Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 1928
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`FINANCIAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
`(INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)
`PTY. LTD. and FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
`TECHNOLOGY PTY. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION 2:08-CV-371 (TJW)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`FST’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 1929
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS....................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`relational database / data processing system terms (’520
`patent, Claims 1, 10; ’526 patent, Claims 1-16) ......................................................4
`
`entity / entities (’520 patent, Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16; ’526
`patent, Claims 1-16).................................................................................................5
`
`“desired entity” and “selected entity”......................................................................7
`
`entity instance table (’520 patent, Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 15-
`16) ............................................................................................................................8
`
`entity type record (’520 patent, Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 15-16).......................................9
`
`entity definition table (’520 patent, Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 15-
`16) ............................................................................................................................9
`
`relation (’520 patent, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-14, 17-18;
`’526 patent, Claims 1-16) ......................................................................................11
`
`related (’526 patent, Claims 1-16) .........................................................................11
`
`relation instance (’520 patent, Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12-13,
`17-18).....................................................................................................................12
`
`record (’520 patent, Claims 1-4, 7-18; ’526 patent, Claims
`1-16).......................................................................................................................12
`
`relation type record (’520 patent, Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 17-
`18) ..........................................................................................................................13
`
`relation instance record (’520 patent, Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10,
`12) ..........................................................................................................................14
`
`relation definition table (’520 patent, Claims 1, 10, 17-18)...................................14
`
`relation instance table (’520 patent, Claims 1-4, 9-10, 13,
`17-18).....................................................................................................................15
`
`inquiry table (’520 patent, Claims 5-6, 14)............................................................16
`
`memory means containing a plurality of entities, wherein
`said entities are part of said relational database (’526
`patent, Claims 1-4, 9-10, 13-14) ............................................................................17
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 1930
`
`
`Q.
`
`means . . . for storing a . . . search path record / search path
`record storing means / record storing means (’526 patent,
`Claims 1-4, 9-10, 13-14)........................................................................................19
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`U.
`
`V.
`
`W.
`
`X.
`
`Y.
`
`abbreviated results (’526 patent, Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 13-16)....................................20
`
`means . . . for storing . . . in an abbreviated results
`gathering means (’526 patent, Claims 2, 4, 13, 14) ...............................................20
`
`abbreviated results gathering means (’526 patent, Claims 2,
`4, 13-14).................................................................................................................22
`
`inquiry definition table (’526 patent, Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-
`12) ..........................................................................................................................22
`
`inquiry definition table means (’526 patent, Claims 1, 3, 5,
`7, 9-12)...................................................................................................................23
`
`search path record (’526 patent, Claims 1-16).......................................................23
`
`forming a . . . search path record (’526 patent, Claims 5-8,
`11-12, 15-16)..........................................................................................................24
`
`“means . . . for retrieving” terms (’526 patent, Claims 1-4,
`9-10, 13-14)............................................................................................................25
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................26
`
`
`
`
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 1931
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Device, Inc.,
`346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................20
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................4, 11
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................6
`
`Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................18
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................16
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3 Com Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc.,
`209 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.2000) .................................................................................................18
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................6
`
`Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................6
`
`Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`239 F.3d 1305 ..........................................................................................................................16
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`91 F.3d 1580 (Fed.Cir.1996)..............................................................................................17, 18
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................18, 19, 25
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................9, 15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................2, 3, 4, 11
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................3
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 1932
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................11
`
`Salazar v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................20
`
`SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................................3
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................3
`
`Trading Techs. Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................3, 6, 13
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................8, 13
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................8
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Technology,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir.1999)..................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 1933
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`in
`
`Disputed Claim Construction Chart
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,520
`U.S. Patent No. RE 40,526
`Response in Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,826,259 (RE 40,520)
`dated June 4, 2010
`Excerpts from IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`Excerpts from IBM Dictionary of Computing (1987)
`Examiner Interview Summary Records (05/01/1996 and 04/17/96)
`Application No. 08/083,861
`Amendment dated May 13, 1996 in Application No. 08/083,861 and Notice of
`Allowability
`Excerpts from Elmasri and Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems
`(1989).
`Amendment dated Oct. 6, 1995 in Application No. 08/083,861
`Amendment dated Oct. 22, 1992 in Application No. 07/526,424
`Corrected Amendment dated Sept. 21, 2006 in Application No. 90/007,707
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,779
`Office Action dated April 6, 1995 in Application No. 08/083,861
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,882
`Microfiche Source Code Module RCIS142
`Microfiche Source Code Module SC1S142
`Decision Denying Petition Under 37 CFR 1.181 And 37 CFR 1.515(C) dated
`July 16, 2010.
