Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 50
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`NELSON KUAN
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`April 29, 2022
`
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`GARY L. HAUSKEN
`Director
`
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`shahar.harel@usdoj.gov
`Telephone: (202) 305-3075
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT,
`THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 50
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`OVERVIEW OF CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE ...................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness Based on Antecedent Basis ..............................................................2
`
`Law on 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ....................................................................................3
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The ‘355 Patent ........................................................................................................7
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 6: “the step of receiving” ...........................................................7
`
`The ‘816 Patent ........................................................................................................9
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 5: “the markup language” ..........................................................9
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 6: “means for receiving . . .” ....................................................11
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 7: “means for automatically transforming. . .”.........................11
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 8: “means for combining . . .” ..................................................17
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 9: “means for displaying …” ...................................................21
`
`C.
`
`The ‘383 Patent ......................................................................................................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 13: “means for identifying . . .” ...............................................21
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 14: “means for automatically transforming . . . ” .....................26
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 15: “means for processing . . .” ................................................28
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 16: “means for causing a display…” .......................................29
`
`D.
`
`The ‘748 Patent ......................................................................................................29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 7: “code for storing a plurality . . .” .........................................32
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 8: “code for processing at least . . .” ........................................33
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 9: “code for receiving a user selection” ...................................35
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 10: “code for receiving a user selection . . .” ...........................36
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 11: “code for mapping . . .” .....................................................37
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 12: “code for outputting a presentation . . .” ............................38
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 14: “code for outputting a report . . .” ......................................41
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 16: “code for outputting at least one . . .” ................................42
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................. passim
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 813 F. App’x 522 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............ 2, 11, 13
`
`Cellcast Tech., LLC v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 353 (2020) ............................................. passim
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 586
`(E.D. Tex. 2019) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00300-RWS, 2018 WL
`4035968 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2018) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................... 4, 35
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................ 3
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............... passim
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software Inc., 700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012 ......................................... 7, 18
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............. 6, 8, 28, 31
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008).......... 36
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 8, 28, 31
`
`Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................... 12
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................. 30
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 249 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............... 14
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........ passim
`
`Mediatek, Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co., 513 F. Supp. 2d 778, 788 (E.D. Tex. 2007)........................... 15
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ..................................................... 2
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008 ............................................. 6
`
`Spa Syspatronic AG v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 375 (2014) ........................................ 22, 28, 31
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed Cir. 2015) ....................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 50
`
`
`
`Zeroclick, LLC, v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................. passim
`
`STATUTES
`
`§ 112, ¶ 2 ................................................................................................................................. 11, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 50
`
`
`
`Defendant, the United States, respectfully submits this Responsive Claim Construction
`
`Brief on Indefiniteness in response to Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate
`
`Solutions, LLC (collectively, “e-Numerate”) Opening Claim Construction Brief on
`
`Indefiniteness (ECF 79).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`e-Numerate brought this suit against the United States alleging infringement of one or
`
`more claims of each of United States Patent Nos. 7,650,355 (“the ‘355 Patent”), United States
`
`Patent Nos. 8,185,816 (“the ‘816 Patent”), 9,262,383 (“the ‘383 Patent”), 9,262,384 (“the ‘384
`
`Patent”), 9,268,748 (“the ‘748 Patent”), 9,600,842 (“the ‘842 Patent”), 10,223,337 (“the ‘337
`
`Patent”), and 10,423,708 (“the ‘708 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`The parties have met and conferred in order to narrow and focus the claim construction
`
`issues. e-Numerate filed a list of the parties’ agreed constructions. See ECF 80-2. For those terms
`
`that are in dispute, the parties have offered competing constructions. See ECF 80-3. Due to the
`
`number of terms in dispute and their length, the Court allowed the parties to provide a main
`
`claim construction brief and a second brief directed on those terms that one or more party
`
`contends are indefinite or to be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6. This is the Government’s
`
`responsive claim construction brief on indefiniteness. As Defendant maintains that certain terms
`
`are to be construed pursuant to § 112, ¶ 6 but are definite, it includes those terms as well.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order at the teleconference held on January 25, 2022, and
`
`following the format of e-Numerate’s opening brief (ECF 79), this brief is limited to Defendant’s
`
`indefiniteness arguments raised against certain claims of the patents-in-suit. Specifically, the
`
`following claims and bases of invalidity are addressed in this brief:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Claim
`‘355 Patent, Claims 15 and 42
`
`‘816 Patent, Claim 12
`
`‘816 Patent, Claim 26
`
`‘383 Patent, Claim 18
`
`‘748 Patent, Claim 11
`
`Asserted Basis for Invalidity
`Indefiniteness based on ambiguity/lack of
`antecedent basis
`Indefiniteness based on ambiguity/lack of
`antecedent basis
`Indefiniteness of computer-implemented
`“means-plus-function” claim for failing to
`disclose an algorithm
`Indefiniteness of computer-implemented
`“means-plus-function” claim for failing to
`disclose an algorithm
`Asserting claim terms written in “code for”
`format is a “means-plus-function” limitation
`and are indefinite, inter alia, for a failing to
`disclose an algorithm.
