Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:4373
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 12-cv-7360-MRP
`Claim Construction Order
`
`ENFISH, LLC,
` Plaintiff,
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION;
`FISERV, INC.; INTUIT, INC.; SAGE
`SOFTWARE, INC.; and JACK
`HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`I.
`Introduction
`Enfish, LLC (“Enfish”) has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,151,604 and 6,163,775
`(the ’604 and ’775 patents) against Microsoft Corp., Fiserv, Inc., Intuit, Inc., Sage
`Software, Inc., and Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”). In
`this Order, the Court construes certain claim terms in dispute.
`II.
`Principles of Claim Construction
`The purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning and scope of the
`patent claims alleged to be infringed. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:4374
`
`
`
`Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim construction is a pure
`question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). For
`purposes of claim construction, the Court reviews both intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence, placing emphasis on the former.
`A. Intrinsic Evidence.
`i.
`Claim Language
`“The words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp.¸ 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation
`omitted). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning
`that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
`Id. at 1313. “The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands
`a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim
`interpretation.” Id. “That starting point is based on the well-settled understanding
`that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention and that
`patents are addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the pertinent
`art.” Id.
`ii.
`Specification
`The specification is “always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As
`Judge Rich wrote shortly after the creation of the Federal Circuit, “the specification
`. . . is the primary basis for construing the claims.” Standard Oil Co. v. Am.
`Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “[T]he specification may
`reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from
`the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography
`governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. “In other cases, the specification may reveal
`an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.” Id. In such
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:4375
`
`
`
`cases, the inventor’s intention as expressed in the specification “is regarded as
`dispositive.” Id.
`iii. Prosecution History
`The Court also considers the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence.
`“The prosecution history, which we have designated as part of the “intrinsic
`evidence,” consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and
`includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Id. The patentee
`created the prosecution history much like the specification in an attempt to explain
`and obtain the patent, and thus the prosecution history provides evidence about
`how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent. Id. “Yet because the
`prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity
`of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.
`“Nonetheless, the prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim
`language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether
`the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim
`scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id.
`B. Extrinsic Evidence
`In addition to using intrinsic evidence, this Court is also authorized to use
`extrinsic evidence in claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“[W]e have
`. . . authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence . . . .”). Extrinsic
`evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id.
`While extrinsic evidence can shed light on claim meaning, it is “less significant
`than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim
`language.’” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, extrinsic evidence is “unlikely to result
`in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of
`the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:4376
`
`
`
`III. Technical Background
`The asserted claims in the ’604 and ’775 patents are directed to methods and
`systems relating to data storage and retrieval. The invention improves upon prior
`art information search and retrieval systems by employing a “flexible” and “self-
`referential” table to store data.
`The table of this invention is made up of rows and columns. Each row has an
`object identification number (OID) and the data therein describes an individual
`record spanning various attributes. Each column also has an OID and the data
`therein describes an individual attribute spanning various records.1 The intersection
`of a row and a column comprises a cell which may contain data for a particular
`record. The content of a cell represents attribute data for a particular record. A cell
`may simply point to another record. To enhance searching and to provide for
`synchronization between columns, columns are entered as rows in the table. The
`record corresponding to a column contains information about the column. This
`renders the table self-referential.
`The invention includes an index structure to allow for rapid searches. It also
`includes a thesaurus and knowledge base to enhance indexed searches. An
`application support layer includes a word processor, a password system, hypertext,
`and other functions. The integration of the word processor with the table allows
`editing cells with the word processor. The table may also be interfaced with
`external documents. This allows a user to retrieve data from external documents
`using the enhanced retrieval system of the invention.
`//
`//
`//
`
`1 An illustration is helpful. Consider two students John and Jane. John has a GPA of 3.0, majors in History, and is a
`freshman. Jane has a GPA of 4.0, majors in Mathematics, and is a sophomore. If one tabulated John and Jane as
`records represented as rows in a table, and stored all this information about them as attributes in columns, then one
`would have a basic table. Reading a row left to right narrates the story of John or Jane. Reading the GPA column top
`to bottom narrates the story of how John and Jane are doing in school.
`-4-
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:4377
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`A. “logical table”
`The term “logical table” in the claims is followed by an open-ended list of
`claim elements. Enfish proposes importing limitations such as “self-referential,”
`“appendable columns,” and “capable of storing structured and unstructured data
`and different types of records” into the claim term “logical table” itself. This
`approach runs the risk of either: (1) depriving some subsequently listed claim
`element of its independent limiting effect;2 or (2) importing a limitation from the
`specification into the claims. The Defendants propose limiting the logical table’s
`data structure to a “sparse matrix.” Here, the Court determines that the intrinsic
`record lacks a clear and unmistakable disclaimer or disavowal. As such, the Court
`rejects the proposed imported wordsby each party.
