MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN LOVE, Magistrate Judge

This claim construction opinion construes terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,999 ("the `999 patent"), 6,949,916 ("the `916 patent"), 7,000,125 ("the `125 patent), and 7,049,798 ("the `798 patent). Plaintiff Power-One, Inc. ("Power-One") accuses Defendant Artesyn ("Artesyn") Technologies, Inc. of infringing various claims contained in these patents.

The Patents

Each of the patents-in-suit describes a system and method for supplying power to components and/or devices in an electronic system. The system and method disclosed in the `999 patent involves the use of one or more point-of-load ("POL") regulators that convert power from one level to another level. For example, a POL regulator may take, as an input, a voltage of 12 volts and provide an output of 3 volts or 5 volts. The POL regulator may be coupled to a power supply controller by way of a synchronous or asynchronous data bus. The claims in the `916 patent are directed more specifically to a serial data bus that facilitates communication between the various POL regulators and a controller connected to the bus.

Claims 1-15 of the `125 patent address, among other things, the transfer of programming and monitoring information between the POL regulators and the controller via a serial data bus. Claims 16 through 22 are method claims that call for transmitting programming data to a plurality of POL regulators over a serial data bus and receiving performance monitoring data from the POL regulators over the serial data bus. The remaining claims 23-31 call for a controller, as a part of the POL regulator, that determines the operating parameters for the POL regulator responsive to the programming information and generates the monitoring information responsive to operational characteristics of the POL regulator. The claims of the `798 patent include system and method claims. The "power control system" claims call for a power supply controller that provides initial configuration data and receives fault-monitoring data. A serial data bus communicates the initial configuration data and the fault-monitoring data. The system includes at least one POL regulator connected to the data bus. The method claims generally address the storage and transfer of initial configuration data and fault-monitoring data between a POL regulator and a controller.

Applicable Law

"It 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.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. 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 of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 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 of particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term's context in the asserted claim can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim's meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term's meaning. Id. 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. Id. at 1314-15.

Claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Id. (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, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. (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. Id. 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 determining `the legally operative meaning of claim language.'" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting 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 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. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning of a 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." Id.

The Terms

1. "POL regulator"

The first term at issue is "POL regulator," which is found in every asserted claim of each of the four patents-in-suit. Power-One argues that this term should be construed as a "dc/dc switching voltage regulator designed to receive power from a voltage bus on a printed circuit board and adapted to power a portion of the devices on the board and to be placed near the one or more devices being powered as part of a distributed board-level power system." Artesyn contends that this term is indefinite and cannot be properly construed.

Power-One asserts that "POL regulator" had an ordinary meaning in the art at the time of the invention and cites, among other things, Artesyn's own literature in support of this contention. Artesyn argues that "POL regulator" is not defined in the specification and that the intrinsic evidence provides no objective criteria to determine a proper definition of the term. Further, Artesyn contends that the extrinsic evidence cited by Power-One fails to convey an ordinary meaning. More specifically, Artesyn contends that Power-One's use of the term "near" in its proposed construction is problematic and unhelpful because it fails to convey any objective standard by which one would determine "nearness" in the context of "POL regulator."

In Datamize v. Plumtree Software, LLC, 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit set forth the following principles pertaining to indefiniteness.

According to the Supreme Court, "[t]he statutory requirement [ 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2] of particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." The definiteness requirement, however, does not compel absolute clarity. Only claims "not amenable to construction" or "insolubly ambiguous" are indefinite. Thus, the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning. Furthermore, a difficult issue of claim construction does not ipso facto result in a holding of indefiniteness. "If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds." In this regard it is important to note that an issued patent is entitled to a statutory presumption of validity. "By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of validity and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal." In this way we also follow the requirement that clear and convincing evidence be shown to invalidate a patent.