`
`Terms addressed in e-Numerate’s opening brief which are no longer disputed are:
`
`
`
`
`’816 Patent – Terms 6 and 9;
`
`’383 Patent – Term 16.1
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Indefiniteness Based on Antecedent Basis
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “The lack of antecedent basis signals a potential indefiniteness problem
`
`but does not end the inquiry.” Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 813 F. App’x 522,
`
`526 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential) (citing Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Whether [a] claim, despite lack of explicit antecedent
`
`basis ... nonetheless has a reasonably ascertainable meaning must be decided in context.”)).
`
`
`1 e-Numerate referred to this term as Term 16 in the joint chart listing disputed terms
`(ECF 80-3) but mistakenly referred to this as Term 17 in its briefing.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Law on 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`This Court is familiar with the issue of patent claim invalidity for indefiniteness arising
`
`with respect to claim elements set forth in means-plus-function format, i.e., in accordance with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA2). See, e.g., Cellcast Tech., LLC v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 353,
`
`379-396 (2020). Initially, a determination is made as to whether the term in question is a
`
`means-plus-function element subject to § 112, ¶ 6. In this regard, as the Court recognized in
`
`Cellcast, when the phrase “means for” is used in a claim element, there is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 applies. Conversely, if the term “means” is not used, a rebuttable
`
`presumption arises that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply.
`
`
`
`Thus, a party asserting the applicability of § 112 ¶ 6 in the absence of the word “means”
`
`must demonstrate that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites
`
`function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Id. at 380. Notably,
`
`however, the latter presumption flowing from the absence of the word “means” is not a strong
`
`one. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed Cir. 2015) (en banc)
`
`(expressly overruling prior decisions characterizing the presumption as “strong”).
`
`
`
`“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. When a
`
`claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption can be overcome and § 112, ¶ 6 will apply
`
`if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or
`
`else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Id.; see
`
`also, Cellcast, 150 Fed. Cl. at 379-80.
`
`
`2 The corresponding amended statutory section applicable to patents subject to the
`America Invents Act (AIA) is 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The patents addressed herein are pre-AIA
`patents and hence reference is made to the pre-AIA statutory provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`The court in Williamson observed that the term “module” “is a well-known nonce word
`
`that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” 792 F.3d at 1350.
`
`The court observed more generally that “[g]eneric terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’
`
`‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used
`
`in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do
`
`not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`In the context of software related claims, the phrases “logic to . . .” and “code for” have
`
`been deemed nonce terms subject to § 112, ¶ 6. See, e.g., Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`972 F.3d 1367, 1372-75 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claim limitation reciting “logic to modify said
`
`received messages to transmit said modified messages to the external communication network
`
`and to the external storage network” properly construed to be a means-plus-function limitation);
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 586, 615-
`
`617 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (finding claim limitations using the phrase “code for …” to be means-
`
`plus-function limitations); Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00300-
`
`RWS, 2018 WL 4035968, *9 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2018) (limitations reciting “code for
`
`detecting the user input corresponding to the first navigation control” and “code for sending, in
`
`response to detecting the user input, navigation information” found to be means-plus-function
`
`limitations).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, regardless of the term substituted for “means,” the applicability of § 112, ¶ 6 is
`
`established by the failure of the claim to recite definite structure, or the recitation of function
`
`without reciting sufficient structure for performing said function. Cellcast, 150 Fed. Cl. at 381.3
`
`
`
`Once it is determined that § 112, ¶ 6 is applicable to a claim term, the court turns to
`
`identification of the claimed function. Id. at 382. And after identification of the function(s), the
`
`court examines what (if any) corresponding structure for performing the function(s) is disclosed
`
`in the subject patent. If there are multiple claimed functions, the patentee must disclose
`
`adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions. Otherwise the claim is
`
`invalid for indefiniteness. Id. at 383.
