s s npSeet tae a o s nes ie d s OJ d

rea petit r r g s sor poi ) oe 6 y 1d MA Ae RESUNG FeaE sCE e Z oe so y 0ld und Iajo y mno o 90i AV w Sees oeS oo ds da s99 eln TUL O epnu d ssa uIp uo teoEL HE L rd Nn ‘ s o0s Sun poU poy s io S j

lEh GLea “ Su Su sI nbenaerstsenee)eH eatauatTeoatAeetriasein ttY

Figure on page 26 of the opinion

26Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 26 of 44 PagelD #:

“nanoallmo

a: e 2.55) D p eiePaaS n ee e na a e ae

e ®

a BeC } O ie A Ge nse 9 sn U} J SEAG eg soo O o d R ei g sj

neEE BaarE A J u} Ees B4a OU u o e o I{O OI t cUS S e UL je} OID ULY eGSUle B o u NO do TU J nteeoa Be A O IP oy S

s e e eer N d SU su eSH ke *‘ or U eeDe se o ur e ou Y} mb aU pe o uo yT O r e ai m J j ou so a MSy a O J UN eN a : e p e J i .JN ee a s ) Uj s 0 URIp Le a Iy I9 1 y ae C pT u no } Hio i e e UO uin s u eea ae Le TI AjT q Y O ye C LE IS UI Jo yooe U SND S I , a e B IO} u r BoE e IOU e

a3a a y a e eT O ex s e HeeERE e re IO ur duro

a a e ow y J OIII jd 19jn Be ey yun g U ‘a nbo-elegs i o OT oddi

eeeSR s ‘S p s eEN? t ) ES s d W y ua d Sag eee Ha y opu pt uy R u O y sh ou e OU y ooi es H e sd O n Uo br s0 IP o 9} Mj yr YOI on sso a ae u opu s tpy n uno SU J J W ylo A yUR s se ee e yu I o sIs o y a efe u ne e

Hoee

se o} ea a u ES ‘s e e l ooo

yun

idaL"e e

o m

oid sao urls S r

ap jyu urd SJ

y} oq e uin u u

es

e Bp

Bt

a a9] g,

eeeres }0 iu

ersp N nb

aHe a pc 19 o a sieiaes

E l

aa

e n e aever q 2eeas

nUa a Bercees &

eaes t iLea s T s : ee S e Ao ee u ce ab A O e E, IV d a e o o SL J B I Ae cnBe m UI } ow OS } eteaee ueu a£8e ] j S S u TAI u UL e: o Y j OO e SIO p e } S j ULY ee J n SPI 0 y DOI J

eo s PIU 0 o O TO ee ] a OT 1 OA c ere 9 SI J I ‘J )

e 9 Y a S d O e y} e a d d yi

re O jut e A u I uuo q @
    • o o olje S n d w O u J Ae O f U ow p

Saves SIO ju S V r Secrets y BY t Y p v AR U OV ee JU opu S ns UL so O o W o' O eyo

u B od OO o }SN e A urq OIO sI y O y}I qH o pu S n WO s oyT BY ou J e JU “ JO Ca

yus $} j JO p JU s

e

e pe

we aie

H S SL SU e SU U UI ITe ieuo n se IT R E[D 1 [D

e s AHe s E 2 I 6 a iee l e ]

a e H “ ( o e aoe ee ae eae n So D 9 1 e e 2 de ( E ‘ e

6 SU ¢ ur id ) eger 1 r oid p oo U

L USP T U as U ssa e U fN ‘ oss Jo Ug a e OI U o ] I J t T l

e t I O a p t L p B p T a e p u po oy oq O eee o r “ ( yt O d 1 9 e yo e ¢ so e os oy ( oe re oy yf ( ys y) T ) Soa y) ) A

H e SiR ‘ L eH Ueeea e se e o T u ‘ e aegesaee eef a Jo p e u

a e r u p l‘ a p cs T tos | a eB p) T T eyT IO} | du W } O ndu TU S aeea ‘ o ay oo BM en oIO y ne oIS te s t }sN yo “ c aru PI zu ey pr ‘ oez uRY s T WIo pa Ajje SUI pe jyu p y ge er a V S

esB ese e }

( a o ] o taaL } } e } e O ecees j y U u y u a eHssePA U a Q o J e ees eTE e p m Soe eEae i e B s e d

aeae eie e eRe ) o } yr

a ca O y A

ti ea e ‘ ebsZU eea o s

s eea W lat Fe our yo W d a e tes aa ol ue ISw 00I o 4B e# ey y LYO sso w d

ouinu ed yu e WU ‘los UL w Ae Go . a t eoe A co UIOJ uvo aw SIT

/: asecee ow da y YB s u HE eeaeeeH e yu uy ry UO j UO eai e s e S a ‘ a Bdiane e eier etaae p

eeeeE m enit o[9 oi & ) ) huBiia eV oijo ep } ne y t 8 eue aeidansa u } otu oy y } ou e o o n Z y e e q O Ajje p O Y zi u

) e L H d d 1 3 Sul p afe [e e ee A J Ae tte B evae eesa eEe u ou 0 o e e e e jo yu

ei ee SresSp j J o ue p nece n oW

aeagare e YoIJ d et eoRensis e s f uR Ar o, teravieste ly a Po e s 10 y w one: cee an yn = uo J ol

ue e uo « u} jy p aou e ye o on peAcya e se p po uic o S

fapae ee e ul wl jnd afeegeaa erre e vo zuo o)

gs‘s ee e op su pe O e t e p ee d

%a le OJ } ed O -ide:B rg .ae e yM 0NI y wA oT :erits e r I e ela o IN o o u

a : u OJUL Ul [q UIA ‘u 1ca p ULI M Lsi SB & e) OTP I oy w

o e U Y u vo e 3au p! su d ES UE } } e ene A s JW 0 } 0 y) Ayr

O o Pe H y o nne. sE u ynduso J

y vt yoIou pezlo ats qo uR

V sy Y y

nE rg wo v y} pa

e o

pue l es O;

OD IO] d e no al oU H MI y)

L UI 1 nd no eM de 0id oss rjsj e W ef yoJ T Ie O e LIG e}s ojs pPI au sod eio pu 1 O oj ueY u uIp o

u UIS euL em UI w 1os poj Sul suv p ‘y S S

‘ ‘S 1 J S y ‘

Figure on page 27 of the opinion

27Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Docume1n8t2 LL. & se) x N“hangN oca© ce)

6 sD @ cp

) N

a

e a e es

uo ?rss ur petuu ye ad a JOU

IOJS }

Nd 0

U}

O

Se states ctSaraOgieaUd teRS U9

oe posrheeepeedeoeienduseaneceeneecgoetos } ] vanesS ocer weetnens Sader BRes Esaepkrioesras O j1

epsoeeaceusrsaesBSaettea: a tea A

acnraet eto2BerroreceaCoSsetesape eee beSS Se J

oe

9 0

eW y 1

ik ) ies

a s e Su 7 bai Haga IsN

en aaeesi

eS d

eRe: Spt SE eetnpe Seer NU OSI

8pesireoHcee Joy U

earessoeetes

is ‘/ ! A sd e a 3 :

se 4

ue ete

:

ee

y

7 : d

  • o F a

C

V

v DV yDV

HTd oHa CQ CH

|

Po Oe A eT sae

n

Sae

feue uon

acaesdpiso ee fe a3 a1 e CaeLe Be ee OM yeunojul eaeeaaHleee i Hee . e

ie a e

ie O A

=Steee i.atte Heese atedU u

aAe prtan edee:eS eaves@e se co een uses y

S EeSuse C en Y

R

# O

mSoennepSoy said eoueeece pentgse.

e

SU

IRI t iaE I D) p n Q

sieate ee E ‘

Eaoaee:efaes a e ( U a wacenh a af S 9 L ] D £ t t t deL eF u “ E . T o a e I S M n u “

4 e e p ept me ee U U T ° ted2 e e | aly U ogab e e L J I { eee: Y} Z 9 n e f P T s B o a ‘ (

a pee O } L E eavliee t9 (

a e td O ( 9 b I

na :: “ eu esee I e

eee ‘ u e B S e e p

aE a na u u

SEER- ears e eoe p p ay T L sica d y) 0S d | x Z yo S O ]

p y B e I de e II Ae snd pa ¢ ee ur yo IT ou roy “ ‘ O: L ua a SU u ) Jou E q p y S,

} } }

Sue Nene U o y

eseee seonsee Q J o

ee8 Giae Reon!

rere=

e s

ae ae=

Sshe ee

oa ut

Bi a M uvo ns a Oy s | GAiGs e UlOI H H a O eES T a oo O nU re efeeee Joqui e,:a

a ee o

t e

a a e s e ae e t eeeri e d 41 s4 Esi&e o o re a e ep wo p tte BERase aGePE SE Wr tid BMEE U os e a s a eSeaee o E aeUa ss aeeTcaESSo eEvanes 94) J fe tSeH o pha

ge o

5eaei e ei + ca 7 Ip

sae 28 y

  • o H ES ow e P!

