`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
`
`INC. and
`ARENDI U.S.A.,
`ARENDI HOLDING LIMITED
`
`v.
`
`CA No.
`
`02—343—T
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`the parties disagree regarding the
`In their written memoranda,
`meaning of
`the following terms contained in Claim 1 of the ‘853
`patent:
`
`“Upon_a single entry of the execute command” and
`
`“Analyzing the document
`contained.therein.”
`
`to determine if the first information is
`
`\\
`
`.
`
`upon” means “on
`the parties agreed that
`During oral argument,
`immediately or very soon after” and that “first information”
`or
`refers to text
`in the document
`that
`is entered by a user.
`The
`remaining dispute with respect to claim construction focuses on:
`
`1.
`
`What is meant by “the execute command”?
`
`2. Whether the claim covers a method requiring the user to select
`particular
`text
`in the document before the document
`is
`analyzed and a search for first information is conducted.
`
`This Court has carefully reviewed the ‘853 patent and its
`prosecution history bearing in mind the following principles of
`claim construction.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`their
`Claim terms generally should be construed to have
`ordinary and customary meaning unless a different meaning is
`given to them by the patentee and indicated with reasonable
`clarity and precision in the patent or
`its prosecution
`history. K—2 Corp. v. Salmon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356,
`1362—63
`(Fed. Cir. 1999); Nothern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`215 F.3d 1281, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`terms generally are construed to have the meaning
`Technical
`that would be attributed to them by one of ordinary skill in
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - EX. 2007
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - Ex. 2007
`Page 1 of 4
`Page10f4
`
`A 2
`
`
`
`the art at
`
`the time of the invention. Collins v. Northern
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). Again,
`Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042, 1044
`that meaning is overcome if a different meaning is clearly
`expressed by the patentee in the patent or its prosecution
`history.
`K—2 Corp., 191 F.3d at 1363.
`
`to resolve
`The specification should be consulted in order
`ambiguities in the meaning of the terms used and to determine
`whether the patentee has used any claim terms in a manner that
`would be
`inconsistent with their ordinary and customary
`Heaning. Watts v. XL Sys.,
`232 F.3d 877,
`883
`(Fed. Cir.
`2000); Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve, 256 F.3d 1323,
`1331—32 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`The prosecution history may be consulted for the purpose of
`determining whether
`the
`patentee
`clearly
`disavowed
`a
`particular interpretation of a claim. Amgen,
`Inc. v. Hoechst
`Marion Roussel,
`Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1313 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002).
`
`Based on a review in accordance with those principles; and,
`the reasons stated below,
`this Court hereby construes the
`for
`disputed terms of claim 1 as follows:
`
`1.
`
`“the execute command” means the execute command referred to in
`
`the preceding element of claim 1 as “an execute command which
`initiates a record retrieval from an information source.”
`
`“input device“ means a device that allows a user to provide
`input into a computer system.
`
`“the input device” means the input device referred to in the
`preceding element of Claim 1 as “an input device configured to
`enter an execute command which initiates a record retrieval
`
`program.”
`
`It includes a menu choice or selection because:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The patent specification specifically refers to “input
`device” as including a “menu choice.”
`Column 3, Lines
`41—43.
`
`The abstract'refers to the function item that initiates
`the retrieval process as including “selection in a menu.”
`
`“Entry of the execute command” may be accomplished by clicking
`on or selecting a menu choice.
`
`“upon a single entry of the execute command” means that:
`
`a.
`
`analysis of
`
`the document
`
`to determine if it contains
`
`A3
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. — Ex. 2007
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - Ex. 2007
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`first information and searching sources external to the
`document for second information associated with the first
`
`information must occur upon or after entry of the execute
`command, and
`
`the analysis and search take place without any need for
`the user to, first, select any text
`in the document by
`accenting it, highlighting it, or otherwise selecting it.
`
`Text selection by the user was clearly disavowed by
`Arendi during prosecution of the patent as demonstrated
`by the following:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`initial
`20002, Arendi's
`25,
`On April
`application was rejected as unpatentable,
`in
`part, because the Pandit patent provided for
`the
`use
`of
`pull—down menus
`to
`select
`operations or programs
`that may be used in
`connection with “‘text accented, highlighted
`or otherwise indicated.'” Hedloy Examiner’s
`Detailed Action (April 25, 2000)
`1 5
`(quoting
`Pandit, U.S. Patent No. 5,859,636, col.
`2 line
`34).
`
`representative
`2000, Arendi’s
`12,
`June
`On
`responded by distinguishing Pandit
`on
`the
`ground that “in Pandit,
`the user must accent
`text, prior to recognizing the text, whereas
`in the present invention,
`the step of entering
`the
`execute
`command
`does
`not
`include
`
`highlighting or selecting the text, or first
`information.” Hedloy Examiner’s
`Interview
`'SUmmary (June 14, 2004).
`The Examiner noted
`that “[a]n amendment
`[would]
`be
`submitted
`which includes this difference.”
`Id.
`
`by
`followed up
`2000, Arendi
`July 27,
`On
`amending its application to add the words
`“upon a single entry of” before the words “the
`execute command.” Hedloy Amendment
`(July 27,
`2000).
`
`the examiner rejected
`On September 18, 2000,
`the amended application on the ground that it
`was anticipated by the T50 patent
`(U.S. Patent
`No. 6,085,201).
`Hedloy Examiner’s Detailed
`Action (September 18, 2000).
`
`On October 17, 2000, Arendi’s representative
`attempted to distinguish 'Tso
`CH1
`the ground
`
`A4
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - Ex. 2007
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`that, under Tso, “the user must select
`
`the
`
`text string to be processed, whereas in the
`#present
`invention,
`the user does not have to
`
`analyzed.”
`string to be
`text
`the
`select
`Hedloy Examiner’s Interview Summary (October
`17, 2000).
`The Examiner again noted that
`“[aJn
`amendment will
`be
`submitted which
`includes this difference.”
`Id.
`
`On December 18, 2000, Arendi further amended
`its application to add the words “analyzing
`the
`document
`to
`determine
`if
`the
`first
`
`information is contained therein, and if the
`first
`information
`is
`contained
`in
`the
`
`18,
`(December
`document”. Hedloy Amendment
`2000). Arendi’s representative explained the
`'amendment as clarifying that “the invention
`does not
`require the user
`to select
`a
`text
`string to be processed since it
`functions
`automatically upon a single click of an input
`device.” 1g;
`
`vii.
`
`the examiner allowed the
`On January 2, 2001,
`application stating that “[i]n Tso,
`the text
`string to be processed is determined by the
`’ current cursor position as specified by the
`user .
`.
`. whereas the present invention ‘does
`not require the user to select the text string
`to
`be
`processed
`since
`it
`functions
`automatically upon a single click of an input
`device'
`to determine if the first information
`
`Hedloy
`is contained within the document.”
`Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance (January 2,
`2001).
`
`6.
`
`“first information” means text in the document that is entered
`
`by a user and can be used by the record retrieval program to
`search sources external to the document for second information
`
`associated with the first information.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`rx
`WCS CW4
`Ernest C. Torres
`
`Chief Judge
`
`DatezfibfiflY.QW , 2004
`
`A 5
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - EX. 2007
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - Ex. 2007
`Page 4 of 4
`Page4of4
`
`