With the increasing complexity of electronic systems, it is common for an electronic system to require power provided at several different discrete voltage and current levels . . . It is undesirable to deliver relatively high current at low voltages over a relatively long distance through an electronic device for number of reasons. First, the relatively long physical run of low voltage, high current lines consumes significant circuit board area and congests the routing of signal lines on the circuit board. Second, the impedance of the lines carrying the high current tends to dissipate a lot of power and complicate load regulation. Third, it is difficult to tailor the voltage/current characteristics to accommodate changes in load requirements.

In order to satisfy these power requirements, it is known to distribute an intermediate bus voltage throughout the electronic system, and include an individual point-of-load ("POL") regulator, i.e., DC/DC converter, at the point of power consumption within the electronic system . . . Ideally, the POL regulator would be physically located adjacent to the corresponding electronic circuit so as to minimize the length of the low voltage, high current lines through the electronic system. The intermediate bus voltage can be delivered to the multiple POL regulators using low current lines that minimize loss.

Col. 1: 13-15, 19-35, 42-47. Further, Figure 1 of the `125 patent shows a prior art power system where POLs 22, 24 and 26 are at the point of power consumption. The `125 specification also describes the functions and uses of POLs: "Each circuit has an associated point-of-load ("POL") regulator located closely thereby, such as POLs 22, 24, and 26. Each POL regulator converts the intermediate bus voltage to a low voltage, high current level demanded by the electronic circuit, such as 1.8 volts, 2.5 volts, and 3.3 volts provided by POLs 22, 24 and 26." Col. 3:22-27. "By locating the POLs 22, 24, and 26 close to their corresponding electronic circuits, the length of the low voltage, high current lines on the printed circuit board are minimized." Col. 3:32-35. The `798 specification again describes POL regulators in terms of the problems the POL is designed to address:

Similarly, some electronic devices include circuits that require low voltage (e.g. 1 v), high current (e.g., 100 A) power supplies. This is problematic in that it is impractical to deliver high current at low voltage levels over a relatively long distance and still meet desired regulation performances. A common solution is to use a high voltage, low current power supply and design a POL regulator near the internal circuit. This allows low current to travel throughout the device, and provides a low voltage, high current power supply (i.e., using the POL regulator) near the internal circuit.

One problem with Artesyn's approach is that it ignores the intrinsic record's repeated acknowledgment of a known prior art POL device. The term "POL" is not a coined term in the patents-in-suit; rather, a "POL" was a known device in the art. Artesyn also ignores numerous statements in the intrinsic record concerning the function and purpose of a POL regulator. The specification of the `999 patent explains that "POL regulators" are also referred to as "voltage regulators" or "DC/DC converters." It describes a prior art system that utilized POL regulators. See `999 patent, col. 1:12-14; col. 3:4-11; Figure 1. The specification goes on to say that "the voltage/current requirements of electronic circuits typically differ from the voltage that is readily available or the current that can practically be delivered. For example, some electronic devices only include a single voltage input (e.g., 12v), but require different voltages for circuits contained within (e.g., 3v, 5v, 9v, etc.). A common solution is to design multiple POL regulators within the device for converting the single input voltage into multiple voltage levels." See `999 patent, col. 1:14-22. The intrinsic record also explains that prior art POL regulators were placed "near" the load to be serviced by the POL so high currents would not be delivered over "relatively long distance[s]." Locating the POL regulator near the load to be serviced "allows low current to travel throughout the device, and provides a low voltage, high power supply (i.e., using the POL regulator) near the internal circuit." See `999 patent, col. 1:25-33. Therefore, the intrinsic record makes clear that one skilled in the art would know that a POL regulator should be placed in such a way to accomplish certain objectives.

The Court sees nothing problematic in describing the POL regulator as being "near" the load. This is simply a way of saying that the POL regulator should be located so as to alleviate the problems associated with complex power systems that require "several different discrete voltage and current levels." See `125 patent, col. 1:15. The intrinsic record shows that there is no "one size fits all" approach to electronic systems and therefore, the term "near" is as precise as this particular subject matter permits. See, e.g., BJ Services, Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 338 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (upholding jury's verdict rejecting indefiniteness defense because those skilled in the art would understand a "C* value of about 0.06"); Exxon Research Engineering Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1379-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding "for a period sufficient" definite because the limitation was expressed in terms that are reasonably precise in light of the subject matter); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (construing "so dimensioned" as definite and stating that the term "is as accurate as the subject matter permits, automobiles being of various sizes"); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating and Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (rejecting claim that "substantially equal to" was indefinite and noting that the fact "some claim language may be imprecise . . . does not automatically render a claim invalid").

