Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00580/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00580-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 517 U.S. 370 (1996).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Jajah Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Stanacard LLC,

Defendant. /

NO. C 09-00580 JW 

FIRST CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Jajah, Inc., is a provider of telephony services, including a “web-activated” calling service. 

Stanacard LLC is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156 (“‘156 Patent” or “Patent-in-Suit”). The

‘156 Patent covers methods and apparatuses for forwarding a telephone call to a recipient. 

Stanacard sent a notice to Jajah, contending that the telephone services offered by Jajah were

infringing the ‘156 Patent. In response to this notice, Jajah commenced this action seeking a

declaration that the ‘156 Patent is invalid and is not being infringed. In a counterclaim, Stanacard

claims that Jajah is infringing the ‘156 Patent, and seeks compensatory damages, an injunction, and

attorney fees.

On December 11, 2009, the Court held a hearing in accordance with Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc.,

1

 to construe language of the asserted claims over which there is a dispute. This

Claim Construction Order sets forth the Court’s construction of the disputed words and phrases.

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

II. BACKGROUND

A. The ‘156 Patent

The ‘156 Patent is entitled “Methods and Apparatuses for Placing a Telephone Call.”

The Abstract of the ‘156 Patent describes the invention as follows:

In one embodiment, the methods and apparatuses detect an identity of a caller; receive an

assigned incoming telephone number; identify a recipient associated with the assigned

incoming telephone number and the identity; and connect the caller and the recipient.

B. Procedural History

On February 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent NonInfringement and Invalidity. (Docket Item No. 1.) On March 23, 2009, Defendant filed its Answer

and Counterclaim for Patent Infringement. (hereafter, “Counterclaim,” Docket Item No. 10.) The

sole counterclaim is for infringement of the ‘156 Patent. On April 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed its

Answer to the Counterclaim. (Docket Item No. 12.)

III. STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

A. General Principles of Claim Construction

Claim construction is a matter of law, to be decided exclusively by the Court. Markman, 517

U.S. at 387. When the meaning of a term used in a claim is in dispute, the Court invites the parties

to submit their respective proposed definitions and a brief, outlining the basis for their proposals. In

addition, the Court conducts a hearing to allow oral argument of the respective proposed definitions. 

After the hearing, the Court takes the matter under submission, and issues an Order construing the

meaning of the term. The Court’s construction becomes the legally operative meaning of the term

that governs further proceedings in the case. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,

1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Court recognizes that claim construction is a fluid process, wherein the

Court may consider a number of extrinsic sources of evidence so long as they do not contradict the

intrinsic evidence. However, the Court acknowledges that greater weight should always be given to

the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

B. Construction from the Point of View of an Ordinarily Skilled Artisan

A patent’s claims define the scope of the patent: the invention that the patentee may exclude

others from practicing. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The Court generally gives the patent’s claims

their ordinary and customary meaning. In construing the ordinary and customary meaning of a

patent claim, the Court does so from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time

of the invention, which is considered to be the effective filing date of the patent application. Thus,

the Court seeks to construe the patent claim in accordance with what a person of ordinary skill in the

art would have understood the claim to have meant at the time the patent application was filed. This

inquiry forms an objective baseline from which the Court begins its claim construction. Id.

The Court proceeds from that baseline under the premise that a person of ordinary skill in the

art would interpret claim language not only in the context of the particular claim in which the

language appears, but also in the context of the entire patent specification, of which it is a part. 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Additionally, the Court considers that a person of ordinary skill in the art

would consult the rest of the intrinsic record, including any surrounding claims, the drawings, and

the prosecution history—if it is in evidence. Id.; Teleflex, Inc. v. Fisosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d

1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In reading the intrinsic evidence, a person of ordinary skill in the art

would give consideration to whether the disputed term is a term commonly used in lay language, a

technical term, or a term defined by the patentee. 

C. Commonly Used Terms

In some cases, disputed claim language involves a commonly understood term that is readily

apparent to the Court. In such a case, the Court considers that a person of ordinary skill in the art

would give to it its widely accepted meaning, unless a specialized definition is stated in the patent

specification or was stated by the patentee during prosecution of the patent. In articulating the

widely accepted meaning of such a term, the Court may consult a general purpose dictionary. 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

D. Technical Terms 

If a disputed term is a technical term in the field of the invention, the Court considers that

one of skill in the art would give the term its ordinary and customary meaning in that technical field,

unless a specialized definition is stated in the specification or during prosecution of the patent. In

arriving at this definition, the Court may consult a technical art-specific dictionary or invite the

parties to present testimony from experts in the field on the ordinary and customary definition of the

technical term at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. 

E. Defined Terms

The Court acknowledges that a patentee is free to act as his or her own lexicographer. 

Acting as such, the patentee may use a term differently than a person of ordinary skill in the art

would understand it, without the benefit of the patentee’s definition. Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at

1582. Thus, the Court examines the claims and the intrinsic evidence to determine if the patentee

used a term with a specialized meaning.

The Court regards a specialized definition of a term stated in the specification as highly

persuasive of the meaning of the term as it is used in a claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316-17. 

However, the definition must be stated in clear words, which make it apparent to the Court that the

term has been defined. See id.; Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582. If the definition is not clearly

stated or cannot be reasonably inferred, the Court may decline to construe the term pending further

proceedings. Statements made by the patentee in the prosecution of the patent application as to the

scope of the invention may be considered when deciding the meaning of the claims. Microsoft

Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349 (2004). Accordingly, the Court may also

examine the prosecution history of the patent when considering whether to construe the claim term

as having a specialized definition.

