Published on:

Judge Stark Issues Claim Construction Opinion in Multi-Defendant Patent Case Relating to Technology for Power Conservation in a Computer System

By

In St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., C.A. 10-982-LPS (D. Del.), Judge Stark recently issued a claim construction opinion construing disputed claim terms for six patents-in-suit relating to ways in which a computer system can utilize various techniques to achieve improved power conservation. Id. at 1. In the memorandum opinion, the Court construed the following claim terms and phrases:

– “accumulating”
– “accumulating a count indicating the time duration said CPU has allocated to performing . . . [said] idle class activities within a predetermined time period”
– “accumulating a count related to said idle class code thread occurrence detection”
– “execution of a predefined code thread”
– “single common system bus which directly connects the CPU device with the input/output devices”
– “system bus which directly connects the CPU device with said input/output circuit”
– “system bus which connects the CPU device with the input/output device”
– “generating [or generates] a first inactivity indicator after a first predetermined period of inactivity and a second inactivity indicator a second predetermined period of inactivity after generating the first inactivity indicator”
– “[couples device operating power/coupling said circuit operating power] . . . when the [state controller/computer system] is in said [first/second/third] state”
– “polarity control bit”
– “polarity circuit”
– “idle thread execution completion detection means”
– “processor clock speed control means”
– “selectable connector”
– “selection device”
– “controller”
– “bus processing means”
– “power director means which in response to the mode of operation of the mode controller selectively couples each of the plurality of power control lines to said memory cell associated with that power control line such that a signal is generated on the power control line that is dependent upon the state of the memory cell to which it is coupled”


St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., C.A. 10-982-LPS (D. Del.)

Contact Information