TES uv WI

ey id , s s IJI

ee a sh "J oo i ay

s ul

esits e

seae e

s e e SER g e

ec L to U CS S

S

oe ov

T os oo Nd T nd jd I0}s “ Ssu Su 19U

mSat Peoe ee

Figure on page 28 of the opinion

28(05-cv-00424-LED Document182 ~ Filed 12/21/06 Page 28 of 44 PagelD#

coanall

vey rie

B

S

aeaeaaeie ae otBo e YONS JOB oo m u

eo o

fs: a pheneie: rE eSIaCeAe G eCe Ovee sa Asboe I

sseeat" Suenceesekatesproelancead bteeaocs ttiersg OS

eerg ebeeeoressSeeees U

Seenaereeies SSESS Tey O

SU II

NI

d I t u

t ap in a o Sp nu AjU qu a a oe yU uI y] uL Ja n a p LA aq e S e praeet oe Ue Su J y

aeeas y ee

p d

n

a e

e o es W s e r oID

r p d0id ap Lz ssa y)

y) W so Io ul ru oR u OR Ues B uo b OS bi OD V ay Jo on yuN a on yuN p A L

- Een eee e c i

a e

A B

a::e }

e 0

i a v B e n S eo u UL

WIS e e n e AIO UE oso as oo S ‘ Run

p uno N B Y y

y O

T } q e O
    • o w O

} I

O

i B F a ed n

u IO os

dI p IN

: “J T

t q Sp e y) ap o yU ne e yyu uL a y uld S

f nd S OO 0Id | j yoi J e}U ss0

Be sp UT Os so SUI J S

n UB q a

a UL nd ag u

uy u e BOI O u} yoi br in : Ne ul b n i wI O e sp n qu

OD e n qui p oy J so o Ja UN sy o o p

®

B O

J

0 D d

d DII B I ce } B I de IN ] su IOS

} our OS OD J S ju OIA p S yu IAI E]U SO a ox AO UT F

ur } S S O 0 j ] 0 0 y 1 0 0

1 o O 1 1 e J J )

so ey uno

ce y y

a oyul

P oyul eun rv yeu Ul wor S aoa d uor S 9y O aa OO IL. oyers SPO eaese—aee P P p

_ S UO Y op Be p y p OJ L U ns UI s O mec e = a ns W sa O W e 0sd OU Uq IO udt oe ste weT eeeSS“ ¥e d u ugq OIO st u Fsoo OW A oy UBY a J

so A yiu BY ou V Jos AJ p J s 2.see Soneceon: y po JU s J

eeetenyepore :s

Ca iSEe e SU oLioteu;ei Agesn , l ] IT “ ‘p aee anes ED

obsess : HisegEE p ¢ 4 l aS0 e aBS ‘ ( a e8 E 9 “ e dor C 1 ee 3 l

cer E] E] E L 1 | U I IT o e y1 “

S SU S ur pr )a p! 9° p US U S es US l L YN “Z e ee l LfN U “ ( p JO t T ae a U JO g “ IT Q e E

U e bere ] po p ( a Z sv oo “ Le rs 2ie e a) E p y E n shee sea ( b p ) S a S e Tu T e anSE e “ Ie u aeo)i 3oSae aCaeao n p e Ja p “Z ‘O p

  • o n:e|? u ) y Ca ° ) p ) T l [D o L L eP eeee 19 oy ¢ 0y O is te jsn c O e o sto 1d S eU um wo O eeo ayl woy oq y s Jo
} O} y) oj } Y

a O y O i o

J o

aks eater e SSescecs e s

  • o s

eta

e it

a oul e |aea ; aul J YM suv c uv OIO

iaiys oe2 s Ul

a EE

HS l U ue o nu OQ] quIN

  • o oe ui Jo Saoeeee3o u oq

pasS neAeet gere) iteaeBee Bl

h ie eBO

.a O ws a gea TS et d o s a is D o e el wo p do sc one R uio i Wi ud n aeiage fe WI sasud p o sos

a3 O J

ie i J n &a e S s

PB sp ew a£ e Wa A

g ea j ae y s w ! B TEBE r w vo v Usp de a vo e pP! su e yW

  • o se su TJUI AS Ja BBicem AO \s ‘ oS e ‘ WIa

BsSeog aScete B

aoeS enasye: EaE

Rap Rees nieas

eu

aFrae,RneSneS o T, saeGinrerteetrancoresessecoSee OU

l oer 0R T or oe T ac 90 nd
so ao Nd C yd TId 10js d jd 0}s Ssu Su Asu ‘ ur Sul IWI

S A

Figure on page 29 of the opinion

29Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 29 of 44 PagelD #

<—nad ia

poe Eee

ae=eBe

i

:ueHl e Ja

eeee aLa ieee l wiojsno

i y

fe

as

or b o u u

    • o ) s n 3 u e opt ept u uin
nu yu nd q e Ar lA os jo w sut Su oy

n eae e ee aeuHfnareee a a T o SEsigaa a pe

e "aJOAO

ay r) ap) e e ru u os9 u b nbi uN ecnS on o y

seaoSpmemsirehadn e BS) eraeen,ees e

cee HoE

cesSsie

e oe sor ooo os uno un yun y y
t p! apt ap US TyU yu yW LAj lAj ULA Su Su S
BT OV ) y) e Y uy) uy u DV bu e ESTISE A r bi uin Hay n

O nb n aq oH o a TITE O o o J C e l

e

aeH

e e

e n

.ae

ee

ai ie

o

d ed H ed Ae I wA S

a T wA S wi OS } ua AIO i ae e CaLe ua IO uo AI a oyur S y DT

cn ponye EBUeerset y SODLA j SOOT SO eo3 a3 soOdno eoe o 0 O y Jo 1j

i aaies y 0} o O he : e 1 1 I J

e C eun

uory S d os O
    • o o O po p SP S S V p

Sae eta p op v y W so O eemeS esueone:eeSek so o s O O u IOU SI

eat pias: sI usI A YO 9u J

eee ou J 9 J a JUR s

Sade a=: eeEtteeesaseieea s s

—_ SENeeET Soeeos

ep oeee roSnhsaspaees seeya& e Serene oe

oepro tresceSresoe

owen ogaeee53:a e | ae SU e SU LIL

NL TD L L

P i [D L p E p “ S e ‘ as eS ‘ 9 ae 1 E] ‘ L aeisci L]) U E a eesna II € S S “ a e:s : e SU S T PT e sree pt O pt SP U UI a s e U S T L UA WIU LfI Ul ‘

lU “ al O L JO p L T as JO U I ] J J

a t Z Q T Q f ee (p p “ “ e c Hi p “ o ( e a p oy I ( }o E 3 e to E 9y

ay b ]) S L e ) I e p “ I e I u

u “ u ‘ p e re p

T l m ) T L f9 oy) O y a oy T .Oe D t19 o S o a | n9 o S O sn9 TUO JSN oys y S o a ¢ oys oyl “ ¢ roy Bo UIO OUL pa ‘

our p “ Jou A][ JO I a J

ae e Pee e

oeneetee e e RHGe EB s yee nR ENRILH5 e ] ] } a aH PL G } O] } q} o Y O e eeeCa u Y Y S

e ese o J o a I e I e: Ae y

paaOs SUSEae nE laiyai y e n le He Go B e eny y u S efr IGaS ie c e e E SEe

a e Seaieag te nd a eHOeenee es oys ea eue aa n e ew

aaHeae tt ul J tMTfe M aul M vo M uvo

et- aG Y ue OY su SYy s ei Se sIN s SI lDI

T e UL UI U useas a anedeu e Ca hteye Nei 4} a aee ee bH ] U T pL L ess ne ee Q n O Us O 9 be e aia O quI YY eZ tcea Jo JO