Artesyn relies on Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. MI, LLC, 456 F.Supp.2d 811 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (Davis, J.) to support its indefiniteness contention. In that case, however, the patentees relied upon the term "fragile gel" to distinguish their invention from the prior art tending to show that the characteristics of "fragile gel" were novel and a basis for patentability. Id. at 816. Having presented "fragile gel" in that fashion, the Court found that the patentees had failed to provide an objective standard for its definition. Id. at 817. Here, on the other hand, the specifications and prosecution history treat POL regulators as a known device in the art. See, e.g., `999 Patent, col. 1:12-14. And, while the specifications may describe new features for POL regulators, the specifications use the term "POL regulator" in its "traditional" sense (see `999 patent, col. 1:34-35) to refer to a device in a system for supplying power to components in an electronic system. Accordingly, the Court adopts Plaintiff's construction and construes "POL regulator" to mean "a dc/dc switching voltage regulator designed to receive power from a voltage bus on a printed circuit board and adapted to power a portion of the devices on the board and to be placed near the one or more devices being powered as part of a distributed board-level power system."

2. "[output] voltage set point data," "output current set point data," and "[output voltage] slew rate data"

Artesyn contends that the claimed "data" actually specifies something, i.e., the desired output voltage level, the desired output current level, and the desired slew rate respectively, while Power-One contends that this "data" is simply something "used to specify" these components. In other words, Power-One contends that, for example, "voltage set point data" is the collection of data used to specify the voltage set point.

i) "[output] voltage set point data"

Power-One proposes "data used to specify the commanded output voltage level of the POL regulator," while Artesyn proposes "data provided to a POL regulator specifying the desired output voltage level for the POL regulator." Beginning with the claim language, claims 2 and 26 of the `999 patent refer to "voltage set point data providing a desired output voltage of the corresponding POL regulator." Claim 3 of the `798 patent provides for the "power control system of claim 1, wherein said initial configuration data includes at least output voltage set point data corresponding to a desired voltage level of said output." Thus, the claims appear to equate the voltage set point data with a "desired output voltage." The `798 specification calls for the following:

. . . the controller is adapted to provide initial-configuration data to each POL regulator. The initial configuration data, which may include output-voltage-set-point-data (i.e., a desired output voltage), output-current-set point data (i.e., the highest desired output current), low-voltage-limit data (i.e., the lowest desired output voltage), high-voltage-limit data (i.e., the highest desired output voltage), output-voltage-slew-rate data (i.e., the desired output slew rate) . . .

`798 patent, col. 2:10-17. The `999 specification further provides:

For example, a POL regulator might generate a one volt output five milliseconds after receiving activation data if it received voltage set-point data and sequencing data corresponding to one volt and five milliseconds, respectively. Alternatively, a POL regulator might generate a one volt output one millisecond after receiving activation data if it received voltage set point data, slew-rate data and turn-on data corresponding to two volts, one volt per millisecond and three milliseconds, respectively.

`999 patent, col. 4: 33-41. These excerpts show that the POL regulator receives specified types or categories of "data." More specifically, the examples in the latter excerpt show that the "voltage-set-point data" has a specified numerical value, i.e. one or two volts.