`Microfiche Source Code Module RCIS143
`Microfiche Source Code Module LCIS406
`Microfiche Source Code Module LCIS449
`Corrected Amendment dated Sept. 21, 2006 in Application No. 90/007,705
`Excerpts from Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1989)
`Microfiche Source Code Module LCIS442
`Microfiche Source Code Module LCIS443
`
`Exhibit A
`Exhibit B
`Exhibit C
`Exhibit D
`
`Exhibit E
`Exhibit F
`Exhibit G
`
`Exhibit H
`
`Exhibit I
`
`Exhibit J
`Exhibit K
`Exhibit L
`Exhibit M
`Exhibit N
`Exhibit O
`Exhibit P
`Exhibit Q
`Exhibit R
`
`Exhibit S
`Exhibit T
`Exhibit U
`Exhibit V
`Exhibit W
`Exhibit X
`Exhibit Y
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 1934
`
`
`The Plaintiff Financial Systems Technology parties (collectively “FST”) respectfully
`
`submit their Claim Construction Brief regarding U.S. Reissue Patent No. 40,520 (“the ’520
`Patent”) and U.S. Reissue Patent No. 40,526 (“the ’526 Patent”). [Exs. B, C. 1] A chart showing
`the parties’ competing claim constructions is attached as Ex. A.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The present action is brought by FST against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”), for
`
`infringement of the ’520 and ’526 patents (the “patents-in-suit”). The ‘520 patent has undergone
`
`two full reexaminations by the USPTO and the ‘526 patent has undergone one full
`
`reexamination, all three of which were initiated by Oracle. Both patents have emerged from
`
`their respective reexaminations with no substantive modifications to the claims. Copies of the
`
`‘520 and ‘526 patents and their respective reexamination certificates are attached hereto as
`
`Exhibits B and C, respectively.
`
`
`
`The ‘520 and ‘526 patents are generally directed to relational database technology.
`
`Relational database technology prior to 1990 generally required software developers to tie their
`
`application code (i.e., SQL queries and commands in programming languages such as Cobol or
`
`C) directly to pre-specified tables and relations between those tables. These prior art databases
`
`thus tied applications to a specific data model design (i.e., specific tables and the links between
`
`those tables), resulting in decreased flexibility.
`
`
`
`The ‘520 Patent overcame this problem by providing an easily expandable database
`
`system using a uniform table defining and accessing mechanism implementing an object-
`
`relational database model—i.e., by implementing an entity definition table and a relation
`
`definition table and two part keys (e.g., table and record identifiers). These novel database
`
`structures allow one to add new entity and relation types and access those new entity and relation
`
`types with minimal code changes and without having to restructure the database (a time-
`
`consuming process). The claimed inventions of the ‘520 patent make this possible by way of the
`
`
`1 References herein to “Ex. __” are to the Exhibits accompanying this Brief.
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 1935
`
`
`entity definition and relation definition tables that provide identifiers of the entity and relation
`
`instance tables (see, e.g., ‘520 patent, claims 1 and 10). The claimed inventions of the ‘520
`
`patent further make this possible by way of two part keys (see, e.g., claims 2 and 12) for
`
`identifying tables and records in the tables, using the entity and relation definition tables.
`
`Specifically, the multipart keys and the definition tables provide a uniform linking mechanism
`
`for accessing records in a database. New entity and relationship types can be accessed using the
`
`uniform linking medium without having to restructure the database and with minimal
`
`programming changes. This flexibility is achieved by the fact that the links to database records
`
`are not hard-wired through program code, but rather are achieved by way of the definition tables
`
`(the Ent-Def and Rel-Def meta tables) and using the two-part keys (see, e.g., claims 2 and 12)
`
`that provide both a type and record identifier.
`
`
`
`The ‘526 patent, which shares the same specification as the ‘520 patent, addresses the
`
`problem of how to reduce retrievals from the database for commonly run queries (a time-
`
`consuming operation). The ‘526 Patent provides a uniform way to define and store commonly
`
`run search queries for retrieving data. Each search query is stored as a separate record in a query
`
`definition table (Inq Def table) (see, e.g., claim 12). Multiple search levels (nested queries) are
`
`supported, with each search level stored as a separate record. The results from the search levels
`
`are stored in an abbreviated form in a table (see, e.g., claim 16).
