Time’ Ntemperature Company v. SENSITECH, INC. and DONALD W. BERRIAN

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1404
TIME’ N TEMPERATURE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SENSITECH, INC. and DONALD W. BERRIAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Daniel M. Cislo, Cislo & Thomas LLP, of Santa Monica, California, argued for
plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was David B. Sandelands.
Francis H. Morrison III, Day, Berry & Howard LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts,
argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was John T. Gutkoski. Of counsel
was Alexandra C. Fennell.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Central District of California
Judge Manuel L. Real

-- 1 of 7 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1404
TIME ’N TEMPERATURE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SENSITECH, INC., and DONALD W. BERRIAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________
DECIDED: January 30, 2007
___________________________
Before MAYER, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Donald W. Berrian and Sensitech, Inc., (collectively, “Sensitech”) are the
assignee and exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,200 (“the ’200 patent”). The
patent is directed to an electronic monitoring device that is capable of sensing and
recording external parameters such as temperature, humidity, pressure, or acceleration.
Appellant Time ’N Temperature Co. (“TNT”) makes and sells several types of
temperature recorders for use in connection with the shipment of perishable foods.
Sensitech filed this action for patent infringement against TNT in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On TNT’s motion, the district
court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of

-- 2 of 7 --

California, where it was consolidated with a separate action filed by TNT. In that action,
TNT brought antitrust claims against Sensitech and sought a declaratory judgment of
invalidity and noninfringement of the ’200 patent. The district court subsequently
granted TNT’s motion to dismiss the antitrust claims with prejudice.
After the close of discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment as to
liability. The district court denied TNT’s motions with respect to infringement and patent
invalidity, granted Sensitech’s motions on the same subjects, and issued a permanent
injunction barring TNT from selling the accused devices. TNT now appeals from the
issuance of the injunction, raising issues of claim construction, anticipation, and
obviousness. We hold that the district court erred in concluding that none of the claims
of the ’200 patent are invalid for anticipation.
Claim 1 of the ’200 patent provides as follows:
Apparatus for monitoring an externally applied parameter, comprising a
housing enclosing:
A. a sensor having a characteristic that varies in a predetermined
manner with variation of said parameter;
B. a monitoring and output network including:
i. means coupled to said sensor for generating a signal
representative of variations of said characteristic over time,
ii. first storage means for storing values associated with selected
portions of said signal, said selected portions including other
than the most recent portion of said signal, and
iii. selectively operative means for generating an output signal
representative of selected ones of said stored values; and
C. a power supply in operable communication with said sensor and said
network.
On appeal, TNT asserts that each of three prior art references anticipates the claims of
the ’200 patent.
One of the three prior art references, U.S. Patent No. 4,745,564 to Tennes (“the
’564 patent”), discloses an apparatus for measuring and recording externally applied
2006-1404 2

-- 3 of 7 --

parameters relating to goods in transit. Sensitech argues that the Tennes reference
does not anticipate the ’200 patent because Tennes does not disclose the storage of
values “associated with” selected portions of the external parameter signal, as required
by claim 1 of the ’200 patent.
That argument is rebutted by an examination of the text of the Tennes patent.
Tennes is directed to an impact-detection apparatus “for measuring and recording
accelerations or other physical quantities experienced by easily damaged items of
commerce such as fruit and electronic computers.” The specification of the Tennes
patent states:
This invention provides an apparatus adapted to measure and record the
acceleration history of commodities while they are being handled or
transported. . . . It can sense accelerations along each of three coordinate
axes. All three accelerations are stored as data if any one exceeds a
predetermined acceleration magnitude. The apparatus also stores the
time of occurrence of such accelerations, thereby providing an event-time
history. This history can be read from the memory for analysis after the
handling or transportation is completed.
’564 patent, col. 2, line 61, through col. 3, line 4. Thus, the Tennes patent plainly
discloses the storage of values corresponding to selected signals relating to
acceleration (or other parameters).
That disclosure in Tennes satisfies the allegedly missing claim limitation.
Sensitech, however, argues that the limitation of the ’200 patent that refers to “values
associated with selected portions of [the] signal” requires that the stored value reflect
some type of mathematical computation. Sensitech characterizes measurements
indicative of a particular parameter (such as temperature) as “simple readings,” while it
refers to the results of a comparison or calculation involving one or more readings (such
as a figure representing the maximum temperature recorded within a certain time-
2006-1404 3

