IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:15-CV-1030-WCB
`(Lead Case)
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`SCRIPT SECURITY SOLUTIONS L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM,
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On June 23, 2016, the Court held a hearing to address the proper construction of the
`
`disputed terms of the three patents at issue in this case, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,542,078 (“the ’078
`
`patent”), 6,828,909 (“the ’909 patent”), and 7,113, 091 (“the ’091 patent”). After considering
`
`the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 134, 137, and 138), the Court issues this order setting forth the Court’s construction of the
`
`claim terms identified by the parties.
`
`All three patents are entitled “Portable Motion Detector and Alarm System and Method.”
`
`The patents are directed to security systems for detecting the movement of an object and
`
`actuating an alarm in response to the detected movement.
`
`The ’078 patent discloses and claims systems in which motion detectors sense the
`
`movement of an object, such as a door or window, and wirelessly transmit an alarm signal to an
`
`information-gathering device. The information-gathering device gathers information relating to
`
`the movement of the object and transmits that information to a remote device, which in turn
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`(cid:54)(cid:36)(cid:48)(cid:54)(cid:56)(cid:49)(cid:42)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`

`
`provides the information to a remote host. In the asserted dependent claims, the ’078 patent
`
`recites that the information-gathering device can include a camera aimed at the object (claims 2
`
`and 3); that the remote device communicates the information to a local computer to which the
`
`remote device is electronically connected (claim 8); and that the information conveyed includes
`
`image information and/or audio information (claim 10).
`
`The ’909 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’078 patent. The specification of the ’909
`
`patent largely tracks the specification of the ’078 patent, but it adds six new figures and six and
`
`one-half columns of new matter. The ’909 patent claims a system that can identify the particular
`
`detector that triggered the motion detector alarm. It also claims a system that provides a unique
`
`identifier associated with each motion sensor, wirelessly transmits that unique identifier
`
`information, and visually or audibly outputs that information.
`
`The ’091 patent is not a part of the ’078 and ’909 patent family. The specification of the
`
`’091 patent largely tracks that of the ’909 patent, but adds 32 new figures and 20 columns of new
`
`matter. The ’091 patent claims a security network in which the computer host is programmed to
`
`respond to security alerts from one or more portable security alarm systems and to provide
`
`information to the portable security alarm systems, including advertising information, other
`
`commercial information, or security alert notifications from a governmental agency.
`
`A. Agreed-Upon Claim Constructions
`
`The parties have agreed on the construction of several terms in the patent claims. The
`
`terms on which the parties have agreed are as follows:
`
`1. “remote host (’078 patent, all claims)
`
`The parties agree that this term should be construed to mean “a server at a remote
`
`location.”
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`2. “detector adapted to detect movement of said object and provide an
`
`indication of said movement” (’078 patent, claim 1)
`
`The parties agree that this phrase needs no construction.
`
`3.
`
` “remote notification device adapted to receive said information from said
`
`information gathering device, to establish data communication with a
`
`remote host, and to provide said information to said remote host” (’078
`
`patent, claim 1)
`
`The parties agree that this limitation is in “means-plus-function” form and thus is subject
`
`to the restrictions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).1 They agree that the recited function is “to receive said
`
`information from said information-gathering device, to establish data communication with a
`
`remote host, and to provide said information to said remote host.” They agree that the structure
`
`corresponding to the recited function is “a power supply, receiver, memory, and network
`
`interface.”
`
`4. “remote network host” (’078 patent, claim 6)
`
`The parties agree that this term should be construed to mean “a server at a remote
`
`location.”
`
`5.
`
` “unique identifier” (’909 patent, claims 1, 3, 12, 13, and 19)
`
`The parties agree that this term should be construed to mean “a number or code that
`
`uniquely identifies components of a system,” and that the term “does not necessarily require that
`
`the identifier be unique relative to all other motion sensing and transmitting means owned by all
`
`subscribers.”
`
`1 Paragraph 6 of section 112 was replaced by the newly designated section 112(f) when
`the America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on September 16, 2012. The new
`statute applies only to patents that issued after that date. Because the patents in this case all
`issued before that date, section 112(6) is applicable to this case.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`6.