`
`II.
`
`PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims define the scope of the patent right
`
`to exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (unless there is clear evidence in the patent’s specification or prosecution history that
`
`the patentee intended a different meaning). Id. at 1312-1313. Claim construction is informed by
`
`the intrinsic evidence, viz., the patents’ specification and file history. Id. at 1315-1317. Courts
`
`may also consider evidence such as dictionary definitions and treatises to aid in determining the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of claim terms. Id. at 1322 (“Dictionaries or comparable
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 1936
`
`
`sources are often useful to assist in understanding the commonly understood meaning of words
`
`and have been used both by our court and the Supreme Court in claim interpretation.”).
`
`“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention,
`
`[the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”
`
`Id. at 1323. Limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims unless the
`
`patentee “acted as his own lexicographer and imbued the claim terms with a particular meaning
`
`or disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest
`
`exclusion or restriction.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3 Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (citations omitted); SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985) (“If everything in the specification were required to be read into the claims, or if
`
`structural claims were to be limited to devices operated precisely as a specification-described
`
`embodiment is operated, there would be no need for claims.”). Moreover, “[a]lthough [it] is
`
`correct that the prosecution history is always relevant to claim construction, it is also true that the
`
`prosecution history may not be used to infer the intentional narrowing of a claim absent the
`
`applicant’s clear disavowal of claim coverage.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., 358 F.3d
`
`870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm., Inc., 438
`
`F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “To be given effect, such a disclaimer must be made with
`
`reasonable clarity and deliberateness.” Superguide, 358 F.3d at 875; see also Trading Techs.
`
`Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`III. ARGUMENT OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`In the sections that follow, FST identifies the claim construction disputes between the
`
`parties and explains FST’s rationale for why its proposed definitions should be adopted and
`
`Oracle’s rejected. Given the length of Oracle’s proposals, the parties’ constructions are set forth
`
`side-by-side in Exhibit A hereto, with the same order, grouping, and headings as set forth below.
`
`
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 1937
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`relational database / data processing system terms (’520 patent, Claims 1, 10; ’526
`patent, Claims 1-16)
`Oracle seeks a special definition of claim phrases including the terms “relational
`
`database” and “data processing system,” in an attempt to read in extraneous limitations. Ex. A at
`
`1-2. In particular, Oracle asserts that this claim language requires that “all relations in the
`
`relational database are explicit” and that “the relational database does not require the addition of
`
`columns for updating.” Id. However, it is well-settled that “claims are not to be interpreted by
`
`adding limitations appearing only in the specification.” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d
`
`800, 805-806 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13, 1323; Motorola, Inc. v. VTech
`
`Communs., Inc., No. 5:07CV171, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59226, at *96 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2009)
`
`(“To additionally require the bridging or filling of spaces functionality would improperly import
`
`additional functionality from the specification beyond what is claimed.”). Moreover, the
`
`specification teaches that “‘implied’ relationships are not incompatible with the ‘explicit’
`
`relationships that are defined by the REL.DEF table,” thus indicating that the claims are not
`
`limited to only “explicit” relations as proposed by Oracle. (Ex. B, ‘520 patent at 27:50-52)
`
`(emphasis added). Likewise incorrect is Oracle’s proposed negative limitation that “the
`
`relational database does not require the addition of columns for updating.” Ex. A at 1-2. The
`
`specification and file history describe that ease of updating is one benefit of the ‘520 patent, but
`
`the intrinsic record does not tie this benefit to the absence of “the addition of columns” as
`
`proposed by Oracle. (See, e.g., Ex. B, ‘520 patent 7:23-26; Ex. D, ‘259 Reexamination File
`History, 6/4/09 Amendment at 31).2
`
`The term “relational database” has a well-understood ordinary meaning—namely, “a
`
`database in which the data are organized and accessed according to relations.” Ex. E, IBM
`
`Dictionary of Computing, 10th ed (1994) at 567. FST uses this ordinary meaning in its proposed
`
`constructions for these claim phrases, which FST respectfully submits should be adopted over
`
`Oracle’s contrary proposals. Ex. A at 1-2.
`
`
`2 See also E-Pass Techs., Inc., 343 F.3d at 1370. (“An invention may possess a number of advantages or purposes,
`and there is no requirement that every claim directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them.”).
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 1938
`
`
`B.
