Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 4084
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF [DOC. #77]
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 4085
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`relational database / data processing system preamble terms..........................................1
`
`entity / entities..................................................................................................................2
`
`“desired entity” and “selected entity”..............................................................................4
`
`entity instance table..........................................................................................................4
`
`entity type record .............................................................................................................5
`
`entity definition table .......................................................................................................6
`
`relation .............................................................................................................................6
`
`related...............................................................................................................................7
`
`relation instance ...............................................................................................................7
`
`record ...............................................................................................................................7
`
`K.& L.
`
`“relation type record” and “relation instance record”......................................................8
`
`M.& N. “relation definition table” and “relation instance table”..................................................8
`
`“inquiry table” and “inquiry definition table” .................................................................8
`
`abbreviated results ...........................................................................................................9
`
`“search path record” and “forming a . . . search path record” .........................................9
`
`“memory means” and “inquiry definition table means” are not
`subject t §112 ¶6 ............................................................................................................10
`
`Terms Subject to §112 ¶6 ..............................................................................................10
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 4086
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................1, 6
`
`Aristocrat Tech. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................10
`
`Becton, Dickinson v. Tyco Healthcare,
`No. 2009-1053, 2009-1111, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15609 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2010) .............2
`
` E-Pass v. 3Com,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003...................................................................................................8
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. United States Surgical Corp.,
`93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................3
`
`Exxon Research v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................4
`
`Frank’s Casing v. Tesco Corp.,
`No. 2-07-CV-015(TJW), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91772 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2008) ...........2, 3
`
`Geomas Ltd. v. Idearc,
`2008 WL 4966933 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008) ..........................................................................6
`
`Laryngeal Mask Company v. Ambu A/S,
`2010 WL 3633180 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2010) ...................................................................1, 4, 6
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................6
`
`Lucent Techs. v. Extreme Networks,
`367 F.Supp.2d 649 (D. Del. 2005).............................................................................................6
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................4
`
`Optimal Recreation v. Leading Edge Tech.,
`6 Fed.Appx. 873 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................2, 3, 4
`
`Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SDI Co.,
`2008 WL 4831319 (E.D. Tex. March 10, 2008)........................................................................9
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4087
`
`
`Pony Pal v. Claire’s Boutiques,
`2006 WL 2827642 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2006)..............................................................................6
`
` Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008...................................................................................................8
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................4
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:04-CV-14, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46872 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2005).............................10
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.Espeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................1, 5, 6
`
`Visto Corp. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`623 F. Supp.2d 756 (E.D. Tex. 2008)........................................................................................3
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1..........................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6.....................................................................................................................5, 10
`
`
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 4088
`
`
`Oracle’s brief [Doc. 80] does not justify the low-level details it seeks to add to the claims.
`
`Here FST responds to Oracle’s arguments. FST also refers back to its opening brief [Doc. 77].
`A.
`relational database / data processing system preamble terms
`FST’s brief (id. at 4) explained why it is wrong to read into these preamble terms the
`limitations sought by Oracle, and that instead the ordinary meaning should be adopted.1 Ex. A at
`1. Oracle’s brief has not justified its definitions by which it seeks the extraneous limitations that
`
`“all relations in the relational database are explicit” and that “the relational database does not
`require the addition of columns for updating.”2 Ex. A at 1. It is well-settled that “claims are not
`to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification.”3 But Oracle cannot
`even point to these purported “all”/“not” features in the intrinsic record. Rather, Oracle has to
`
`make a chained argument—viz., that a benefit of the patents is the ability to avoid recompiling,
`
`that allegedly this is only possible through the use of “all”/“only” explicit relations and
`
`“not”/“without” adding columns, and therefore the preambles should be read to have these
`“all”/“not” requirements. Oracle Br. at 4-5. This is no basis to narrow the claim preambles.4
`
`Oracle argues that its proposed “all”/“not” restrictions must be read in because otherwise
`
`the preambles would purportedly “describe every relational database.” Oracle Br. at 3 (emphasis
`
`
`1 Contrary to Oracle’s suggestion in a footnote (Oracle Br. at 11 n.14), FST has not waived any argument for
`ordinary meaning constructions. The two cases cited by Oracle do not support this assertion. Rather, in those two
`cases (Seoul and Ariba) the court merely held that a party cannot dispute the level of one of ordinary skill in the art
`if the party does not timely raise the issue. For the present purposes here, FST does not dispute the level of ordinary
`skill proposed by Oracle. Ex. 4 at 5 (“A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to this case in 1990 is a person
`with either a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science and two years of industry experience in database
`design, or a Master of Science degree in Computer Science.”).