In construing claims, it is for the Court to determine the terms that require construction and

those that do not. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Moreover, the Court is not required to adopt a construction of a term, even if the parties have

stipulated to it. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 For ease of reference, the Court will refer to these as the “first wherein clause” and the

“second wherein clause.”

5

Instead, the Court may arrive at its own constructions of claim terms, which may differ from the

constructions proposed by the parties.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent

Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent provides:

A method comprising: 

detecting an identity of a caller; 

receiving an assigned incoming telephone number; 

identifying a recipient associated with the assigned incoming telephone number and

the identity; and 

connecting the caller and the recipient, 

wherein said caller has a plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers to choose

from, at least one of said plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers being associated

with said recipient, 

wherein each assigned incoming telephone number is associated with multiple

recipient telephone numbers, a particular telephone number of a recipient being determined

solely by a particular assigned incoming telephone number used by a particular identified

caller and without input of further data by said caller, whereby said caller is not required to

be within a particular network for making calls.

Claim 1 is a “method” claim that discloses a manipulative process that operates on various

“workpieces.” Claim 1 recites a sequence of steps; for convenience, the Court will refer to the four

steps as the: “detecting” step, “receiving” step, “identifying” step, and “connecting” step. 

Additional claim language is recited in two “wherein” clauses2

 and a “whereby” clause. These

recitals can operate as limitations on the claim. In construing the meaning of words and phrases in

the four steps, the Court will consider the effect, if any, the recitals in the “wherein” clauses or the

“whereby” clause have on claim construction. 

If the body of a claim recites a sequence of steps as a limitation, the patent claim should be

construed to require one. Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F. 3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

Moreover, a patent claim may be construed as having a limiting sequence if the method implicitly

requires that the steps be performed in an particular order. Id. at 1342-43. 

Here, the Court finds that Claim 1 recites some steps that must be performed in a particular

sequence. The first step recited in Claim 1 is the “detecting” step. The workpiece on which the

“detecting” step operates is “an identity of a caller.” However, there is no call from which an

identity can be detected until the “receiving” step. Claim 1 does not recite any method for the

“detecting” step to operate until the “receiving” step has commenced. Thus, based on the language

of Claim 1, the Court finds that a limitation of Claim 1 is that the “receiving” step must commence

before the “detecting” step can commence. 

Accordingly, the Court begins its construction of the steps in Claim 1 with the “receiving”

step.

1. “receiving an assigned incoming telephone number”

The “receiving” step of Claim 1 recites: “receiving an assigned incoming telephone number.” 

The parties dispute the meaning of various words and phrases used to disclose this step. 

The word “receiving” is a word commonly meaning a process of acquiring something. There

is nothing in the specification to indicate that the inventors intended to give the word “receiving” a

novel definition. The “receiving” step operates on an “incoming” telephone number. The word

“incoming” is also a common word that requires no further construction. 

The workpiece on which the “receiving” step operates is an incoming “telephone number.” 

The customary and ordinary meaning of the phrase “telephone number” is a sequence of numbers or

a sequence of signals associated with the sequence of numbers that can be used by a device that is in

a telephone network to initiate or to receive a telephone call. See e.g., OXFORD DICTIONARY OF

CURRENT ENGLISH 940 (4th ed. 2006). Ordinarily, when reference is made to a “telephone number”

being “received” it would be understood as referring to the circumstances that are attendant to the

telephone number being given to a caller so that the caller can use it to make a call. When the caller

actually uses the telephone number to make a call, this is ordinarily referred to as a telephone call

being received, not as a telephone number being received. Thus, the Court finds that in the

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 6 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Unless otherwise indicated, all bold typeface is added by the Court for emphasis.

7

“receiving” step, the inventors, as lexicographers are using the phrase “telephone number” to mean a

telephone call made by dialing an assigned telephone number.

The receiving step recites that the telephone number [call] on which the “receiving” step

operates is an: “assigned” incoming telephone number. The phrase “incoming telephone number”

is discussed in the general description:3

The methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call are shown in the context of

exemplary embodiments of applications in which a caller dials an assigned incoming

telephone number to reach a recipient that is associated with this assigned incoming

telephone number. * * * 

The plurality of devices 110 are each configured to include a speaker 208 and a

microphone 209. In one embodiment, each of the plurality of devices 110 is associated with

a unique telephone number. In another embodiment, multiple devices 110 share the same

telephone number.

* * * 

In one embodiment, the telephone number detection module 310 detects the

telephone number dialed by the caller. In one embodiment, the telephone number dialed by

the caller is an assigned incoming telephone number that corresponds with a recipient.

* * *

In one embodiment, the caller identification detection module 320 determines the

originating telephone number that the caller is utilizing when making the telephone call. 

In one embodiment, the caller's telephone number is detected by the caller identification

module 320 through a caller ID service. In this embodiment, the caller identification module

320 automatically senses the caller's telephone number through the caller ID service. In

another embodiment, the caller's originating telephone number is manually entered by the

caller.

