UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS
`(consolidated with Case No. 15-11624)
`
`Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC., et al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`This matter comes before me pursuant to the Court’s Order Appointing Special Master
`
`(Court Doc. #101, dated March 31, 2016) to construe the claims of the patents asserted in this
`
`action. Prior to this report, the parties agreed to opening briefs of not more than 75 pages. Ford
`
`submitted an opening brief on claim construction on July 15, 2016. Versata submitted its opening
`
`brief on August 15, followed by Ford’s reply on August 29. A hearing was conducted on
`
`September 13, 2016 in Farmington Hills, Michigan, beginning at 9:30 a.m. and concluding at
`
`3:52 p.m. At the hearing, I requested supplemental briefing with respect to a group of means-
`
`plus-function limitations, which the parties submitted on October 14, 2016. Having reviewed the
`
`parties’ briefs and accompanying materials, and having listened to oral argument, I make the
`
`following report and recommend that the disputed claim terms be construed as set forth below.
`
`Overview of Patents in Suit
`
`The present dispute, at least with respect to claim construction, involves the assertion of
`
`eight patents. A first family of three patents includes US patent 5,825,651; US patent 6,405,308;
`
`and US patent 6,675,294. Each of these three patents is entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Versata 2011
`Ford v. Versata
`CBM2016-00100
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Maintaining and Configuring Systems.” The ‘294 patent is a continuation of the ‘308 patent,
`
`which in turn is a continuation of the ‘651 patent. The parties have referred to this group as the
`
`‘651 patent family because the ‘651 is the original parent patent in this family.
`
`As the title of the ‘651 family of patents suggests, the patents are generally directed to the
`
`notions of “maintaining” and “configuring” a system. The background of the ‘651 patent
`
`explains that a “system” is comprised of components, and when configuring a system a user must
`
`select the components to include in the system. An example is described as an automobile
`
`configuration, in which a user (such as a potential buyer, perhaps with the aid of a salesperson)
`
`might select from an array of features and options in order to configure the automobile into a
`
`specific system desired by the particular user. The ‘651 patent further states that prior art
`
`computer systems that were created to assist in the configuration process needed improvement
`
`because they used a specialized syntax or configuration language and tended to impose a
`
`particular order on the process of configuration and on the modification of a configuration. The
`
`‘651 family of patents further explains that a “maintenance system” is used to define a product,
`
`in which the maintenance user may specify the various combinations of features and options that
`
`will result in valid configurations. In the language of the patent, a “configuration system” is used
`
`to configure a system (or a product) using a definition of permissible configurations created by
`
`the “maintenance system.”
`
`The ‘582 patent family includes US patent 7,200,582 and US patent 7,464,064, in which
`
`the ’064 patent is a division of the ‘582 patent. Each of these patents is entitled “Configuration
`
`Model Consistency Checking Using Flexible Rule Space Subsets.” In general, these patents
`
`explain that a configurable product can be described by a configuration model having a set of
`
`configuration rules. Inconsistencies may exist between rules, potentially resulting in errors in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`configuration model. This family of patents is generally directed to checking for consistency
`
`errors.
`
`US patent 7,882,057 is entitled “Complex Configuration Processing Using Configuration
`
`Sub-Models.” This patent generally explains that a computer-assisted configuration system often
`
`requires a significant amount of data processing capabilities. The patent further explains that it
`
`addresses the issue of configuration model and query complexity by breaking a configuration
`
`problem down into a set of smaller problems that are solved individually, then combining the
`
`smaller results into a consolidated single result.
`
`US patent 8,805,825 is entitled “Attribute Prioritized Configuration Using a Combined
`
`Configuration-Attribute Data Model.” The ‘825 patent uses a combined configuration rules-
`
`attribute configuration system which determines valid configuration answers and prioritizes them
`
`based on one or more attributes.
`
`Finally, US patent 7,739,080 is entitled “Consolidation of Product Data Models.” This
`
`patent seeks to combine multiple configuration models into a single unified configuration model.
