Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01119/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GolfSwitch Inc., a Nevada corporation;

and Spectrum Golf, Inc., an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, 

vs.

Incuborn Solutions, Inc. and GolfNow,

Inc., d/b/a Cypress Golf Solutions,

Arizona corporations; and Michael

Loustalot, an individual, 

Defendants/Counterclaimants. _________________________________

GolfSwitch, Inc., a Nevada corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

TeeConnect, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company; OpenCourse Solutions,

LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company; Heritage Golf Group, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; and

Heritage Golf Group, Inc., a Delaware

corporation;

Defendants/Counterclaimants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-01119-PHX-NVW (consol.)

ORDER

Plaintiffs GolfSwitch, Inc. and Spectrum Golf, Inc. sued Incuborn Solutions, Inc.

and GolfNow, Inc., d/b/a Cypress Golf Solutions and Michael Loustalot (collectively “the

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 1 of 29
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 -

Cypress Defendants”) for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,016,857 (“the

Patent”) and other claims. Plaintiff GolfSwitch, Inc., also sued Tee Connect, LLC,

OpenCourse Solutions, LLC, Heritage Golf Group, LLC, and Heritage Golf Group, Inc.

(collectively “the Tee Connect Defendants”) for alleged infringement of the Patent. On

Plaintiffs’ motion, the court consolidated the cases and ordered joint discovery and trial of

issues of claim construction, patent validity, and patent enforceability. 

All parties have filed briefs supporting their proposed constructions of the Patent’s

claim terms. Pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996),

the court must construe the claims of the patent as a matter of law. On June 30, 2008, the

court held a Markman hearing during which the Patent and the complete File History

were admitted as stipulated Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 and Plaintiffs’ expert testified. Having

considered the evidence presented in the parties’ briefs, during the hearing, and in the

exhibits, and for the reasons set forth below, the court construes the disputed terms as a

matter of law as follows.

I. Legal Standard

“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the

right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations

omitted). The court construes the scope and meaning of disputed patent claims as a

matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). “It is

critical for trial courts to set forth an express construction of the material claim terms in

dispute, in part because the claim construction becomes the basis of the jury instructions,

should the case go to trial.” AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239,

1247 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The court needs to construe only the claim language that is in

dispute. NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

First, the court looks to the words of the claims themselves to define the scope of

the patented invention. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.

Cir. 1996). The words of a claim generally are given the ordinary and customary

meaning that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have given them at the time

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 29
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 -

of the patent application. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. “Such person is deemed to read

the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of their meaning in the

field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field.” Id. at 1313. 

“[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the

context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of

the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. To determine what a person of

ordinary skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean, the

court looks to the words of the claims themselves (the context of the disputed terms), the

remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning

relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art. Id.

at 1314. 

Second, the court must read the claims in light of the specification, of which they

are a part:

The specification contains a written description of the invention which must

be clear and complete enough to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to

make and use it. Thus, the 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.

Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582; accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Because the words of a

claim must be based on the descriptive part of the specification, the description aids in

ascertaining the scope and meaning of the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Therefore,

the specification is the primary basis for construing the claims. Id. 

Third, the court may also consider the prosecution history of the patent if it is in

evidence. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. The prosecution history, i.e., the complete record

of the proceedings before the PTO, often lacks the clarity of the specification, but can

“inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor

understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of

prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415

F.3d at 1317. “A patentee’s decision to narrow his claims through amendment may be

presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 29
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 -

amended claim.” Regents of University of California v. Dakocytomation California, Inc.,

517 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A patentee must be held to what he declares

during the prosecution of his patent, and the prosecution history excludes any

interpretation clearly and deliberately disclaimed during prosecution. Springs Window

Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

In most situations, analysis of the patent and its prosecution history, i.e., the

intrinsic evidence, will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term, and it is improper

to rely on extrinsic evidence. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. “[W]here the public record

unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic

evidence is improper. The claims, specification, and file history, rather than extrinsic

evidence, constitute the public record of the patentee’s claim, a record on which the

public is entitled to rely.” Id. 

Where needed, however, the court also may consider “extrinsic evidence, which

consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert

and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. 

Extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony can be useful to provide background

on the technology at issue, to explain how an invention works, to ensure the court’s

understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person

skilled in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent or prior art has a

particular meaning in the pertinent field. Id. at 1318. But conclusory, unsupported

assertions by experts regarding the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court. Id.

While extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in

determining the legally operative meaning of claim language” and “unlikely to result in a

reliable interpretation of a patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the

intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1317, 1318 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

II. The Patent

On March 19, 1999, GolfSwitch’s predecessor-in-interest applied for the Patent,

which discloses a computerized golf tee-time reservation system that permits multiple

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 4 of 29
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 -

individual users to concurrently access multiple golf course reservation systems to check

the availability of tee times, reserve tee times, and modify and cancel tee-time

reservations. The application included 14 independent and 57 dependent claims. On

March 21, 2006, the Patent issued with 1 independent and 15 dependent claims. All of

the disputed terms are in the independent claim, which states:

 1 Golf tee-time reservation apparatus for implementing seamless real

time access concurrently to a plurality of disparate individual golf

course reservation systems situated at different locations, at least some of

which use different protocols, said apparatus comprising

 aplurality of user input modules distributed throughout a wide geographic

area including at sites remote from one another, each user input

module having an interface capable of sending one or more teetime requests concurrently to said plurality of disparate individual

gold [sic] course reservation system [sic], and

an interface module having a data link with each of said plurality of user

input modules for concurrently receiving one or more tee-time

requests to said plurality of disparate individual golf course

reservation systems as real time transactions, said interface

module having a data link connection with each of said plurality of

disparate individual golf course reservation systems and being

arranged to interface with each different protocol of said plurality

of disparate individual golf course reservation systems to effect

acceptance of one or more tee-time requests at the plurality of

disparate individual golf course reservation systems to which said

one or more tee-time requests are directed, and said interface

module being arranged to concurrently process one or more teetime requests sent from a single user input module to said plurality

of disparate individual golf course reservation systems.

Patent at 9:63-10:23 (emphasis added to disputed claim terms).

The Summary of the Invention states: 

[I]t is an object of the present invention to provide a seamless

user/service reservation network which can establish a communication

protocol that is capable of interfacing with a plurality of different

reservation systems. It is another object of the present invention to provide

a graphical interface that allows a user access to multiple vendor reservation

systems via the same single interface procedure. It is yet another object of

the present invention to provide a seamless user/service reservation network

that allows the user to issue multiple concurrent transactions to multiple

vendor reservation systems within a single communication. It is a further

object of the present invention to provide a communications protocol that

allows the user to communicate with the seamless interface network

irrespective of, and via multiple forms of entry, including an Internet web

application, a graphical user interface, and additional interfaces. Finally, it

is an object of the present invention to provide a method of doing business

that allows a single user/service reservation network to facilitate multiple

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 5 of 29
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 -

input methods accessing multiple vendor reservation systems via a single

transactional template.

These and other objects of the present invention are achieved as a

method, device, and system for implementing a seamless user/service

reservation network having three primary components: an input module, an

interface module; [sic] and a vendor service module. 

The input module includes a plurality of potential embodiments,

including a graphical user interface, an Internet web site interface and a

plurality of dedicated single use computer interfaces. The input module

allows a registrant to access the network via typical input means such as

mouse, keyboard or voice commands. Regardless of the type of interface

the user attempts to access, the user interface processes all transactions in

the same manner. Thus, the user interface varies the display format of the

input means to correspond with and accommodate the needs of the

particular type of user, while keeping the transaction protocol standardized.

The interface module serves the dual function of a transaction switch

and an information dissemination system. Utilizing a multi-threaded

process input means, the interface module processes multiple user

transactions bundled into a single communication and concurrently divides

and processes each transaction. The interface module communicates with

both the user input module and the vendor service module accepting and

sending communications to each module. Implementing a dedicated server

communication format, the interface module facilitates communication

irrespective of the individual embodiments of the other modules. Because

of the multi-thread, multiple server configuration, the interface module

facilitates concurrent processing of all bundled communications.

The vendor service module establishes a communication link with

the interface module and responds to user transactions. Because its

transactions are conducted through the interface module, and because all

user inputs incorporate the same protocol, the vendor service module

processes all transactions irrespective of the embodiment of user input.