In support of its argument, Power-One argues, for example, that data telling a POL regulator to cap or limit its output voltage can also be "voltage set point data." The `798 specification, however, is clear that such data is categorized as "high-voltage-limit data," not "output-voltage-set-point-data." `798 patent, col. 2:10-17 Power-One offers an example of a situation where, a POL regulator receives voltage set point data of seven volts, but the POL has an upper voltage limit of five volts. Thus, because the upper limit is five, the actual output voltage would be five. Power-One contends that the upper voltage limit data should be considered as part of the data determining the voltage set point. While the upper voltage limit data may affect the actual voltage level at the output, that does not change the fact that the "output voltage set point data" specifies the "desired" output voltage and that the intrinsic record shows that the voltage set point data is a distinct category of data, rather than a collection of data from which a set point is derived. See Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings"). Accordingly, the Court adopts Artesyn's proposed construction and construes "[output] voltage set point data" as "data provided to a POL regulator specifying the desired output voltage level for the POL regulator."

ii) "output current set point data"

Power-One proposes this term means "data used to specify an output current level," while Artesyn proposes this term means "data provided to a POL regulator specifying the desired output current level for the POL regulator." Much of the analysis above applies here. Claim 4 of the `798 patent provides for the "power control system of claim 1, wherein said initial configuration data includes at least output current set point data corresponding to a desired maximum current level of said output." The `798 specification equates "output-current-set point data" with the "highest desired output current." See `798 patent, col. 2:13-14. Accordingly, the Court adopts Artesyn's proposed construction and construes "output current set point data" as "data provided to a POL regulator specifying the desired output current level for the POL regulator."

iii) "[output voltage] slew rate data"

Power-One proposes a construction of "data concerning the rate of change of the output of the device," while Artesyn proposes "data provided to a POL regulator specifying the desired slew rate ( i.e., rate of change of output voltage) for the POL regulator." Claims 2 and 26 of the `999 patent describe "output data" transmitted by the controller comprising:

at least one of turn-on data providing a command to turn-on the corresponding POL regulator, voltage set-point data providing a desired output voltage of the corresponding POL regulator, slew-rate data providing a rate of change of output voltage of the corresponding POL regulator, and sequencing data providing a delay period between either a turn-on or turn-off command and actual generation of a corresponding output.

This claim language demonstrates that "slew-rate data" is distinct from the other "data" referenced in the claim and specifies a particular type of information. See Allied, 448 F.3d at 1333 n. 3. Dependent Claim 7 of the `798 patent specifies that the initial configuration data includes "slew rate data corresponding to a desired slew rate of said output" again showing the distinctness of this category of data and what information it represents. The `798 specification also provides for distinct categories of data, including "output-voltage-slew-rate data," and states what each category represents. See `798 patent, col. 2:10-21. Similarly, the `999 specification provides for the POL receiving activation data including "voltage set point data, slew-rate data and turn-on data corresponding to two volts, one volt per millisecond, and three milliseconds, respectively." See `999 patent, col. 4:33-41. The specifications show that the slew rate data provided to the POL regulator is distinct from other categories of data and specifies a desired slew rate.

Plaintiff argues that the output of the POL need not be specified by the received data, but only in accordance with that data, citing, for example, column 5, lines 29-38 of the `999 patent and claim 11 of the `999 patent. First, Plaintiff's position would blur the distinctions between the different categories of data provided to the POL, whereas the patent specifications and claims clearly distinguish between them. Moreover, the fact that the POL produces an output "in accordance with" the provided data does not mean that the "slew rate data" need not specify a slew rate. Thus, the Court construes "[output voltage] slew rate data" as "data provided to a POL regulator specifying the desired slew rate ( i.e., rate of change of output voltage) for the POL regulator."

3. "initial configuration data"

Having considered the parties' competing proposals on this term, the Court adopts the following compromise construction: "programming information received by a POL regulator after power-up but prior to the first generation of an output voltage." See `798 patent, col. 2:10-23; col. 4:51 — col. 5:49; col. 6:43-54; Figure 6.

4. "control . . . information," "control data"

Having considered the parties' proposals, the Court disagrees with both proposals. Thus, the Court construes these terms as "data specifying a desired operation by a POL regulator." See `125 patent, col. 6:44-55.