`
`The patent further explains that it allows models to be combined in a way such that
`
`incompatibilities or contradictions between models are detected and automatically resolved
`
`where possible.
`
`From among these patents, Versata apparently asserted (at least initially) that 202 claims
`
`were infringed. The parties dispute the meanings of certain claim limitations, as addressed
`
`below. In addition, Ford contends that certain claims cannot be interpreted with reasonable
`
`certainty, and that the applicable claims are invalid as a result.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Legal Standards
`
`
`
`The meaning of language used in a patent claim is construed as a matter of law. Markman
`
`v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). It is a “bedrock principle” of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d
`
`1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as they
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. In some cases, the ordinary meaning may be readily apparent and
`
`claim construction involves little more than the application of a widely accepted meaning of
`
`commonly understood words. Id. at 1314.
`
`“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to
`
`clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the
`
`determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” United States
`
`Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For this reason, “district
`
`courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent's
`
`asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). At the same time, when “the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the
`
`scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” Id. In such a case, a “determination that
`
`a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the “plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate
`
`when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’
`
`meaning does not resolve the parties' dispute.” Id., at 1361.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`The claims themselves and the context of the surrounding words can be “highly
`
`instructive” in resolving the meaning of the term. Id. at 1314. Indeed, “a claim construction
`
`analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself, for that is the language the
`
`patentee has chosen to ‘particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the
`
`patentee regards as his invention.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Other claims in a patent may also provide valuable
`
`contextual cues for deciphering the meaning of a term. Id. If a limitation is present in a
`
`dependent claim, then there is a presumption that the limitation is not present in the parent claim.
`
`Id. at 1314-15.
`
`The claims must also be read in light of the specification. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979.
`
`Indeed, “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the
`
`context of the particular claim in which the term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “The construction that stays true to the
`
`claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in
`
`the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Consequently, the specification is always highly
`
`relevant to the meaning of a claim term: “Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-17.
`
`If the specification reveals a definition of a claim term that is different from how that
`
`term would otherwise be used, then “the inventor’s lexicography governs.” See Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1316. Care must be taken, however, not to import limitations from the specification into
`
`the claims. Id. at 1323. While the patentee is free to be his own lexicographer, any special
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the specification. Intellicall, Inc. v.
`
`Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1982).
`
`The prosecution history of a patent should also be considered when construing the claims
`
`of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The prosecution history provides evidence of how the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Id.
`
`Nonetheless, the prosecution history represents the ongoing negotiation between the USPTO and
`
`the applicant, rather than the final product. Id. As such, the prosecution history may lack the
`
`clarity of the specification and may not be as useful for claim construction purposes. Id. In
`
`certain instances, however, the prosecution history may provide guidance of an applicant’s intent
`
`to specifically limit the scope of a given claim term. Id.
`
`Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony, may also be
`
`considered when construing patent claims. Id. On its own, extrinsic evidence is unlikely to be
`
`reliable in guiding the court’s claim construction and is less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the meaning of claim language. Id. at 1318. Dictionaries and other external
`
`sources can be useful in claim construction, “so long as the dictionary definition does not
`
`contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Id. at
`
`1322-23 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n.6).
`
`In some instances, the effort to interpret a claim limitation may result in the conclusion
`
`that the meaning is indefinite. 35 U.S.C. §112 requires “that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of
`
`the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`invention with reasonable certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates
`
`clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). The indefiniteness inquiry is “inextricably
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`intertwined with claim construction.” Atmel Corp. v. Info Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374,
`
`1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A party challenging claim definiteness bears the burden of proving
`
`indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Zydus Pharms. USA,
`
`Inc., 743 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`The ‘651 patent family
`
`1. Configuring a system/product
`
`The first limitation at issue is “configuring a system” or “configuring a product,” grouped
`
`together by the parties in the briefing as “configuring a system/product.”