eG e eeea eae e e aaee

U ee \ a f e e l s sep a e nans S u esi d

easS e CRpeeo e E] e y e nEt Ersae n pi O o e os

ES o ya e I oo el mo W ui e en es W dui Wi dw ud

na n seH ti sti as eaRaae ERH: sos so s fneeB EE o o o oeter os IG ae o e

e eeioe E e J o ee ea e j J d es

ii ue 0j;sn ud gBe ye uL1 S e3e as o As BB fnoeoa h e y oo ee a o Ie HeeeJ e B eoi aeeaP e o eei: n ES ) w

e ee LIFe w T ow u eo a da e un LA ve e UIP uv o OO] su

st a ue SSe su v PI s s TJL As ti ee eeeAA e hs ‘AI sA HO ys a e ceH P ys 4y “ o

ale ee e oTea ia ua w e ee ee ea w e aseSe eEee U o

abedeeS Ceabe u e e oe eeg a Y ot H e nSarye B je

H IRENe EU U L LS ] L Al Y a E a e U U “ ei E aGN n O 3

eBi eG r nee HUsueieeeeHV sW e e er oe T so ] h e SSetarele|uOaaRBe i oo so T oso ao UL O da a p e Rsaeeees eseee v oa do snd S d Td OIO n s e Siiite E eeael yd n r0jy ‘ un u BY ‘ Su U Bat ee ‘ Su Su Aou S S JU u de TY

a

Figure on page 30 of the opinion

3005-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 © Page 30 of 44 Page#lD: e <“yneoyco lnied n au

ai a ue cne of ue oeB d aa n UI e YIO e ou) B AreyOUOU JUL

Y]

O

N

. U O

H I

e S e [ eH a a |e f e o ni Se e a en: M

: aO o eve: o fae

eoegerse a d ld SeuBea s Ae opo OUL teS ei e ou LIaj OJ e ea e e yu uTU URY a nieee n:QuaeaRee:H Qae s po J aQesag oneabeee padc azEcae5fsiy ienae 4oe c e <: e s.oa o5se y

dBsa a na B t u vei¢eM Sote &a e s E i M o Ta e t e ) ta eB ooeS

p U ne Y HN

Pde J o

a jo e

a eEB A ees at

UE A

ye g

oIo

a RYy

yu

l Pp Ld 0 a e eD s o ES a70 Uee H e e S I o a e S pR u * I e ul a ‘IOAIO S e ae @ OO I

e e ul

W y o OUL mw a OIO y YOI an n BY OI JOV e e w u ure JU O a e W no TO e Ie e [ Ju OA 3 } “I Y} l e t O o eit U O d O A ee3;s fee SWA Aye i s nek @ :ee

ce e
OT gR t ed W U d MI WA ' OU wA uO TIO ooi PIE O a YI uo ejo J oU} sso UI JU “ JO sy Ar J Jo S

oEE oGefea SER nes CH a a _ _ S SU SW ei U IB B ea e a ID 1 ID | ) 61 e Hie ie 6 i HB Se p ( ( REI Ha e GeR n n o eOeid eECa e u esee ece ed a a Ree BE e e g Cs gS aRG Er d u u ceee il, Oo ne ra p lR ies eeHeds e L poyo U p U U IeE E a ee E t L l L t Oee e e .B ( t ( g e ye o s Z g p8 P i c easet ne p a1 o aLitatican Ges e oy I }1 d j1 ieEE eea epyrcepear oa ed 9 e 9 .eS e e n eseseeseesreert y s a yr 0 I eeee a eeeee ) Ay T A L s e S p L p n ePensae u u ‘ oa ee e “ r a e e e u c nnias oe grseltnieees e no L y x Ol e i:ree u y y} ee ee k gs jn ure n O y6 a n h je no g a p ) ‘ et sareeso a su yu p ‘ ) uy eese eee e e ef H na e eBe m B

e snaaa ea S ] ] } }

r eeik H a e oi o oq) O y U o eayal sala J s O I e e r y : i r

y y p p

IN o

c yL oy

uns Ja j e fts H e UI ys ee erhiaefos OIO } e ea i sBHns BY y ieT pnea ) JU o eee BO ty s e y Et m e a UL s YM e Se a SH a BO IO es AaaE H S su UIs y e teeUe E a it w 1 ni e uvo ee oea } s 0 S e l d } Q] 8y se eB aF eSI O d o 0 O « l nio e ee l pei ni eaes e ee eoe isjo e o ee e IES SitiA r oid. una u u

aesEAsa oo po p

p s ne oAe a oss MI.e ele e L maees s UI & e ne a eH pN e y i sa uye BUa fe Q2 S v HeSeegieon e D Siaae fe [s L Heee e e e e IE e a ees wr } W : aeR a e o ed eeee E eE e ae rd i S a o J y o ou e re e e o yu L SIBa r e J oy j , B aLE HSp J s d msz e yc aee j rde os ae eay a e OU er uou ur urp e. eu o YSI n ov «sy U tid S AO ea aae en UB u ey e BO as y) Qe de eeB eE y o p SU s UIn e Eei EGE y y o NN) eee e aES hHc a E ee uesi NS } t e es Y oW s s e eaee S s S uR sd o feea e as eEDEe EU sh s oy t e e8 pSGe e ay Wd J U S EeeL w w aa ee Oe AB e H at y eG a e Se ea ieceae o M e s e a a L ], Ie a aGeHe nee N U IP e eseeeehe es O ‘Apaed O §=SU U a GBn ae ] S d OY 1 ] sod od

I IO de E MJ ose O 0id ort r L U du w oUr PIe nun 8 oo orp o “ RO sLI uo un UTp jyey I oss Ape u

SU o sj j S po s

Figure on page 31 of the opinion

31Case6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 31 of 44 PagelD #

a ae seSenaybee ae e FieePE esey D B> D : N

fee

t e iita e a Ee a ees: 4} n ae

}a 9 e eN uc oo ce a s O i Or e sj

L e s p J c fee

eLES b OW a e a tda JYOI Ae eirA esaU UR u O o N

Sg e n o

ebut ucerestseEpeeey) } hes apers 9 J

:aa

2r

0

a 1 “uo

at e e te V

aH e e si[ LI Stia qo IS d e SU OJSN a OUL

c i a J e e eE O na B t

a y J

o

ee ia S ae e t n i e opu aP o OU ad 0 n a thnP e YOI opu 1 s

a ee eees UB ju o

ee y

o.Ha a

eee H eye s ai e a here s

e es

e

s

e A i y

a o ‘s OU

MI

yIO

our

} yos u yue re
    • o u

q p

e A

of

a o

oid ‘ ao lss Su

mo

parerese o

p

t

    • o Y]

Ue

d d

ee T a0]

c ate ar y 0 O]U

y UL RI WY } OI

A qDIO E No 9y ULY a URY G jun J oS

e

u apPn bi he

eO eGette er e i SeH 2 e a e e a eL ee

eee ps es G T

S e

e eniaion: u

aniec A o

o e R ec 2p Tare o ISLI j v } J SU

Sea e L y eNe OU e

ME a YOI J a aa JUL 8n

i ] 9 b 9 a } 9 II

Y S }

a O 4

O 9

sir e I O

T

i

J

SAAT O

oes e LI

PS JU aput

u ceince S OU & do OO O

f tetd I }I pua S nN

caee OY yuo S} y e a a E J

ei eae SaAE TAEE e B get I a ee (S e Be ep aeee ts

eB ta Y SU a Ge e IPRSOET IIB

eaa 1 } ID sp n dt ) eee e ERLE T 6

e: r ePITS ( a s ay :eeEESS o o Ce S

a ta D J e eDaea ME

2 OnS U e MB e S u

a aOSSEEIEE p U a as eDTT Ul

HE L e SS T a ae S p ee CSEY a}t e ee sc IRITE od

e yy t eAI)e aI I ) a osE ZAL Z e eBW H &E a e a ‘

a e ad e e Ber sor

aNe tie T eyu (61 o naa e s) os GQ L Be ier s O B EsI[

A p e o oTJ

e ie p ‘ v w

e r Hee N ae e Ce e s aei G

a r ) ] e ee u o

  • o o I D

Eeee) aints e at za n e , e ie our

e ieee un

o e e ee a ur y

HH e 1o e s ee e aM vyo i H c yu e

e7 .oy u a o1

c o j

B ensu

C e Teeo vol e aeo: a o } su

es Q oy GO ea n = SIT e lHh osets « OHV

O H as ed M a E eS a "

eeG y

a A a e L e }

fP e y t eUGH T o e e Be T

se e sD o

Fe ta oR] a M:noeaP ce WiI ) J

eUee rg aD ; e pa eHa eeo

s e s eJ spa e ee

anie. S os ) s uer u y Be e tid o

a OU as e e e sUv s

a nREae ee a e 3

eOBa y= e 0 L er e L

e Pe s a a a s sA Ad ssC e erdI OIJ s S rgsecsecW Us Ae EEGi svy

ER e a

Gu e pyr & E e e es t I

e c, e U S

O

e a e e ue O eey] IO} IOJ e iH6 EM id eM y}

UIPI ss0 PI e

H innl =S oss SUI J i edoe § iI e t oie

Figure on page 32 of the opinion

32Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 32 of 44 Pagel#D:

B

a B e m

g o n

i re q J

u A p q y)

A oio O oU y jo wI u p d AJo OS |e o de J ¢ MIJ os e uc

7 QIV }W o ua 7 wy UL j ‘ E e UOJ ¢ l OL J dd OYR 1 eu or[ 80 U } d ! us e rye 68/ y ool SP 7 no u OWL bs e ‘uo £'0 a sso IJU NO ‘ o A YOI din s T 86 Jo JOI OIS L JUB mm IL “

OW Y} - uo U ) bate J 0 y B 0

O a 1 wo N a U Ro XI : e U} ul r O bs AT[ ios

    • o o ‘ In ndu S op pe ed eA usj age ee W Ja r r usy oz e g V= ydu 1 o sj p

e a l wus 6 ju e &

e OS uo IO L6 un G QUI poy OJL o s O e d JLUT y } S U 6 m o MI l L

, S UOT d E o s TO EX ,S 0] ae } os e y V yo } OU ; e NS OT N B 0I Z ds e O ND e A es yre u Li u IPI ye 0 YyOI

a JUO}S W NJI Jsod O e pi YjI UN s ory pqe ‘ o e p j SU po yUR

OW 2I os “ p J9 S u o [

ID e a IV e SI AERSES =e

: ,

8

a :

aa a

l

efESF: S ac aees

eoaf

Ree ”A2

He ac s

e U e e

)aa pi

bd as , od

8ee ee o” d 1s 9

pl Ay [e B

e e n rs LI

Be 1 eo J9

Bs) J (

a4et 3e set -LAE

) ee e u '( e e#n V S

n1 o ‘ O

ele u d I V aa w e Y YO

d se s O Aq _ u ‘a J Ca _ no e
    • o u )

9} p O dsy

H oy J O ou v,

‘ o

W g

IN I oy 1 , Op S ng Td-SNVA U AYS gh eo Aay TP IN ou NNA-SN' S 2QIN “eo “p lL ‘OA LA |wew NOLLO AN |pr Io Op |AJ 9O

=

=

oB eae=cb asoeoayos

O a tu a oe ee a isee e Spies

W e eosat eeUteara esos Beat es a e iceBreet ceca u laareeereeec e ue r ae u

aeneice d

S S eon n e L a O,

h a I s- Aa V P M a O d V ( e b Y O e WO

( a A p I . os HA ne a a e o O CG ; l S e e C ey J J

e

d u ch W n E

ee T

: B O a

o g

L

O be lies S ng NA P o} 09 I ng

su I O dej du P nou n NJ uO0D IA oy n wo wo A uNs BO u aq S :‘ ‘ Jo s J

® ee } 0

HNd 1 AS ELE eo I] INV I oq W

E p R W d UEETE T d0i l

B USP sso U 2 YN no l Jo H JO ojs U R Jaw } Hers A epe u O Rd UA igtovere J ot } yu ED estates s V e LI i e 4} S e eis . 9 tets aeL e T os y) Ol

iE e ) L o9y MIO UL 4 dur UL oo aU x:aE o y yy O mor O WIOJ ayn IO st z PSeee SSSe e ac sNd o oa RO est IPI eW 0 zu BYS a (

ohs uo |rjd WLO\ |W |ay |( SU Ayj SU UON pe JU p aBaoeesroe e © a s Su JOU p 0

e

3 w }

e } 0 B u 3 e O U 4 u 9 3 p J
or d w ye

e } A

s 0 y ‘

a aeuesf e BAREi e

e e nS d s

as e um w d

B a y ai ors 0M oIe o01 l u a S sm ey YI1 RY sss o d GO

  • o le hetebaBeo: Yu qe jU } ‘JO w Ae T] e S a e ty owr w TeS

SNOD e|:m oss pi OJUL uv uo MO OOULee d ULA s y NOTL a y v uy 79 OHV

ue e s szo0 B U

ae e rm0 oa e } n ed Ayes iZj } e ) y aah eaaa rd po y ujn 4 o e e_cee ou o uoy e 9

aia q 0J yu } } uIz u

e 1 ed 0 Y S p o oiieps A ws I

car e G } uo J eoPek e v 0 y e oe se s 1 OW to e e yOI } a ea URY d o

D a J de J s V'Tae e c w e IAT e atMeane 4) uo np S n Se esuoy j so

eBee e 5aage ay 9

e S ap e

g i ul t u ros } a Oe pe ow p ndu d 0

e o suv iaj O ee e y pozi M d LA e o y ) e O

e eaJ aIs O 0IA y wA U sg a JUT v Ul ]qo AII a uo s ey ULIO M esI UT W ‘j &

O£ Ef e e OHE Ol SG eo I Oe U I U su IN P ea Ipl Y d

  • o e WU } e Gn s — Aa 0 } r A e 0 } Ay

J y

_ O s

e— los

ndu

B u zay e aea OW po PA r go YoI SND UI

_ ly UR WIOJ S y

es “ aAS ry

V uor } pa

e y v s
s } no U es ] } l uro ) Mr0 ed id se ysj e e ot AO Ty 0 y O e ud e SHS 9 AE wA oo0 os uej u UT zef RYo I 1 o

u ‘is UIO\ Ip o oss ojel rp p y uBo poj yu su M

su j 1A Su yu ‘1 p Su s “

Figure on page 33 of the opinion

33Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 33 of 44 PagelD #

HeaH

Sse B jJ

ea W oo I sJo A yW y)

ae O "86

BBae ure se JO €'068/80

Sojeo p Aq

aeBe

oul ow p p s Ar E oyu ye }ua
Z ew a yTe 7 oyd aIn

1 un bo

Z ‘

a 7 u

o3 ¢‘ e

ee: )seteron: r

a Boa aearess T e Guaes nee Su UI

aaeeeeaSe as_aceeyt ryn S “O aSn eaa s oe U Hyea 3 xe

asua eSeee oieanana oul

ep [

a Bae W e

1 lIa

a e 66 s p Fagt i L u e se epee 6 e

d E s

e soi Z e

n sa O ‘

eee 1os “ |4Vs

SIp O]O

PaS

s n

a o e n ,

| a ON

oshins U

a i ST ee 9

i pe aaee e iee T aGeespareReH2ees T PUa esBOsBHGSe8e e ee A e e e e cee e ee eeena tet eeesSe B ra uaaC A E iy eeSU rOe maae Eeo eeS nntesre : sa e re a Ceies eaea e e e Fae acoo Enei hA 2 ea e eoe AHS en e ap e o ee c a 1A 8 Eee eae do iBgen eeer ofe ssteeoe e ee T P0elee e e Ee s e ea a e nhen ee a Byuie el etine a #e .w

ea

e P

. eeLyiee aaS UROei ite e e L P eA Cag Seae Saie S SESS u P.aea t ee C ES ee e OUAe e e :eriven dutC e ns icere E e nuasal /yn CE hrs jno ES Saaie jnd eea e g ll hch Srs a ca Heee a B d aees ia(ee geptieHaeHB easeeiae e di aEEtye ae see e e LSe ea e s e e d ideée teeae SUe ednee e RES eeeeree eeS ae Eipeagteea ae OLES e Es ifiaaRSo Ha taca aie Eeea ed nee usue ED 1ie ee H B a a y er P He evea iacennoe OE ace eeree y e e ie aea Eu eBeeere aE S ae ea s olefE T oisit e e n e TLe e Q iau Ha a sB S TES b oe8S B: Uea TE ss ea: eeS SOe e af e NEie vaaa sE

a e RYE a a ea a a sags DEE : e eaSes Se Zo B o alee eHe u eOaas te eeoa ) eee WCSie B eePoEUepe AHeca ene E tra ), Sy rag tee niH e o ee ELSteaCea elSI dE utP eE e AUre eIER eaRAa a ee eee e t an he eo se Mane n y a e artsa