Combined, the system of the present invention provides the golf

reservation industry with a complete network capable of connecting

multiple user inputs having bundled transactions to multiple vendor systems

running different software reservation platforms.

Id. at 2:50-3:45. In addition, the Abstract includes the following:

...all user inputs accept the same input format and send all transactions via a

bundled communication. The interface module comprises multiple servers

designed to communicate with the user input module and the vendor service

module and decode and process all bundled requests. Utilizing multi-thread

processing, all transactions from either module are concurrently processed. 

The vendor service module incorporates multiple vendor systems running

different software platforms. Each vendor software platform is linked with

a dedicated network server that can accordingly translate all standard

communications to the specific protocol of the individual software vendor. 

By incorporating multiple user inputs that are processed concurrently by

multiple vendors running different software platforms[,] the seamless golf

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 6 of 29
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 -

reservation network establishes a standardized golf tee time reservation

system unique to this industry.

Id. at page 1.

The Field of Invention within the Background of Invention states:

In general, this invention relates to a seamless reservation network and

more specifically, to a seamless user/service reservation network enabling

multiple user interfaces to concurrently access multiple vendor reservation

systems running different software reservation platforms.

Id. at 1:12-16.

The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment states in part:

The present invention relates to a method of implementing a

seamless user/service reservation network capable of establishing a

concurrent communication link between multiple users and multiple vendor

reservation systems. Additionally, the present invention also relates to a

method of business providing a golf reservation system that reduces all

input transactions into a single, common interface which is relayed to

multiple vendor interfaces.

....

...The user input module[] provides different types of users with an

appropriate interface for bundling multiple user transactions and for

receiving responses from either the interface module[] or the vendor

module[]. The user input module varies the implementation of the specific

user input interface depending on the needs and the sophistication of the

user. In the preferred embodiment, some of the typical users include

resellers, such as travel agents, Internet based users and individual users

transacting on dedicated systems such as kiosks.

....

As has been mentioned previously, the user input module [] of the

present invention sends all transaction[s] as bundled requests which allows

the system to process the individual requests efficiently, and return the

processed requests from either the user input module or the vendor service

module. Accordingly, the use of bundled transactions to a system using

multi-threaded technology allows for true concurrent processing of system

requests from either the user input module or the vendor service module.

As would be understood by someone skilled in the relevant art,

multi-thread processing technologies allows a processor to divide allotted

CPU time into multiple sub-processes that are processed within one clock

cycle. By bundling each request as sub-processes within a larger process, a

CPU would be allowed to process multiple booking, shopping, maintenance

or internal processes within one clock cycle as opposed to having [to]

process an individual request or communication in multiple clock cycles. 

Depending on the number of processors bundled within a single

communication, this would reduce the processing time by a linear factor. 

Because of the multiple thread technology, an end user or vendor can

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 7 of 29
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 -

bundle requests and have these requests within each bundle processed

immediately and more efficiently by the system.

....

...Because each vendor module may or may not be running software

specifically designed to communicate directly with the interface module [], each

server within the network [] must be specifically programmed to correspond with

and translate the standard transactions supported by the present invention into the

specific protocol for each vendor reservation system....

....

...There is no limit as to the number of vendor service reservation systems

contained within the network, nor to the number and type of vendor software

platforms that the present invention will recognize....

...Because the golf switch system can interface with any software platform,

including networks, the integrity of the reservation system remains intact.

....

By standardizing the communications between modules, the present

invention allows multiple user inputs to utilize the same instructions to access

different vendors running different software platforms. Accordingly, the interface

module[] receives these transactions and processes them accordingly.

...As mentioned in the above-mentioned discussion, the current prior art

reservations systems in the golfing industry cannot accommodate multiple

software platforms. Additionally, each prior art reservation system has its own

unique user interface. The present invention includes a method of supporting

multiple user inputs incorporating identical transactional protocols which are

connected, via an interface, to multiple vendor software reservation platforms. 

Currently, the golf tee time reservation industry cannot incorporate both the

translational and communication functions into one single reservation network. 

The present invention provides the industry with such a method.