`
`Among the asserted claims, this claim limitation is contained in:
`
` ‘651 patent, claim 60
`
` ‘308 patent, claims 18, 28, and 34
`
` ‘294 patent, claims 1, 11, 21, 32, and 33
`
`After the submission of Ford’s opening brief, Versata stated in its opposition brief that it no
`
`longer asserts claims 32 and 33 of the ‘294 patent, or claim 34 of the ‘308 patent. See Doc. #140,
`
`at p. 9 n. 2. An exemplary claim is claim 60 of the ‘651 patent, which reads:
`
`60. A method of configuring a system comprising the steps of:
`
`generating a definition for said system, said definition containing one or more
`elements and being conveyed graphically using a set of product relationships;
`
`generating a set of part relationships between said one or more elements, said set
`of part relationships being conveyed graphically using a set of part
`relationships; and
`
`receiving input from a configuration user;
`
`validating said input based on said definition, said set of product relationships,
`said set of part relationships, and a current configuration state; and
`
`identifying a set of valid configuration options using said definition, said set of
`product relationships, said set of part relationships and said current
`configuration state.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In its opening brief, Ford proposed to interpret “configuring a system/product” to mean
`
`“an end user specifying a product based on the claimed system definition, product relationships,
`
`and part relationships.” According to Ford, configuring is a process performed by the end user,
`
`and is distinct from the concept of product or system definition, because the definition must
`
`already exist at the time of configuring. In view of certain arguments advanced by Versata in its
`
`opposition brief, Ford amended its initial proposed interpretation to “an end user specifying a
`
`product based on the system definition.” At oral argument, Ford suggested that it could amend its
`
`proposed construction further by substituting “configuration user” for “end user,” because the
`
`two are the same. Versata does not offer a construction of its own, and instead contends that
`
`plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.
`
`Though the parties may not fully agree about the meaning of “system” and “product,”
`
`they have combined them for present purposes because the crucial term at issue is “configuring.”
`
`For context, the patents use the terms “product” and “system” in a similar fashion. The
`
`background section principally uses the term “system,” explaining that a system is comprised of
`
`components and that a system is configured by a user or a salesperson. The written description
`
`uses both “system” and “product,” explaining that example systems include “automobiles,
`
`computers, time clock machines, and shoes” and that systems “are not limited to products and
`
`product lines.” ‘651 patent at 5:45-51. With respect to the present limitation, the parties appear
`
`not to dispute the meaning of product or system taken alone, and neither party seeks an
`
`interpretation of these terms as a part of construing the limitations at issue here. Instead, the
`
`dispute over this claim limitation is directed to the “configuring” portion of the “configuring a
`
`system/product” limitation. Accordingly, the parties have grouped the applicable limitations
`
`together, combining the product and system versions as “configuring a system/product.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`The essence of Ford’s argument is that the patents differentiate between maintaining and
`
`configuring, and therefore “configuring” should be construed in a way that makes it distinct.
`
`According to Ford, a maintenance system is used by a maintenance user to create product (or
`
`system) definitions. After these definitions are established, and only afterward, a configuration
`
`user accesses the system to configure a product (or system) that is tailored to the desires of the
`
`particular configuration user. Consequently, Ford argues, acts of configuration are only
`
`performed by configuration users (or end users) and not by maintenance users.
`
`In support, Ford points to Figure 2 of the ‘651 patent, which illustrates the maintenance
`
`system and the configuration system, drawing a broken line between them to represent at least
`
`some level of distinction.
`
`The distinction between maintenance and configuration is also described in the summary
`
`of the invention (‘651 patent at 2:38-67), and elsewhere within the detailed description (citing
`
`‘651 patent at 5:51—6:6; 7:57—8:62; 11:65—15:18). Ford also points to distinctions in the
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`claims, which separately use the terms “configuration” and “definition,” and which in some
`
`instances expressly state that configuring is a task that is performed based on a definition.