* * * 

In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 dials the particular recipient's

telephone number and connects the caller with the particular recipient. In this example, the

assigned incoming telephone number dialed by the caller is associated with the recipient

within the system 300. The assigned incoming telephone number is configured to reach

the recipient at the recipient's telephone number when the particular caller dials the

assigned incoming telephone number. . . . In one embodiment, each of these assigned

incoming numbers is represented by a unique, conventional telephone number.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 2:47-51, 2:63-3:1, 3:44-48, 3:54-63, 4:24-32, 6:8-10.)

A person of ordinary skill would understand that the “receiving” step operates on a telephone

call that has been initiated by a user of the method dialing a telephone number that has been preassigned. 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 7 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 The “receiving” step operates on a call initiated by the dialing of an assigned telephone

number. Thus, under the language of Claim 1, the “receiving” step operates even if the “assigned”

“telephone number” is “incoming” from a caller that has not “associated” a “recipient,” e.g., the

telephone number is dialed by a non-subscriber. For example, if the “assigned” number that has

been given to a “particular caller” is “555-2424,” presumably, any time that “assigned” number is

dialed by anyone, even if the dialer is not the particular caller to which the telephone number has

been “assigned,” the “receiving” step would operate. Implicit in the “detecting” step and the

“identifying” step, however, is a control such that if the call is received from a stranger, the

limitations of those steps would not be met and the “connecting” step would not be performed.

5

 The Court reserves for later consideration any effect that absence of a “creating an

identity” step has on the method.

8

Accordingly, as used in Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase:

“receiving an assigned incoming telephone number” to mean:4

receiving a telephone call that was initiated by the dialing of a telephone number

that is pre-assigned to users of the method.

2. “detecting an identity of a caller” 

The Court next construes the “detecting” step. Claim 1 recites: “detecting an identity of a

caller.” Although the parties do not request construction of the words in this step, the Court finds

that it needs construction because the limitations of the “detecting” step impose limitations on other

steps in the method. 

The word “detecting” is a commonly used word that means “discovering.” The workpiece

on which the “detecting” step operates is “an identity of a caller.” Claim 1 does not recite a process

for creating “an identity” of a caller. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the

creation of “an identity” must have been done outside of the method but before the “detecting” step

can operate.5

 Thus, assuming that the caller has an “identity,” the Court considers what the

inventors meant by the phrase: “an identity of a caller.”

The word “caller” and the phrases “identity of the caller” and “caller identification” are

variously discussed in the written description as “the caller’s telephone number:”

In one embodiment, the caller identification detection module 320

determines the originating telephone number that the caller is utilizing when

making the telephone call. In one embodiment, the caller's telephone number is

detected by the caller identification module 320 through a caller ID service. In this

embodiment, the caller identification module 320 automatically senses the caller's

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 8 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

telephone number through the caller ID service. In another embodiment, the caller's

originating telephone number is manually entered by the caller. 

In both embodiments, the caller identification module 320 detects the caller's

telephone number. In one embodiment, the caller's telephone number identifies

the identity of the caller. For example, the caller assigns one or more telephone

numbers such that when these assigned telephone numbers are detected by the caller

identification module 320, the caller's identity is identified upon placing the

telephone call from one of the telephone numbers assigned by the caller.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 3:54-4:4.)

However, in addition to discussing “identity” as the caller’s telephone number, the written

description also discusses embodiments of the invention in which the “identity” of the caller means a

“profile for the particular caller.” In these embodiments, the caller’s identity means information

about the caller that has been gathered during a registration process that must have taken place

before the caller uses the method:

In one embodiment, the storage module 330 stores a record including

information associated with a particular caller. Each record illustrates a profile

for the particular caller. An exemplary embodiment of the information contained

within the record associated with a caller is illustrated in FIG. 4.

In one embodiment, the interface module 340 receives a signal from one of

the devices 110 indicating the assigned incoming telephone number that is dialed by

the caller. In another embodiment, the interface module 340 indicating the telephone

number that is being utilized by the caller to initiate the telephone call.

In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 connects the caller with

a recipient. In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 selects a particular

recipient based on the profile information associated with the caller. For example,

the caller programs the system 300 to connect with a particular recipient when

the caller dials one of the assigned incoming telephone numbers.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 4:5-24.)

Elsewhere in the written description, “identity” of a caller is discussed in terms of “the

caller’s name” or “log-in identification.” Here too, the “identity” information must be based on preregistration:

In one embodiment, the identity of the caller field 410 uniquely identifies the

caller. In one example, the caller is identified by the caller's name. In another

example, the caller is identified by a log-in identification.

In one embodiment, the number of the caller field 420 identifies a telephone

number specified by the caller that allows the caller to originate calls utilizing

the system 300. In one embodiment, the caller specifies multiple numbers. By

specifying multiple numbers, the caller is recognized by the system 300 when

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 9 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

originating a call from any of these specified numbers. In one embodiment, when a

call is originated from any of the numbers specified within the number of the caller

field 420, the system 300 recognizes the particular caller's identity associated with the

record 400. 

(‘156 Patent, Col. 5:18-31.)

Thus, the inventors do not limit “identity” to so-called “caller I.D.” “Identity” includes data

that is transmitted with the call or that can be determined based on that data. 

Accordingly, as used in Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase,

“detecting an identity of a caller” to mean:

identifying the originator of a telephone call from data that is being received

with the telephone call or from any other information that can be derived from

that data. Identity of a caller is not limited to the telephone number of the

device from which the call is being placed. 