`2 All emphasis herein added unless otherwise indicated.
`3 Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 805-806 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Contrary to Oracle’s suggestions (Oracle
`Br. at 3 n.3, 15 n.2, 17), this well-settled rule is not trumped by any concerns about the written description
`requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. Oracle should not even be heard to raise written description arguments in
`this cursory fashion with respect to claim construction. Oracle never raised any such issue in the Joint Claim
`Construction Statement under P.R. 4-3, and the written description requirement is a detailed factual inquiry. See
`Laryngeal Mask Company v. Ambu A/S, 2010 WL 3633180, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2010) (Noting that
`“[c]ompliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact”; reversing the grant of summary
`judgment of invalidity for an alleged written description violation). Regardless, FST’s proposed constructions are
`supported by the specification, as FST has explained. Contrary to Oracle’s proposals, the terms should not be
`limited to the details of the preferred embodiments in the specification.
`4 See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Espeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that courts
`should not narrow claim language “unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope
`using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction”).
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 4089
`
`
`in original). But even if this were true, there is no requirement that claim preambles distinguish
`
`the prior art. They often do not distinguish the prior art—that is usually done by the claim body.
`
`Here, elements in the claim bodies certainly do support explicit relations, e.g., by way of the
`
`recited relation definition and relation instance tables. But the claims do not require that “all”
`
`relations be explicit and that “only explicit relations” be used, as advocated in Oracle’s brief (id.
`
`at 6). As FST’s brief (id. at 4) explained, the patents state that “‘implied’ relationships are not
`
`incompatible with the ‘explicit’ relationships that are defined by the REL.DEF table.” Ex. B,
`
`‘520 patent at 27:50-52. Similarly the claims do not require Oracle’s “not” limit. FST Br. at 4.
`B.
`entity / entities
`FST’s brief (id. at 5-7) explained why Oracle’s proposal is wrong, and that instead the
`
`ordinary meaning should be adopted as proposed by FST. Ex. F; Ex. A at 2. Oracle has not
`
`justified the abnormal (in fact, impossible) limits it seeks. Oracle seeks a vague “real world”
`
`limit, arguing this is needed to distinguish entities from relations. Oracle Br. at 10. But, FST’s
`
`constructions of “entities” and “relations” are already different. Ex. A at 2, 4. Also, an entity
`need not preclude all relation information or vice versa.5 Ex. E at 567; Ex. I at 140.
`Oracle cites to bits in the file history trying to justify its impossible limit of “neither more
`
`than one attribute nor less than two attributes.” In doing so, Oracle ignores that claim terms are
`
`to be construed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, at 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). One of ordinary skill would not arrive at an impossible
`construction, particularly where a consistent construction is readily discerned.6 Rather than
`interpreting the file history in an inconsistent manner as advocated by Oracle, one of ordinary
`
`
`5 The Examiner rejected the file history statement to which Oracle points to on this (i.e., Ex. 10 at 4) as unavailing.
`Ex. 12 at 3. The Examiner then suggested that the claims be amended so that they can be allowed on an entirely
`different basis (i.e., the definitional tables). Ex. G. The Applicant agreed, and the claims were then allowed. Ex. H.
`See also Frank’s Casing v. Tesco Corp., No. 2-07-CV-015(TJW), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91772, at *12-13 (E.D.
