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