`
`
`
`Where the claim is directed to software, the specification must disclose the
`
`corresponding structure in the form of an algorithm. Id. at 382. In this regard, simply disclosing
`
`a computer as the structure designated to perform a particular function is insufficient. Ergo
`
`Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Requiring
`
`disclosure of an algorithm properly defines the scope of the claim and prevents pure functional
`
`claiming.” Id. “‘[A] means-plus-function claim element for which the only disclosed structure
`
`is a general purpose computer is invalid if the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for
`
`performing the claimed function.’” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1365-67 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008)).
`
`
`3 Cellcast is instructive on this inquiry. Similar to Williamson, this Court addressed the
`issue of § 112, ¶ 6 applicability where the term “module” was substituted for “means,” finding
`that the defendants had successfully rebutted the presumption for the claim term “broadcast
`admission control module.” Id. There, defendants successfully argued that “‘[t]he ‘broadcast
`admission control module’ is a black box, defined entirely by function with no structure
`whatsoever.’ ” Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`Importantly, the knowledge of one skilled in the art cannot substitute for the required
`
`disclosure:
`
`The indefiniteness inquiry is concerned with whether the bounds of the invention
`are sufficiently demarcated, not with whether one of ordinary skill in the art may
`find a way to practice the invention. To assess whether a claim is indefinite,
`therefore, we do not “look to the knowledge of one skilled in the art apart from
`and unconnected to the disclosure of the patent.” . . . We rather “look at the
`disclosure of the patent and determine if one of skill in the art would have
`understood that disclosure to encompass [the required structure].”
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 519 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`Nor can a mere restatement of the function, or of the desired outcome, suffice. “[T]he
`
`specification must include language regarding how the software ensures performance of the
`
`functions, rather than simply describing the outcome.” Cellcast, 150 Fed. Cl. at 385. A “black
`
`box” said to perform a recited function, but which leaves undisclosed how it does so, is
`
`insufficient. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1383; see also, ePlus, 700 F.3d at 518 (court considered
`
`disclosure cited by patentee insufficient as “just a black box that represents the purchase-order-
`
`generation function without any mention of a corresponding structure”).
`
`
`
`One exception to the rule requiring disclosure of an algorithm has been identified, but it
`
`is a very “narrow exception” that applies in only “rare circumstances”:
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation identified a narrow
`exception to the requirement that an algorithm must be disclosed for a general-
`purpose computer to satisfy the disclosure requirement: when the function “can be
`achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.” . . . It
`is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without
`any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be
`disclosed.
`
`Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1364-65 (quoting In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
`
`Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (emphasis added).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`This Court should adopt Defendant’s proposed claim constructions for each of the
`
`disputed terms.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ‘355 Patent
`
`1.
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 6: “the step of receiving”
`
`The issue with this term is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would understand with reasonable certainty the scope of this term, and in particular whether the
`
`antecedent basis for this term is “receiving a series of numerical values having tags indicating
`
`characteristics of the numerical values” or “receiving a macro defined to perform an operation on
`
`the series of numerical values.” As a POSITA would not, the Court should find that this term is
`
`indefinite.
`
`This term appears in dependent Claims 15 and 42 of the ‘355 Patent. Claim 15 depends
`
`on independent claim 1 and recites (emphasis added):
`
`15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving
`comprises receiving tags indicating characteristics selected from the group
`consisting of: (1) value, (2) semantics, (3) format, (4) measurement, (5) structure,
`and (6) provenance.
`
`Meanwhile, independent Claim 1 recites in pertinent part (emphasis added):
`
`1. A computer-implemented method of processing tagged numerical data, the method
`comprising:
`
`receiving a series of numerical values having tags indicating characteristics of the
`numerical values; …
`
`receiving a macro defined to perform an operation on the series of numerical values;
`
` …
`
` and the step of receiving the macro comprises receiving the macro including
`interpreted code, meta-data, and error handling instructions.
`
`Claim 42 depends on Claim 28 with the same relevant limitations but as a claim directed to a
`
`“computer-readable memory” instead of a “computer-implemented method.”
`
`e-Numerate does not dispute that the term “the step of receiving” of Claims 15 and 42
`
`does not fully recite the relevant receiving step of Claims 1 and 28, respectively, but argues that
`
`a POSITA would understand that it necessarily refers to the “receiving a series of numerical
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 50
`
`
`
`values . . .” limitation. The claims and specification confirm that e-Numerate is mistaken. As
`
`explained below, “the step of receiving” also plausibly refers to the “receiving a macro”
`
`limitation, rendering “the step of receiving” indefinite.