`Tex. Nov. 12, 2008) (J. Ward) (“Frank’s argues that it does not matter that the examiner did not ultimately agree; the
`invention is still so limited because it shows how the inventor understood the patent. The Federal Circuit has made
`clear, however, that the prosecution history evidences what both the patentee and examiner saw as the invention.”);
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (explaining that “the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the
`PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation”).
`6 See Becton, Dickinson v. Tyco Healthcare, No. 2009-1053, 2009-1111, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15609, at *15 (Fed.
`Cir. July 29, 2010) (“A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical ‘cannot be correct.’”).
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 4090
`
`
`skill would review the complete file history to seek a consistent construction.7 Reviewing the
`complete parent file history to which Oracle points (as opposed to select bits as Oracle does), one
`of ordinary skill would conclude that entities are not limited to a single attribute.8 In fact, the
`Examiner circled the snippet to which Oracle points (i.e., “only discrete datum”) and wrote “not
`
`true” next to it. Ex. 10 at 4. The Examiner further wrote that he “disagrees with applicant” and
`
`that each of the multi-attribute tables of Green “is an entity instance table.” Ex. 12 at 3. After an
`
`interview with the Examiner (Ex. G), the applicant capitulated and instead distinguished Green
`
`on an entirely different ground (that Green did not disclose the claimed definitional tables), and
`
`the claims were then allowed on this ground. Ex. H at 5-6 & Notice of Allowability. This is the
`
`public file history, which the reviewing public would see. One of ordinary skill would not
`conclude from this file history that entities are limited to a single attribute.9 A complete review
`of the file history does not establish a “clear and unmistakable disavowal” as Oracle suggests.
`
`This is only reinforced by the reexamination file history. There the applicant repeatedly
`explained that the claimed entities are not limited to a single attribute.10 Professor Elmasri, one
`clearly skilled in the art, submitted declarations in the reexamination file history explaining this.
`
`Ex. 13, App. A; Ex. 14, App. A. In these statements the applicant did not say that an entity must
`
`not have “less than two attributes” as Oracle proposes. Rather, the applicant explained that
`
`entities support, but do not require, multiple attributes by way of multiple columns. Ex. 7 at 29
`
`(explaining that the “claimed entity instance tables” “support multi-column ‘tuplewise’
`
`
`7 See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. United States Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1580-81 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding
`that “the prosecution history as a whole would convey to one of ordinary skill that Ethicon intended to employ the
`term ‘pusher assembly’ as used in Tompkins’ claim, rather than as used in Tompkins’ specification”); Visto Corp. v.
`Research in Motion, Ltd., 623 F. Supp.2d 756, 779 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (“Although Visto argues that RIM disclaimed
`the ‘transparency concept’ during prosecution, the court agrees with RIM that the prosecution history, read as a
`whole, reveals no such disclaimer. Moreover, the court agrees with RIM that Visto’s proposed constructions of
`these terms lead to awkward results when read in the context of the claims as a whole.”).
`8 Oracle itself, in its ’259/’520 patent reexamination request, took the position that entities are not limited to a single
`attribute. Ex. Z (Oracle’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination dated Sept. 1, 2005 at 59-60 (“Line 11 of the figure
`on pg. 22 fetches the desired entity instance from the SQL cursor into the host variables var4, var5, var6, etc.”).
`9 See quotations from Frank’s Casing and Phillips above in footnote 5.
`10 E.g., Ex. 13 at 27 (explaining that the Munz prior art does not disclose entities because “[e]ach table stores no
`more than an attribute of an entity, and thus is only a partial entity instance, not a complete entity instance”); Ex. 14
`at 45 (explaining that queries may “require more than one or two attributes of a given entity”).
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 4091
`
`
`representations in the entity instance tables and are not limited to single-property tables”).
`
`The construction of “entity” should not limit the number of attributes. The specification
`bears this out. The patent says that entities can have multiple columns for multiple attributes.11
`Also, because a consistent construction is possible as proposed by FST, Oracle is wrong
`to suggest that the claims be invalidated as indefinite, as FST has explained.12 FST Br. at 6.
