Replies to post #6960 on Quest Patent Research Corp (QPRC)

[logicaldude]

PRETEND YOU ARE THE AMAZON CASE MEDIATOR BELOW

I SUMMARIZED THE MARKMAN BELOW: WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST TO AMAZON AS A MEDIATOR??? MEDIATION WILL START ON OR BEFORE JUNE 13TH

HERE IS THE MARKMAN HEARING CONSTRUCTION CLAIM RESULTS:

QPRC went 11-1-1 IN THE CONSTRUCTIONS I COULD SEE


CONSTRUCTION M
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for including the “is not capable of functioning” or “can not function.” The Court holds that the “Is Not Capable of Functioning”and “Can Not Function” Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

CONSTRUCTION L
Accordingly, Defendant has failed to prove that any claim is indefinite for including “level of permitted power.” The Court hereby holds that the term “level of permitted power” has its plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

CONSTRUCTION K
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for inclusion of the term “safe level.” The Court hereby construes “safe level” to mean “maximum operable temperature.”

CONSTRUCTION J
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that for a claim including functional language to be definite, the functional language must be supported by descriptions of algorithms for how the function is performed. While this may be true when 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies, Defendant provides no legal support for this as a rule separate from § 112, ¶ 6 and does not directly argue that § 112, ¶ 6 applies to the Determining Terms. Thus, whether the “determining” language is supported by the written description is determined under the enablement or written-description statutory requirements, it is not an issue of claim construction.
Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendant has not proven any claim indefinite by reason of including “determining” in the claim language and holds that the Determining Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

CONSTRUCTION I
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s request to read in the limitations of “voltage generator changes the voltage furnished by the voltage generator to the determined voltage level as a result of a specified input.” The Court holds that the Causing-a-Change-in-Voltage Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

CONSTRUCTION H
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit a voltage source to a “power supply configured to provide one of a plurality of distinct voltage levels specified by an input.” The Court holds that the term “voltage source” has is plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

CONSTRUCTION G
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s “external” construction for “clock frequency source” and “clock generator.”

CONSTRUCTION F
AMAZON SEEMS TO WIN THIS ONE
Ultimately, the counter of the claims does not necessarily count to a predetermined time.

CONSTRUCTION E
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit the terms to “the present frequency and voltage of operation of the processor, the temperature of operation of the processor, or the amount of time the processor spends in one of what may be a number of idle states” and to necessarily exclude “instructions to be executed by the processor.” The Court hereby holds that the Operating-Conditions terms have their plain and ordinary meanings without the need for further construction.

CONSTRUCTION C
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposals to limit the claims to require stopping the core clock in order to stop execution of instructions and to require that the execution and clock are stopped for all frequency changes.

CONSTRUCTION B
The Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction,

CONSTRUCTION A
THIS ONE WAS A TIE
The issue in dispute distills to whether the Court should construe “multi-core processor.” Given that “multi-core processor” is not a term in the Asserted Patents, the Court declines at this stage to rule on whether any claim reads on a multi-core processor.