5. "monitoring information," "monitoring data"

The Court finds Power-One's proposal to be correct and, therefore, construes this term as "data concerning the status of the one or more POL regulators in the power system." See `125 patent, col. 6:44-55

6. "address set," "command set," "data set"

The dispute with regard to these terms is whether a "set" can contain a single bit, as Power-One proposes, or, as Artesyn suggests, whether it must contain two or more bits. Power-One concedes that the examples of sets given in the specification are multi-bit sets. See, e.g., `916 patent, col. 4:19-25. However, the `916 specification provides that "communication cycles containing more or less information and/or bits is within the spirit and scope of the present invention." Id. at col. 4:30-33. Although the `916 specification provides examples of multi-bit sets, this does not mean that a "set" referred to in the claims must contain more than one bit. See, e.g., Varco, L.P. v. Pason Systems USA, Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("`In examining the specification for proper context . . . this court will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims.'"). Accordingly, the Court declines to narrow the definition of set and construes these terms as follows:

Address set: A set of one or more bits in a message specifying the address of one or more devices connected to a bus.

Command set: A set of one or more bits in a message specifying a given command operation.

Data set: A set of one or more bits in a message reflecting data that is read from or written to a device.

7. "communication of control and monitoring data therebetween"

Power-One proposes this phrase refers to "sending control and monitoring data between the POL regulator and the data bus," while Artesyn proposes the phrase refers to "sending control and monitoring data between the POL regulators." The dispute here is whether the communication recited by the claims is between a POL regulator and the serial bus (Power-One's position) or between multiple POL regulators (Artesyn's position).

Claim 1 of the `916 patent describes

a plurality of point-of-load regulators . . . and

a bi-directional, serial data bus connected to each of said plurality of point-of-load regulators to permit communication of control and monitoring data therebetween, each one of said plurality of point-of-load regulators being adapted to initiate a communication cycle by providing a synchronizing signal onto said serial data bus followed by a multi-bit data message that includes at least one of an address set, a command set, and a data set.

The claim language calling for communication "therebetween" seems to refer to communication between the immediately preceding items, i.e., "said plurality of point-of-load regulators." Unasserted Claim 14 of the `916 patent provides for a "point-of load regulator having a serial data interface adapted to communicate control and monitoring data with other like point-of load regulators via a serial data bus . . ." Clearly, claim 14 contemplates communication of control and monitoring data between point-of-load regulators. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 ("Other claims of the patent, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term . . . Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.").

Further, the larger context of claim 1 also supports communication between POL regulators. Claim 1 provides for POL regulators "being adapted to initiate a communication cycle by initiating a synchronization signal onto said serial data bus followed by a multi-bit data message that includes at least one of an address set, a command set and a data set." The address set can be used to identify the POL regulator that is providing the information or the POL that is being written to or read, while the command set can identify what the POL regulator is providing. See `916 patent, col. 4:43-48. Thus, the communication at issue is between the devices connected to the serial bus, rather than between a device and the serial bus to which it is connected. While the devices certainly communicate by way of the serial bus, they communicate with, or between, themselves.

Power-One cites to the statement in the `916 specification that the "present invention provides a system and method for using a serial bus to passively or actively communicate with a point-of-load regulator." Col. 2:55-57. Power-One also cites to Figures 2 and 3 which show, according to Power-One, control and monitoring information flowing between the POLs and the controller across the data bus. However, simply because a data bus is used to communicate or permits communication does not mean that communication is between the bus and the POLs or a controller. The specification of the `916 patent regularly speaks of communication "via," "by way of," or "over" the serial bus, rather than "between'" the serial bus and a device. See, e.g., `916 patent, col. 3:42-44; col. 3:53-61; col. 3:66-67; col. 4:8-15. While a person can communicate over a telephone line, one does not typically refer to communication occurring between a person and a telephone line. Indeed, Figure 2 is discussed in terms of a controller communicating with a plurality of POL regulators (i.e., 220, 230, 230, and 250) via a serial bus 200. Col. 3:42-44 (emphasis added). Likewise, Figure 4 is described as a "method of communicating over a single-wire serial bus" and Figure 5 shows "how information can be transmitted over a serial bus." Col. 3:66-67; Col. 4:29-31. Finally, the specification discusses how POL regulators determine priority of communication where multiple POL regulators initiate a communication cycle simultaneously. Col, 4, line 59-63 ("Thus, a POL regulator can determine, by reading the start sequence 510 and address set 520 of a communication cycle 50 as it is being sent, whether another POL regulator is also attempting to send a communication cycle 50 at the same time. If multiple devices . . ."). Thus, the bus is the vehicle that allows communication between multiple POL regulators or other devices. For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes this term as "sending control and monitoring data between the POL regulators."