`C.
`“desired entity” and “selected entity”
`
`Oracle argues a reexamination statement (Oracle Br. at 14), but ignores the specification
`
`statements pointed out by FST which show that a “desired entity” and “selected entity” may also
`
`be sought by the database system as part of the database retrieval process. FST Br. at 7-8.
`D.
`entity instance table
`Oracle confirms that it agrees with the language in FST’s construction (Ex. A at 3), but
`
`seeks to import unwarranted, additional restrictions. Oracle Br. at 16. Here and with several of
`
`the other terms, Oracle seeks to support its importation of low-level details by arguing that the
`
`terms have no ordinary meaning. FST disagrees that these terms have no ordinary meaning—the
`terms themselves suggest their meaning.13 Here, “entity instance table” suggests its meaning as
`FST proposes—“a table used to store entity instance records.” Ex. A. at 3. Even if the terms
`lacked an ordinary meaning, that would not justify the low-level details sought by Oracle.14
`Oracle’s brief (id. at 16) on this term argues that “the entity instance and relation instance
`
`
`11 Ex. B, ‘520 patent at 20:57-59 (“the entity instances table has enough columns of appropriate widths to support
`the descriptions of each entity instance”), 33:13-15 (“Often, the database user may not wish to see all of the detailed
`information within a row, but rather wishes to see only pre-specified columns of the referenced row”). See also
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (“Importantly, 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 disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`including the specification.”).
`12 Exxon Research v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“By finding claims indefinite only if
`reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of patent
`validity”); Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rejecting
`indefiniteness argument, stating that “when claims are amenable to more than one construction, they should when
`reasonably possible be interpreted to preserve their validity”); see also Exs. Z at 30-31 and BB at 57-62.
`13 Laryngeal Mask, 2010 WL 3633180, at *4-5 & n.3 (“The failure to introduce a dictionary definition for the
`disputed claim term does not preclude a conclusion that there exists a plain meaning to one of skill in the art.” “The
`term backplate has a somewhat self-descriptive nature.”).
`14 See Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 792-93 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversing the reading in of
`low-level details with respect to the computer claim term “s10e5” floating point; explaining that “more general
`statements trump the definition found in the embodiment on which the district court relied”).
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 4092
`
`
`tables are different.” However, FST’s constructions of “entity instance table” and “relation
`
`instance table” are already different. Ex. A at 3, 6. Oracle also parenthetically notes that it seeks
`
`to add a “RTO” requirement and the impossible “only one and not less than two” requirement.
`
`Oracle Br. at 16; Ex. A at 3. As explained above in Section B, this impossible limit (and
`
`associated indefiniteness argument) should be rejected. Also, the “RTO” limit should be rejected
`
`for the reasons explained in FST’s brief, which Oracle has not rebutted. FST Br. at 8, 10, 12-15.
`
`Oracle seeks to justify its “RTO” requirement based on file history statements regarding a
`
`different application and different claim language, as FST explained but which Oracle has not
`
`rebutted. FST Br. at 8-9. The claim language at issue there was materially different—viz.,
`
`“means … for adding to said table a new entity type record in a manner so as to preserve said
`
`corresponding positions within said table of said one or more entity type records.” Ex. K at 23,
`
`26. Not only was this language governed by § 112 ¶ 6, but also this language actually called for
`
`preserving positions, which Oracle seeks to impose here—where there is no such claim
`
`language—by its “RTO” limit. This different file history cannot be used to read in a “RTO”
`
`limit to the very different claim language here. Nor do Oracle’s citations to the specification
`
`support Oracle’s proposed “RTO” limit. In the specification the patentee has not “demonstrated
`
`a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
`restriction.”15 Trading Techs., 595 F.3d at 1352. Rather, in several places in the specification
`and drawings a “RTO” structure is described as optional, as FST pointed out but which Oracle
`
`did not rebut. FST Br. at 8, 10, 12-15. In fact, the specification says that even a “purely key-
`
`sequenced” organization (KSO) can be used, which Oracle was forced to acknowledge in a
`
`footnote. Oracle Br. at 8 n.12; Ex. B at 28:24-27.
