throbber
Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 3410
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:11-CV-30-JRG-RSP
`
`§§§§§
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`
`v.
`
`COMCAST CORP., et al.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`On April 30, 2013, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the
`
`disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 (herein after the “‘883 patent”).1 After
`
`considering the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in the parties’ claim
`
`construction briefing, the Court issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ‘883 patent
`
`is entitled “DYNAMIC CHANNEL MANAGEMENT AND
`
`SIGNALLING METHOD AND APPARATUS” and is based upon an application filed July 18,
`
`1994. Claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 12 are asserted. The parties present twelve groupings of claim
`
`disputes. The ‘883 patent generally relates to the field of “two-way multi-media communication
`
`on a shared transmission media such as coaxial cable-TV network, and more specifically to
`
`methods and apparatus for signalling channel management and protocol.” 1:6-11. The
`
`Background of the Invention describes the prior art as including a central controller, a shared
`
`transmission media and a plurality of
`
`remote
`
`terminals dispersed geographically.
`
`Communication bandwidth is divided into traffic-bearing channels and signalling channels that
`
`utilize signalling protocols to resolve contention for access. 1:15-32. The ‘883 Patent states that
`
`1 References to the ‘883 patent will be made in the format Column:Line.
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Page 1 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 3411
`
`the objects of the disclosed invention relate to improvements in the signalling channel
`
`assignment process. 2:35-62.
`
`Two independent claims are asserted, method claim 1 and method claim 6. Claim 1
`
`recites a variety of steps for accomplishing the allocation and assignment of the signalling data
`
`channels between the central controller and remote terminals, and the assignment of the remote
`
`terminals to a signalling data channel. Claim 6 recites a variety of steps for controlling access
`
`between the central controller and the remote terminals through a polling and contention
`
`resolving process.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start
`
`by considering the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1313. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`
`388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group,
`
`Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R.
`
`Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the
`
`entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 2 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 3412
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs.
`
`Id. The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where
`
`the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to
`
`permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at
`
`1325. But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of
`
`disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification
`
`will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d
`
`1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The prosecution history is another
`
`tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patent applicant may also
`
`define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352,
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 3 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 3413
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term
`
`in prosecuting a patent.”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court.
`
`Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Indefiniteness
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Whether a claim meets this definiteness requirement is a
`
`matter of law. Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A party
`
`challenging the definiteness of a claim must show it is invalid by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Id. at 1345.
`
`“Only claims ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous’ are indefinite.”
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). That is, the
`
`“standard [for finding indefiniteness] is met where an accused infringer shows by clear and
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 4 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 3414
`
`convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on
`
`the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of
`
`the relevant art area.” Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249-50. The ultimate issue is whether someone
`
`working in the relevant technical field could understand the bounds of a claim. Haemonetics
`
`Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 783 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`In determining whether that standard is met, i.e., whether the
`claims at issue are sufficiently precise to permit a potential
`competitor to determine whether or not he is infringing, we have
`not held that a claim is indefinite merely because it poses a
`difficult issue of claim construction. We engage in claim
`construction every day, and cases frequently present close
`questions of claim construction on which expert witnesses, trial
`courts, and even the judges of this court may disagree. Under a
`broad concept of indefiniteness, all but the clearest claim
`construction issues could be regarded as giving rise to invalidating
`indefiniteness in the claims at issue. But we have not adopted that
`approach to the law of indefiniteness. We have not insisted that
`claims be plain on their face in order to avoid condemnation for
`indefiniteness; rather, what we have asked is that the claims be
`amenable to construction, however difficult that task may be. If a
`claim is insolubly ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can
`properly be adopted, we have held the claim indefinite. If 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. . . . By finding claims
`indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove
`futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of patent
`validity . . . and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees,
`even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal.
`
`Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 5 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 3415
`
`A. “signalling data”2 (claim 1)
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`information concerned with the control of
`communications
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`information that establishes and controls
`channels over which the central controller and
`remote terminals communicate
`
`The parties propose defining “signalling data” in terms of the data’s function. C-Cation
`
`describes the function as “control of communications” whereas Defendants describe the function
`
`as “establishes and controls channels.”