`
`Versata agrees that there are at least some distinctions between maintenance systems and
`
`configuration systems. In its opening brief, Versata stated: “There is no dispute that the
`
`maintenance system ‘is used to define a product,’ while the configuration system ‘is used to
`
`configure a system using a definition created by the maintenance system.’” Versata Brf., Court
`
`Doc. #140, at p. 15. Versata contends, however, that both systems are part of a configuration
`
`process, at least in part because the act of configuring relies on definitions created by the
`
`maintenance system. Ford acknowledges that there is some interplay between maintenance and
`
`configuration as well, but its proposal relies on the differences between them, as noted above.
`
`A challenge in adopting Ford’s proposed interpretation is that it implies a distinction
`
`related to the type of person who performs the act of configuration. By interpreting the limitation
`
`in a way that introduces an “end user,” it implies that there are other types of users who cannot
`
`perform configuration within the scope of the claims, and that a particular task might be within
`
`the scope of the claim if performed by an end user, but that same task might be outside the scope
`
`of the claim if performed by a different person. Ford argues that the term “end user” originates in
`
`the ‘651 patent specification, though it appears in the patent only once, in the background of the
`
`invention: “A [sic: an] end user such as an automobile shopper would have difficulty using these
`
`systems.” ‘651 patent at 1:53-54. This excerpt suggests that an end user would use a
`
`configuration system, but does not make it clear that only an end user would do so. Similarly,
`
`the patent includes one reference to acts performed by a “maintenance user” while performing
`
`maintenance or definition tasks (‘651 patent, at 15:57), but again there is nothing supporting the
`
`proposition that a maintenance user cannot also perform the process for configuring a system.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`More generally, the patent adopts the term “user” throughout its text to refer to the person using
`
`either system, rather than differentiating by types of users. For example, the summary of the
`
`invention refers to a maintenance system having a graphical user interface “to allow the user to
`
`interactively generate a definition,” and to a configuration system through which a “user can
`
`select and unselect parts in any order.” ‘651 patent at 2:38-60. In short, the written description
`
`refers to users generically, and there is little textual support for the proposed insertion of “end
`
`user” while interpreting this limitation.
`
`The prosecution history also does not support the end user proposition, and otherwise
`
`sheds little light on the construction of the term at issue. Ford offers a single citation to the patent
`
`prosecution history, in which Versata allegedly argued that the “definition” and “configuration”
`
`limitations encompass distinct subject matter. In an amendment dated May 6, 1998, the applicant
`
`distinguished a prior art reference to Addesso in part because Addesso purportedly did not teach
`
`the claimed “definition” limitation. See Ford’s Exhibit 9, at p. 35-38. Ford cites to this four-page
`
`excerpt generally, but does not indicate any specific part of it as supporting its point. Versata
`
`agrees that maintenance systems and configuration systems have distinct roles, but it nonetheless
`
`argues that there is some overlap between the two. In addition, Versata correctly points out that
`
`the remarks during prosecution of the ‘651 patent were not directed to the meaning of
`
`“configuring a system,” but rather to the argument that Addesso did not teach the claimed
`
`product relationships. The cited excerpt from the prosecution history is more consistent with
`
`Versata’s account, and it simply does not support the proposition that only an end user performs
`
`configuration.
`
`It may be fair to conclude that the ‘651 patent describes an invention having a
`
`maintenance system and a configuration system fulfilling distinct roles, and further that the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`configuration system is intended to be used by end users when configuring a system (or product)
`
`for purchase. There is scant support, however, for the proposition that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would interpret “configuring a system/product” to require the act of configuring to be
`
`performed only by an end user, to the exclusion of all other types of users.
`
`At oral argument, Ford clarified that a maintenance user and a configuration user can be
`
`the same human being under its proposed interpretation. As such, rather than requiring distinctly
`
`different people, Ford’s proposed interpretation is aimed at the contention that configuration
`
`must occur sequentially after system definition has been performed by a maintenance user.
`
`Versata again disagrees that maintenance and configuration are isolated, further arguing that
`
`there is substantial overlap and that definition can occur during a configuration session. Ford
`
`disagrees with this assertion, but it does not affect the proper construction of the term as it relates
`
`to the proposed “end user” aspect. Regardless of whether configuring must occur sequentially
`
`and only after definition is complete, the “end user” insertion would introduce more confusion
`
`than clarity, because a finder of fact would likely perceive it to impose a restriction on types of
`
`users rather than systems or sequences of events.