Cg pate

Bh e uEE e Tn ae e e y es eyanaA PSUR H hyn ettASeeeee tee ep G ce ee atducr el a eien s Hyja B testit B beS enTe neaeda engUB eB y EES aeSo e n

heFe e pe

aoue aUn PHaciee e oeTeEE eesSeELenne coeU leS % E b e ee h earer) s s E El e neaili E S a eear e ieua ueBS ce eSaeeSe SnNeauny ea Aaaao GHaseBa ISnl ea aAEe a ds eR e 2E1e H L eeeeICe ERUT nt3 eRUH RE Leee To ETS Oet Se e SE Fre p GHe pu ereeestc PE itas isensGes eO O H es saeeN UA k e SOe ee aeU ED ateSabie ae F E eoS u S ras S oe R n ee e 2 eep HU s CS E ea EGES eaa,LO . L eRe SCA eoenM TA ENREERni eT S SUse eHsA as re IS aeeE steer se nee AeeBe S t a rs aU ib

ye ci3

Be eeriesfde

et

rcastrattS

Ea nnea EE EBreeite S Eaek y ite:S

Figure on page 34 of the opinion

34G

O::o: ‘.

S05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Pag3e4 of 44 PagelD # )

s } a 0 e } a B a 4)

U 9

3s

o J

]ol ye po l
I bo oy !ne NO n W n 0d o dI so oo du1 J y y ian n s }

F u 0

Beaa u nao a e Es de a ELe; id

p Ao - ee po Te

oU O eor

s pol

aH ‘ eE UT U ed o I UIOJ OIN us J

a Te BYy uo

UO yU q

n, e a eu d S

a po e ]9 goi UO ne 1 Noy a p} U} 15 u} O pu .O9 rei SY oYy o00 ezL oY 91. u o/ TUO utu oIN Tez A1 oT

no O 24 o a 1 SO pa P uo a U _ (

EF - t t

o ne

a S 2 ae

§ Gysa H s IAa z eae secth 3

ts) H 8

a $

Z ce

Siet

e e e e a

ov DV u AA a CH

: da

iFHee

c le

ee e ot a BT ie

oe s ma

ou p .GS

S o NjA a w -s4

Se ‘ ue ee eiEpe

a Ae

nes

l rate a5a e peech a

e &O area s Be U

neeBa3nesey rs 2aasAuk Be n c a

a

J a e em ap

e LA V

e so aD

e eTAMOV CaaqaOV CHA C

v1 ee

e ee

e

aea e e a He aAe e

eE Bn e PE

e Oa 4 RI ut

e ra3 ny YS nd ny .gS

e e |ou NA no/j su pn

oy ANJI dy won eAn

epokes e sw 2 jn - : 0 an a

ea T e i y es pu

ie ea

eee

eLa }

eaee y

e :4ee e o

e HOER e su e GL es }

S pE s H u

e lee or o aas eee eo

eeeepa }at U} en Sut o

lAPeauee3 a ee0 d w Uu ape r } eeene } O e c 1 0

aeo i J

ao s ee UL Be e UIOJ

“ ee OTFV iL ne U

ebS ua l

OeL R d (OL eE d O

e ESE } ol se OYN Av

ree S, ow 4 ep ud uv ZLI ow ( estao II uv 9 ay uo s SUI qu aa e res p y

eaee pa e CaPEsB MEee e SHES e ES ee aee w sag UE , aS PR

S Ee

ERee eREL kd ee hh RE ene u eae)Ue nneNa unD PBeHs MeeS Sa na t eoet eae SED

o t: aeAan ST aae asi eRA e Ni be

ieceSe ein e

u r aiei

aene ct

a a n

in a e e u ar

ieeee

e s a

e

e a en aeei eedeaeP ar cn gheet,Ae:e ec en

ieaaaM e r u sEe n

B a

u e e a paee t 9sa ptease g eeeess 1 e | a ess 0 us pr u eA aESe

e EE

t e a BE .Na e . |a a ER eve e

I eB Pal eeSUains

eaL e r

eed Su ett a 7

Maep i cs e se

e sti

EGShc

eeeaS + h decESE d aaS Schit Eileoel ee ngiessi ASpae e

He i4 aasueaee|E a

Figure on page 35 of the opinion

35Case 6 ‘(05-cv-00424-LED Documenti182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 35 of 44 PagelD#

aetaoFB e B eeeieen a e

eunrsee ea a e e aE ie

OB eE

R p ¢

S A y u 0

e e v w 9 [OS e eaa a WIN r eryaaS oul U u

e a Al s|e U p a s ue Wo e c eaN a d J Yy} ] t UIO O d wW J OU e e Nd Ns O] e oJ a|B SIOI st MI z ¢ JO a th IE Ay j B e e UIP o e eaHa S 7 u aiee ‘ Ul Z e l en po 1 e sn B We ¢-a os . e 1 p y} qiiosa our“7

av le rpo } e S UL yeo p y a eyao BIO po i ps

te v e ae ur

0 p p y e Un o pa s

ee o OE a ¢ DS e q M d ¢ sex IN ed ue } : } ooi O Nd v “ [BA

sA O p 0 sss P uy se jUS ow U 0/ 1o Z S yu 9 1

e e B4e e e eea aye e a e Ra ae e f

Bita

ee

e

DYV

y HAa

C °

a

un

i no

uo S N.S oee a N 099

ta 1NI 3.1 eu ics -3 p e i

ae

ee

a a

eR

Be aEN t rea E 5 ) c h a e

eyv

e a e V

  • o o

i ee a U V

e e eee R a CHA qAqaD

SG Ca

O

a g o oS Dro a a ea eo Bt ee s d s ace

v eAS

Pa oC

T V na —— eieaeke: a a i d €

sl G y ny 0 ee N NAYS ou e e l au NO woH 9

aaeu euo e4A -

sa‘ -

a a| i a e i en c Se rete a ae ee at, t Sa ea o ae e e e e e n Lo Sais e cn ea ee H e aTE a S D } R].

PoAe { 8 y I pes OS e u) o W a T} W

rs aG a UI o T s s S l }

e Aeee U o 0 U e p OEe } J ae aeee ENE Eae IO e

a

o a SRSTs ised

i: ow

oA S pene qu e eY oe y } d y) ol a e a eo y) IO o vd 9y

S e } 09 Ol BA rj uA 19 SS e TI u y IPI o uo sy (

eA rsererrirger BS o o SU u y p w SU p es ‘ u a e

e orp ag emaiencon ese e e

a e G Oe enemnerapen

ee

: cs

: P

G

A ni peeereees: seu p e

a t

i y

Bc ee oes i n e

b e Bie re l ea ea r 1Lea uoa 2)pe ee 1[e e R B e e o ied a r a p1a e aeeees eoeEe e

P a t p a satesH e e e s oG :a ape e 2 e sesiv ea

u eg

a e ec pe rere ee aee its e h H e

eE a Lg Pc

e aUC er a e y e LATE a

Hed O e Ai T‘ iE ae iBE u C ee eee oSLEL e a a MS niP

FA aAHS a IST ce E e GH d aiea

l

Si ea L A g ] epasse

a e

aee t e:e yea y eai

Figure on page 36 of the opinion

36Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 36 of 44 PagelD#

e B

os e e 0 e g O s 1 s B n e

e S e y D A u A J : p q Jo

A qu

} inu oug y ul S e o ep Aro ¢ JO ]T 1

aS PI MI IOs a

US Z SIV UL o

ee h O 7 7 ¢ wW e Soke eratoerea J ‘ 1 J e oo aeas SheelaSate a NU O dd ds ee Sate UI ¢“ est un aLSeeSteeSpee a OQ e L on S _s avosee a J po pe u IOU bs e T d‘u

anesPa£Ee¢tafecss p pets M BYO din s p aayefesee orSetsetrees L -JU ur UI i aezs Y} yao e

Saspler sae S s

au d a Iv 7_e p Uul as

e i d WS o t re y ae¢ eet }sN J podur OF 1 uo ig e n UIO ous 6 y e
    • o JO qw LIS L6 p w E } o SU 6 y