`
`Parties’ Positions
`
`C-Cation
`
`According to C-Cation, the specification teaches that signalling data is used beyond
`
`merely establishing and controlling channels. C-Cation asserts that the specification teaches that
`
`the controller also “sends command to the remote terminal” as part of the signalling data. 7:43-
`
`44. C-Cation notes that Figure 9 depicts various signalling data for implementing a telephone
`
`network (including “incoming call command,” “release command,” “on-hook,” “off-hook,”
`
`“ringing,” “dial digits,” “incoming call blocking,” and “incoming call unblocking”) and observes
`
`that that these commands are each concerned with controlling communications over existing
`
`channels. ‘883 Figure 9. C-Cation contrasts these commands with other commands that more
`
`clearly relate to establishing a channel such as “serial number of the remote terminal for channel
`
`assignment during registration process,” “channel re-assignment command,” and “multiple
`
`channel request (bandwidth-on-demand).” ‘883 Figure 9. As another example, C-Cation
`
`contends that the “ringing” command is yet another part of signalling data that is improperly
`
`excluded by Defendants’ construction. C-Cation explains that the “ringing” command merely
`
`2 The term is found only in the preamble but as the term relates to “signalling data
`channel” which is in the body of the claim there is no dispute that a construction is needed.
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 6 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 3416
`
`sends a message from the remote terminal to the central controller to indicate that the remote
`
`terminal is ringing. Thus, the ringing command is merely part of a series of messages sent
`
`between the terminal and the central controller and does not establish the channel or control the
`
`channel. Dkt. 191 at 4. Because Defendants’ construction excludes telephony commands
`
`relating to existing channels, C-Cation argues that Defendants’ construction should be rejected.
`
`Dkt. 187 at 13-14.
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendants note that the specification states that a “traffic bearer channel is established
`
`via signalling protocol over the signalling data channels” and that a channel is allocated via the
`
`“signalling protocol.” 7:47-49, 6:35-37. Defendants also cite to multiple extrinsic evidence
`
`dictionaries and glossaries to support their contention that “signalling data” relates to
`
`establishing and control of connections. Dkt. 188 at 9. Defendants maintain that the telephone
`
`commands cited by C-Cation all relate to establishing and controlling channels, and therefore are
`
`covered by their proposed construction. Defendants argue that C-Cation’s construction is overly
`
`broad and thereby removes any distinction between signalling data channels and user traffic
`
`channels. Dkt. 188 at 10.
`
`Analysis
`
`As Defendants’ citations demonstrate, signalling data includes data that is used to
`
`establish and control channels. 7:46-49, 6:35-37. However, the specification is equally clear
`
`that signalling data can do more than just establish and control channels. The telephony
`
`commands described in the specification include commands that relate to the establishment and
`
`control of channels, but also include commands that are more accurately described as being
`
`directed to controlling communications, such as the “incoming call command,” “release
`
`command,” “on-hook,” “off-hook,” “ringing,” “dial digits,” “coming call blocking,” and
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 7 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 3417
`
`“incoming call unblocking” commands. Figure 9. These functions all relate to a channel that is
`
`already in existence.
`
`Defendants do not argue that such commands are not “signalling data,” and contend that
`
`such commands fall within the scope of establishing and controlling channels. Although
`
`Defendants may intend to cover all of the telephony commands, the Court is persuaded that
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction does not make this clear. The ‘883 Patent relates in part in a
`
`broad sense to allocating channels and assigning terminals. Abstract, 2:35-58, 3:35-54. In that
`
`context, “establishing and controls” channels could imply a meaning that excludes many of the
`
`telephony commands from Figure 9 cited by C-Cation which are commands relevant to an
`
`established channel. The signalling data described in the specification may thus not only control
`
`the channel but also the communications (for example the telephone call) provided to a remote
`
`terminal over a channel.
`
`The Court rejects Defendants’ inclusion of “over which the central controller and remote
`
`terminals communicate” in the Court’s construction because the claim already includes
`
`limitations elsewhere concerning the relationship of the signalling data channels to the central
`
`controller and the remote terminals. For example, claim 1 recites “establishing communications
`
`between said central controller and said plurality of remote terminals via a plurality of signalling
`
`data channels” and monitoring “the signalling data channels in use between said central
`
`controller and said plurality of remote terminals.”