8. "controller," "power supply controller," "system controller"

As to "controller," the parties have agreed to Power-One's proposal of "circuitry that controls the operation of one or more devices." As to the other terms, Power-One argues for the same construction, while Artesyn proposes "part of a distributed power control system that activates and at least partially programs and monitors a regulator and allows the output of the POL regulator to be transmitted to an external load circuit." The Court notes that a "power supply controller" is discussed in the `999 patent as follows:

Traditionally, POL regulators operate in conjunction with at least one power supply controller. The controller (1) activates and partially programs the POL regulator by providing data directly to the POL regulator, (2) monitors the output of the POL regulator by measuring data external to the POL regulator, and (3) allows the output of the POL regulator to be transmitted to an external load circuit by controlling an external switch.

Col. 1:34-42; see also `798 patent, col. 1:37-42. The Court finds that this language supports Artesyn's proposal and therefore, construes "power supply controller" and "system controller" as "part of a distributed power control system that activates and at least partially programs and monitors a regulator and allows the output of the POL regulator to be transmitted to an external load circuit."

9. "determine"

Power-One seeks no construction of this term, while Artesyn proposes that the term be construed as "calculate." The Court agrees with Power-One that the term needs no construction. The parties have agreed that the term "calculate" as used in the patents means "ascertain based on calculations." Artesyn fails to adequately explain why the term "determine" should have the same definition as "calculate." Further, the passages from the `999 patent Artesyn cites, col. 2:28-34 and col. 4:23-33, do not support narrowing the meaning of "determine." See Lieble-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that courts will not impose additional limitations from the specification onto the claims). Both passages actually use the term "calculate" showing that "calculate" means something different than "determine."

10. "fault protection data"

Power-One suggests this term should be construed to mean "data concerning identification of or response to faults," while Artesyn proposes a construction of "a form of monitoring data provided by a POL regulator in which each datum is a value reflecting a characteristic of the POL regulator sending the message, such as the temperature, output voltage, or output current of the sending POL regulator." To support its proposal, Artesyn relies on column 2, lines 20-28 and column 5, lines 20-23 of the `916 patent. However, to construe these terms as Artesyn advocates would suggest that the term is limited to examples provided in the specification. Indeed, these passages use "e.g." showing that types of fault protection data discussed are exemplary only. See Varco, 436 F.3d at 1375. Artesyn's proposal also includes limitations, i.e., "form of monitoring data" and "each datum is a value reflecting a characteristic of the POL regulator," that are unnecessarily vague and find no support in the cited passages. Thus, the Court construes "fault protection data" as "data concerning identification of or response to faults."

11. "fault monitoring data"

Power-One proposes this term be construed as "data concerning the status of one or more POL regulators in a distributed power system or surrounding conditions," while Artesyn suggests "information about a possible fault of the POL regulator or its output obtained through systematic measurements using an external device or sensor circuit." Again, the Court finds Artesyn's proposal too limiting and not justified in view of the specification. The `798 specification is clear that "fault monitoring data" is not limited to data "about a possible fault" as Artesyn proposes. See `798 patent, col. 5:40-46. Further, there is nothing in the `798 specification requiring that data be obtained through "systematic measurements." Concerning Power-One's proposal, the Court finds that the phrase "surrounding conditions" is not supported by the specification. The Court construes "fault-monitoring data" as "data concerning the status or operating condition of one or more POL regulators used to determine if there is a fault."

