Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02267/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORP, 

Plaintiffs,

v

MANGOSOFT, INC, et al

Defendants. /

No C 03-2267 VRW

ORDER

On March 30, 2005, the court held a claim construction

hearing pursuant to Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc, 517 US 370

(1996). Based on the parties’ arguments at the hearing and their

submissions to the court, the court issues the following claim

construction order.

There is one patent-in-suit, relating to inventions in

the field of networked computer systems, and more specifically to

interrupting page delivery operations in a web environment. As the

court writes principally for the parties, it will not discuss the

details of the inventions or define terms well-known to those

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 13
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

skilled in the art, except as is necessary to construe the claims

of the patents. 

I

United States Patent No 6,317,790 B1 (the “‘790 patent”),

granted to Michael Bowker, et al, on November 13, 2001, discloses

“[a] system, method, and computer readable-medium for interrupting

client requests in a web environment.” ‘790 patent, Abstract. The

system includes “a server, such as a web server, for receiving a

request from a particular client,” but “[r]ather than directly

supplying the requested information, the server determines whether

unrequested operations should be performed,” and if so, the server

performs the operations before returning the the information

requested by the client. Id.

II

The construction of patent claims is a question of law to

be determined by the court. Markman, 517 US at 372. The goal of

claim construction is “to interpret what the patentee meant by a

particular term or phrase in a claim.” Renishaw PLC v Marposs SpA,

158 F3d 1243, 1249 (Fed Cir 1998). In determining what a patentee

meant by a term or phrase, the court looks first to the claim

itself.

The claims of the patent provide the concise formal

definition of the invention. They are the numbered

paragraphs which “particularly [point] out and distinctly

[claim] the subject matter which the applicant regards as

his invention.” 35 USC § 112. It is to these wordings

that one must look to determine whether there has been

infringement. Courts can neither broaden nor narrow the

claims to give the patentee something different than what

he has set forth. No matter how great the temptations of

fairness or policy making, courts do not rework claims. 

They only interpret them.

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 13
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

EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co v Phillips Petroleum Co, 849 F2d 1430,

1433 (Fed Cir 1988). 

“The claims define the scope of the right to exclude; the

claim construction inquiry, therefore, begins and ends in all cases

with the actual words of the claim.” Renishaw, 158 F3d at 1248. 

“The words used in the claim are viewed through the viewing glass

of a person skilled in the art.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v Intuitive

Surgical, Inc, 326 F3d 1215, 1220 (Fed Cir 2003) (citing Tegal Corp

v Tokyo Electron Am, Inc, 257 F3d 1331, 1342 (Fed Cir 2001)). 

“Absent a special and particular definition created by the patent

applicant, terms in a claim are to be given their ordinary and

accustomed meaning.” York Prods, Inc v Central Tractor Farm &

Family Ctr, 99 F3d 1568, 1572 (Fed Cir 1996). The court may, if

necessary, consult a variety of sources to determine the ordinary

and customary meaning of a claim term, including the claim terms

themselves, dictionaries, the written description, the drawings and

the prosecution history, if in evidence. Brookhill-Wilk 1, 326 F3d

at 1220. “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source

of legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” 

Vitronics Corp v Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F3d 1576, 1582 (Fed Cir

1996). With respect to dictionary definitions, “[i]f more than one

dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in

the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass

all such consistent meanings.” Texas Digital Systems, Inc v

Telegenix, Inc, 308 F3d 1193, 1203 (Fed Cir 2002).

The court begins its construction of claim terms by

consulting intrinsic evidence of the meaning of disputed claim

terms, which includes the claims, the specification and the

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 3 of 13
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

prosecution history (if in evidence). Lacks Industries, Inc v

McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc, 322 F3d 1335, 1341 (Fed Cir

2003) (citation omitted). “If upon examination of this intrinsic

evidence the meaning of the claim language is sufficiently clear,

resort to ‘extrinsic’ evidence, such as treatises and technical

references, as well as expert testimony when appropriate, should

not be necessary.” Digital Biometrics, Inc, v Identix, Inc, 149

F3d 1335, 1344 (Fed Cir 1998). “[I]f after consideration of the

intrinsic evidence, there remains doubt as to the exact meaning of

the claim terms, consideration of extrinsic evidence may be

necessary to determine the proper construction.” Id.