`
`The Court construes “signalling data” to mean “information concerned with the
`
`control of communications.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 8 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 3418
`
`B. “signalling data channels” (Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`channel(s) used for carrying signalling or data
`traffic
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`the exclusive channel(s) for carrying the
`signalling data and no more than sporadic
`(i.e., infrequent, isolated) user information, as
`distinct from channel(s) dedicated to carrying
`only user information
`
`The parties’ dispute focuses on whether signalling data channels are channels utilized for
`
`carrying signalling data (with only sporadic user information) or whether the channels can carry
`
`signalling or user traffic.
`
`Parties’ Positions
`
`C-Cation
`
`C-Cation asserts that the specification makes clear that there can be signalling data
`
`channels and traffic bearer channels (5:15-21) and makes clear the types of communications that
`
`each type of channel may carry:
`
`As depicted in FIG. 2, the bandwidth is channelized for carrying
`traffic in the forward and reverse direction. Data channels are used
`for carrying signalling or data traffic while bearer channels are
`used for carrying user traffic similar to circuits in telephony.
`
`5:58-62. C-Cation particularly notes the “signalling or data traffic” language. C-Cation asserts
`
`that though the specification describes embodiments in which only sporadic user data is sent over
`
`signalling data channels, there is no support in the claims or specification for adding such
`
`limitation to the construction. C-Cation asserts that signalling channels carry both signalling and
`
`data traffic while a traffic bearing channel carries only user traffic when required. Dkt. 191 at 3
`
`(citing 7:46-49).
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendants argue that C-Cation relies on one isolated line in the specification to support a
`
`construction of this term that is so broad as to encompass any type of channel. According to
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 9 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:
` 3419
`
`Defendants, the patent distinguishes between two types of channels (signalling data channels and
`
`traffic bearing channels) (Dkt. 188 at 6 (citing 3:4-11)), and note that the background and
`
`description of the prior art in the patent acknowledges that the dynamic allocation of traffic
`
`bearing channels was known in the art (Dkt. 188 at 6 (citing 1:32-35, 1:60-64)). Defendants
`
`argue that the specification focuses on allocating two different types of channels, pointing to
`
`passages in the specification that state how “the present invention presents a method to
`
`dynamically allocate both signalling data and traffic-bearing channels” (2:4-7), and how an
`
`object of the invention was to present “a flexible and extensible method for signalling channel
`
`management” and “a flexible and extensible method for assigning remote terminals to the
`
`signalling channels” (2:37-41).
`
`Defendants cite to the specification for evidence supporting their construction’s limiting
`
`of the term to “no more than sporadic . . . user information”:
`
`The controlled multiple access method is used, on each forward
`signalling data channel in parallel, for sporadic user data transfer
`or signalling purposes. (3:52-55; see also 7:41-43.)
`
`The signalling information or sporadic user data . . . . (13:8-13;
`13:17-19.)
`
`Sporadic user data shares the RF data modulator and demodulator
`with signalling information . . . . (13:59-63.)
`
`Defendants argue that the patent teaches communicating user data over the traffic bearer
`
`channels. Dkt. 188 at 4-5, 7. Defendants assert that this conforms to the ordinary meaning of a
`
`“signalling data channel,” which would be a channel that only carries signalling information.
`
`Dkt. 188 at 7 (citing extrinsic evidence dictionary). Defendants assert that the patentee clearly
`
`was his own lexicographer and limited the user data that can be carried on a signalling channel to
`
`only “sporadic data.”
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 10 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:
` 3420
`
`Defendants assert the lone citation relied upon by C-Cation actually supports Defendants’
`
`position because the language “data channels are used for carrying signalling or data traffic while
`
`bearer channels are used for carrying user traffic . . .” establishes that whatever the signalling
`
`data channels carry it is not “user traffic.” Dkt. 188 at 8 (quoting 5:59-62). Defendants maintain
`
`that C-Cation’s construction is divorced from the context of the disclosure.