3. “wherein said caller has a plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers to

choose from”

The Court next construes the first “wherein” clause because it relates to the “detecting” step.

The first “wherein” clause recites: “wherein said caller has a plurality of assigned incoming

telephone numbers to choose from.” The parties dispute the meaning of the words and phrases used

in this clause. 

The plain language of the first “wherein” clause recites that before a telephone call is made,

and thus before the “receiving” step can operate, through a process that must take place before the

method begins to operate, a “plurality” of “assigned telephone numbers” are assigned to the “caller.” 

The customary meaning of the word “plurality” is being plural, that is, more than one. See OXFORD

DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH 691 (4th ed. 2006).

In the written description, the inventors discuss embodiments in which the “caller” has

multiple assigned telephone numbers:

For example, the caller programs the system 300 to connect with a particular recipient

when the caller dials one of the assigned incoming telephone numbers.

* * * 

In one embodiment, the caller dials one of the assigned incoming telephone

numbers from one of the caller's telephone numbers associated with the caller.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 4:21-23, 7:31-33.)

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 10 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

Accordingly, as used in Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase, “wherein

said caller has a plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers to choose from” to mean: 

a condition that is met if a caller is registered as a user of the method, has been

assigned more than one telephone numbers and is free to choose one of those

assigned telephone numbers to make a call. 

4. “identifying a recipient associated with the assigned incoming telephone number

and the identity”

The “identifying” step of Claim 1 recites: “identifying a recipient associated with the

assigned incoming telephone number and the identity.” There are a number of phrases in the

“identifying” step and an associated second “wherein” clause over which the parties are in dispute.

a. “recipient”

The “identifying” step operates on a “recipient.” The parties dispute the meaning of the

word “recipient.”

The “identifying” step recites that the “recipient” is a workpiece associated with the

“assigned incoming telephone number.” In the “connecting” step, Claim 1 recites “connecting” the

caller and the “recipient.” The first “wherein” clause recites that one of the assigned incoming

telephone numbers is associated with “said recipient.” The second “wherein” clause recites that

each assigned incoming telephone number is associated with “multiple recipient telephone

numbers.” The word “recipient” and the phrase “recipient telephone number” are used

interchangeably. 

The written description uses the word “recipient” and the phrase “recipient telephone

number” interchangeably in some instances, and as distinct elements in other instances:

The methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call are shown in the context of

exemplary embodiments of applications in which a caller dials an assigned incoming

telephone number to reach a recipient that is associated with this assigned incoming

telephone number.

* * * 

In one embodiment, the telephone number dialed by the caller is an assigned

incoming telephone number that corresponds with a recipient. In one embodiment,

the particular recipient associated with the assigned incoming telephone number is

predetermined by the caller. By uniquely identifying the assigned incoming

telephone number dialed by the caller, the system 300 is able to determine, in part,

which recipient should receive the telephone call initiated by the caller. 

* * *

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 11 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

For example, the caller programs the system 300 to connect with a particular

recipient when the caller dials one of the assigned incoming telephone numbers. 

In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 dials the particular

recipient's telephone number and connects the caller with the particular

recipient. . . . The assigned incoming telephone number is configured to reach the

recipient at the recipient's telephone number when the particular caller dials the

assigned incoming telephone number.

* * *

In one embodiment, the same assigned incoming telephone number is associated with

multiple recipients. However, the recipients associated with this same assigned incoming

telephone number are unique based on the identity of the caller. 

* * *

In one embodiment, the recipient field 430 also identifies the recipient's true

telephone number that allows the system 300 to connect the caller with the recipient. The

recipient's true telephone number is dialed to reach the recipient. However, while

utilizing the methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call, the caller dials the

particular incoming telephone number to be connected to the recipient.

* * *

In one embodiment, this record 400 makes it possible for a user to dial an assigned

incoming call (call identifier) from an originating device with a corresponding originating

device number (origination device identifier) stored in caller field 420 and get connected to

a recipient communication device with a corresponding communication device number

(recipient device identifier) stored in recipient field 430, without requiring the user to

enter any access code or secondary telephone number. 

(‘156 Patent, Col. 2:47-51, 3:45-53, 4:21-32, 4:45-49, 5:42-48, 5:59-67.)

A person of ordinary skill would understand that the word “recipient” means a telephonic

device to which the caller desires to be connected.

b. “associated with . . .”

The “identifying” step recites identifying a recipient “associated with” the assigned incoming

telephone number and the identity. The parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “associated with.”

As discussed above, in the “receiving” step, a telephone call is received from a caller dialing

an assigned telephone number. In the “detecting” step, the identity of the caller that has dialed the

assigned telephone number is detected. The first “wherein” clause recites that the assigned

telephone number “[is] associated” with “said recipient.” The written description discusses

“associated with” as follows:

The methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call are shown in the context of

exemplary embodiments of applications in which a caller dials an assigned incoming

telephone number to reach a recipient that is associated with this assigned incoming

telephone number. 

* * *

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 12 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

In one embodiment, the particular recipient associated with the assigned incoming

telephone number is predetermined by the caller. 

* * *

In this example, the assigned incoming telephone number dialed by the caller is

associated with the recipient within the system 300.

In one embodiment, the same assigned incoming telephone number is associated

with multiple recipients. However, the recipients associated with this same assigned

incoming telephone number are unique based on the identity of the caller.

