OPINION
WOLIN, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. LEGAL PRECEPTS .............................................................. 518
A. Summary Judgment Standard ................................................ 518
B. Summary Judgment in Patent Infringement Litigation ....................... 518
C. Patent Infringement ...................................................... 519
1. Claim Construction .................................................... 519
2. Literal Infringement .................................................. 519
3. Doctrine of Equivalents ............................................... 519
D. Invalidity by Anticipation ............................................... 520
II. UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 4,097,899 .......................................... 520
A. Background ............................................................... 520
1. Function and Structure of the '899 Patent ............................. 522
2. Nintendo's Denial of Infringement and Claim of Invalidity ............. 522
a. Nintendo's RF Switch . ............................................. 522
b. Nintendo's Arguments in Support of the Lack of Equivalency
Between the Function and Structure of the `899 Patent as
Compared to the `478 Patent ........................................ 523
c. Nintendo's Invalidity Claim: Anticipation of the `899 Patent ....... 523
3. GE's Reply to Nintendo's Non-Infringement and Claim Construction
Analysis .............................................................. 524
4. Expert Testimony ...................................................... 524
a. Kurt Wallace for GE ................................................ 524
b. James Roberge for Nintendo ......................................... 524
c. Katsuya Nakagawa for Nintendo ...................................... 524
B. Discussion ............................................................... 529
1. Non-infringement of Claim 12 of the '899 Patent ...................... 529
a. Literal Infringement .............................................. 529
b. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents .................... 530
2. Non-infringement of Claims 13 and 14 of the '899 Patent .............. 532
3. Claims 12-14 of the '899 Patent Are Invalid .......................... 532
III. UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 4,169,659 .......................................... 534
A. Background ............................................................... 534
1. Sync Generators ...................................................... 534
2. The '659 Patent ...................................................... 536
a. Drive Signals ..................................................... 537
b. Vertical Counter Clocked by Signal Advanced in Phase .............. 537
3. Nintendo's Denial of Infringement .................................... 538
a. Nintendo's SNES Sync Generator .................................... 538
b. Nintendo's Arguments in Support of Non-Infringement Claim ......... 539
4. GE's Reply to Nintendo's Non-Infringement Analysis ................... 541
a. Drive Signals ..................................................... 541
b. Vertical Counter Clocked by Signal Advanced in Phase .............. 542
c. Doctrine of Equivalents ........................................... 542
5. Expert Testimony ...................................................... 542
a. Steven Mayer for Nintendo .......................................... 542
b. Bernard Lechner for GE ............................................. 545
B. Discussion ............................................................... 546
1. Non-infringement of Claim 1 of the '659 Patent ........................ 546
a. Literal Infringement ............................................... 546
(1) Drive Signals .................................................. 546
(2) Vertical Counter Clocked by Signal Advanced in Phase ........... 549
b. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ..................... 550
2. Non-infringement of Claims 3, 4, 5 and 13 of '659 Patent .............. 551
IV. UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 4,270,125 ........................................... 551
A. Background ................................................................ 551
1. Display Systems ....................................................... 551
2. The `125 Patent ....................................................... 552
a. Data Transfer Technique ............................................ 553
b. Refresh Technique .................................................. 554
c. Gating Means ....................................................... 554
3. Nintendo's Denial of Infringement ..................................... 555
a. Nintendo's SNES and Gameboy Systems ................................ 555
b. Nintendo's Arguments in Support of Non-Infringement Claim .......... 557
(1) Data Transfer Technique ........................................ 557
(2) Refresh Technique .............................................. 558
(3) Gating Means ................................................... 559
4. GE's Reply to Nintendo's Non-Infringement Analysis .................... 559
a. Data Transfer Technique ............................................ 559
b. Refresh Technique .................................................. 560
c. Gating Means ....................................................... 561
5. Expert Testimony ...................................................... 561
a. Steven Mayer for Nintendo .......................................... 561
b. Robert Pelovitz for GE ............................................. 564
c. Joel Snyder for GE ................................................. 565
B. Discussion ............................................................... 565
1. Literal Infringement .................................................. 565
a. Data Transfer Technique ............................................ 565
b. Refresh Technique .................................................. 567
c. Gating Means ....................................................... 568
2. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ........................ 569
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 570
Before the Court today are two behemoths of the television electronics industry — General Electric Company ("GE") and Nintendo Company, Ltd. ("Nintendo").1 Their respective products, and ones like them, are embedded in the core of the visual society that we have become. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find someone who does not have a GE product in his home or a person who has never watched a program on a GE television. Likewise, Nintendo products are a lightning rod of interest that electrify the realm of personal entertainment and it is rare to find an individual, at least one of a less-distinguished age than the Court, who has never been challenged by one of the ever-growing number of video games. Ironically, there are probably thousands of homes in which Nintendo video game systems are harmoniously connected to GE televisions. Such harmony is rendered atonal, however, the moment litigation begins.
GE initiated this action alleging that certain of Nintendo's video game products infringed three separate patents owned by GE.2 The patents (and respective claims) under consideration are: United States Patent No. 4,097,899 (Claims 12-14), United States Patent No. 4,169,659 (Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 13) and United States Patent No. 4,270,125 (Claim 1). Each of the patents generally relates to electronic circuitry used in connection with television systems.3
Through its present applications for summary judgment, Nintendo seeks a declaration of non-infringement in regard to each of GE's patents. With respect to patent No. 4,097,899, Nintendo alternatively asserts that the patent is invalid by anticipation.4 As set out below, the Court has separately analyzed and discussed each of the patents under a single statement of the applicable law. The order of consideration of the patents is random. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant Nintendo's motions for summary judgment on each of the three patents.