O } S d Z o S0 ex , d0] ear y) un

‘ oI y T ooi O e O Nd e A Tye er yo

P o N so pa 9YI uy s or lq o :uo

7 ss PI A Jos “ J S w o u Hect

p

ea 4e s :yae a eeeA a eeea

ene ePSBe S

S a E SSta

i e VaB ETE i a O s Lee s AonH eaa Haeeerel $)ae

ae eL n rz OO S TEU

oes ha‘o

o+ ei m g i d so D

po rsAu [e LLIV

e eo JO

e [ ( A

, a

°f,

*S

d }O V

e OY eO as J Hy ‘ e C
    • o u )
ay p O ay g yd J uo ‘o

a

aaa e PERT 1 p y Ay - YS o l, Tjo NS oun o e.A e DIIN ‘Ipe p ‘oa IAI won

a ANJ o S Ar SO -aa:eha stee ecev es at c2

oees

e =

a eee iEé uau :eeeSa s H Smee

:oXBLeeeSefe

AeA . a+ e Sucuae

e oees ut 0 ecaeenr: d I

Vaa aco e jn P]

a A V ee a A d U

O1 se A S p J0 a CH a e o

vy

J

gu 9} EoYy Tde| M Oo}

Go

n o c a p 0o M uny

YS d O ro Ho IIL suo IA ndu pI wo NJ ourn dO oy S -I J

fe dSi e e ea ig } aa } 4

ee Qss y 9 ie e ase o

a ensep A ve ea Lpe v e3 ze sa e p s [D Hu38e: so s D go Te iBe e e o e[ i WI : e ees Ip WI j pl 1 g Eeeore y t v S l E i eaee e op e IU U

Ba aee SSSFat e pu I JO eE) : oe ee ol U Ua saseyt ae n} J } S B = anaeseeoe eaFe0 o ne Sse ees Ho e eS aoesBieesen1 J S iaa RSeteaekEr re u E] e a4oSereu u in ES, n se2 eeBaa M qu M e nSe e qu Jo aa ee esra$a3es a w Jo e eose e

eer:pent u ae e eresieAo (¢ E v or oy)

oiiee oe y) t oo e. Nd o eo u os o d oo i s d i O}s q aeH e d e 3sn y ( ue un p OUL po s uy p wio po s S J aee eS ae S Is eZ3;p e ee ie aie eaie: e e ese } peiapeo u y) } )

Aaa } ) o y : o 0 y d d

1 a J o e S

iiaee a sBigeHSe a eae e

!ee teTiregP e v s nLaBoaN, e aoge u n s

Rioaa es suuprendaasL e ue yn:eanao af ea eHSOe _b M a Ee r

ae h r UM veu :eeanga O au s su

B SeaL S uv lsI eie Ept sL W s U i e eSe s e an Bife esa e PEERSe e eEe e Q] haeaeuL ] U O U b .n aas s ye 0 N uIN aefaee a a UI oq

iea ese AIq a aH en a ee

acfi

eae En

a e 9

a s a . f

e e d e d

::eiee r e i os ve e iA w os pr W du pa

a e H uio su c e e e ud so

z e2 a os o I a ae B o s

H e “J y e J o e A ee J

ie aLei a nea aBeGoa p es ge U e e d qa e2 8e:aes ae o.1 Fi s 5Pi ia o: 2a p T uees e JI !

q e2eee w v p a2H 8aBHU w & SP! uvo I

e a ea c uvo U s s U Pe easea s s IW sk esav eB p sk ‘A ay eBeg PC B oy wo a c EeaegeM A eae w

hEee a eavaeteeeS u

te re CaOE o § sesse S e G U

eueNa

ghH Ai O eebi MaaanienNE a t t A : a s v e OHes SC I oe ds

e U BU T se 0¥ Z so od sNd Seheget ler ESa os aI SNS nd Nd WLOJ

aie T nd Ad WIOJ “ Su Su As uests e “ su Su AM

saaede!atunWS edteathrnedeeeeE ppnt

Figure on page 37 of the opinion

37Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Documenti82 Filed 12/21/06 Page 37 of 44 PagelD #

: B Jo

olo

aT y}

aa

a o

ie r J

eeo u esg p

ecye

s

a iwl

ce a De ow p e ste Ar E e syu ahie Z aj sTe

ea 7 AIN

O 1 “ bs

aUN 7

d a ¢‘ e e ie T leeei OU U b a nS S ee eeaEaREhpatie ae a PEEi e eeeE ws e t e po

i We fe a 1 e eee 66 p e eSG L

GBs u

ieeeeaesaA N ooi OE 6 e He‘at e S d Z | e IN 1osss “‘ ‘ L3

iuasee. Han ee o daec eeaitaer een

ia

kes

JO

LT

s ED e pi

JO

JO

eu us no or J

O

) SO

TA

IOS

uyee ay

gk eo pr ‘

e Sne

cae

ne

a

AA

IO

PE d

se

    • o a J

LI M

Go

Gst—ee :a

YS

.A

e. esoene:t ON sabes com e:NJ ros ,

efe A du N

eeor O yn PI

ereeeaeas seSesnh Ja S

Sapar aeees se ean ek

e|

Bae

D i esa LT o

S nele ee e a e s eg

a) W n a eoa7Zoe re fe a e e

e a eaue aeea ue s : e

uaees:3 e y a

ea ee syria 2a

5 yttmmmepe e erts

L

aL

aSID

eEeES e

e e

n a& ae eaeuHe eeeeca n s e¢A H ya s BU edea a ).E Pe

a a a e e SEa eae ee eeBSBa G eatenAUte S L eBE U a LBU La Tu eeH PfcRe e eaQEEs es Eerie ae o eA eH ou a NESTtt e mE,a e Se Se Ee Elnt Se e ee eEea ee e BieBS e Ca er

e eea Seeee ese s ese] o Se e S n EE, 2

e Gsa 03

ey aeta e2 eH n EU 05 eHS ELa eR 1 aGre eE 3P teSEAnc ep nTU el u it

iep aa See S Pre ap e ecA e e kt eaRBE sp ion

Ree ae ma ain B es Si MOedoy noha re TEe c nnt s L e ee

a tsMet ate anige s

atnysTi ea HHe e ELEd e

Figure on page 38 of the opinion

38‘Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 38 of 44 Pagel#D:

EEeEfe:oHnee

®

B

0 aie e

u o s . e e A l s r J e u q

p y}

A Io

} oo aul y J oul S e o p ! Ar ¢ IJO s| Je SP Z VM WO o JIU 7 SI Iy O nu JSI 1 ‘ E W oe ui 7 Q J o oq NU da J uI ¢‘ R uy Oq U OU s S J YII nb e Y
M UB ldi s T I ~J ou T s J yu U e

S ar d p ie e p owl ol Nb

p er eAI d We ap t sT sN aa =ae J dur 1 sju WI0 i casae urs] 6 JO

pest yuo IO 6

ac po OFL L

Z } O U 6 e n yo }

H S s SO OX ,S 0] ear u oU e e S NAY oid O e O Nd e A Rs eyi oR .1 t ee UI GI sas pi YI UI s oH jq “ p m os I

e 9AN 1os “ JO B u o s E j a

. eo£eu a Le

Re

SC eie

Ee

e aa t e e +2 dL e e i a o

: f4 es pl e r

p d

m, d so O

eQu M JtsAy [e (LLIB

eo JO

y S
8 " 2jgge d O V
r e YJ eO eu as O He a us ‘ J C rjo e e o u )

ae a} p 0

de 1 oy

m o‘ su n o ‘ o 1 g 4Cae p A uu ee sos B P oy ol ap S uny

dé e I, arj IO no eFeeea “og ‘op P “o TA wor

prv s S Ar 9d -

Bye

ae|noe s a a ee Cae

ut O

f: d L

yn P

a a

DV p eqa e o CH y o

a e J J eS 81 BoBgaueeASe e

SS eteo S a

:eeSoee

nelechares y 5 y és eegees YS aya t0 un miSnes s acere: e NA oo yd ndu ons sactUke:eeesoe NyI nsu uo oy -d

pore aM Jou s s

ue

iae _ Y}

| e y] o T eae v a

ett O cq g e

eeF e yo S D , aa e s v e]

a ls E] di aT e eu WI a U eo e p v Sp!