“[A] court may constrict the ordinary meaning of a claim

term in * * * one of four ways[:]” (1) “if the patentee acted as

his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the

disputed claim in either the specification or prosecution history;”

(2) if the intrinsic evidence shows that the patentee distinguished

the term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment,

expressly disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular

embodiment as important to the invention; (3) “if the term chosen

by the patentee so deprives the claim of clarity as to require

resort to other intrinsic evidence for a definite meaning; and (4)

“if the patentee phrased the claim in step- or means-plus-function

format,” then “a claim term will cover nothing more than the

corresponding structure or step disclosed in the specification, as

well as equivalents thereto * * *.” CCS Fitness, Inc v Brunswick

Corp, 288 F3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed Cir 2002) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).

Limitations from the specification, such as from the

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 4 of 13
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

5

preferred embodiment, cannot be read into the claims absent an

express intention to do so. Teleflex, Inc v Ficosa North Am Corp,

299 F3d 1313, 1326 (Fed Cir 2002) (“The claims must be read in view

of the specification, but limitations from the specification are

not to be read into the claims.”). But “a construction that

excludes a preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’” 

C R Bard, Inc v United States Surgical Corp, 388 F3d 858, 865 (Fed

Cir 2004) (citing Vitronics, 90 F3d at 1583).

With these legal principles in mind, the court now turns

to the construction of the disputed claim language of the patentin-suit.

III

The parties parse the elements of ‘790 claims similarly,

and only request the court to construe seven terms. Claim 1 of the

patent is illustrative:

1. A method for server interruption of user

requests, the method comprising the steps of:

a server receiving a request from a user for a

particular set of information, wherein

preparation and delivery of said particular set

of information requires a particular series of

operations;

in response to said request, said server

collecting supplemental information about said

user from a server-side storage unit; and

Said server determining, based on said

supplemental information, whether to perform

one or more operations prior to supplying said

particular set of information to said user,

wherein said one or more operations do not

alter any operation in said particular series

of operations;

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 5 of 13
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

if said server determines that said one or more

operations should be performed, then performing

said one or more operations prior to supplying

said particular set of information to said

user, and 

after performing said one or more operations,

said server replying to said user with said

particular set of information; and

if said server determines not to perform said

one or more operations, then replying to said

user with said particular set of information.

1. a server

Plaintiff proposes that this term be construed as

“hardware and software that provide resources to a client.” Doc

#33 at 6-11; Doc #37 at 2-3. Defendants propose “a computer that

provides network resources to a client.” Doc #36 at 7-8. 

Plaintiffs argue that “a computer” is unclear and vague, so

“hardware and software” is more precise. But the written

description of the patent directly contradicts plaintiff’s

argument:

In alternative embodiments, hard-wired

circuitry may be used in place of or in

combination with software instructions to

implement the invention. Thus, embodiments of

the invention are not limited to any specific

combination of hardware circuitry and software.

‘790 patent, 3:48-54. Plaintiff’s proposed construction does limit

the invention to a specific combination of hardware circuitry and

software, namely one where software is not replaced by hard-wired

circuitry as contemplated and disclosed in the specification.

“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim

construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single

best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitrionics, 90 F3d

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 6 of 13
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

1576. 

Although it is true that the written description is not a

substitute for the claim language, this is not the case where an

unclaimed limitation from the specification is being imported into

and substituted for the claim language. Superguide Corp v

DirectTV, 358 F3d 870, 875 (Fed Cir 2004). Here, the specification

expressly states that the invention should not be limited to any

particular combination of hardware and/or software, which disclaims

the limitation of the invention to “hardware and software” and

thus, the court may not adopt plaintiff’s proposed construction. 

Despite rejecting plaintiff’s proposal, the court may not

simply adopt defendant’s proposal carte blanche. Plaintiffs argued

that “a computer” may limit servers to embodiments made of only a

single computer, while it is well-known in the art that a cluster

of multiple computers or multiple computer components may function

as a server. Accordingly, the court modifies defendant’s proposal

to change “a computer” to “a computer system.” 