`
`entity / entities (’520 patent, Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16; ’526 patent, Claims 1-16)
`
`FST’s construction of the term “entity”—“information about anything that can be stored
`
`in a database table” (Ex. A at 2)—comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
`
`See, e.g, Ex. F, IBM Dictionary (1987) at 152 (defining “entity” as “anything about which
`
`information can be stored”). FST’s construction is also consistent with the intrinsic record. For
`
`example, the specification describes entities as including customer information and address
`
`information:
`
`The “Customer” entity class generically covers all entities which might fit
`under the broad descriptor “Customer”, regardless of whether the entity is a
`natural person, a business corporation, and association or so forth. The
`“Address” entity class coves all entities which fit under the broad descriptor
`“Address” regardless of whether the subject entity is a residential address, a
`business address, a post-office mailing address or so forth.
`
`Ex. B, ‘520 patent, 16:64-17:7. Thus, a “Customer” entity could include information such as the
`
`customer’s first name, middle name, last name, title, and social security number, and an
`
`“Address” entity could include information such as the street number, street name, and street
`
`type (e.g., Rd., St., Lane, etc.).
`
`In contrast, Oracle’s proposed construction incorrectly seeks to add the requirement that
`
`the entity must contain information describing the “real world.” Ex. A at 2. Nothing in the
`
`intrinsic record requires this. The term “real world” does not even appear in the specification.3
`
`The specification does mention “real” data and “arbitrary” data, but nothing in the specification
`
`requires that entities be limited to “real” data, let alone “real world” data.4
`
`
`3 Moreover, Oracle’s construction conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the term entity. See, e.g., Ex. F, IBM
`Dictionary (1987) at 152 (defining “entity” as “anything about which information can be stored”); see also Ex. E,
`IBM Dictionary (1994) at 239 (defining “entity” as “any concrete or abstract thing of interest, including associations
`among things; for example, a person, object, event, or process that is of interest in the context under consideration,
`and about which data may be stored in a database.”).
`
`4 Moreover, Oracle’s proposal to limit entities to “real world” information would lead to more uncertainty, as it is
`unclear what is meant by that phrase.
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 1939
`
`
`Oracle also proposes in its lengthy construction that an “entity has neither more than one
`
`attribute nor less than two attributes”—a condition set that is impossible to satisfy. Ex. A at 2.
`
`Oracle asserts that statements in the ‘899 file history and in the ‘520 patent reexamination history
`
`dictate this nonsensical construction. But, FST never stated in either file history that an entity
`
`must be limited to one attribute or that an entity can never have less than two attributes.5
`
`Because there was no “clear and unmistakable disavowal” in either file history, Oracle’s
`
`invitation to include these limitations should be rejected. Trading Techs., 595 F.3d at 1352. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at Oracle’s nonsensical construction.
`
`Oracle asserts in the alternative that the term “entity” is indefinite. Ex. A at 2. However,
`
`the law requires only that claim terms be “amenable to construction”—i.e., a claim is indefinite
`
`only if it is “insolubly ambiguous.” Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States, 265
`
`F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d
`
`1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367,
`
`1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Because the term “entity” is defined in dictionaries6 and because FST has
`
`provided a reasonable construction that is supported by intrinsic evidence, Oracle’s argument
`
`should fail. Oracle should not be heard to propose a nonsensical construction to set up an
`
`argument in the alternative that the term is indefinite. Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1375 (stating “[i]f the
`
`meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion
`
`may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently
`
`clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.”).
`
`
`5 Moreover, the statements in the ‘899 file history upon which Oracle relies were rejected by the Examiner. Ex. G
`(‘899 File History, 4/16/1996 Examiner Interview Summary; 5/1/1996 Examiner Interview Summary). FST
`eventually distinguished the claims of the ’899 patent on other grounds. Ex. H, ‘899 Prosecution History, 5/13/1996
`Amendment at 5-6; Notice of Allowability.
`
`6 See, e.g., n.3, supra.
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 1940
`
`
`Oracle also seeks to impose the requirement that entities must be distinct from relations.
`
`Ex. A at 2. The specification does not require this. Nor does the ’899 file history statement to
`
`which Oracle points support adding this limitation. The ’899 patent is not asserted in this case.