¢ APT e FU r IOYMU Ut IDI U

T O} a ae }

  • o J J NU a nu quI

a qui JO

Ja

(v Hseee: I oe ey)1 en or oy) so es Nd o e as es d o € o jd r Oys oy
sul yd r }sN yt u uy p awW p ev u p UI0 po ( s s J e su B J9 an

2 Y} O] }

    • o O} ) O y y A d A d

E

E S seoreSEEneeE gat: +4 S

ee

Lo d

a M wl a wr OY uve

uvo IOI s Ls s U

[ nu

    • o O ui NU aq qUI J a JO
a oe

e

es e d o pi “ ek] co t duioo p Wi stidui

sui so

8 sa o

Sue a O J

H e ‘J AI
    • o “ ey

UIS .1 a Ae as

a J P! r & P!

B Sp rou U e our W s su aBee ays suv U wh a AS as

aeiWI aae

bRessohne eptoerpneeSaesee ae aSeeSe LSOneRsE# = aost ees ySee ne , L Sees, 0} Y] ee:Rircrcerns UTheen UI O Stee 9

oresoseoe. S .1

SaaeS s aaetS soke e N age E% ee1 e " Too so Nd Savor fea$nphasathe o D9 p ds ds 04s aano d: so dd D urj u WI

nd UT N ‘ s S 19 BSeeetes ae su B S

Ssreeaeeoa:ereveert

lean~ee

Figure on page 39 of the opinion

39Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document182 ~ Filed 12/21/06 Page 39 of 44 PagelD #

B

“8 p g 6€ u o '06 e n 8/8 -JU A j 0

qBYO IOU sy)

“ OS A or

O ULZ W } jJo

LNZ y y p O] OWE WY S e p!I BO

J AI Q e y UI OT

[¢ o PN U € | O JO
L oe Z l J de es W eu ord do ¢‘isp ds e re Sur oU ouJ u v uo ul oyop T ‘
e s I or U

0 S S “O

1 UO U

|H JLI

O

aaee mbo

aea d A OW

H e[e sTe sn9 YOI

e du orl syu LO} UL

a B “ p ula[ 6I yua 9U J e a7nareeaee a eAse JoO r uo 6 s J &

i IOD Z e ay L

a UIQU E s p

0ee OT}B sy XS ar 6 } e ny } 2 a ‘aBeey W id A IO eA re u ur pu y

ia B aoo d NN qey o p op s 3

seedbal ss pe SU s, op ‘ :w

H

e

yd eD sh TII eoi a [ (J
d }O e U OV s O Hae ‘a I Ca

O)

I

Ay ga

. g uny LA AIO po p OT wo O S -

ene.sSiae anieeceaen No

pa

a p s reoaea HeEeceaa a ant iseae u eeae: e ee ud E p:u ete ee BEeseas ss a iS S aea s e a ut O o ge Ba d H e aa n P a e ae j Sy 4u A f eS aaastares aa A Dg A d e eE O e DV u ne ep J as CHaa naen a oe vy JO

61 eaao E

T M

neA O

a o

a ic e G

epH

a

eSeU e

aBee

Ad e

n Piee

csercaes aPa s y aee a e YS Dp uo I oun

ee oi NU u0S A nd P op

any A ee NJI whs dt oy S -w a e A Jo 9 J

astesrssae iteh

V eee : ie a r EEe e S in eS ees acute e

oBe a O sh E o l EB Sa

a iager B,acteS i e f e U as p ee er ayeee pl ua oee apoeear e n D til L 5 : : S e st ad ie Be iye ae ee He eeie E] nee$ e eer: L sot s eeat U e ea fee } . L ese es s y pPl

aL ePa o PWA l ee e ina OTJI U pacer ene:PELE egas e J a e se

ea E e } Ha e e O gee B e J M RE ePes eao ie: 3 : e : eP OUI o aeo8e YSI

  • - enS UL eO J eae & ee I S e se 9y) S B e oo No e is eeen ST rjd IO\s y ay ( oo UB su IOW p se2 S

aces. pe behs Se‘frciesa B SRS#ass

Y} }

O O

I 1

eae ie

en M wr

IIy uvo UlO s

{ OPT

Q IPW

AIMJ

OD o R uio W id

osu

    • o s J ND

TOJs AU

q) O!

w o PVI uvo WOT ks s " ys wa

ESRBesan

U],

O

] sor o¥ L S ao od IU nd Nd YIA

esetetraastass?a ‘ Suy Su UL EtcascrsisreSutykerl Soeied J

Steera eas sggeeeeaeeeweitagesexe eaters: oSiewvegaate&Sppaantes sebepeoeneEEEe:g heToeteerseee?oy prareorese) n

Figure on page 40 of the opinion

40Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 40 of 44 PagelD #

B

e pe e e d ya B jJo

ee w A oio JO

a OIV y y) IYU Be M J “86 SP

an a IO o £°0 Bu L

a e S 68 yd eP r /80 oc S a uon j oe
etea pou eaBu seur O 9

JO s }

e e p BeE e sy s B E J 1 uay oa Z O a ea

UOT 7 inb

e JBU * Y s aee IQUI I U JOW

sat ce!a OS M O}s ae eneieere7s p OU}O e sv ear uy :wo Nd

nena e

eee SE Jo Sys

eu u a[q B ‘O uny

ob J n uyr U

aa ouled S0 e apA } ns Woy I [BLI e e 66 os

L p 9

E u 4

E X 6 e }

aty Z

e B O S “ e “
e ea |

eeaeS eaa

ns oe i

O

APL

Ca

M aU

OV

a e e

:wo

ys} ns do uny uoy “o

|S

N.

O ar T pr

a a 1a a “ e ne

8 p

ar e ere

a a a ca j e: aa n i e d e u

s t

Le

E

vy ep

a OV

x aAY

    • o Ca

s e

Jour su 0c m a nsuo oy

Sae s do

ntee [o} ea e R

e e ES

  • o ET s

; ay

n.

ga y

i e n oun

e a on ea O a ‘U n

q: ERLa

a e e Ne

n E ee

GeA ea ais vs ea

i Seust u e Sas t a C al ce ee sa ye seie e

ea e eeperceae

eietes e

ni C es }

0 1

a

an

He g e

a 4 1

T 9 ie BS ( SU ea E e eLeseSPE ste s Y} } nD T O O ea aeCSS LR EA U J sd aUs am e LE eteL e ee UL

g cU s ia aeci i B ee an eeSte s e ea e a e a nd e ojs iry p a swI

e. y e e J a- M AL YM our _e e D DIS suv

Ha e UI

H ia eyn ) t ae iie a y aa [ s a O e en esa ied Le a e ote s e ae e e ue evey eal aa S1 a e p eee e eeites aes e a a B S n ape e R] o inhlec eulne sS ec WI io ttteted h ee n du iava o ae e sui ii r e ee so eeie u o iye ee e se a e ti e ae J dss 4e eersua e lee aa yn ah 1e s a re e su haa en s a =a e a Sa E un ae i uE S t lGaa ! n e nya a nt e. a De uvow Ay RS a e As s 5 s tne }s Na HE r E Wd i ee eeea E H fi uv e : ue en e r eNES Ge L p e M Earta r easag ien euA o F e U 8e e S Be ese p ae C aptsei e ie datasss SOU a r ]9

eE n L oo 439 t p ee yien O da 0.1 p e oa e urj W o e en ‘ Ss TU flaee s ng e t

Figure on page 41 of the opinion

4105-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 41 of 44 PagelD #:

Be e

et ieeHOUo

a g

s : n o

esene ee e q

E r A J

ae e pu q

ce oy)

a neets A or

estegee r } Jo ® WL aaUeV o au 04 p j } NO aaSae56 ow OS e 9 e y yU e aOeal1 J Ar ¢ YJ Os y o

eae Z VA WI O a

altae n 7 SI Yy

7 * E W

eee l L J dde aine ‘ eu O ori 80 N

ere are): ¢ us e rjv 68/ U eeRt no u OUL bs e ‘uo °0 Q

e eu o M OI din s T 86€ [

eaeee e URY u I “

a YI ~Just U

aee eL o y S

bea eeH_ J

e AEeale OU

Eeea ul r “ bo

dnBa_ po ea d Atn

eEieao Wo p e sye ie edennc w Jo uit ar yu

Heaaae oyd 1 u s eol Die e ow O 66 y N o

r S OS oyu LI L oU oy Dno saoY IqUI p OJ oE d p a ec A TyeU y O} e SU 6 s e wW nsoe ed opoi t

oge:H UO d E a s S ex , o] eae } a u um wA Toj s Sa eeW B oi Z A e O Ns e A es eyi “ y LI epn uo TW

|‘ nTa ao sao O ed r YI u s on pq o [B p Suy sy pou

uSEaeREeef os “ p p J9 S u o

e FeurAt J

ee FeL e ae

afebe |enea aeeee

eneeeue

eaeeC:eedsLneee?