`
`In terms of the claims, both Claim 1 and 28 recite “receiving the macro comprises
`
`receiving the macro including interpreted code, meta-data….” The parties also agree that
`
`“meta-data” means “data about data.” ECF 80-2 (list of agreed-upon constructions). Therefore,
`
`the relevant claims specifically require receiving the macro with meta-data. That meta-data may
`
`include information such as the source of the macro, and correspond to the provenance
`
`characteristic recited in Claims 15 and 42. See ‘355 Patent at 50:2-5 (“Provenance…include[s]
`
`information on the source of the data”). Therefore, Claims 15 and 42 may reasonably include
`
`within their scope the case where “the step of receiving” refers to the step of “receiving the
`
`macro. . . .”
`
`Similarly, the disclosure of the ‘355 Patent further confirms the plausibility of such an
`
`interpretation. It discloses a Document Type Definition (“DTD”) for an exemplary macro. ‘355
`
`Patent at 50:35; see also ‘748 Patent at col. 97- col. 106 (sample Reusable Macro Markup
`
`Language DTD); ‘748 Patent at col. 107- col. 112 (sample Reusable Macro Markup Language
`
`Document). The sample DTD for macros confirms that a macro document may include code via
`
`the use of elements such as “macro_code” and “code.” ‘748 Patent at col. 99. However, a macro
`
`document is not strictly limited to such code. It may include elements such as a “macro_source,”
`
`id. at col. 97, and a “line item,” id. at col. 103, which may comprise a “data_x” element, id. at
`
`102-105.
`
`Depending on the embodiment, the attributes associated with these elements may disclose
`
`the characteristics listed in Claims 15 and 42. For example, the macro_source element may
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`
`comprise tags indicating provenance. See e.g., ‘748 Patent at col. 107 (sample RMML document
`
`with macro_source comprising attributes indicating contact information for the source). The
`
`attributes of data_x may disclose the following characteristics: value (via e.g., the x_mag
`
`attribute); measurement (e.g., x_measure, x_unit attributes); semantics (e.g., x_title, x_notes,
`
`x_desc attributes); and format (e.g., format attribute). Similarly, the attributes of the line item
`
`element may also disclose the following characteristics: semantics (e.g., li_cat, li_legend, li_title,
`
`li_notes, li_desc attributes); format (e.g., format attribute); and structure (e.g., level, relation
`
`attributes). Therefore, the specification also discloses a document comprising a macro and tags
`
`corresponding to all of the specified characteristics recited in Claims 15 and 42.
`
`Alternatively (and as e-Numerate argues), the claims may be read such that the “step of
`
`receiving” limitation of Claims 15 and 42 may refer to the “receiving a series of numerical
`
`values . . .” This is further established by the patent’s disclosure referencing the same attributes
`
`recited above for line items and data_x elements. See, e.g., ‘355 Patent at 20:23-54. Finally, Dr.
`
`Martin’s opinion is in accord that a POSITA could not reasonably determine the scope of the
`
`“step of receiving” limitation of claims 28 and 42. See ECF 81-7 (“Martin Decl.”) at ¶¶ 41-46.
`
`Therefore, the Court should find this claim term indefinite based on the entire context, including
`
`the claims and the specification. Bushnell Hawthorne, 813 F. App’x at 527 (“The meaning of
`
`‘said different IP Address’ is entirely unclear on the record before us”). This renders Claims 15
`
`and 42 of the ‘355 Patent invalid for indefiniteness under § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA).
`
`B.
`
`The ‘816 Patent
`
`1.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 5: “the markup language”
`
`The issue with this term is whether a POSITA would understand with reasonable
`
`certainty its scope, and in particular whether the antecedent basis for this term refers to the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 50
`
`
`
`“markup language” of the “first markup document” or “second markup document” of Claim 10.
`
`As a POSITA would not, the Court should find that this term is indefinite.
`
`Claims 10 and 12 of the ‘816 patent recite (emphasis added):
`
`10. A data processing system comprising: a non-volatile storage device storing a
`first markup document and a second markup document, both the first markup
`document and the second markup document containing numerical values and tags
`reflecting characteristics of the numerical values, wherein the characteristics indicate that
`the numerical values of the first markup document differ in format from the numerical
`values of the second markup document; a memory storing a program that receives the
`first markup document and the second markup document, that automatically transforms
`the numerical values of at least one of the first markup document and the second
`markup document so that the numerical values of the first markup document and the
`second markup document have a common format, and that combines the first markup
`document and the second markup document into a single data set; and a processor that
`runs the program.