`
`Ford’s interpretation raises other concerns as well. It proposes to insert the word
`
`“specifying” in its claim construction, in place of the claimed “configuring.” The adoption of
`
`Ford’s proposed interpretation could cause confusion over the meaning of “specifying,”
`
`suggesting that it must mean something different from “configuring.” At oral argument Ford
`
`clarified that it did not mean to introduce any change in meaning by swapping “specifying” for
`
`“configuring,” and that Ford believed the two words had the same meaning. This sort of
`
`wordsmithing amounts to an “obligatory exercise in redundancy,” which is disfavored. United
`
`States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Likewise, Ford stated at oral argument that the term “configuration user” could be used
`
`instead of “end user,” and that these two terms mean the same thing. With these additional
`
`modifications, the limitation “configuring a system/product” is proposed by Ford to be
`
`interpreted as “a configuration user configuring a system/product based on the system
`
`definition.” The first portion, adding “a configuration user” in front of “configuring a
`
`system/product,” is redundant and adds nothing to clarify the meaning. The final portion, “based
`
`on a system definition,” is also potentially redundant to the extent the claims already require
`
`configuration to be based on a system definition.
`
`A further concern is that the term “configuring a system” (or “configuring a product”) is
`
`found in the preamble of the applicable claims. For example, claim 60 of the ‘651 patent requires
`
`“A method of configuring a system comprising the steps of …” Claims 18 and 28 of the ‘308
`
`patent are both directed to “A method of configuring a system …” Claims 1 and 21 of the ‘294
`
`patent are directed to “A method for configuring a product.” The only arguable exception is
`
`claim 11 of the ‘294 patent, in which “configuring” does not appear in the preamble at the outset.
`
`Even in that claim, however, the term is essentially in preamble form, reading (with the claim
`
`language at issue in bold/italics):
`
`11. An article of manufacture comprising:
`
`a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied
`therein to cause a computer to configure a product comprising:
`
`computer readable program code to cause the computer to obtain user input, the
`user input identifying at least one selected element from a plurality of displayed
`elements; and
`
`computer readable program code to cause a computer to determine if activating a
`set of element relationships associated with the at least one selected element
`results in a valid product configuration in accordance with a definition of the
`product, wherein the definition of the product comprises a set of element
`relationships identifying classifications for interrelating each element with at
`least one other element.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, even in claim 11 of the ‘294 patent, “configure” is used as part of the preamble for the
`
`content of the computer readable program that follows.
`
`Generally, a preamble is not limiting “when the claim body describes a structurally
`
`complete invention such that the deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or
`
`steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d
`
`801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Nor is a preamble limiting if it “merely gives a descriptive name to the
`
`set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech.,
`
`Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the structure of the
`
`claims at issue, the term is used in this nominative sense, providing a descriptive name to the set
`
`of limitations that follow, and in which the further limitations completely set forth the invention.
`
`Ford does not argue that the preamble was added by amendment, or that the preamble was relied
`
`upon during the prosecution of the patent in order to distinguish the prior art. Ford also does not
`
`argue that the term should be limiting despite its status as a preamble.
`
`Neither party addressed the preamble issue in their briefing, though Versata presented
`
`oral argument to the effect that the preamble should not be limiting. Ford complained that this
`
`issue had not been raised previously, but in seeking to construe the terms it should have been
`
`readily apparent that the current language under review is contained in a preamble and that the
`
`location might be relevant to whether construction is necessary. If the preamble is not limiting
`
`anyway, and especially if it is used in a nominative fashion for the limitations that follow, then
`
`the need to construe it is diminished.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ultimately, the term “configuring a system/product” needs no construction.1 It is used in
`
`the form of a preamble that gives a descriptive name to the limitations set forth in the body of the
`
`claims thereafter. Even if the limitation were to be construed, Ford’s proposed interpretation
`
`should not be adopted. Introducing the term “specifying” may well cause unnecessary confusion
`
`but with no accompanying clarification of the term “configuring,” particularly considering that
`
`Ford believes configuring and specifying to be synonymous. To the extent Ford’s proposed
`
`interpretation seeks to mandate a sequence or timing through the proposed “end user” and “based
`
`on a system definition” requirements, the proposed interpretation does not achieve it and raises
`
`potential confusion as well. In addition, these issues are more appropriately governed by the
`
`claim limitations in the body of the claim rather than a construction of the preamble.