aeeesLLd

pteea oeHo

esa

eae

iBa o

eo l s p
  • - pa

e y b A

u ed DV e s HHe us a Co yo or

o

ys} q yds uo ‘o

.S

IN oy ol M uny

e;NJ gA e no

eae na:EA vo op PI Bo ceees O pr “t S -

aae: eonaB ‘ fB Hes eeese

neea

e

:

ur 0 d ]1 n P j

A

A d V

0 e YyO

p 1 as Haq ye o 0 C B r 1 o

g Ic ¢ O[

i

Lfe

Si SEe LE4 e ay o ny S: .S Dp ay d Mou e ase }IT os A yd n I on a§neeRSEUL 1N nsu 0T uo a SP -w ueUEeRNeeneei :3. Jou 9 s J BSAerasGOsataPBee

3 R

A

T

DWeae SEe

SoGGS e S q eERR e eT y}

Ia

ya o

eITEREEA a ] EPLS e IL

nseRor e e os W See ee n or enB aa u oy l aaa eeee g p U ingressH e [ t

aa aea R eee s

  • o O}

.eoe aee J ofa

2

.e

ois ce

see kse ) I a aaee do" d poid ay L G Deaoee s SuM sAe rajo no lo

seBP OT epN ow un u ay ( eGee uR uly yu pout J p ueaer Sew M

s| ae eeee ae e Peeres ae Hi h ae } 4} j

vsne Y

PcTI S 9 e niSE e e

eteea NJ ft‘fPpeteaSBis3 VI e asaaeREIeay oy ow

Pt J un

y

YM

SIS e UI nas
O] ejnu MI paj T PAV
O SUI s oid se d haa sso Sumno 3 ‘e e os nu ] 3 ya x I rjep O 4 A a I e

s S

LeeS WEI y opasd o ee o mioj J Ee J our y 2 aa o p a

    • - p

s J @ A IT gF6 e L UL

eence OU S } aue YOI y

aa e JUR o ae

:eEE L )

yaye E w n U d 0 ye } vo u P O

ln e s y su [y HA umue Uac sA o o e EType oy u

joq O W a3aBeas eee e aua aeeeoee &

e J

aw fBn

  • o L,

ie O n Ral me; yo

po HO Too d ed S ut Ae I d] urd
e L LT ud ow S st uo e “ SU ss syu 4 sy eneeHi

saESneeeR aOEDoaacn

Figure on page 42 of the opinion

42~~ Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED Document182 Filed 12/21/06 Page 42 of 44 PagelD#: © | : |

t i

es od e

Selyog EsRe ers MeeERcCtA TeOe R OE h FS waa Ss ee See ae t a eeaaned oeE ats Saot

x ' f 6 .

    • o 0

s Seen 3 nm d ee f yro u

  • o m e lo n em ra Od c a st wt acSea rinou s d ne fos t Sovietse ory Sere ret r my a fo

eserunmunec Canees up o stn a ap y a er peetadicet ictuceRns e eineaseanr eshesrneeee mo o em tr n eh sig Sameer Sc San c ya lit dra a ,2 t

t p wr p 0 a

e of no a 3 . n it * m h , i ro ed ti 73 n p om w - s u a 12 |tn det g e er aci d d n om ded e ri . i

h ht d n r a d

    • o t e ebi se * s h no rcs n .c a itan ed i ae el t ibm r l, d d m r e o c r 4 eh t 5 a e ro sc em eru eta se re no t deta o rut a os 0 te uc s viu rut e / ino ma g lum vi te s itc a lum cu sec 3 g ex a q cu n dn rtc rgo fin uc ec de i nu uc t rtS orp ot e e rtS o a ele rp oc ca er rp F ca

pueree rieS teeatse nMUIR LRELEREEORNY

AUSSI Ro oe Nettrt ira ns .spaeee teter memeseet : eeoe oS e ee te

SecHtaeres etee

2

aos ee S eN oats:e e eae:

S

DE D

ER EE

GA RG

A . *

" * . .

3N eocpetig ruae neas ars 7

eomcasrite

os SUe sSae de Pants Rosa eeetee sol

Soe a Seaovie eerst csid are an ego tacer fee

Seathde yw heeem e

ru e tc no ru en u itc tcu o |rt n u rtS N S F |

ec ® 1j

v e d DE

ER DE

GA ER

GA

« .

    • * *

2 tu 2 pt Seaen /uo Sees t tefe ee cans ee cae Se

SS gerd Sie et aeons ee er u 6 EregGnd nine on tnea mene eru no utc p 0

Se ieee es eties tc itcn urt » n 3

urt uF S i Sees See S

eet oe sSee2

apeviementness ts Uase eSs ce a

ee eee eee el e

e h m t h t i a t al
    • o C f
    • o t n

i

r o

t f yt

Z oa ra

ay p

snee n thgie oi

: e O tro d )

i ta EP gn p d st d e 7

idr a etal ne r tic

i 4 : :: a snar awf umu my ih eR 1

4 fi em ro cca ap t (

oe See

Suae yoaees eb SANS Se Siok SecrSe Lee

etp sn e

ee a re eyS ) : ne a 8 es 2 RE e Pcie sigtatencetneeys

Seze eRAS SUNS REST eeveL e5. ea iaseerateihe Zst

— |

eearaiaeernesgee es s

i 3 ee :eeu s ee eseSee :Bfeea 2e= uese Es eSeheet sg in = 2 aeg ifaa L a

& a c

a Ae

:t e

ea :erb : ee

2 se 4.S5J‘ a eta e-5:2 i8a e nu a

a s2 e icaA: s

ea f b eH ¢ an a ee ia| eeBse i e u a eHeeee eo iH s fT peS s g e ase L as476See R SE

i e B oe eai

a se ae p

: e t i ea

SPRANG vai yon namw omantingy oeNe eae

RSASiLt eA Seana Brneesiersees Ra ese e ei ee

Figure on page 43 of the opinion

43Case 6 05-cv-00424-LED Document 182 Filed 12/21/06 Oo ©oO) o aTM) ©— <f<t 0. a0)oO a) = He

UU

IN]

OS

B

jJ u

oo e YS so B yy O] j
    • o Ay
re OS d MI

y SIB TEsSaf,moe uegest ae uoTy e

©ogw.=eye sere J ed eUIq

apeStoenaate: e e r uAO

Ay S pa

a quo s

    • o SU sap yus p 34 M e e IP TeA ry NQ He IEM IN } IN YI e IO bS .I1 uu F YS ne y}

Ee cs 1r

p

9 u

y} j o

go d0} s 0 si] 9 Bsoeas } & e } ne 4}

me aBee 0 wo 19 re!era: wip ee

POS

O]D

SIp

3A

NZ

ON

L.Y

S

OU

ON

so rA ap

2e)

jnd yno

a /jn dAN : dur QIN e AGS £C aotOee

nee

a s

peSnesa reSeSeoee aeuseer at

oeee :

a

ieBORNEeRcepenignts ae 1oSe

oseaSgpeenoeoaeep ecannsee a8 eeassepe ars = ee

e

eP

el e

a O

aL u Y

aee eo } y} e e o

Be ) 0

Pe y } o :eae e Ajj oo 9 }

o e J e e e eor SU

po } IPI

ue j 0 VM zoapDe|(a a:a- r_oyeeeubes: ene d d IO]

e o

: ol Go 7 u ed jad SI]

e e uA uso ye Ae nee | |yuo |osej uoT

| | yu @ yUR vy YOI

    • o io O UL y ul y

a ra pa o

y j va ys

y)

a o

e

SU o j 7 3 g8 e y 0 8

e } y] 3a eeH

y

oee o

e e a

.;i e n :eeba je suw uA ye sUW vosezuoo10d

e n

ae :ene £

eo ed RO t a uo

e J t aae oy s o} eczoi aueEe paema i aEa Sur isH ) E y R e ne o s 3

Hea u a S o B y ae L e5 uU UIp e zhe e a) TpI Ie 3 i eM J MI a e IO; O]

e e p e A

aaSne atheSe eekSsE

a od d qo

ae orr z0 TE esT ents rp H. OU On

yeo O UN u

. A u J ‘

Figure on page 44 of the opinion

444 2

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC, No. 6:05-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2006).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-6_05-cv-00424-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-6_05-cv-00424-1

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.