`E.
`entity type record
`Oracle confirms that it agrees with the language in FST’s construction of “entity type
`
`record” (Ex. A at 3), but continues to seek to add the extraneous “single” verbiage. Oracle Br. at
`
`15 Instead of pointing to a “clear intention to limit the claim scope,” Oracle attempts a chained argument—viz., that a
`benefit of the patents is speed, that a “RTO” structure provides speed, and that allegedly therefore the claims must
`be read to require a “RTO” structure along with fixed record lengths. Oracle Br. at 7. This argument is unavailing.
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 4093
`
`
`17-18. Oracle has not rebutted FST’s explanation as to why this is unwarranted. FST Br. at 9.
`F.
`entity definition table
`Oracle’s brief (id. at 14) starts off by incorrectly stating FST’s construction. FST’s actual
`
`construction is “a table used to store entity type records.” FST Br. at 9-10; Ex. A at 3. Oracle
`
`appears to have no issue with this language, but seeks to add unwarranted, additional restrictions.
`
`Oracle seeks to require a relative table organization (RTO), but as explained above and in FST’s
`
`opening brief, the claims are not properly so limited. Oracle also seeks to add the requirement
`
`that the table “consists of at most three [specific] columns” (Ex. A at 30, arguing that this must
`
`be done because the “patent discloses no other architecture.” Oracle Br. at 15. But the law is
`clear that there is no single embodiment rule.16 Oracle also argues here (as well as elsewhere)
`that the term is expressly defined in the specification by the language “defined within the
`
`memory means of a computer system.” Oracle Br. at 15. This is not the patentee acting as a
`lexicographer to define the term.17 Rather, it is computer science language pointing out where
`the table is constructed in the software in the preferred embodiment. Oracle also suggests here
`
`(as well as elsewhere) that the term must be limited to the preferred embodiment because it is
`
`described in the Summary of the patent. Oracle Br. at 15. But, preferred embodiment details are
`not properly read into the claims just because they are described in the Summary section.18
`G.
`relation
`
`
`16 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]his court has expressly rejected the
`contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being
`limited to that embodiment.”); Trading Techs., 595 F.3d at 1352 (“[W]hen the specification uses a single
`embodiment to enable the claims, courts should not limit the broader claim language to that embodiment unless the
`patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest
`exclusion or restriction.”).
`17 Laryngeal Mask, 2010 WL 3633180, at *4 (“To be his own lexicographer, a patentee must use a ‘special
`definition of the term [that] is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.’”) (citation omitted); Geomas
`Ltd. v. Idearc, 2008 WL 4966933, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008) (J. Everingham) (“Here, as in Acumed, the use
`of the word ‘defined’ does not necessarily imply a lexicographic definition. In this instance, the definition that
`Geomas seeks is taken out of context of the paragraph as a whole.”); see also Acumed, 483 F.3d at 808.
`18 Pony Pal v. Claire’s Boutiques, 2006 WL 2827642, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2006) (“[A] statement in the
`Summary of Invention is not on its own determinative of the meaning of the terms of the claims.”); Lucent Techs. v.
`Extreme Networks, 367 F.Supp.2d 649, 656 (D. Del. 2005) (“Although that language [in the Summary of Invention]
`can reasonably be understood as constituting a general description of the invention, the Court finds that it does not
`clearly define the term .… Defendants point to no clear disavowal of claim scope in either the written description or
`prosecution history.”).
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 4094
`
`
`Oracle has not rebutted FST’s brief (id. at 11) on this. Rather, Oracle agrees with the
`
`language in FST’s construction—“a logical link” (Ex. A at 4)—but continues to seek to add
`
`additional details based on unfounded complaints. Oracle Br. at 18. Oracle first complains that
`
`relations must be distinguished from entities. Id. But as explained in Section B above, FST’s
`
`constructions of “entities” and “relations” are already different, and an entity need not preclude
`
`all relation information or vice versa. Secondly, Oracle complains that the definition must
`specify what is linked together. Oracle Br. at 18. But the claims already do that.19 It would be
`wrong to add to or alter the claim language by way of the definition of “relation,” as Oracle
`
`seeks. Oracle is also incorrect to suggest that its details be read in because of the description in
`
`the Summary of the patent. As explained in the immediately preceding Section F, descriptions in
`
`the Summary are not automatically deemed definitional and the language “defined within the
`
`memory means” is computer science speak (rather than lexicographer language) indicating
`
`where the relation is constructed in the software in the preferred embodiment.
`H.
`related
`Oracle’s brief fails to address this term, and thus does not rebut FST’s explanation that
`“relation definition table” and “relation instance table” should not be read into “related.”20
`I.
`relation instance
`Oracle has not justified reading in its proposed “single” and linkage specifics. Oracle
`
`merely asserts that its “two additional elements are necessary to complete the definitions.”
`
`Oracle Br. at 21-22. As FST has explained with respect to the “relation” term in Section G, other
`
`claim language specifies what is linked and “single” should not be read in. FST Br. at 11-12.
`J.
`record
`FST explained why the negative restrictions sought by Oracle for “record” are not
`
`warranted. FST Br. at 12-13. Oracle has not rebutted this, nor justified these sought restrictions.
`
`Oracle does not even seek to justify its negative “join” requirement. Also, as explained above,
`
`19 E.g., ’520 claim 1 provides “a relation of said provided relation type between said provided entity and said desired
`entity,” and ’526 claim 10 provides “a first group of entities comprising all entities within said relational database
`related to said first entity by said first relation.” Ex. B, ’520 patent at 33:63-67; Ex. C, ’526 patent at 36:8-10.
`20 See FST Br. at 11-12.
`
`Austin 62493v10
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 84 Filed 09/24/10 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 4095
`
`
`the claims are not properly limited to a “RTO” structure or records of fixed length.
`K. & L. “relation type record” and “relation instance record”
`Oracle’s brief (id. at 22-23) has not justified its lengthy construction of “relation type
`record” or rebutted FST’s brief (id. at 13-14).21 FST’s definition is not merely a reorganization
`of words. Ex. A at 4. “Single” and linkage specifics should not be added, as explained above in
`
`Sections G and I. Also, Oracle’s proposed separate storage/access/modification requirement is
`not warranted simply because this is alleged to be a feature of the preferred embodiment.22 For
`the same reasons these restrictions should not be added to the “relation instance record” term.
`M. & N. “relation definition table” and “relation instance table”
`Here also Oracle’s brief (id. at 19-21) has not justified its proposals or rebutted FST’s
`
`
`brief (id. at 14-16). As explained above, Oracle’s sought details and reasoning are unwarranted.
`O.
`“inquiry table” and “inquiry definition table”
`Oracle’s brief (id. at 24) misstates FST’s actual construction for “inquiry table”—viz., “a
`
`table that stores database queries.”23 Ex. A at 6; FST Br. at 16. Oracle also suggests that FST
`misreads the file history, but nothing in the intrinsic record precludes SQL SELECT queries
`
`from being stored in inquiry/inquiry definition tables. FST Br. at 17. Oracle also seeks to
`
`require a “single table” and five specific columns. Oracle Br. at 24. There is no basis to read in
`
`these details. FST Br at 16-17. Oracle argues that the terms must have “a place for both entity
`and relation types” whether or not those columns are populated.24 Oracle Br at 25. But there is
`
`
`21 Oracle’s argument that divisional patent—5,652,882—is directed to a “feature irrelevant to Oracle’s construction”
`is a red herring. FST’s argument was made with respect to “relation definition table”, not “relation type record.”
`22 “The court’s task is not to limit claim language to exclude particular devices because they do not serve a perceived
`‘purpose’ of the inven