**United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit**

04-1154

IRDETO ACCESS, INC.

(formerly known as TV/COM International, Inc.),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v\.

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION

(now known as EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.),

Defendant-Appellee,

and

KUDELSKI, S.A. and NAGRAVISION S.A.,

Defendants-Appellees.

[David A. York]{.underline}, Latham & Watkins LLP, of Menlo Park,
California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was
[David S. Foster]{.underline}, of Chicago, Illinois.

[Philip L. Cohan]{.underline}, Piper Rudnick LLP, of Washington, DC,
argued for all of the defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was
[James M. Heintz]{.underline} for Kudelski, S.A., et al. Also on the
brief was [Robert R. Brunelli]{.underline}, Sheridan Ross, P.C., of
Denver, Colorado, for Echostar Satellite Corporation.

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-1154

IRDETO ACCESS, INC.

(formerly known as TV/COM International, Inc.),

> Plaintiff-Appellant,

v\.

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION

(now known as Echostar Satellite L.L.C.),

> Defendant-Appellee,
>
> and

KUDELSKI, S.A. and NAGRAVISION, S.A.,

> Defendants-Appellees.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

DECIDED: September 14, 2004

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Before NEWMAN, MICHEL, and BRYSON, [Circuit Judges]{.underline}.

MICHEL, [Circuit Judge]{.underline}.

Irdeto Access, Inc. ("Irdeto") appeals the decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado granting summary judgment of
noninfringement to Echostar Satellite Corporation, and Kudelski, S.A.
and Nagravision, S.A. (collectively, "[Echostar]{.underline}"). [Irdeto
Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.]{.underline}, Civil Action No.
98-M-1291 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2003) ("[Summary Judgment
Order]{.underline}"). Because we find no error in the district court's
claim construction, we affirm the summary judgment of noninfringement.

I. BACKGROUND

A. [The '020 Patent]{.underline}

Irdeto owns U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020 ("the '020 patent") directed to a
system for controlling the broadcast of digital information signals by
using three layers or tiers of complementary encryption and decryption
keys \-- "service keys," "group keys," and "box keys."

The '020 patent abstract describes:

> A method of controlling the simultaneous broadcast of enciphered
> digital information signals, for example in a radio or television
> broadcast environment, to a plurality of subscribers provides several
> levels of enciphering keys. The broadcast digital information signal
> is in a broadcast common service enciphering key and communication
> between the transmitter and subscribers may take place in a box key or
> in a group enciphering key common to a group of subscribers having a
> common interest in the reception of broadcast signals of a particular
> type. Each receiver will decipher the broadcast digital information in
> a specific service key which is common to that broadcast. The service
> key may be changed at one or more subscribers by communicating the
> change in the service key to the subscribers by means of the group
> enciphering key. Further, the group enciphering key may be changed at
> one or more subscribers or new groups may be formed among subscribers
> by communicating to the subscribers in one or more group enciphering
> keys.

B. [Specification]{.underline}

The specification describes "group keys" as "common to a group of
subscribers, all of whom are to receive a specific type of broadcast."
'020 patent at col. 2, ll. 23-24. "There may be a substantial number of
groups associated with a specific communication system and an individual
subscriber may itself belong to more than one or a plurality of groups."
[Id.]{.underline} at col. 2, ll. 24-28. The number, type, and
composition of groups change according to subscriber preferences: "From
time to time subscribers' tastes and desires in programming change and
thus it is necessary to change groups, to reform groups and to add or
delete subscribers from a particular group." [Id.]{.underline} at col.
2, ll. 36-39. Groups may be formed by content or geography:

> For example, there may be a group composed of those interested in
> adult movies, those interested in opera, those interested in specific
> types of sports programs. The group may be formed of those in a
> specific geographical area. The numbers and types of groups are almost
> infinite and normally each subscriber will be able to belong to a
> plurality of groups and will have a group key and group ID associated
> with each such group.

[Id.]{.underline} at col. 5, ll. 28-36.

In the event that one or more group keys is compromised, a box key
peculiar to each subscriber provides "a final means for insuring
security and privacy." '020 patent at col. 2, l. 60. The individual box
keys allow the broadcaster to communicate in complete privacy with
individual subscribers, to reform groups or change the group key.
According to the specification,

> there need not be a logical distinction between group keys and box
> keys, or group addresses and box addresses. The box address/box key
> pair simply constitutes another [subscriber subset
> (group)]{.underline} to which there happens to be only a single
> member.

[Id.]{.underline} at col. 3, ll. 7-12 (emphasis added).

C. [Claims]{.underline}

Independent claim 1 recites a three-step method for the use and
distribution of keys to subscribers:

> 1\. A method of controlling the simultaneous broadcast of enciphered
> digital information signals to a plurality of subscribers in which
> each subscriber has a permanent box enciphering key; in which the
> broadcast digital information signal is in a service enciphering key;
> and in which communication to subscribers may take place in a group
> enciphering key common to a group of subscribers having a common
> interest in the reception of broadcast signals of a particular type,
> including the steps of:
>
> \(a\) simultaneously broadcasting digital information signals in a
> specific service key, which digital information signals are deciphered
> by subscribers having the service key,
>
> \(b\) changing the service key at subscribers by simultaneously
> communicating the change in service key to subscribers in at least a
> portion of a group, such communication being in the group enciphering
> key,
>
> \(c\) changing the group enciphering key in at least a portion of the
> subscribers in a group by communicating such change in the group
> enciphering key to the selected subscribers in the group, with each
> communication to a subscriber in the group being preceded by an
> address to designated subscribers in the group.

'020 patent at col. 6, ll. 20-43.

The other independent claim of the '020 patent, claim 4, recites the
receiver used to decipher encrypted signals:

> 4\. A receiver for deciphering broadcast digital information signals
> enciphered in a broadcast common service enciphering key including:
>
> \(a\) a service data decryptor using a broadcast common service
> deciphering key to decipher broadcast digital information signals,
>
> \(b\) memory storage means for retaining an individual subscriber box
> deciphering key, at least one changeable group deciphering key, and
> one or more addresses specific to a subscriber and its specified group
> or groups,

# 

> \(c\) and a control channel decryptor having a control channel input
> and being connected to said memory storage and service data decryptor,
> comparison means for determining if a control channel message is
> addressed to a specific subscriber, said control channel decryptor
> using the box deciphering key or a group deciphering key to decipher a
> control message as to a change in the service deciphering key or a
> change in or formation of a group deciphering key.

'020 patent at col. 6, l. 56 - col. 7, l. 7.

D. [Prosecution History]{.underline}

During prosecution, the examiner rejected all pending claims of the
application that issued as the '020 patent as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2, explaining that,

> The claims have certain "Key" modifiers, i.e. "box", "group",
> "service" which have no accepted meaning within the art thus \[sic\]
> are not understood. Applicant should make some attempt to
> differentiate the claimed keys and prevent them from being taken as
> the same element, i.e. the "box", "group" and "service" key are the
> same key.

Agreeing that the "key" modifiers have no accepted meaning in the art,
applicant responded:

> Referring first to the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 on the
> basis that the claims have certain "key" modifiers which have no
> accepted meaning in the art, we believe the Examiner is well aware of
> the substantial body of law which states that a patentee or in this
> case a patent applicant may be his own lexicographer. We believe that
> the modifiers for key \-- "box", "group" and "service" \-- are very
> adequately described in the specification and therefore there is a
> complete foundation for the use of these terms in the claims.

Applicant concluded that "\[e\]verything considered, we do not believe
there is any accepted terminology in the art and since the applicants
have described their specific keys in the specification, we believe that
the claims are not indefinite."

In addressing a rejection of all claims for obviousness, applicant,
[inter alia]{.underline}, amended claim 1 to add step 1(c), and
explained that "\[a\] group may be as small as a single individual or it
may be substantially larger." Applicant then summed up the novelty of
the invention as follows:

> We repeat that the art does not disclose a three-tier communication
> system or the possibility of reforming or changing or creating [new
> groups within a subscriber base]{.underline} by communicating to
> individual subscribers in either a box key or in a group key.

(emphasis added).

The Examiner thereafter allowed all pending claims.

E. [The Accused DISH Network System]{.underline}

In the accused DISH Network system, digital television signals are
encrypted and decrypted using a key called a "Control Word." The
district court found, and the parties do not dispute, that Control Words
correspond to the "service keys" in claim 1(a). The DISH Network changes
Control Words very frequently. Changes in Control Words are, in turn,
communicated through Entitlement Control Messages or ECMs \-- encrypted
using the so-called "Transmission Key" \-- broadcast to all active
receivers within the system. As the district court found, and as the
parties do not dispute, the Transmission Key is shared by all
subscribers within the DISH Network system. It is also undisputed that
the accused system has no key associated with groups organized by viewer
programming preference, geographic area, or any other subset of the
total DISH Network subscriber base, that is used to encipher messages
communicating new Control Words.

F. [District Court Proceedings]{.underline}

Irdeto brought suit against Echostar on June 12, 1998, alleging that the
DISH Network system infringed the '020 patent as well as U.S. Patent No.
4,531,021; the latter is not at issue in this appeal. On April 13, 2001,
Irdeto moved for summary judgment of infringement of claim 1 of the '020
patent. Echostar opposed the motion and cross-moved for noninfringement
of all claims of the '020 patent. Following a [Markman]{.underline}
hearing with respect to the '020 patent on September 20, 2002, the
district court issued a claim construction order on October 15, 2002.
[Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.]{.underline}, Civil
Action No. 98-M-1291 (D. Colo. Oct. 15, 2002) ("[Claim Construction
Order]{.underline}"). The court construed the term "group" in the "group
enciphering key" limitation of claim 1(c) and "group deciphering key"
limitations of claim 4(b) and (c) as keys "associated with a subset of
the total subscriber base." [Claim Construction Order]{.underline} at
10. Based on the patent applicant's representation to the PTO that the
"key" modifiers \-- lacking an accepted meaning within the art \-- are
"very adequately described in the specification," the court held that
"the term 'group' must be defined as it is in the specification, even if
the ordinary meaning of group might be broader." [Id.]{.underline} at 11
(citation omitted). The district court determined that the specification
consistently uses the term "group" to refer to fewer than all
subscribers. "Notably," the district court emphasized, "in discussing
the box address/box key pair, the specification describes them as
another '[subscriber subset (group)]{.underline}.'" [Id.]{.underline} at
10.

As noted above, it is uncontested that the DISH Network system lacks an
encryption key associated with only a subset of all subscribers. The
"Transmission Key" used by the DISH Network is common to
[all]{.underline} subscribers within the network. Having construed
"group key" as associated with fewer than all subscribers within the
network, the district court denied Irdeto's motion for summary judgment
of infringement of claim 1, and granted Echostar's motion for summary
judgment of noninfringement of all claims of the '020 patent.

The district court entered final judgment on December 4, 2003, and
Irdeto timely appealed to this court, which has jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We heard oral argument on August 6, 2004.

II\. DISCUSSION

A. [Standard of Review]{.underline}

Claim construction is a question of law subject to [de novo]{.underline}
review on appeal. [Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.]{.underline}, 138
F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Summary judgment of no
literal infringement is proper "when no genuine issue of material fact
exists, in particular, when no reasonable jury could find that every
limitation recited in the properly construed claim either is or is not
found in the accused device." [Bai v. L & L Wings]{.underline}, 160 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The parties agree that the Transmission Key in the accused DISH Network
system is broadcast to all subscribers within the subscription base. The
parties further agree that the accused system has no encryption key
associated with a subset of all subscribers within the network.
Accordingly, if this court agrees with the district court's construction
of "group key" as pertaining to fewer than all subscribers in the
claimed system, we must affirm summary judgment of noninfringement.

B. [Analysis]{.underline}

Claim construction analysis begins with the intrinsic evidence.
[Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc]{.underline}., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
(Fed. Cir. 1996). It is well-established that the patentee can act as
his own lexicographer, so long as he clearly states any special
definitions of the claim terms in the patent specification or file
history. [Id.]{.underline} Even when guidance is not provided in
explicit definitional format, "the specification may define claim terms
'by implication' such that the meaning may be \'found in or ascertained
by a reading of the patent documents.'" [Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc.
v. Covad Communications Group, Inc.]{.underline}, 262 F.3d 1258, 1268
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting [Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 1584
n.6](http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=1d6e98bdadb7cf019f5a8917ad5a3b3b&_xfercite=<cite cc%3D"USA"><!%5BCDATA%5B2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14015%5D%5D><%2Fcite>&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=92&_butInline=1&_butinfo=<cite cc%3D"USA"><!%5BCDATA%5B90 F.3d 1576%2Cat 1582%5D%5D><%2Fcite>&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAl&_md5=c80db5f4ed2c3e3e5042f8a5f0a5ae09)).
Moreover, if a disputed term has "no previous meaning to those of
ordinary skill in the prior art\[,\] its meaning, then, must be found
\[elsewhere\] in the patent." [J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue
Co.]{.underline}, 106 F.3d 1563, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Consistent with the term's usage in the specification, the district
court construed "group key" in claims 1 and 4 to mean a key associated
with a subset of the total subscriber base. Irdeto challenges this
construction on appeal, arguing that the district court departed from
the ordinary meaning of the term "group." Relying on this court's
pronouncements regarding the "'heavy presumption' that \[the claims\]
mean what they say," [Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.]{.underline},
358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Irdeto proffers definitions from a
general-usage dictionary to show that nothing in the "ordinary meaning"
of the claim terms requires limiting "group" to fewer than all
subscribers. Absent "clear disclaimer" or words of "manifest exclusion,"
Irdeto argues, the heavy presumption of ordinary meaning must apply.
Here, Irdeto claims, the intrinsic record lacks such clear disavowal.

Echostar, on the other hand, contends that there can be no such "heavy
presumption" where a disputed term lacks an accepted meaning in the art.
We agree. As we held in [J.T. Eaton]{.underline}, absent such an
accepted meaning, we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided
for by the patent itself. 106 F.3d at 1570. The duty thus falls on the
patent applicant to provide a precise definition for the disputed term.
[Id]{.underline}. Moreover, where evidence such as expert testimony or
technical dictionaries demonstrates that artisans would attach a special
meaning to a claim term or would attach no meaning at all to the claim
term independent of the specification "general-usage dictionaries are
rendered irrelevant with respect to that term . . ." [Vanderlande Indus.
Nederland BV v. Int'l Trade Comm'n]{.underline}, 366 F.3d 1311, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2004). "\[A\] general-usage dictionary cannot overcome
credible art-specific evidence of the meaning or lack of meaning of a
claim term." [Id.]{.underline} (citation omitted).

Here, applicant informed the examiner and all competitors that the "key"
modifiers \-- "service," "group," and "box" \-- have no accepted meaning
in the art and "are very adequately described in the specification." The
applicant's use of those terms in the specification thus controls their
scope.

Irdeto faults the district court for reading the preferred embodiment
into the claims. Just because the applicant told the examiner that the
terms "service," "group," and "box" modifying "key" are "very adequately
described in the specification," Irdeto maintains, does not transform
every aspect of the preferred embodiment into a claim limitation. Irdeto
points to language such as "for example," "may," and "normally" in the
following specification passage as evidence of the district court's
error:

> For example, there may be a group composed of those interested in
> adult movies, those interested in opera, those interested in specific
> types of sports programs. The group may be formed of those in a
> geographical area. The number and types of groups are almost infinite
> and normally each subscriber will be able to belong to a plurality of
> groups and will have a group key and group ID associated with each
> such group.

'020 patent at col. 5, ll. 28-36. All examples in the specification,
Irdeto argues, are permissive rather than mandatory, illustrative rather
than exhaustive, and do not necessarily or explicitly exclude a group
made up of all subscribers. Echostar responds that the specification
describes [every]{.underline} group as a subscriber subset and lacks any
disclosure of a group that includes [all]{.underline} subscribers.

Indeed, the specification consistently uses the term "group" to refer to
a subset of all subscribers. The specification teaches that service key
change messages take place in the "group key which is common to a group
of subscribers, all of whom are to receive a specific type of
broadcast." '020 patent at col. 2, ll. 22-24. "There may be a
substantial number of groups associated with a specific communication
system and an individual subscriber may itself belong to more than one
of a plurality of groups." [Id.]{.underline} at col. 2, ll. 24-28. As
subscribers' "tastes and desires in programming change," it is
"necessary to change groups, to reform groups and to add or delete
subscribers from a particular group." [Id.]{.underline} at col. 2, ll.
36-39. And,

> if a substantial portion of a current group is to be involved in a new
> group, the broadcaster may address those subscribers to form the new
> group in the group key but with the message being preceded by the
> individual IDS of those particular subscribers. Thus the broadcaster
> may form new groups, delete subscribers from a particular group, etc.,
> all by communicating to the subscribers within the concept of the
> group identification and the group key.

[Id.]{.underline} at col. 5, ll. 42-51. Nowhere does the specification
contemplate a single group made up of the entire subscriber base.

Instead, the specification consistently equates group with a
[subset]{.underline} of all subscribers. The passage characterizing the
box address/box key pair as "simply . . . another subscriber [subset
(group)]{.underline}," '020 patent at col. 3, ll. 9-11 (emphasis added),
is most telling. Irdeto attempts to explain away this passage by arguing
that because a group may be a subset as small as one subscriber, in that
particular instance, the group key/group address and box key/box address
pairs overlap. Yet Irdeto cannot explain every example in the
specification, all of which consistently point to an implicit definition
of group as a subset of all subscribers in the system. [See]{.underline}
[Bell Atl.]{.underline}, 262 F.3d at 1271 ("Thus, when a patentee uses a
claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner
consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term 'by
implication'."); [see also]{.underline} [Vitronics]{.underline}, 90 F.3d
at 1582 ("The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly
defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by
implication.").

Irdeto argues that only statements of "clear disclaimer" in language
expressly indicating "manifest exclusion or restriction" can overcome
the "heavy presumption" in favor of ordinary meaning, citing our recent
cases such as [Liebel-Flarsheim]{.underline}, 358 F.3d at 913;
[Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.]{.underline}, 334
F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2003); [Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
Corp.]{.underline}, 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Relying on
these cases \-- with little or no analysis of their holdings \-- does
not help Irdeto.

The cited cases are not in conflict with [Bell Atlantic]{.underline},
which held that terms may be redefined away from their ordinary meaning
by their consistent use in the specification. In fact,
[Teleflex]{.underline} discusses [Bell Atlantic]{.underline} without any
disapproval of its methodology or result, stating that "\[a\]lthough
\[in [Bell Atlantic]{.underline}\] the term's ordinary meaning may have
supported a broader reading, we found that 'the patentees defined the
term "mode" by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout
the '786 patent specification.'" [Teleflex]{.underline}, 299 F.3d at
1327 (citations omitted).

In [Liebel-Flarsheim]{.underline}, the district court interpreted a
claim that recited a "syringe receiving opening" to require that the
claimed syringe loading system use pressure jackets, because all of the
embodiments described in the specification featured such pressure
jackets. 358 F.3d at 901. In reversing, this court noted that the
specification did not define the term "opening" to require that the
term, as used in each of the claims, be limited to an opening at the
front end of a pressure jacket, nor did the court find anything in the
specification that supported the district court's conclusion that the
term "opening" was ambiguous as used in the patent. Moreover, the court
concluded that the written description "does not contain a clear
disavowal of embodiments lacking a pressure jacket" and does not
"expressly [or by clear implication restrict the scope of the
invention]{.underline} to injectors using a pressure jacket."
[Id.]{.underline} at 908 (emphasis added). Once again, redefinition by
implication was not criticized as a methodology.

In [Liebel-Flarsheim]{.underline}, our construction found further
support in the prosecution history, "squarely contrary" to limiting the
claims to require pressure jackets. [Id.]{.underline} at 909. Because
patent applicants replaced claims referring to a pressure jacket with
new claims removing all such references, we held that applicants clearly
intended the asserted claims to cover injectors without pressure
jackets. [Id]{.underline}. The prosecution history thus affirmatively
precluded a narrow reading of the claim language.

Similarly, in [Brookhill]{.underline}, we declined to limit the term
"remote location" to "a location outside the operating room" based on
the single embodiment described in the specification, especially where
amendments in the prosecution history specifically supported the broader
construction. 334 F.3d at 1302. While the preferred embodiment
contemplated a surgeon located outside of the operating room, the
written description as a whole contained no specific parameters as to
the distance between the surgeon and patient and generally taught that
"a surgeon using the disclosed assembly may operate [without directly
touching the patient]{.underline}, the surgical instruments, or the
endoscope \-- regardless of the extent of the physical separation
between the surgeon and the patient." [Id.]{.underline} at 1300
(emphasis added). During prosecution, patentee overcame an
indefiniteness rejection for the phrase "remote location beyond a range
of direct visual contact," by replacing the word "visual" with "manual,"
clarifying that the amended text "means that the remote location is
beyond the arm's reach of the patient." [Id.]{.underline} at 1302.
Accordingly, we construed "remote location beyond a range of direct
manual contact" to encompass all locations where the surgeon is beyond
direct physical contact with the patient, including inside the operating
room, as in the accused system, and outside the operating room. As in
[Liebel-Flarsheim]{.underline}, the prosecution history specifically
endorsed the broader construction.

Most importantly, neither [Liebel-Flarsheim]{.underline} nor
[Brookhill]{.underline} nor [Teleflex]{.underline} involved a situation
where the applicant admitted that certain claim terms lacked any agreed
upon meaning in the art \-- [i.e.]{.underline}, ordinary meaning \-- and
unequivocally directed the patent examiner, as well as the public, to
the specification as the complete source of meaning for the disputed
terms by stating that those terms "are very adequately described in the
specification and therefore there is a complete foundation for the use
of those terms in the claims." Patentee's clear intent to rely on the
four corners of his patent to define fully the terms at issue thus takes
this case out of the "heavy presumption" regime of our cases.

In short, the district court correctly construed the term "group" in
claims 1 and 4 to pertain only to a subset of all subscribers to the
claimed broadcast system. A contrary result, moreover, would undermine
the notice function of the patent itself. What Irdeto, in effect, argues
is that even after telling the PTO and the public that given the absence
of ordinary meaning in the art for the term "group," the specification
sets forth the full intended scope of that term, a patentee can
nonetheless later lay claim to a broader, general-usage dictionary
meaning of "group" absent [explicit]{.underline} narrowing statements in
the specification. This cannot be. Having conceded that the "key"
modifiers have no accepted meaning in the art, the applicant expressly
directed the public to the specification to discern that meaning and
thus measure the scope of the claimed invention. And while the
specification does not contain any statements of explicit disavowal or
words of manifest exclusion, it repeatedly, consistently, and
exclusively uses "group" to denote fewer than all subscribers,
manifesting the patentee's clear intent to so limit the term. The
specification also contains no affirmative indication that group can
consist of all subscribers within the system. A reasonable competitor
reading the patent could only understand "group" to refer to a subset of
all subscribers. The claims must be limited accordingly.

III\. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the district court's claim
construction. The district court's order granting summary judgment of
noninfringement in favor of Echostar is therefore

[AFFIRMED.]{.underline}