`
` “communication interface” (’909 patent, claims 11 and 19)
`
`The parties agree that this term needs no construction.
`
`7. “programming means for receiving and storing said object identification
`
`information in association with said unique identifiers at said receiver to
`
`provide a local programming function” (’909 patent, claim 13)
`
`The parties agree that this limitation is in means-plus-function form. They agree that the
`
`recited function is “receiving and storing object identification information in association with
`
`unique identifiers at a receiver to provide a local programming function.” They agree that the
`
`structure corresponding to the recited function is “a data entry interface and a programmable
`
`processor, for performing the algorithm shown in Figure 18 and at column 15, lines 19-44, of the
`
`’909 patent.”
`
`8. “commercial information” (’091 patent, claim 2)
`
`The parties agree that this term should be construed to mean “advertising, promotional
`
`offers, or other information about the sale of goods or services.”
`
`9.
`
` “a computer host . . . being further programmed to provide information
`
`(’091 patent, claim 2)
`
`The parties agree that this phrase needs no construction.
`
`The Court accepts the parties’ agreed-upon constructions of each of the above terms,
`
`phrases, or limitations.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`B.
`
` Disputed Limitations from the ’078 Patent
`
`1.
`
` “detecting the movement of an object” (claim 1)
`
`The phrase “detecting the movement of an object” appears in the preamble of claim 1 of
`
`the ’078 patent. Script argues that the preamble language is not limiting and, accordingly, that
`
`no construction of that phrase in the preamble is necessary. The defendants argue that the
`
`preamble is limiting or, in the alternative, that the corresponding phrase “to detect movement of
`
`said object,” which appears in the body of the claim, should be defined to mean “sensing the
`
`motion relative to any variable initial position of an object.”
`
`The Court is persuaded that the phrase in the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, but
`
`instead merely describes the general purpose of the invention, which is defined in the rest of the
`
`claim. A preamble that adds nothing of substance to the claim, but simply summarizes the
`
`limitations of the claim that follow the term “comprising,” as in this case, is not treated as
`
`limiting. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“if
`
`the preamble ‘is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the
`
`limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art]
`
`rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.”), quoting Symantec Corp. v.
`
`Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The reference in the
`
`preamble to “detecting the movement of an object” is incorporated in the limitation in the body
`
`of the claim that recites “a detector adapted to detect movement of said object.” It is that
`
`limitation, and not the similar language in the preamble, that requires construction. Therefore,
`
`the Court concludes that the term is not limiting.
`
`With regard to the meaning of the limitation “a detector adapted to detect movement of
`
`said object,” it is clear to the Court that the term “object,” as used in the claim, refers to a
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`moveable object, such as a door, a window, or a baby gate. The term “detector” refers to any
`
`device that detects movement of the object.
`
`The key question in dispute with regard to this limitation is whether the claim language
`
`requires the detector to detect the movement of the object from any variable initial position (as
`
`the defendants claim), or whether the claim language is satisfied if the detector is capable of
`
`detecting movement only from a fixed initial position, as in detecting the opening of a closed
`
`window or door (as Script asserts).
`
`Script relies on the plain language of the claim. It points out that the claim language
`
`simply requires that the detector be able to detect “movement of said object,” not that the
`
`detector be able to detect movement of any kind or from any particular position.
`
`The defendants, on the other hand, rely on several passages from the ’078 specification,
`
`arguing that those passages indicate that the claim should be construed to require movement
`
`from any variable initial position. In particular, the defendants note that the specification recites
`
`that “[t]he invention relates generally to an improved motion detector and alarm system . . .
`
`which is easy to install and operate and is capable of detecting motion relative to a variety of
`
`predetermined positions.” ’078 patent, col. 1, ll. 20-25 (emphasis added).
`
`The defendants also point out that the ’078 specification discusses a prior art patent to
`
`Murphy that disclosed a portable alarm system in which the alarm was triggered by a switch that
`
`would close when an object such as a door was opened in either the inward or outward direction.
`
`Following the discussion of the Murphy reference, the specification states that “[a] need remains
`
`for a motion detection and signal generating system which is small in size, easily transportable,
`
`easy to install and which can sense motion relative to any desired initial position of an object.”