Defendants also propose that the term “network resources”

be added to the construction of the term “server.” But there is no

mention of a network in claim 1. While defendant presented a

dictionary definition in support of limiting servers to those that

provide network resources, plaintiff pointed to a dictionary

definition consistent with the idea that a server need not interact

with network resources. “If more than one dictionary definition is

consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the

claim terms may be construed to encompass all such consistent

meanings.” Texas Digital Systems, 308 F3d at 1203. Clearly, a

server that provides resources may also provide network resources,

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 7 of 13
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

so the court should construe this term so that both definitions are

encompassed.

 Accordingly, the court construes “server” as “a computer

system programmed to provide resources to a client.”

2. request from a user

Defendants propose that this term be construed as “a

request initiated by a person using a computer.” Doc #36 at 13-15. 

Plaintiff asserts that there is no need to construe this term. The

“user” is defined in the specification as “[having] a list of

favorite activities and interests,” ‘079 patent, 8:67-9:1. 

Additionally, the specification notes that it “may be desirable to

have the user view the advertisement as long as possible.” 9:65-66. 

Furthermore, at the claim construction hearing, Plaintiff’s own

expert declared that one of ordinary skill in the art would

understand a “user” in this limitation to be person, and not

software. Accordingly, the court adopts defendants’ proposal and

construes “request from a user” as “a request initiated by a person

using a computer.” 

3. particular set of information

Defendants’ proposal limits “a particular set of

information” to “a web page.” Doc #36 at 13-15. Plaintiff alleges

that there is no need to construe this term. “Absent a special and

particular definition created by the patent applicant, terms in a

claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning.” York

Prods, Inc v Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr, 99 F3d 1568, 1572

(Fed Cir 1996). The plain meaning of “a particular set of

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 8 of 13
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

information” is not limited to “a web page.” Accordingly, the

court construes this term according to its plain meaning.

4. server-side

While plaintiff proposes that there is no need to

construe this term, defendants argue that it should be construed as

“occurring on the server side of a network connection extending

between a client and a server.” Doc #33 at 23-34; Doc #37 at 10-

11; Doc #36 at 15. Defendants’ proposed construction is circular -

- it uses the words “server side” in combination with additional

unclaimed limitations to define the term “server-side.” This, they

cannot do, for two reasons. First, “server” was submitted for

construction on its own and the addition of “-side” to any wellunderstood term is within the realm of plain meaning. Second, even

if some embodiments disclose the invention as function via a

network connection, the court may not import the unclaimed

limitation of “a network connection extending betweena client and a

server” into the claim. EI Du Pont de Nemours, 849 F2d at 1433

(Fed Cir 1988). Accordingly, the court construes this claim

according to its plain meaning in light of the construction of the

term “server.” 

5. client

Plaintiffs propose that a “client,” which first appears

in claim 6 of the ‘079 patent, should be construed as “hardware and

software that accesses resources provided by a server.” Doc #33 at

11; Doc #37 at 4. Defendants propose “a computer that accesses

network resources provided by a server.” Doc #36 at 4. These

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 9 of 13
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

proposed constructions present the same challenges as the

constructions proposed for “server,” namely, whether “a computer”

and “network resources” are appropriately included in the

construction. Accordingly, in keeping with the analysis above for

the term “server,” the court construes “client” to be “a computer

system programmed to access resources provided by a server.” 

6. web server

 Plaintiff’s proposal construes this term, which first

appears in claim 48, as “any processor which transmits data

objects, applications or files to a requestor via Web protocols.” 

Doc #33 at 16-18; Doc #37 at 6-7. Defendants argue for a more

limiting construction: “A server that transmits requested

information to a client using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol

(HTTP).” Doc #36 at 11-13. The parties’ constructions diverge on

two main points: (1) what is a server in the context of a web

server and (2) what protocol or protocols must a web server

utilize?

For the first issue, plaintiffs attempt to extend the

definition of server to include “any processor.” Doc #33 at 16. 

Plaintiffs, however, present no intrinsic or extrinsic evidence in

support of this construction. Accordingly, the court’s

construction of web server will use the term “server” in accordance

with its construction of “a computer system programmed to provide

resources to a client.” 