`
`12. The data processing system of claim 10, wherein the markup language is
`compliant with Extensible Markup Language version 1.0.
`
`While the term “markup language” does not appear in Claim 10, both parties agree that a
`
`
`
`“markup document” is “a document that contains markup language tags.” See ECF 80-2.
`
`However, Claim 10 recites both a “first markup document” and a “second markup document”
`
`and by substituting that agreed-upon construction into claim 10 an ambiguity arises as to whether
`
`the limitation “wherein the markup language is compliant with Extensible Markup Language
`
`version 1.0” of Claim 12 refers to the markup language of the first markup document, the second
`
`markup document, or both the first and second markup documents. e-Numerate’s argument does
`
`not even address this ambiguity and simply states that this term refers to an unspecified “markup
`
`document” of the independent claim. See ECF 79 at 14.
`
`Significantly, each of these three possibilities are reasonable alternatives. First,
`
`independent claim 10 does not recite any limitations such that either the first or second
`
`documents contain markup language tags which are compliant with Extensible Markup
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 50
`
`
`
`Language (“XML”) version 1.0. Further, dependent claim 12 only recites the one limitation that
`
`is the subject of this dispute. Therefore, by principles of claim differentiation, claim 10 may
`
`cover embodiments where neither document contains XML version 1.0 markup tags. Kraft
`
`Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Second, given that
`
`claim 12 does not recite any additional limitations directed to the markup documents that are
`
`implicated by the potential compliance with XML version 1.0, such as further limitations
`
`directed to the recited “automatically transform[ing]” of claim 10, either document may
`
`comprise tags compliant with this version of XML and not affect the “transform[ation].”
`
`Accordingly, all three possibilities are reasonable alternatives for this term in claim 12.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Martin’s declaration further confirms that a POSITA could not
`
`reasonably determine the scope of this term. Martin Decl. at ¶¶ 47-52. Meanwhile, the opinion of
`
`e-Numerate’s expert, Dr. Michael Smith, is entirely silent as to the ambiguity identified herein
`
`and similarly in Dr. Martin’s declaration. See ECF 81-9 (“Smith Decl.”) at ¶¶ 40-47.
`
`In light of this evidence, a POSITA could not reasonably determine the scope of the
`
`“markup language” recited in Claim 12 and therefore, the Court should find this claim term
`
`indefinite in light of the claims and the specification. Bushnell Hawthorne, 813 F. App’x at 527.
`
`This renders Claim 12 of the ‘816 Patent invalid for indefiniteness under § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`2.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 6: “means for receiving . . .”
`
`In the interest of narrowing the issues before the Court, Defendant does not contest e-
`
`Numerate’s identification of function and structure for this term.
`
`3.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 7: “means for automatically transforming. . .”
`
`This term recites “means for” language and both parties agree that it should be construed
`
`pursuant to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 83 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 50
`
`
`
`The first dispute between the parties is as to the relevant function of this term. Defendant
`
`maintains that the relevant function for this term is “automatically transforming the numerical
`
`values of at least one of the first markup document and the second markup document, so that the
`
`numerical values of the first markup document and the second markup document have a common
`
`format.” e-Numerate in turn seeks to exclude from the function the constraint “that the numerical
`
`values of the first markup document and the second markup document have a common format.”
`
`This improperly broadens the function leading to an improper analysis of the corresponding
`
`structure for performing the function. A POSITA would recognize the constraint as a necessary
`
`part of the function being described by this term. Martin Decl. at ¶¶ 68-69. Without it, the very
`
`nature and purpose of the recited “automatically transforming” functionality is eviscerated. The
`
`relevant function is not some automatic transformation in the abstract. Instead, it is an automatic
`
`transformation of such a nature that the numerical values of the first markup document and the
`
`second markup document have a common format. Tellingly, e-Numerate proposed a construction
`
`for the corresponding term without the “means for” language (‘816 Patent, Term 4) by including
`
`the “so that numerical values of the first markup document and the second markup document
`
`have a common format” as part of the relevant limitation. See ECF 80-3 at 6. e-Numerate cannot
`
`have it both ways; its faulty identification of the relevant function is fatal to its analysis of the
`
`relevan