12. "output data"

Power-One proposes "data reflecting information affecting the provision of power to the load," while Artesyn proposes "real-time generated data reflecting information affecting the provision of power to a load." The dispute with respect to this term is whether the `999 patent's prosecution history shows that the data must be "real-time generated." A prosecution history disclaimer must be clear and unambiguous. See Sorensen v. International Trade Com'n, 427 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("in order to disavow claim scope, a patent applicant must clearly and unambiguously express surrender of subject matter during prosecution."). Artesyn contends that during prosecution of the application that originally issued as the `999 patent, the claims were rejected over a prior art reference that disclosed a system including a "power-supply regulator 211" and a "look-up table 213" described by the patent examiner as "storage device 213." See Office Action, Mailed Jun. 3, 2004, for U.S. Patent Application No. 10/388,831. Artesyn argues that the applicant distinguished the claimed subject matter from the prior art on grounds that the "output data" in the "storage device" recited in the claim must be "real-time" data (as opposed to the type of data stored in the prior art device):

Since it is clear that the power supply controller 211 does not transmit output data, as discussed above, it further follows that there is no "storage device adapted to store said output data." The look-up table 213 cannot perform this function because, inter alia, it is not in communication with any device providing a "power supply controller." Further, a look up table generally contains an index of predetermined data and is not used to store real-time generated output data.

13. "performance monitoring information"

14. "sequencing data"

This term is found in several claims of the `999 patent. For example, claim 2 recites "sequencing data providing a delay period between either a turn-on or turn-off command and actual generation of a corresponding output." Claim 10 calls for "sequencing data" and recites "using said sequencing data to determine when said output should be generated." Claim 15 also calls for "sequencing data" and recites "using said sequencing data and said enable data to determine when said output should be generated." Thus, from the claims, "sequencing data" is information related to the timing of the generation of an output. The specification of the `999 patent states that "the delay period can either be provided by the controller 210 (e.g., sequencing data) or calculated using data that has been provided by the controller 210 (e.g., turn-on data)." From the specification, the "sequencing data" specifies a delay period between some event (e.g., activation) and the generation of an output. `999 patent, col. 4:23-32. In this example, the event from which the generation of an output is delayed is the activation of the POL. However, the Court sees no basis in the claims or the patent specification for limiting the event or events from which the delay can be measured.

Accordingly, the Court will construe "sequencing data" to mean "data specifying a delay period between some event and the generation or termination of an output."

15. "at least one of . . ." followed by an enumerated list

For illustration sake, the Court will consider this phrase as "at least one of X, Y, and Z." Essentially, Artesyn contends that this phrase means "at least one X, at least one Y, and at least one Z." Power-One, on the other hand, argues that the listing of "X, Y, and Z" composes a group ( i.e., the group includes X, Y, and Z) from at least one is selected. The Court finds Artesyn's position to be inconsistent with the specification. For example, Artesyn contends that in the sole example in the `999 patent specification where a control unit in a POL regulator calculates the period of time recited in the claim, the calculation is made using data from all three of the relevant data categories (turn-on data, slew rate data, voltage set-point data) in claims 3, 4, 27 and 30:

Alternatively, a POL regulator may generate a one volt output one millisecond after receiving activation data if it received voltage set-point data, slew rate data and turn-on data corresponding to two volts, one volt per millisecond and three milliseconds respectively.

For example, a POL regulator might generate a one volt output for five milliseconds after receiving activation data if it received voltage set-point data and sequencing data corresponding to one volt and five milliseconds, respectively.

the POL control unit receives output timing data, which may include slew-rate data, sequencing data, termination data, etc.

See '999 patent, col. 7:1-3.