The parties’ disagreement over the second issue

(protocols) is more difficult. Plaintiffs propose that a web

server transmits information via “Web protocols,” while defendants’

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 10 of 13
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

proposal requires that a web server transmits information via HTTP. 

At oral argument, both parties agreed that HTTP was a Web protocol,

and plaintiff’s counsel further agreed that HTTP is the “typical”

web protocol used by web servers. Plaintiff argued, however, that

limiting a web server to using HTTP is unreasonable because one

skilled in the art would know that a web server can use Web

protocols other than HTTP. Plaintiff pointed to the deposition of

defendant’s expert to support the notion that a web server could

transmit information via Web protocols other than HTTP, such as

file transfer protocol (“FTP”), etc. Pl slides at 53. However, in

the same discussion, defendants’ expert made clear that all web

servers of which he was aware used HTTP. Gray Depo at 105:18-25. 

In contrast, defendants relied upon intrinsic evidence in the

specification and dictionary definitions in support of their

argument that at a minimum a web server must use HTTP. Def slides

at 20-24.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, limiting the

construction of a web server to those that transmit information via

HTTP does not preclude web servers which transmit information via

other Web protocols such as FTP. The claims at issue in the ‘079

patent are “open,” because the preamble in each claim uses the word

“comprising.” Stiftung v Renishaw PLC, 945 F.2d 1173, 1178 (Fed

Cir 1991). Open claims read upon any method or product that meets

each element of the claims, regardless whether the accused method

or product includes extra elements that are not claimed. Id. 

Accordingly, a construction of web server requiring transmission of

information via HTTP merely means that in order to be a web server,

the server must utilize the typical web protocol of HTTP. Thus,

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 11 of 13
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

web servers that utilize additional web protocols other than HTTP

are not precluded by defendant’s proposed construction. 

Accordingly, the court adopts defendants’ construction of “web

server” as “a server that transmits requested information to a

client using the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP).”

 

7. web browser(s)

Plaintiff proposes that this term, which first appears in

claim 48 of the ‘079 patent, should be construed as, “programs used

to request, decode and display information sent over the World Wide

Web.” Doc #33 at 13-15; Doc #37 at 5. Defendants argue that it

should be construed as, “client applications that enable users to

request, decode and display HTML documents.” Doc #36 at 10-11. 

Defendants rely upon intrinsic evidence from the

specification of the ‘079 patent and dictionary definitions to show

that a web browser must be capable of requesting, decoding and

displaying HTML documents. Def slides at 27. In contrast,

plaintiffs rely upon extrinsic evidence in the form of expert

declaration and testimony to show that a browser need not be

limited to requesting, decoding and displaying HTML documents. Pl

slides at 59-60.

Although extrinsic evidence is inherently less

instructive on issues of claim construction than intrinsic

evidence, in this instance the court need not disregard plaintiff’s

extrinsic evidence in construing the term. As discussed above with

respect to “web server,” the claims at issue in this patent are

“open” claims, and as such, claim constructions read upon all

embodiments that meet each claim element, regardless of extra

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 12 of 13
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

features. Stiftung, 945 F.2d 1173, 1178 (Fed Cir 1991). 

Thus, defendant’s proposed construction does not preclude

a web browser from “using the ftp protocol to access text files,”

Gray Depo at 106:12-16, as long as the web browser also allows a

user to “request, decode and display HTML documents.” Basically,

defendant’s proposed construction requires that at a minimum, a web

browser must be capable of browsing the World Wide Web, which

requires that the web browser be capable of requesting, decoding,

and displaying HTML documents. Accordingly, the court adopts

defendants’ construction and construes “web browsers” as “client

applications enabling users to request, decode and display HTML

documents.”

The parties are ORDERED to attend a case management

conference (CMC) on June 21, 2005, at 9:00 am or on another such

date that the parties may arrange with each other and the court’s

deputy, Cora Delfin, who may be reached at (415) 522-2039. The

parties’ joint CMC statement should include a proposed schedule for

dispositive motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02267-VRW Document 50 Filed 05/05/05 Page 13 of 13