`
`Analysis
`
`The parties agree that a signalling data channel is not limited to only signalling data. As
`
`C-Cation notes, the specification includes a description in which the signalling data channel
`
`carries signalling data and user data. 5:58-62. Defendants seek to incorporate a limitation from
`
`what is at most a single disclosed embodiment of a signalling data channel where the signalling
`
`data channel carries signalling data and only sporadic user traffic. 3:52-55; 13:8-13; 13:17-19.
`
`Defendants have not pointed to language where more than sporadic user traffic is disclaimed by
`
`the patentee, or was otherwise emphasized to be a point of novelty. Moreover, the ‘883 patent
`
`includes a passage in which the use of a separate traffic bearer channel for user data is described
`
`as merely being an optional alternative embodiment: “[i]f dedicated channel is required to meet
`
`the user’s need, the traffic bearer channel is established via signalling protocol over the
`
`signalling data channels.” 7:46-49.
`
`As to Defendants’ discussion of the background and prior art and the distinctions being
`
`made, the key concept in those passages was that the ‘883 patent discloses a method of
`
`dynamically allocating signalling data channels as opposed to only dynamically allocating traffic
`
`bearer channels. 1:32-35; 1:60-64; 2:5-8; 2:36-41. Such passages do not emphasize that
`
`something more than sporadic user data must be excluded from a signalling data channel. In the
`
`context of the intrinsic record as a whole, a signalling data channel is not limited to a channel
`
`that at most carries sporadic user traffic.
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 11 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:
` 3421
`
`The Court construes “signalling data channel” to mean “channels used for carrying
`
`signalling data; the channels may also carry user traffic.”
`
`C. Preamble Terms
`
`“Shared Transmission means for signalling data and user information” (claim 1)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Phrase should be given its ordinary meaning
`If construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(6):
`and does not require additional construction.
`
`To the extent construction is deemed
`necessary: a medium for transmitting
`signalling data and user information between a
`plurality of remote terminals and a central
`controller
`
`Phrase should not be construed under 35 USC
`§112(6). If, however, construction under 35
`USC §112(6) is deemed appropriate:
`
`Function: shared transmission of signalling
`data and user information
`
`Structure: includes: (1) airwaves; (2) coaxial
`cable; (3) fibre optic cable; or (4) wires.
`
`“User information” (claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Phrase should be given its ordinary meaning
`and does not require additional construction.
`
`To the extent construction is deemed
`necessary: information intended for a user or
`sent from a user
`
`Function: carrying both signalling data and
`user information.
`
`Structure: a physical medium or media having
`forward and reverse bandwidth separated into
`dedicated signalling data channels and
`dedicated user traffic channels as shown in
`Fig. 2
`
`If not constructed under §112(6):
`
`a physical medium or media having forward
`and reverse bandwidth separated into
`dedicated signalling data channels and
`dedicated user traffic channels
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`information, distinct from the signalling data,
`transmitted to or from end users of the
`system; also called user data or user traffic
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 12 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:
` 3422
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Same proposed construction as a “shared
`transmission means for signalling data and
`user information”.
`
`“Shared Transmission means” (claim 6)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Phrase should be given its ordinary meaning
`and does not require construction.
`
`To the extent construction is deemed
`necessary: a medium for transmitting
`communications between a plurality of remote
`terminals and a central controller
`
`Phrase should not be construed under 35 USC
`§112(6). If, however, construction under 35
`USC §112(6) is deemed appropriate:
`
`Function: shared transmission
`
`Structure: includes: (1) airwaves; (2) coaxial
`cable; (3) fibre optic cable; or (4) wires
`
`The terms in question are found in the preambles of claims 1 and 6. The parties dispute
`
`whether these terms are limitations of the claims. If the terms are limitations, the parties dispute
`
`the constructions of these limitations, including the applicability of means-plus-function
`
`constructions.
`
`Parties’ Positions
`
`C-Cation
`
`C-Cation asserts that these terms only appear in the preambles of claims 1 or 6 and are
`
`not claim limitations because the preambles merely provide a field of use, and the preambles do
`
`not set out any aspect of the invention because the body of the claims sets forth a structurally
`
`complete invention. Dkt. 187 at 6. C-Cation asserts that the relevant law is:
`
`A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, when the claim
`body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion
`of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the
`claimed invention. (internal quotations omitted)
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F. 3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and:
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 13 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:
` 3423
`
`It is well settled that if the body of the claim sets out the complete
`invention, and the preamble is not necessary to give life, meaning
`and vitality to the claim, then the preamble is of no significance to
`claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or
`explain a claim limitation. (internal quotations committed).