* * *

In one embodiment, the recipient field 430 identifies a particular assigned incoming

telephone number that is associated with a particular recipient. Further, each recipient is

associated with a unique assigned incoming telephone number. For example, if a

particular recipient is associated with a particular assigned incoming telephone number, the

particular recipient is connected to the caller when the caller dials the particular assigned

incoming telephone number from a telephone number that is specified in the number of the

caller field 430. 

* * *

In another embodiment, the recipient is determined, in part, by the recipient selected

by the caller to be associated with the specific assigned incoming telephone number as

shown in the recipient field 430 within the caller's profile. For example, the recipient of the

telephone call initiated by the caller depends on the assigned incoming telephone number

dialed by the caller and the recipient that the caller selected for the particular assigned

incoming telephone number. 

* * *

In use, a caller customizes the caller's profile by selecting particular recipients to

be associated with corresponding assigned incoming telephone numbers in one

embodiment. In this embodiment, the caller also customizes the caller's profile by selecting

telephone numbers to be associated with the caller. 

(‘156 Patent, Col. 2:47-51, 3:48-50, 4:26-28, 4:45-49, 5:32-41, 7:1-9, 7:25-29.)

In the embodiments that are discussed in the written description, the phrase “associated with” 

means that a co-relationship exists between the incoming telephone number that is being dialed by a

user, on the one hand, and a recipient, on the other. This association must be in existence before the

“identifying” step can operate. Indeed, the association must be in existence before the telephone call

is received. Nothing in the specification, including the Claims, recite a process for the operation of

the method if such an association does not exist prior to the caller dialing the assigned incoming

telephone number. 

Claim 1 does not recite any limitation on how the “association” between the number and the

recipient is performed. During the prosecution, the inventors discussed an “association” based on

designation by the caller at the time the call is being made or one based on a combination of predesignation by the caller and the identity of the caller: 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 13 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 The second “wherein” clause concludes with a “whereby” clause that is considered later in

this Order.

14

The particular recipient associated with the assigned incoming telephone number is

generally predetermined by the caller. For instance, the caller programs the system to

connect to a particular recipient when the caller dials one of the assigned incoming

telephone numbers, thereby creating a predetermined correlation. . . . In another

embodiment, multiple recipients are associated with the same assigned incoming telephone

number, but distinguished by the particular identity of the caller. In other words, the caller’s

identity at that called number correlates to a specific recipient, an association previously

made by the caller.

(‘156 Patent Prosecution History, Amendment, August 30, 2007.) 

The prosecution history confirms that a caller “generally” predetermines the association

between an assigned incoming telephone number and a recipient, but does not exclude other possible

ways of forming such an association. A person or ordinary skill in the art would understand the

phrase “associated with the assigned incoming telephone number and the identity” to mean, a

particular telephonic device that is identified as a device to be called based on the data that is

received in the operation of previous steps. 

Accordingly, as used in Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase,

“identifying a recipient associated with the assigned incoming telephone number and the identity” to

mean: 

determining a particular telephonic device that is to be called based on the data

received in the operation of the receiving step or the data detected in the

operation of the detecting step or both.

5. “without input of further data by said caller”

The second “wherein” clause recites “wherein each assigned incoming telephone number is

associated with multiple recipient telephone numbers, a particular telephone number of a recipient

being determined solely by a particular assigned incoming telephone number used by a particular

identified caller and without input of further data by said caller.”6

 The parties dispute the meaning

of the phrase “without input of further data by said caller.”

Preliminary to construing the disputed language, the Court considers whether the second

“wherein” clause relates to a particular step in the method. This “wherein” clause recites conditions

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 14 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

affecting determination of the recipient. As discussed above, the “identifying” step operates on the

recipient. A person of ordinary skill would understand this “wherein” clause to recite that a single

“assigned incoming telephone number” is used to associate multiple callers with multiple recipients.

The “identifying” step operates to identify the pertinent recipient based solely on the telephone call

having been made by a particular pre-identified caller. After reciting these conditions, this second

“wherein” clause adds, “without further input data by said caller.” This latter phrase would be

understood to mean that after the telephone call is received, the identification process operates

without requiring the caller to input any other data. 

The written description discusses embodiments in which the caller is required to input

additional data, such as a password or personal identification number in order to have a recipient

identified and connected. Another embodiment is discussed in which identification of and

connection to a recipient are based solely on receiving a call that is being made using an assigned

telephone number and detecting the identity of the caller:

In one embodiment, this record 400 makes it possible for a user to dial an assigned

incoming call (call identifier) from an originating device with a corresponding originating

device number (origination device identifier) stored in caller field 420 and get connected to a

recipient communication device with a corresponding communication device number

(recipient device identifier) stored in recipient field 430, without requiring the user to

enter any access code or secondary telephone number.

* * *

In one embodiment, the correct caller profile that corresponds with the caller is found

by matching the caller's telephone number as detected in the Block 620 with the number of

the caller field 420. In another embodiment, the caller enters a password or personal

identification number that identifies the caller.

* * *

In one embodiment, the caller dials one of the assigned incoming telephone numbers

from one of the caller's telephone numbers associated with the caller. Based on the dialed

assigned incoming telephone number and the telephone call initiated from one of the caller's

telephone numbers, the caller is connected with the recipient without further action from

the caller.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 5:59-67, 6:60-65, 7:31-37.)