Artesyn cites Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 2004), arguing that Superguide requires an "at least one of X, Y, and Z" term be construed "at least one X, at least one Y, and at least one Z." However, even if the Court were to agree that Superguide holds that the ordinary meaning of "at least one" is as Artesyn suggests, nothing in Superguide dictates that this term must be construed in this manner no matter what the specification teaches. In Superguide, the specification taught that the user must choose a value for each designated category. Id. at 887. Here, as noted above, the specification teaches embodiments that do not require each category of the enumerated set. Thus, the Court holds that although one of each of the enumerated data categories may be used, the "at least one" language only requires that one of the categories be selected. See Orion IP, LLC v. Staples, Inc., 406 F.Supp.2d 717, 726 (E.D. Tex 2005).

16. "turn-on data," "turn-off data," "turn-on period," "turn-off period," "turn-on delay period," "turn-off delay period"

As to the terms "turn-on period," "turn-off period," "turn-on delay period," "turn-off delay period," the Court sees little substantive difference between the parties' constructions and, therefore, adopts Power-One's proposals as the more helpful to the jury. The specification of the `999 patent states that a "delay period" is a "period of time to wait," which would comport with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. `999 patent, col. 2:31-32. Both parties include this aspect in their proposed constructions. Thus, the Court construes these terms as "the time to wait from an event before turning on an output," "the time to wait from an event before turning off an output," "the time to wait from an event before turning on an output," and "the time to wait from an event before turning off an output," respectively.

As to the terms "turn-on data" and "turn-off data," the `999 patent specification discusses turn-on and turn-off data at col. 2:14-24. In particular, the specification states "[e]xamples of output timing parameters include when to generate the output (e.g., sequencing data, turn-on data), when to stop generating the output (e.g., termination data, turn-off data), the slew rate of the output (e.g., slew rate data), etc." At col. 4:33-52, the `999 patent specification recites and discusses exemplary values of "turn-on data" and other data. In these cases, the "turn-on data" specifies when the output is to be generated. The Court finds that Power One's proposed construction is too broad, while Artesyn's proposed construction is unnecessarily limiting. Accordingly, the Court will construe "turn-on data" to mean "data indicating when to generate an output," and the Court will construe "turn-off data" to mean "data indicating when to stop generating an output."

17. "synchronizing signal"

Power-One proposes "a signal that identifies the start of a communication cycle," while Artesyn proposes "a clock signal that synchronizes the timing of multiple devices with one another for purposes of communication." Claim 1 of the `916 patent requires a POL regulator be adapted "to initiate a communication cycle by providing a synchronizing signal onto a serial data bus followed by a multi-bit data message that includes at least one of an address set, a command set, and a data set." Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that "said synchronizing signal further comprises a clock pulse that pulls said serial data bus to a low state." Thus, from the broad claims in the `916 patent, a "synchronizing signal" "initiate[s] a communication cycle" and is "followed by a multi-bit data message" that includes an address set, a command set and/or a data set.

The "synchronizing signal" of the claims corresponds to the "start sequence" described in the patent specification, as the start sequence in the specification is at the beginning of a communication cycle and is followed by the sets recited in the claims. `916 patent, col. 4:18-25, Fig. 5.

Artesyn uses the term "clock signal" in its proposal. The `916 patent specification describes a "clock signal" that synchronizes the various communicating devices and creates a series of clock cycles, each one including a data bit. `916 patent, col. 4:4-7. This "clock signal" is not described as initiating a communication cycle and it is not followed by a multi-bit message. Artesyn's proposed construction for the "synchronizing signal" of the claims appear to be more descriptive of the "clock signal" described in the specification that is used to transmit the data bits that comprise the address set, the command set and the data set. As the claims recite, these aspects follow the "synchronizing signal."

Power One's proposed construction accurately describes the start sequence described in the specification, which performs the function of the "synchronizing signal" in the claims. Accordingly, the Court construes this term as "a signal that identifies the start of a communication cycle."

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court's claim interpretations are set forth in a table attached to this opinion.

So ORDERED and SIGNED.

A. U.S. Patent No. 6,936,999 ("the `999 Patent")

B. U.S. Patent No. 6,949, 916 ("the '916 Patent")

C. U.S. Patent No. 7,000,125 ("the '125 Patent")

D. U.S. Patent No. 7,049,798 ("the '798 Patent")