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002). C-Cation asserts
`
`that the preambles in question were not relied upon during prosecution and the particular terms
`
`do not affect the structure or the steps of the claim body. Dkt. 191 at 1. C-Cation also points to
`
`Federal Circuit law that a preamble “generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a
`
`structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the
`
`structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc., v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`
`289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the terms are construed, C-Cation asserts that the terms
`
`have ordinary meanings that need no construction. C-Cation also objects to Defendants’
`
`characterization of the terms as means elements. Dkt. 187 at 6-9.
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendants assert that the preambles “focus the reader on the invention being claimed”
`
`and recite a “framework” that is “fundamental” to the claimed invention. Dkt. 188 at 12 (quoting
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`Defendants assert that the specification emphasized that the invention sought to overcome
`
`problems of “shared common transmission media.” Dkt. 188 at 12 (quoting 1:15-20 and citing
`
`1:6-12, 2:65-3:1). Defendants assert that numerous other limitations found in the preamble are
`
`found in the body of the claim and asserts that when a preamble is employed in such manner, it is
`
`proper to construe the preamble as limiting. Dkt. 188 at 12 (citing Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog,
`
`LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`If construed, Defendants assert that the limitations in question are means-plus-function
`
`limitations and assert that their constructions conform to the specification. Dkt. 188 at 13-14.
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 14 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:
` 3424
`
`As to the “user information,” in the function of the Claim 1 means, Defendants assert that in the
`
`specification “user data,” “user traffic” and “bearer traffic” are used interchangeably.
`
`Defendants assert such traffic is described in the specification as being separate from the
`
`signalling data. Dkt. 188 at 10-11. In particular, Defendants seek to incorporate the concept that
`
`the communication medium must include separate user channels distinct from the signalling
`
`channels. Dkt. 188 at 10-11.
`
`Analysis
`
`Generally, a preamble is not considered a limitation of the claim. However, a preamble is
`
`properly considered a limitation of a claim “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is
`
`‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Where the deletion of the preamble
`
`phrase in question does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention, the phrase is not
`
`limiting. Am. Med. Sys., 618 F.3d at 1358-59.
`
`When the body of the ‘883 Patent claims in question are analyzed, the transmission
`
`means phrases do not affect the steps of the claimed methods. Here, the preamble merely recites
`
`the system environment in which the method steps may occur. A central controller, remote
`
`terminals and transmission means (the physical medium between the controller and terminals)
`
`are recited in the preamble. Notably, the claim steps never recite nor rely on what particular
`
`medium is used to connect the controller and the terminals. The claim then focuses entirely on
`
`the allocation of signalling data channels between the controller and the terminals. Thus, for
`
`instance claim 1 step (a) merely calls out establishing communication between the controller and
`
`the terminals such that signalling data channels are created between the controller and terminals,
`
`notably not including any limitations as to the particular physical medium used for the
`
`connection. The remaining portions of the claims focus on the assignment of, monitoring of,
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 15 of 44
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 222 Filed 07/03/13 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:
` 3425
`
`reassignment determination of and reassigning of signalling data channels. Similarly, claim 6
`
`describes the system environment. Claim 6 focuses on controlling multiple accesses between the
`
`controller and terminals. Claim 6 step (a) merely calls out establishing communication between
`
`the controller and the terminals such that signalling data channels are created between the
`
`controller and terminals, notably not including any limitations as to the particular physical
`
`medium used for the connection.
`
`The remaining elements of the claim focus on polling the remote terminals
`
`simultaneously by the controller to determine if there are pending requests and resolving
`
`contentions among the terminals by the controller if there is a pending request. The transmission
`
`means is not included in the claim body, is not needed to give “life or vitality” to the claimed
`
`steps, and the claimed steps are drafted without including any limitations as to the particular
`
`physical transmission means.
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the specification does not underscore t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket