Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, 2007 WL 551579 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2007) (Moran, J.).
Judge Moran granted in part defendant’s motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s construction of "binary code." In its prior claim construction opinion — discussed here — the Court defined "binary code" and "trinary code generator," among other terms. In its discussion of its "binary code" construction, the Court explained that the claims do not limit binary code to a binary number and, therefore, the term encompasses "other numerical and character languages, including trinary code." Defendant argued that binary code could not be defined as trinary code and that, therefore, the Court should modify its construction to make clear that trinary code cannot be part of binary code. The Court agreed with defendant that binary code cannot encompass trinary code and, therefore, clarified its explanatory sentence. The Court explained that binary code could not include trinary code, but that it could include trinary numbers. But because the Court’s actual construction did not mention trinary code, it declined to revise the construction.