`Instead, the Court finds that “logical table” refers to “a table with a data
`structure that is logical as opposed to physical, and therefore does not need to be
`stored contiguously in memory.” This construction is based on the only reference
`in the specification which alludes to the “logical” nature of the table: “The
`structure of the table 100 is a logical structure and not necessarily a physical
`structure. Thus, the memories 26 and 32 configured according to the teachings of
`the present invention need not store the table 100 contiguously.” ’604 at 6:32-35.
`Limiting the logical table to a table which does not need to be stored
`contiguously in memory does not rise to the level of an improper import of a
`limitation from the specification into the claims. The Court is merely referring to a
`portion of the specification which explains the concept of “logical” with respect to
`a table.
`//
`
`
`2 Consider Claim 1 of the ’604 patent which recites the phrase “logical table including” followed
`by a list of three claim elements. One of those claim elements is “at least one of said logical rows
`has an OID equal to the OID of a corresponding one of said logical columns.” This claim
`element itself renders the claimed “logical table” self-referential.
`-5-
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:4378
`
`
`B. “a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows
`to define a plurality of logical cells”
`The intersection of a logical column and a logical row defines a logical cell.
`This claim expression is simply a pluralized form of the above statement. The
`Defendants argue that the word “said” which modifies the phrase “plurality of
`logical rows” limits the scope of this claim expression so as to exclude “crossword
`puzzle” type arrangements. Effectively, Defendants argue that the claim expression
`“columns intersecting said plurality of . . . rows” in light of the specification means
`“columns intersecting [each of] said plurality of . . . rows.”
`The claim language does not warrant such an import. The plain and ordinary
`meaning of this individual claim expression covers both tables and crossword
`arrangements. But some of the claims also contain the claim limitation “logical
`table” which the Court has already construed as “a table with a data structure that
`is logical as opposed to physical, and therefore does not need to be stored
`contiguously in memory.” Supra at 5.
`Consequently, the Court finds that the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`expression suffices for claim construction purposes.
`C. “logical column information defining / logical column information
`defines;” “attribute set information defining / attribute set information
`defines”
`The relevant claim language recites “at least one of said logical rows has an
`OID equal to the OID of a corresponding one of said logical columns, and at least
`one of said logical rows includes logical column information defining each of said
`logical columns.” The Court finds that the bolded claim language surrounding the
`claim term under construction provides useful context for interpreting the disputed
`claim expressions. To convey a one-to-one mapping between one row and one
`column, the patentee invokes the phrase “corresponding one of said . . . columns.”
`Consequently, when the patentee refers to “one . . . row[] . . . defining each of said
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:4379
`
`
`
`logical columns,” the implication is clear: at least one fully-populated row is
`required, i.e., at least one row with values defined for each column. The patentee
`could have easily, in a manner consistent with the rest of the claim language in the
`same claim, recited “at least one of said logical rows including logical column
`information defining a corresponding one of said logical columns.” She did not.
`Consequently, the Court construes the above claim terms as requiring at least one
`row with values defined for each column.
`D. “a plurality of attribute sets”
`The parties agree that an “attribute set” refers to a column. Defendants’ Br. at
`12. The Court thus construes “a plurality of attribute sets” as “a plurality of
`columns” or simply “columns.” Defendants argue that this claim term is indefinite
`because it could mean either “columns” or “logical columns.” A ruling of
`indefiniteness requires a showing that the claim term is insolubly ambiguous. Here,
`the term “a plurality of attribute sets” is hardly ambiguous, let alone insolubly so.
`To the extent the specification does not support the inventor’s possession of
`columns of the non-logical variety, or does not enable such columns, that is not an
`issue for claim construction. The Court finds no ambiguity in this claim phrase.
`E. “object identification number”
`The Court finds that the “object identification number” refers to “a unique array
`of bits assigned to each row and each column in the logical table. The bit length
`(the number of bits used) is constant throughout a single database but may vary
`between databases.”
`The specification section entitled “Creating a Unique OID” explains that
`various factors, which themselves are bit arrays (like “010101”) are combined to
`form the OID, which itself is a bit array. See, e.g., ’604 at 8:35-36 (“[T]he session
`identification, timestamp, and tiebreaker are combined into a bit array, which
`becomes the OID.”). Further, the specification explains, “[The OID’s] length is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:4380
`
`
`
`constant throughout a single database but may vary between databases.” Id. at
`8:44-46.