`
`Furthermore, the statement to which Oracle points in the ’899 file history (viz., that “entities refer
`
`to discreet pieces of data, that do not contain relationship information”), was made in an interim
`
`argument that was never entered or adopted by the Examiner. Rather than relying on this
`
`statement, FST ultimately distinguished the claims of the ’899 patent on other grounds—in
`
`particular, based on the definition tables. See Ex. H, ‘899 File History, Amendment and
`
`Submission Under Rule 129(a) at 5. As the Examiner correctly recognized in rejecting the same
`
`limitation proposed by Oracle, relations describe and often comprise sets of entities. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. E, IBM Dictionary (1994) at 567 (defining “relation” as “[i]n a relational database, a set of
`
`entity occurrences that have the same attributes.”); Ex. I, Elmasri, “Fundamentals of Database
`
`Systems” (1989) at 140 (“Hence, the relational model represents facts about entities and
`
`relationships uniformly as relations.”). Thus, Oracle’s reliance on this statement is incorrect.
`
`C.
`
`
`“desired entity” and “selected entity”
`The terms “desired entity” and “selected entity” (Ex. A at 2-3) present the same issues
`
`discussed in the immediately preceding subsection with respect to the “entity” term, and FST
`
`refers back thereto for those issues. An additional issue here is Oracle’s contention that
`
`“desired” and “selected” are limited to meaning “sought by the user of the database.” Ex. A at 2-
`
`3. FST disagrees with Oracle’s proposed limitation. Id.
`
`
`
`While FST does not dispute that entities may be sought by users of the database, a
`
`“desired entity” or “selected entity” may also be one that is sought by the database system as part
`
`of the database retrieval process, for example. As FST explained during the prosecution of the
`
`‘899 patent, the terms “‘provided’ and ‘desired’ clearly indicates the flow pattern that the user
`
`inputs the ‘provided’ data and the system outputs the ‘desired’ data.” Ex. J, ‘899 File History,
`
`Amendment (Oct. 6, 1995) at 11 (emphasis added). Similarly, the specification teaches that
`7
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 1941
`
`
`entities may be selected by the database system—e.g., a filter: Ex. B, ’520 patent at 29:6-9
`
`(“Details from the addressed entity instance row are then transmitted through a details filter 985
`
`and portions of the details which are selected by the filter 985 are then printed.”). As such,
`
`these terms should not be limited to entities sought by the user of the database.
`
`D.
`
`
`entity instance table (’520 patent, Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 15-16)
`The parties appear to agree that “entity instance tables” “store entity instance records.”
`
`Ex. A at 3. However, Oracle once again seeks to import additional restrictions that are not
`
`supported by the claims or the intrinsic record, many of which have been previously discussed
`
`with respect to other claim terms above. For example, Oracle asserts that “[e]ach entity in a
`
`given entity instance table has neither more than one attribute nor less than two attributes” or that
`
`the term is indefinite. Id. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the “entity” term
`
`(subsection B at pages 5-7), Oracle’s assertions are incorrect.
`
`
`
`Oracle also seeks to require that a relative-table organization (RTO) be used. This is
`
`incorrect. There is no basis for reading this into the claims. Furthermore, Figure 7-2 shows that
`
`an entity instance table may use different organizational structures, including a key sequence
`
`organization (KSO) structure. Ex. B, ‘520 patent at Figure 7-2 (see EiT-1 and EiT-2 showing
`
`exemplary RTO and KSO tabs). Likewise, the specification states that “[t]he EiT’s can be key
`
`sequence organized (KSO) in addition to their RTO structuring to facilitate such searching.”
`
`Ex. B, ‘520 patent at 26:53-55. Accordingly, Oracle’s proposed construction would exclude
`
`preferred embodiments, a claim construction result that is “rarely if ever correct.” Verizon Servs.
`
`Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting proposed claim
`
`interpretation that would exclude disclosed examples in the specification); Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronics, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that a claim interpretation that
`
`excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if ever, correct”).
`
`
`
`Oracle appears to base its proposed “RTO limitation” on the following statements made
`
`in the file history for Application No. 07/526,424:
`
`As discussed at page 54, lines 11-21, in and throughout Applicant’s Specification, speed
`is achieved through implementation of a relative table organization (RTO) in which
`8
`
`Austin 62018v7
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 1942
`
`
`records of the table are accessed by providing a location within the table at which the
`relevant records are to be found.
`
`* * *
`Shimaoka et al. do not suggest any table organization whereby the table is extensible
`while still facilitating the efficient accessibility of an RTO table.
`
`Ex. K, File History for Application No. 07/526,424, 10/22/1992 Amendment at 23-24. These
`
`statements were made with respect to different claims in a different application that was
`
`eventually abandoned. Additionally, i