UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
`
`ARENDI U.S.A., INC. and
`ARENDT HOLDING LIMITED
`
`v.
`
`CA No. 02-343-T
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In their written memoranda, the parties disagree regarding the
`meaning of the following terms contained in Claim 1 of the
`'853
`patent:
`
`"Upon . a single entry of the e x ecute command" and
`
`"Analyzing the document to determine if the first inform~tion is
`contained . therein."
`
`During oral argument, the parties agreed that "upon" means "on
`or immediately or very soon after" and that "first information"
`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.
`
`'8 53 patent and its
`This Court has carefully reviewed the
`prosecution history bearing in mind the following principles of
`claim construction.
`
`1.
`
`their
`Claim ter·ms generally should be construed to ha v e
`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).
`
`2.
`
`Technical terms generally are construed to have the meaning
`that would be attributed to them by one of ordinary skill in
`
`A2
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - Ex. 2007
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`
`the art at the time of the invention. Collins v. Northern
`Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042, 1044
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). Again,
`that meaning is overcome if a different meaning is clearly
`expressed by the patentee in the patent or its prosecution
`histor~. K-2 Corp., 191 F.3d at 1363.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The specification should be consul ted in order to resolve
`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
`meaning. 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
`for the reasons stated below,
`this
`disputed terms of claim 1 as follows:
`
`with those principles; and,
`Court hereby construes the
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`"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 retrie~al process as including "selection in a menu."
`
`4.
`
`"Entry of the execute command" may be accomplished by clicking
`on or selecting a menu choice.
`
`5.
`
`"upon a single entry of the execute command" means that:
`
`a.
`
`analysis of the document to determine if it contains
`A3
`
`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
`
`b.
`
`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 01savowed by
`Arendi during prosecution of the patent as demonstrated
`by the following:
`
`i.
`
`20002,
`25,
`initial
`On April
`Ar~n d i's
`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 accent~d, highlighted
`or otherwise indicated.'u Hedloy Examiner's
`Detailed Action (April 25, 2000) ~ 5 (quoting
`Pandit, U.S. Patent No. 5,859 , 636, col. 2 line
`34} .
`
`June 12, 2000, Arendi's representative
`ii . 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.
`
`iii. On July 27, 2000, Arendi
`followed up by
`amending its application
`to add
`the words
`"upon a single entry of" before the words "the
`execute command." Hedloy Amendment (July 27,
`2009).
`
`iv. On September 18, 2000, the examiner rejected
`the amended application on the ground that it
`was anticipated by the Tso patent (U.S . Patent
`No. 6,085,201). Hedloy Examiner's Detailed
`Action (September 18, 2000).
`
`v.
`
`On October 17, 2000, Arendi' s representative
`attempted
`t o distinguish Tso on 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
`select
`the
`text string
`to be analyzed."
`Hedloy Examiner's Interview Summary (October
`17, 2000).
`The Examiner again noted that
`"[a]n
`amendment will be
`submitted which
`includes this difference."
`Id.
`
`vi. 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
`contpined
`in
`the
`document". Hedloy Amendment
`(December 18,
`2~00). 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."
`Id .
`
`vii. On January 2, 2001, the examiner ·allowed the
`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
`is contained within the document." Hedloy
`Examiner's Reasons for Allowance (January 2,
`2 001) .
`
`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.
`
`·'"""-
`~<:-S~~
`Ernest C. Torres
`Chief Judge
`
`Date: ..2>~ . 21 , 2004
`
`AS
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. - Ex. 2007
`Page 4 of 4