-- 4 of 7 --

frame) as “computed values.” Under Sensitech’s theory, “storing values associated with
selected portions of [the] signal” refers to the storage of “computed values,” whereas
Tennes teaches only the storage of “simple readings.”
Both aspects of Sensitech’s theory are flawed. First, the ’200 patent clearly uses
the phrase “values associated with the signal” in a manner that encompasses the
storage of “simple readings” such as temperature measurements. The specification
explicitly states that “[v]alues associated with the signal, e.g. actual temperature values,
are stored in a memory device for subsequent, selected retrieval.” ’200 patent, col. 3, ll.
1-3. Moreover, the disclosures in the Tennes patent satisfy even Sensitech’s narrow
construction requiring the storage of “computed values.” Claim 6 of Tennes recites
“[t]he acceleration event detector/recorder of claim 4, wherein the arithmetic logic
means processes the digital signals to produce a digital signal representing the area
under the acceleration time-history curve.” ’564 patent, col. 11, ll. 26-29. Claim 8 of
Tennes describes a similar arithmetic logic means that “processes the digital signals to
produce digital signals representing the frequency contents of accelerations which meet
predetermined criteria.” ’564 patent, col. 11, ll. 34-38. Those claims clearly disclose the
computation of values that represent a comparison with or calculation involving multiple
readings of the input signal. And contrary to Sensitech’s assertion, the Tennes patent
teaches the storage of such figures; both claims 6 and 8 of the Tennes patent ultimately
depend from claim 2, which explicitly requires the storage of the digital signal
representing the computed values. ’564 patent, col. 10, line 66, through col. 11, line 3.
Thus, even under Sensitech’s proffered claim construction, the Tennes patent
anticipates the claimed invention.
2006-1404 4

-- 5 of 7 --

Sensitech attempts to rebut the showing of anticipation based on Tennes by
pointing to a statement made by TNT’s expert, that the Tennes patent does not teach
the storage of any “calculations, comparisons, of acceleration values, between or
among themselves to determine a high or a low.” According to Sensitech, that
statement supports Sensitech’s theory that Tennes does not teach the storage of
“computed values.” There are two defects in that line of reasoning, however. First, the
expert’s statement is directed solely to claim 24 of the Tennes patent and does not
address the remainder of the patent. Second, the statement is limited to the issue of
whether claim 24 of the Tennes patent teaches the determination of a minimum or
maximum acceleration over a particular period of time. Sensitech’s argument therefore
relies on the false premise that the calculation of a minimum or maximum acceleration
is coextensive with the meaning of the term “computed value.” Even under Sensitech’s
construction of the term, the meaning of “computed value” encompasses any
comparison or calculation involving multiple signal readings. That definition is clearly
broad enough to capture the computation of the area under an acceleration time-history
curve, which is expressly taught by Tennes.
Under the proper construction of the claim limitation “values associated with
selected portions of [the] signal,” it is clear from the record before the district court that
no reasonable jury could find that limitation not to be anticipated by the prior art Tennes
patent. That limitation was the only basis invoked by Sensitech, either in the district
court or in this court, for distinguishing Tennes from the ’200 patent.
We hold that the district court should have granted TNT’s motion for summary
judgment of anticipation based on TNT’s showing that Tennes anticipates the ’200
2006-1404 5

-- 6 of 7 --

patent and, for that reason, should not have issued an injunction. In the district court,
TNT alleged in general that all the claims of the ’200 patent were invalid, but it focused
in particular and with specificity on claims 1, 24, and 42 of that patent. Because
Sensitech’s response to TNT’s anticipation argument in the district court and in this
court was predicated on the “values associated with selected portions of [the] signal”
limitation, we hold that claims 1, 24, and 42 are anticipated by Tennes, and we therefore
reverse the decision of the district court as to those claims. In their briefs before this
court, the parties did not separately address the issue of the validity of each of the
remaining dependent claims of the ’200 patent. In further proceedings before the
district court, the district court should consider, in light of the analysis set forth above,
the validity of any remaining dependent claims as to which there may be a continuing
dispute between the parties. Based on our rulings on the issue of liability, we reverse
the injunction entered against TNT.
2006-1404 6

-- 7 of 7 --