Court construes six terms after parties submitted twenty-two for construction
LG. Philips LCD Co. Ltd v. Tatung Co. et. al., No. 05-292-JJF, June 13, 2006.
Farnan, J. Claim construction provided relating to flat panel display screens and methods of manufacturing them that include electrostatic discharge guard rings to protect the active elements of the display from electrostatic discharge.
Twenty-two terms and phrases from the claims of two patents were disputed. The court ordered the parties to select a reduced number. Plaintiff was permitted to submit six terms and defendant was permitted eight. Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew claims relating to one patent. As a result, the court construed six terms: “interconnecting,” “outer electrostatic discharge guard ring,” “resistance,” “corner pad,” “removing said outer guard ring and row and column interconnections,” and “pickup pad.” When proposed construction of “shorting” was used inconsistently throughout the specification, it was rejected in favor of clarifying definition. Construction that would eliminate preferred embodiment was rejected in favor of court’s own construction. Proposed construction that would be redundant is rejected. Construction which would violate the doctrine of claim differentiation is also rejected. Since all significant attributes of “pickup pad” mentioned in the specification are also specifically claimed, the court declines to construe the term.
Farnan, J. Claim construction provided relating to flat panel display screens and methods of manufacturing them that include electrostatic discharge guard rings to protect the active elements of the display from electrostatic discharge.
Twenty-two terms and phrases from the claims of two patents were disputed. The court ordered the parties to select a reduced number. Plaintiff was permitted to submit six terms and defendant was permitted eight. Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew claims relating to one patent. As a result, the court construed six terms: “interconnecting,” “outer electrostatic discharge guard ring,” “resistance,” “corner pad,” “removing said outer guard ring and row and column interconnections,” and “pickup pad.” When proposed construction of “shorting” was used inconsistently throughout the specification, it was rejected in favor of clarifying definition. Construction that would eliminate preferred embodiment was rejected in favor of court’s own construction. Proposed construction that would be redundant is rejected. Construction which would violate the doctrine of claim differentiation is also rejected. Since all significant attributes of “pickup pad” mentioned in the specification are also specifically claimed, the court declines to construe the term.