`
`Id., col. 2, ll. 14-17 (emphasis added).
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Finally, the defendants rely on a portion of the specification that states: “The object
`
`whose movement is to be detected need not be in any particular position when the end of
`
`retractable wire 22 is affixed thereto. If the object is a window, such as depicted at 25, the
`
`window may be closed, or it may be partially or fully open, when retractable wire 22 is affixed.
`
`Any displacement from its position when retractable wire 22 is affixed will be detected and
`
`alarmed.” Id., col. 4, line 64, to col. 5, line 3. Those passages, the defendants argue, show that
`
`the alarm system must detect not just movement by an object, such as a window or door, from a
`
`closed position to an open position, but movement from any selected starting position, such as
`
`movement of a door or window from a partly open position to an even more open position.
`
`As Script points out, the claim language simply refers to a detector “adapted to detect
`
`movement of said object,” and therefore does not itself require that the claimed alarm system
`
`must be capable of detecting movement from any selected starting position. The Court is not
`
`persuaded that the passages from the specification on which the defendants rely are sufficient to
`
`require that the claim language be construed in the restrictive manner proposed by the
`
`defendants.
`
`It is true that the specification states that the “invention relates generally” to a portable
`
`motion detector with several features, including the capability of “detecting motion relative to a
`
`variety of predetermined positions,” ’078 patent, col. 1, ll. 20-25, and that it identifies a need for
`
`a motion detection system that, inter alia, “can sense motion relative to any desired initial
`
`position of an object,” id., col. 2, ll. 16-17. But that does not mean that all the claims of the ’078
`
`patent require such a capacity. Claim 1, the most general claim, merely requires that the detector
`
`be adapted “to detect movement of said object.” Other independent claims of the ’078 patent are
`
`more specific with respect to the mechanism of motion detection. Claim 11, for example,
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`specifically calls for the use of “moveable magnet means coupled to said object such that
`
`movement of said object results in movement of said movable magnet means, [and] means for
`
`detecting movement of said movable magnet means.” That structure suggests a system capable
`
`of detecting movement from a variety of initial positions, depending on where the movable
`
`magnets are placed.
`
`While the use of terminology such as “the present invention includes,” “the present
`
`invention is,” and “all embodiments of the present invention are” have been held to constitute
`
`narrowing disavowals of broad claim scope when such terminology is used in the specification,
`
`see Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the
`
`words “the present invention relates to” have not been read in that manner. In fact, the Federal
`
`Circuit recently held that the phrase “the present invention relates to” did not rise to the level of
`
`manifest exclusion or restriction of claim scope. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2015-
`
`1725 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2016), slip op. 8-9. A fortiori, the even looser language used in the
`
`specification of the ’078 patent (“the invention relates generally to”) cannot be treated as
`
`disclaiming the broader claim scope suggested by the plain language of the claim.
`
`The other portion of the specification on which the defendants rely, the description of the
`
`“retractable wire” embodiment depicted in Fig. 1 of the patent, is just that: the description of a
`
`preferred embodiment. The preferred embodiment, involving the use of a retractable wire, could
`
`detect movement from a variety of initial positions, because the object “whose movement is to be
`
`detected need not be in any particular position when the end of retractable wire 22 is affixed
`
`thereto.” ’078 patent, col. 4, ll. 64-66. Any displacement from the original position will result in
`
`the retractable wire being moved and the magnet sensors signaling a displacement of the object.
`
`Id., col. 5, ll. 1-3.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`The portions of the specification on which the defendants rely thus characterize some of
`
`the advantages of some of the embodiments of the invention of the ’078 patent. Those
`
`advantages are reflected in language used in some of the claims. But nothing in the specification
`
`establishes that detecting motion from a “variable initial position” is a necessary feature of all of
`
`the claims of the patent, including claim 1, the most general claim. The Court therefore rejects
`
`the defendants’ argument that the phrases “detecting the movement of an object” and “a detector
`
`adapted to detect movement of said object” require that the detector be capable of “sensing the
`
`motion relative to any variable initial position of an object.” For that reason, the Court concludes
`
`that no construction is necessary for the “detecting the movement of an object” limitation.
`
`2. “information gathering device adapted to receive said predetermined
`
`signal, to gather information relating to said movement, and to transmit
`
`said information” (claim 1)
`
`This limitation appears in the body of claim 1, following the limitations reciting (1) a
`
`detector that detects movement and provides an indication of that movement, and (2) a
`
`transmitter that transmits a predetermined signal in response to that indication. The recited
`
`information-gathering device receives the signal, gathers information relating to the detected
`
`movement, and then transmits the information to a remote notification device, so as to provide
`
`that information to the remote host.
`
`The parties agree that the “information gathering device” limitation is a means-plus-
`
`function limitation. They further agree that the recited function is “to receive said predetermined
`
`signal, to gather information, relating to said movement, and to transmit said information.” With
`
`respect to the structure corresponding to the recited function, Script argues that the structure is
`
`“an RF receiver, a camera and/or microphone, RF transmitter, and a power supply.” The
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`defendants argue that the structure corresponding to the recited function is “an RF receiver, a
`
`camera, RF transmitter, and a power supply within a single device.”
`
`The Court rejects the defendants’ construction, which suggests that an RF receiver, a
`
`camera, an RF transmitter, and a power supply must all be present and that they must all reside
`
`within a single device. Nothing in the specification suggests that the structure corresponding to
`
`the recited function must include all of those components. Both the specification and the claims
`
`make clear that a camera is optional, as is the microphone. Moreover, the defendants’ suggestion
`
`that all of the components must be present “within a single device” might be misunderstood as
`
`suggesting that all of those components must be found within a single physical unit, as in a single
`
`discrete component within the system. While the claim language refers to an information-
`
`gathering “device,” the Court does not understand the use of the term “device” in that context to
`
`require that a discrete physical unit harbor all of the mechanisms that perform the recited
`
`function. The Court concludes that the claim language should be construed to refer to a “device
`
`consisting of an RF receiver, an RF transmitter, and a power supply, and which may also
`
`include a camera and/or a microphone, which performs the function of receiving the
`
`predetermined signal, gathering information relating to the detected movement, and
`
`transmitting that information.”
`
`3.
`
` “local computer” (claim 8)
`
`Dependent claim 8 recites that the remote notification device within the system
`
`“communicates said information to a local computer to which said remote notification device is
`
`connected.”
`
`Script argues that the term “local computer,” as used in claim 8, should be construed to
`
`mean “a computer that resides near the location from which information is retrieved.” The
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`defendants argue that this term should be construed to mean “a computer that is located within
`
`the premises at which the object is located.”
`
`The Court concludes that there is no express or implied restriction in the claim language
`
`that would require the computer to be housed within the same physical premises as the remote
`
`notification device to which it is connected. However, the use of the term “local” indicates that
`
`the “local computer” is not located at a great distance from the remote notification device.
`
`Moreover, the claim language makes it clear that it is not enough for the local computer simply
`
`to be electronically connected to the remote notification device. That is because the claim
`
`language separately requires such an electronic connection; the use of the term “local” must add
`
`something, which in this case is a degree of propinquity. Accordingly, the Court construes the
`
`term “local computer” to mean a “computer that resides near the remote notification device.”
`
`C. Disputed Limitations from the ’909 Patent
`
`1.
`
` “a portable security alarm system for detecting the movement of an
`
`object and providing information relative to said movement (claims 1 and
`
`19)
`
`The above-quoted language is from the preambles of independent claims 1 and 19 of the
`
`’909 patent. Script argues that the preamble language is not limiting, and that the claims of the
`
`’909 patent are not constrained by the preamble language. Alternatively, Script argues that the
`
`words “detecting the movement of an object” should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The defendants argue that the preamble is limiting and that the term “portable,” in particular,
`
`limits the scope of the claims of the ’909 patent.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`a. “detecting the movement of an object”
`
`The parties’ arguments regarding the “detecting the movement of an object” limitation
`
`are the same as their arguments regarding the “detecting the movement of an object” limitation
`
`in claim 1 of the ’078 patent. As was the case with regard to that limitation, Script argues that
`
`the phrase is not limiting and therefore does not need to be construed. The defendants argue that
`
`the phrase is limiting and that detecting the movement of an object means “sensing the motion
`
`relative to any variable initial position of an object.” For the same reasons given in part B1,
`
`above, the Court concludes that no construction is necessary for the “detecting the movement
`
`of an object” limitation.
`
`b.
`
` “portable security alarm system”
`
`With respect to the term “portable,” Script first argues that the preamble language
`
`containing that term is not limiting and that portability is not a requirement of the claims of the
`
`’909 patent. The defendants argue that the preamble is limiting and that all of the claims of the
`
`’909 patent require the security alarm systems to be portable.
`
`The Court concludes that the term “portable security alarm system” in the preamble
`
`limits the scope of independent claims 1 and 19 of the ’909 patent. Portability is a theme that
`
`runs throughout the’909 patent, and the requirement of portability is found in each of the
`
`independent claims of that patent.
`
`To begin with, the title of the ’909 patent refers to the motion detector as “portable.” The
`
`Abstract of the ’909 patent also refers to the system as “portable.” And the ’909 specification
`
`repeatedly emphasizes the portability of the system.
`
`From the outset, the specification touts the motion detector and alarm system as
`
`“portable” and “easy to install.” ’909 patent, col. 1, ll. 23-24. The specification criticizes prior
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`art sensors as “not easily relocated.” Id. at col. 1, line 54. The specification then explains that “a
`
`need remains” for a motion detector and signal generating system that is “small in size, easily
`
`transportable, [and] easy to install.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 12-14.
`
`
`
`The specification further provides that it is an object of the invention “to provide a
`
`movement detector and alarm system that is portable and is easily packed into a suitcase and
`
`transported with a traveler to be later installed on motel or hotel room doors, windows and/or any
`
`objects within the room, whenever additional protection is desired by the traveler.” ’909 patent,
`
`col. 3, ll. 7-12. The specification adds that the portable security alarm system “can be installed
`
`on a temporary basis and removed from an object whose movement is to be detected.” Id. at col.
`
`3, ll. 35-37.
`
`In addressing the “portability aspect” of the invention, the specification explains that the
`
`rear panel of the motion detector has “pressure-sensitive adhesive strips,” which can be “pressed
`
`into firm engagement with a window sill or doorjam” and which “will leave no marks when
`
`removed.” Id. at col. 9, ll. 47-53. The adhesive strips are designed to facilitate easy removal of
`
`the device “so that it can be transported to another location.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 6-7. Finally, the
`
`specification states that the system “can be carried in a brief case, a purse or overnight case from
`
`place to pace.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 60-62. The total weight of a preferred embodiment, according
`
`to the specification, is approximately 20 ounces, “and it has a volume which occupies a very
`
`small portion of a brief case, suitably sized purse or a suitcase.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 63-66.
`
`In responding to the evidence regarding the portability feature, Script relies on a line of
`
`cases holding that ordinarily the preamble of a claim is not limiting unless the preamble recites
`
`essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim. See,
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`e.g., Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Those cases, however, do not help Script.
`
`As the Federal Circuit explained in Catalina Marketing, when the preamble recites
`
`“additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification, the preamble may
`
`operate as a claim limitation.” Id. That is the case with respect to the portability requirement set
`
`forth in the preamble of claims 1 and 19 of the ’909 patent. The specification makes clear that
`
`portability is a critical element of the invention, and it is evident that the patentees simply used
`
`the preamble as the vehicle for incorporating that requirement into the claims.2
`
`In light of all the evidence regarding portability, the Court concludes that the reference
`
`to “portable security alarm system” in the preamble of each of the independent claims of
`
`the ’909 patent is limiting.
`
`In the alternative, Script argues that if the claims of the ’909 patent are construed to
`
`require that the alarm system be portable, the term “portable” should be defined to mean “[a]
`
`removable alarm system for security that is physically configured to be easily carried by an
`
`individual.” The defendants argue that the term “portable” should be construed to mean “[a]
`
`removable alarm system for security that is physically configured to be easily removable for
`
`transportation for use at another location and capable of being carried by an individual.”
`
`The difference between the two proposed constructions is not great; the defendants’
`
`version just adds the requirement that the system be “easily removable for transportation for use
`
`2 At oral argument on claim construction, counsel for Script acknowledged that the
`preamble of claim 19 of the ’909 patent provides the antecedent basis for the term “said portable
`security alarm system,” which appears in the body of the claim. That is further evidence that, at
`least for that claim, the preamble should be regarded as limiting. As the Federal Circuit
`explained in Catalina Marketing, “dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for
`antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and
`the claim body to define the invention.” Catalina Marketing, 289 F.3d at 808.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`at another location.” Script objects that the defendants’ proposed construction goes beyond the
`
`ordinary meaning of the term “portable.”
`
`The Court concludes that the defendants’ definition of the term “portable” is more
`
`consistent with the way the term is used in the ’909 patent. The specification makes it clear that
`
`the system is easily removable so that it can be transported to a different location, and that it can
`
`be easily carried by an individual in a briefcase or purse.
`
`In particular, as explained above, the specification repeatedly touts the ability of a user of
`
`the invention to readily and repeatedly install and remove the motion detection device for use
`
`and reuse, for example, in hotel rooms. Ease of installation, removal, and transportation are
`
`themes repeated throughout the specification. Script’s definition would fit a device that is small
`
`enough to be carried prior to installation (e.g., in a box from the store), but is designed to be
`
`installed permanently in a single location and would be difficult to remove or reuse elsewhere.
`
`The context in which the term “portable” is used in the patent thus supports the defendants’
`
`proposed instruction, not Script’s. See Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks,
`
`815 F.3d 1314, 1320-22 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing the terms “portable” and “mobile”).
`
`Accordingly, the Court concludes that the term “portable security alarm system” should be
`
`construed to mean a “removable alarm system for security that is physically configured to be
`
`easily installed, easily removed, and easily transported for use at another location, and
`
`capable of being easily carried by an individual.”
`
`2.
`
` “interactive response medium (claims 20-21)
`
`The term “interactive response medium” is used in dependent claim 20 of the ’909 patent
`
`and, by extension, in dependent claims 21-23. Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and claims 21-
`
`23 depend from claim 20. Claim 19 recites a portable security alarm system similar to the
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`systems recited in claims 1 and 15. Claim 19 adds a remote security administration system
`
`comprising a computer host, a communication interface, and a data storage resource, in which
`
`the computer host is programmed to execute a security alert system automatically, contacting and
`
`providing security information to a location designated by the subscriber. Claim 20 adds that the
`
`location includes an “interactive response medium.”
`
`Script argues that this term means “a communication media such as telephone, IRC, or
`
`email.” The defendants argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and
`
`therefore does not require construction.
`
`In the discussion of the conveyance of security information to a location designated by
`
`the subscriber, the specification refers to the location being, for example, “a voice telephone
`
`number, a facsimile telephone number, an email address, an IRC (Internet Relay Chat) address,
`
`or otherwise.” ’909 patent, col. 17, ll. 25-27; see also id. at col. 17, ll. 41-43, 54-60.
`
`The Court is concerned that a jury might not understand the term “interactive response
`
`medium” without some definitional assistance. Because Script’s proposed definition accords
`
`with the specification’s discussion of that limitation, the Court will adopt Script’s proposed
`
`construction, but will spell out the meaning of IRC. Accordingly, the Court construes the term
`
`“interactive response medium” to mean a “communication medium such as telephone,
`
`Internet Relay Chat, or email.”
`
`D. Disputed Limitations from the ’091 Patent
`
`1.
`
` “portable security alarm system” (claim 2)
`
`Claim 2 of the ’091 patent begins by reciting “[a] security network comprising a security
`
`administration system and at least one portable security alarm system.” The parties’ arguments
`
`regarding the meaning of the “portable security alarm system” limitation in claim 2 of the ’091
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`patent are the same as their arguments regarding the “portable security alarm system” limitation
`
`in claims 1 and 19 of the ’909 patent. Script argues that this