A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the subject phrase limits Claim 1

to a method that operates based solely on the assigned incoming telephone call being received from

a pre-designated device. 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 15 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

Accordingly, as used in Claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase, “without

input of further data by said caller” to mean:

with respect to identifying the recipient’s telephone number, the caller need not

enter any data after the call has been received and the identify of the caller has

been detected.

6. “whereby said caller is not required to be within a particular network for

making calls”

The parties dispute the meaning of the “whereby” clause. Preliminarily, the Court considers

whether the “whereby” clause imposes limitations on Claim 1. 

A “whereby” clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the

intended result of a process step positively recited. Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc.,

336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, when a “whereby” clause states a condition that is

material to patentability, it imposes limitations on the claim and should be construed. Hoffer v.

Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1129 (Fed Cir. 2005.) 

Here, the “whereby” clause of Claim 1 is not a simple recital of the intended result of the

process. In the “whereby” clause, the inventors recite that the caller is “not required to be in a

particular network for making calls.” This phrase is not recited anywhere else in the body of Claim

1. Thus, a construction of its meaning affects the scope of Claim 1. Hence, the Court finds that the

“whereby” clause is limiting, and proceeds to construe it. 

The “whereby” clause uses the phrase “said caller.” This refers to the antecedent “caller” in

the “detecting” step. Above, the Court construed “caller” to mean the originator of a telephone call.

The “whereby” clause recites that the caller is not required to be within a “particular network for

making calls.” As previously noted, neither the word “network” nor the phrase “particular network”

appears elsewhere in Claim 1. The written description discusses the word “network” as follows:

[A] calling card caller is typically able to utilize any telephone within a general

geographic area to complete the telephone call without incurring any toll charges to the

originating telephone. 

* * *

FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an environment within which the methods and

apparatuses for placing a telephone call are implemented. The environment includes . . . a

network 120 (e.g., a local area network, a home network, the Internet, telephone

network) . . . . 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 16 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 As discussed above, in this method claim, the caller must be a subscriber and must invoke

operation of the method by causing a telephone call to be received by dialing an “assigned telephone

number.” Thus, the claim requires that the caller must use a device that is in a network with a

device that performs the “receiving” step. The device that performs the “receiving” step must be in

a network with the “recipient.” Finally, the caller and the recipient must be in a network in order for

the “connecting” step to operate.

17

In one embodiment, the caller utilizes interface 115 to access and control content and

applications stored in electronic device 110, server 130, or a remote storage device (not

shown) coupled via network 120. * * *

[T]he network 120 is configured to transmit electronic messages for use with the

customized application and is configured to transmit voice signals between multiple devices

110. 

(‘156 Patent, Col. 1:29-32, 2:20-26, 2:36-39, 3:19-22.)

A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the listed examples that the word

“network” means a system of interconnected devices. “Network for making calls” would be

understood to mean a network of interconnected telephonic devices. One would understand that in a

“network for making calls,” the telephonic device “for making calls” must be in a telephone network

with the recipient telephonic device at the time the call is made or the recipient device must be so

configured that it is capable of being brought into the telephone network with the caller in order for

the call to be connected. Thus, although the “whereby” clause recites that the caller is not required

to be within a “particular” network, the method requires that the caller be in a telephone network. 

(See ‘156 Patent, Col. 1:29-32, 2:20-26, 2:36-39, 3:19-22.)7

 

In construing the “not required to be in a particular network” phrase, the Court is confronted

with an insoluble ambiguity: If, in order to make a telephone call, the caller must be in a particular

network, namely a telephone network that enables the caller to make a call, how can the Court

construe the phrase “not required to be in a particular network” in a way that excludes that

“telephone network” from being a “particular network for making calls?” 

The purpose of the definiteness requirement is to “ensure that the claims delineate the scope 

of the invention using language that adequately notifies the public of the patentee's right to exclude.”

Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347. (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claims are

considered indefinite when they are "not amenable to construction or are insolubly ambiguous. 

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 17 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

Thus, the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable

meaning." Id.

The Court finds that the ambiguity with respect to whether the caller must be or need not be

in a particular network renders Claim 1 arguably indefinite. The Court invites the parties to address

the cited apparent indefiniteness of Claim 1 in appropriate motions. 

7. “connecting the caller and the recipient”

The parties do not request construction of the “connecting” step. The Court reserves

decision on whether to give a construction to the language of the “connecting” step pending further

proceedings in the case.

B. Claim 15 of the ‘156 Patent

Claim 15 of the ‘156 Patent provides:

A system, comprising: 

an originating telephone number module for identifying an originating telephone

number of a caller; 

a telephone number detection module for detecting an assigned telephone number

dialed by the caller; and 

a call connection module for connecting the caller with a recipient based on the

assigned telephone number and the originating telephone number, 

wherein said caller has a plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers to choose

from, at least one of said plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers being associated

with said recipient, 

wherein each assigned incoming telephone number is associated with multiple

recipient telephone numbers, a particular telephone number of a recipient being determined

solely by a particular assigned incoming telephone number used by a particular identified

caller and without input of further data by said caller, whereby said caller is not required to

be within a particular network for making calls. 

1. “an originating telephone number module for identifying an originating

telephone number of a caller”

The parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “an originating telephone number module for

identifying an originating telephone number of a caller.”