`
`Conclusion. The term “configuring a system/product” needs no construction and should
`
`instead simply be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`2. Configuration user
`
`The next limitation at issue is “configuration user.” Among the asserted claims, this claim
`
`limitation is contained only in claim 60 of the ‘651 patent. For ease of reference, claim 60 reads:
`
`60. A method of configuring a system comprising the steps of:
`
`generating a definition for said system, said definition containing one or more
`elements and being conveyed graphically using a set of product relationships;
`
`generating a set of part relationships between said one or more elements, said set
`of part relationships being conveyed graphically using a set of part
`relationships; and
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Versata objected to Ford’s request to construe the term “configuring a product,”
`asserting that Ford did not identify it as a term needing construction prior to the briefing and that
`it is therefore untimely. In view of the conclusion that no further construction is necessary, this
`objection is moot.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`receiving input from a configuration user;
`
`
`
`validating said input based on said definition, said set of product relationships,
`said set of part relationships, and a current configuration state; and
`
`identifying a set of valid configuration options using said definition, said set of
`product relationships, said set of part relationships and said current
`configuration state.
`
`Ford proposes that a configuration user is “a person who uses a computer to configure an
`
`end product, based on a pre-existing system definition.” Versata agrees that a configuration user
`
`is “a person who uses a computer to configure” something (whether a system or a product), but
`
`disagrees that it is based on a preexisting system definition. Versata does not, however, offer a
`
`proposed interpretation, and instead contends that plain and ordinary meaning should suffice.
`
`The primary issue raised by Ford’s proposed construction is a matter of whether the
`
`system definition must exist (or have been “generated”) before the configuration user can
`
`provide the claimed “input.” Thus, although Ford presents this issue as a construction of the term
`
`“configuration user,” essentially this is a proposal that the step of “generating a definition”
`
`within claim 60 (underlined above) must occur before the step of “receiving input from a
`
`configuration user.” In other words, Ford contends the system definition is “preexisting” because
`
`the “generating a definition” step has already been performed.
`
`The briefing on this claim term is relatively thin. Ford argues that the system definition
`
`must be completed, and therefore “preexisting,” for the configuration user to be able to perform
`
`the step of configuring. Ford also argues that this distinction is expressly in the claims, such that
`
`the step of “generating a definition” must occur before “receiving input from a configuration
`
`user.” But Ford does not cite authority or address the standard for evaluating whether steps in a
`
`method claim must be performed in the recited order. Versata disagrees with Ford’s claim
`
`construction, urging that “preexisting” appears nowhere in the text of the patent, but Versata’s
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`briefing likewise makes no mention of applicable authority or standards regarding the order of
`
`recited steps in a method claim. At oral argument, Versata recognized this as the heart of the
`
`issue, and challenged it squarely with citations to authority, as discussed further below.
`
`The ‘651 patent includes the term “configuration user” in several places, and it suggests
`
`that a configuration user is a particular user rather than any user generally. For example, the
`
`patent states that the GUI screen illustrates a view of a product “as seen by a user (e.g.,
`
`maintainer and configuration user).” ‘651 patent at 8:64-65. As noted above, this family of
`
`patents also adopts the term “user” more generically, indicating again that the maintenance or
`
`configuration users are particular users. Presumably because of this usage in the patent, Versata
`
`agrees that a configuration user is different from a maintainer, and further agrees that a
`
`configuration user is one who is configuring a system. Versata Brf