`The Defendants propose construing the OID as a “fixed number.” This proposal
`deviates from the specification. The only thing that is fixed within a single
`database is the bit length, as captured by the Court’s construction. Enfish proposes
`“a unique identifier . . . having a [constant] bit length throughout a single database
`and, when stored as data, serving as a pointer to a row or column.” The italicized
`portion of Enfish’s proposal is redundant, given the Court’s construction which
`leaves no doubt that the OID is “a unique array of bits assigned to each row and
`each column in the logical table . . . .” The uniqueness of the OIDs to each row
`and to each column makes it clear that if OIDs are stored as data themselves, they
`serve as pointers to the corresponding row or column. An explicit definition to this
`effect is unnecessary.
`F. “each said logical row [column] having [including] an object
`identification number (OID) to identify each said logical row [column]”
`No construction is necessary for this claim expression in light of the Court’s
`construction of “object identification number.”
`G. “wherein at least one of said records has an OID equal to the OID of a
`corresponding one of said attribute sets.”
`Again, no construction is necessary in light of the Court’s construction of
`“attribute sets” and “OID.”
`H. “[means for] configuring said memory according to a logical table”
`The Court finds that this claim element is subject to § 112 ¶ 6. The function is
`“configuring said memory according to a logical table.” In Ex. 19, Enfish has
`pieced together various citations from the patent specification and arranged them
`such that taken together, they constitute the disclosure of an algorithm.
`For functional claiming of software, the bar for adequacy of structure is low.
`Algorithms may be expressed in “any understandable terms including as a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:4381
`
`
`
`mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that
`provides sufficient structure” for a person of skill in the field to provide an
`operative software program for the specified function. See Typhoon Touch Techs.,
`Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Court determines that
`this disclosure provides sufficient structure for a PHOSITA to implement a
`software program and accomplish the function of “configuring said memory
`according to a logical table” as described in the patent.
`As such, the scope of the claim term is the structure defined in Exhibit 19 and
`equivalents thereof.
`I. “[means for] indexing data stored in said table”
`The Court finds that this claim term is subject to § 112 ¶ 6. The function is
`“indexing data stored in the logical table.” Again, Exhibit 21 satisfies the relaxed
`requirements of Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) when it comes to adequate structure. As such, the scope of the
`claim term is the structure defined in Exhibit 21 and equivalents thereof.
`//
`//
`//
`//
`/
`//
`//
`//
`//
`//
`//
`//
`//
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:4382
`
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`
`Claim Term
`“logical table”
`’604 cl. 1, 2, 16, 17, 31, 32, 46, 47; ’775
`cl. 31, 32, 47
`
`
`
`“a plurality of logical columns
`intersecting said plurality of logical
`rows to define a plurality of logical
`cells”
`’604 cl. 1, 2, 16, 17, 31, 32, 46, 47
`
`“logical column information defining
`/ logical column information defines;”
`“attribute set information defining /
`attribute set information defines”
`’604 cl. 1, 2, 31; ’775 cl. 31, 32
`
`“a plurality of attribute sets”
`’775 cl. 31, 32, 47
`
`“object identification number”
`’604 cl. 1, 2, 16, 17, 31, 32, 46, 47; ’775
`cl. 31, 32, 47
`
`“each said logical row [column]
`having [including] an object
`identification number (OID) to
`identify each said logical row
`[column]”
`’604 cl. 1, 2, 16, 17, 31, 32, 46, 47
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“a table with a data structure that
`is logical as opposed to physical,
`and therefore does not need to be
`stored contiguously in memory.”
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“at least one row with values
`defined for each column”
`
`columns
`
`“a unique array of bits assigned to
`each row and each column in the
`logical table. The bit length (the
`number of bits used) is constant
`throughout a single database but
`may vary between databases.”
`
`No construction is necessary for
`this claim term in light of the
`Court’s construction of “object
`identification number.”
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRW Document 86 Filed 07/15/13 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:4383
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`“wherein at least one of said records
`has an OID equal to the OID of a
`corresponding one of said attribute
`sets.”
`’775 cl. 31, 32
`
`“[means for] configuring said
`memory according to a logical table”
`’604 cl. 1, 2, 16, 17, 31, 32, 46, 47; ’775
`cl. 31, 32, 47
`
`“[means for] indexing data stored in
`said table”
`’604 cl. 17, 47
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Claim Construction
`No construction is necessary in
`light of the Court’s construction
`of “attribute sets” and “OID.”
`
`
`
`“configuring said memory
`according to a logical table.”
`
`Exhibit 19 and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`“indexing data stored in said
`table”
`
`Exhibit 21 and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`DATED: July 15, 2013 _______________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Judge
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. Exhibit 1326
`
`