As a preliminary matter, the Court considers whether this phrase is written in means-plusfunction format pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 6.

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 18 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19

Title 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 provides:

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for

performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in

support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding

structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The statutory language makes §112 ¶ 6 applicable to a claim if an “element in [the] claim for a

combination” is expressed as a “means for” performing a specified function without the recital of

structure.

A claim limitation that actually uses the word “means” invokes a rebuttable presumption that

§ 112 ¶ 6 applies. By contrast, a claim term that does not use “means” triggers a rebuttable

presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382

F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The presumption that a limitation lacking the term ‘means’ is

not subject to section 112 ¶ 6 can be overcome if it is demonstrated that the claim term fails to recite

sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for

performing that function.” Id. (quotations omitted). “[T]he presumption flowing from the absence

of the term ‘means’ is a strong one that is not readily overcome.” Id. Determining whether a

limitation should be regarded as a means-plus-function limitation is a question of law. Id.

The Federal Circuit has not required much “structure” in order to find that a limitation that

does not use “means for” is not a means-plus-function limitation.

In considering whether a claim term recites sufficient structure to avoid application of

section 112 ¶ 6, we have not required the claim term to denote a specific structure. Instead,

we have held that it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons

of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of

structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function.

Lighting World, at 1359-60. In addition to examining how the disputed term is used throughout the

patent, a court should consult dictionaries, including technical dictionaries, to determine whether a

term “has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure, even if the noun is derived from the

function performed.” Id. at 1360-61.

Here, the Court focuses its analysis on the word “module,” and whether that word is so

lacking in structure that it should be construed under section 112 ¶ 6. Courts that have construed

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 19 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 The full claim limitation read as follows: “settable control module . . . for selectively

programming said motor for actuation thereof for a selected one period of time of a plurality of

periods of time, whereby the pad-like product can be automatically produced by said mechanism for

said selected one period without any further required action on the part of a machine operator.” Id.

at *1.

20

“module” have come down on both sides of this issue. Compare Roy-G-Biv Corp. v. Fanuc Ltd.,

No. 2:07-CV-418 (DF), 2009 WL 2971097, at *26-28 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2009) (finding not

means-plus-function); Palmtop Productions, Inc. v. Lo-Q PLC, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1364-65 (N.D.

Ga. Aug. 28, 2006) (finding not means-plus-function), with Ranpak Corp. v. Storopack, Inc., No.

98-1009, 1998 WL 513598, at *2 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 1998) (finding means-plus-function); Kozam v.

Phase Forward Inc., No. MJG-04-1787, 2005 WL 6218037, at *6-7 (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2005) (finding

means-plus-function). 

In Palmtop Productions, the court found that “communications module” had sufficient

structure to avoid construction under section 112 ¶ 6 because it found that “module” was more than

a mere verbal construct serving as a substitute for “means for,” the dictionary defined “module” in

terms of an assembly of electrical components, and, when combined with “communications,” the

term would have conveyed sufficient structural meaning to a skilled artisan. 450 F. Supp. 2d at

1365. In Roy-G-Biv Corp., the court found that “a control command generating module for

generating control commands based on the component functions of the application program, the

component code associated with the component functions, and the driver code associated with the

software drivers” had sufficient structure to avoid construction under section 112 ¶ 6. Specifically,

the court found that “command generating module” sufficiently denoted a structure in the relevant

art, and that the recited function itself contained sufficient structure. 2009 WL 2971097, at *28.

On the other hand, in Ranpak Corp., the Federal Circuit found that two similarly worded

claims—one that included “settable control means” and one that included “settable control

module”—should be construed under section 112 ¶ 6. 1998 WL 513598, at *2.8

 The Court stated

only that the word module in that case “merely set forth [a] black box without recitation of structure

for [performing the] specified function.” Id. Similarly, in Kozam, the court construed “a first data

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 20 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 21

verification module for verifying data entered at the remote, site computer” under section 112 ¶ 6

because the plaintiffs in that case conceded that the word meant nothing more than “a software

component” in the art and the court concluded that there was “no meaningful structure described.” 

2005 WL 6218037, at *6-7.

Here, the disputed word is used in the written description as follows:

In one embodiment, the system 300 includes a telephone number detection module

310, a caller identification detection module 320, a storage module 330, an interface

module 340, a control module 350, a call connection module 360, and an accounting module

370. 

In one embodiment, the control module 350 communicates with the telephone

number detection module 310, the caller identification detection module 320, the storage

module 330, the interface module 340, the call connection module 360, and the accounting

module 370. In one embodiment, the control module 350 coordinates tasks, requests, and

communications between the telephone number detection module 310, the caller

identification detection module 320, the storage module 330, the interface module 340, the

call connection module 360, and the accounting module 370. 

* * *

In one embodiment, the caller identification detection module 320 determines the

originating telephone number that the caller is utilizing when making the telephone call. In

one embodiment, the caller's telephone number is detected by the caller identification

module 320 through a caller ID service. In this embodiment, the caller identification

module 320 automatically senses the caller's telephone number through the caller ID service. 

In another embodiment, the caller's originating telephone number is manually entered by the

caller. 

* * *

In one embodiment, the interface module 340 receives a signal from one of the

devices 110 indicating the assigned incoming telephone number that is dialed by the caller. 

In another embodiment, the interface module 340 indicating the telephone number that is

being utilized by the caller to initiate the telephone call. 

* * *

The system 300 in FIG. 3 is shown for exemplary purposes and is merely one

embodiment of the methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call. Additional

modules may be added to the system 300 without departing from the scope of the methods

and apparatuses for placing a telephone call. Similarly, modules may be combined or

deleted without departing from the scope of the methods and apparatuses for placing a

telephone call.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 3:29-43, 3:54-63, 4:11-16, 5:3-10.)

The Court finds that the written description uses the word module in a manner that connotes

sufficient structure to a skilled artisan, “even if the word covers a broad class of structures” used for

detecting the originating telephone number of a call. See Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1358. Such a

well-known function as detecting the telephone number of a caller would be readily understood by a

skilled artisan in the context of the invention with minimal structural disclosure. Furthermore,

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 21 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 Additionally, Claim 14 describes similar functionality, but differs from Claim 15 in that it

is written in means-plus-function format. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, there is a

“presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope.” Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp.

v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). While this doctrine is “a guide, not a rigid

rule,” the Court finds that it weighs in favor of not construing Claim 15 under section 112 ¶ 6. Id. at

1381.

22

common definitions of “module” connote structure, including “a collection of circuitry that is

designed to perform a specific operation,” “a packaged functional hardware unit designed for use

with other components,” and “a logically separable part of a [software] program.” See INSTITUTE OF

ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING (IEEE) DICTIONARY OF STANDARDS TERMS 703-04

(7th ed. 2000).9 Thus, ‘156 Patent discloses sufficient structure to avoid construing “an originating

telephone number module for identifying an originating telephone number of a caller” under section

112 ¶ 6. Having found that the disputed phrase is not drafted in means-plus-function format, the

Court construes the phrase in light of the above analysis of the written description and ordinary

meaning of the word “module.”

Accordingly, as used in Claim 15 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase, “an

originating telephone number module for identifying an originating telephone number of a caller” to

mean:

a discrete component of hardware or software or both, that performs the

function of identifying an originating telephone number of a caller.

2. “a telephone number detection module for detecting an assigned telephone

number dialed by the caller”

The parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “a telephone number detection module for

detecting an assigned telephone number dialed by the caller.”

For substantially the reasons stated in Section IV.B.1, the Court finds that this claim

limitation is not written in means-plus-function format. In addition to the portions of the written

description discussed in Section IV.B.1, the following language in the written description pertains to

this disputed phrase:

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 22 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 23

In one embodiment, the telephone number detection module 310 detects the

telephone number dialed by the caller. In one embodiment, the telephone number dialed by

the caller is an assigned incoming telephone number that corresponds with a recipient.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 3:39-48.)

Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as discussed in Section IV.B.1, as used in

Claim 15 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase, “a telephone number detection module

for detecting an assigned telephone number dialed by the caller” to mean:

a discrete component of hardware or software or both that performs the

function of detecting an assigned telephone number dialed by the caller.

3. “a call connection module for connecting the caller with a recipient based on the

assigned telephone number and the originating telephone number”

The parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “a call connection module for connecting the

caller with a recipient based on the assigned telephone number and the originating telephone

number.”

For substantially the reasons stated in Section IV.B.1, the Court finds that this claim

limitation is not written in means-plus-function format. In addition to the portions of the written

description discussed in Section IV.B.1, the following language in the written description pertains to

this disputed phrase:

In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 connects the caller with a

recipient. In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 selects a particular recipient

based on the profile information associated with the caller.

* * *

In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 dials the particular recipient's

telephone number and connects the caller with the particular recipient. In this example, the

assigned incoming telephone number dialed by the caller is associated with the recipient

within the system 300. The assigned incoming telephone number is configured to reach the

recipient at the recipient's telephone number when the particular caller dials the assigned

incoming telephone number. 

In one embodiment, the call connection module 360 connects the caller with a

particular recipient based on the identity of the caller, the caller's profile, and the assigned

incoming telephone number dialed by the caller.

(‘156 Patent, Col. 4:17-20, 4:24-37.)

Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as discussed in Section IV.B.1, as used in

Claim 15 of the ‘156 Patent, the Court construes the phrase, “a call connection module for

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 23 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 24

connecting the caller with a recipient based on the assigned telephone number and the originating

telephone number” to mean:

a discrete component of hardware or software or both that performs the

function of connecting the caller with a recipient based on the assigned telephone

number and the originating telephone number.

V. CONCLUSION

In this Order, the Court has given its construction of submitted words and phrases of the ‘156

Patent.

The parties shall appear for a Case Management Conference on May 24, 2010 at 10 a.m. 

On or before May 14, 2010, the parties shall submit a Joint Case Management Statement. The

Statement shall include, among other things, a good faith discovery plan with a proposed date for the

close of all discovery and a stipulation as to a mediation process.

Dated: May 3, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 24 of 25
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

David S. Bloch dbloch@winston.com

James Chung-Yul Yoon jyoon@wsgr.com

Jason Charkow jcharkow@winston.com

Matthew A. Argenti margenti@wsgr.com

Scott R. Samay ssamay@winston.com

Seungtaik Michael Song msong@wsgr.com

Signe B. Purup spurup@winston.com

Dated: May 3, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:09-cv-00580-JW Document 51 Filed 05/03/10 Page 25 of 25