Id. at 4:4-11, 4:28-38, 5:50-6:6, 6:56-62, 7:43-46, 7:63-65, 8:44-49, 9:17-29.

III. Claim Construction

The following chart summarizes the court’s construction of the disputed terms. 

The full analysis supporting each construction is below.

________________________________________________________________________

Term Construction

“Tee-time request” Request from an individual user of the tee-time

reservation network for tee-time availability,

booking, modification, verification, and/or

cancellation

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 8 of 29
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 -

________________________________________________________________________

“To effect acceptance of one or more tee-time requests at the plurality of disparate

individual golf course reservation systems”

To generate a response to one or more tee-time

requests from the plurality of disparate

individual golf course reservation systems ________________________________________________________________________

“Seamless” Not apparent to the user that the system is

interacting with different golf course reservation

systems or protocols ________________________________________________________________________

“Real time” Occurring in the present time

________________________________________________________________________

 “Real time transactions” Transactions occurring in the present time

________________________________________________________________________

“Disparate individual golf course reservation systems”

Computerized golf course reservation systems

that use different software platforms ________________________________________________________________________

“Protocols” Format for transmitting data

________________________________________________________________________

“Different protocol(s)” Different communication protocols and

different application protocols ________________________________________________________________________

“Access concurrently” Access simultaneously with other user input

modules ________________________________________________________________________

“Sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently”

Simultaneously sending one or more tee-time

requests as bundled transactions within a single

communication ________________________________________________________________________

“Concurrently receiving one or more tee-time requests”

Simultaneously receiving one or more tee-time

requests as bundled transactions within a single

communication ________________________________________________________________________

“Concurrently process one or more tee-time requests”

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 9 of 29
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 -

Simultaneously process one or more tee-time

requests within the same clock cycle using

multi-threaded processing ________________________________________________________________________

“Interface” Means for communicating or exchanging

________________________________________________________________________

“Interface module” A component that transmits data between user

input modules and disparate individual golf

course reservation systems ________________________________________________________________________

“User input modules” Components through which an individual user

of the tee-time reservation system inputs

information to and/or interacts with the plurality

of disparate golf course reservation systems

through the interface module ________________________________________________________________________

A. “Tee-time request” and “To effect acceptance of one or more tee-time

requests at the plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation

systems”

Plaintiffs’ proposed construction for “tee-time request” is “availability check,

booking, modification, verification, and/or cancellation.” The Cypress Defendants and

the Tee Connect Defendants’ proposed construction for “tee-time request” is “request

from an individual user of the tee-time reservation network for tee-time availability,

booking, modification, verification, and/or cancellation.” In their response brief Plaintiffs

do not dispute Defendants’ construction. Either proposed construction, however, makes

the use of the claim term in the phrase “to effect acceptance of one or more tee-time

requests” illogical if “acceptance” is given its ordinary meaning because an availability

check or request for verification may be responded to, but is not “accepted.” 

Plaintiffs propose that the court construe the phrase “to effect acceptance of one or

more tee-time requests at the plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation

systems”as “to obtain responses directly from each disparate golf course reservation

system that the user’s request for availability, booking, verification, or cancellation has

been satisfied.” Plaintiffs’ construction is inaccurate because a user’s request to make a

reservation cannot always be satisfied. The Cypress Defendants and the Tee Connect

Defendants propose that the court construe this phrase as “to cause one or more tee-time

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 10 of 29
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 -

requests to be sent to, received by, and responded to by each disparate golf course

reservation system.” In their responsive brief, the Tee Connect Defendants asserted that

the differences between the parties’ proposed constructions are insignificant, and the

court need not construe this claim term. 

The Patent uses the term “tee-time requests” only in independent claim 1 and

dependent claims 4 and 15. Claim 1 includes “each user input module having an interface

capable of sending one or more tee-time requests” to individual golf course reservation

systems, “an interface module having a data link with each ... user input module[] for

concurrently receiving one or more tee-time requests ... as real time transactions,” “said

interface module ... to interface with each different protocol of ... disparate individual golf

course reservation systems to effect acceptance of one or more tee-time requests at the ...

golf course reservation systems to which ... tee-time requests are directed,” and

“concurrently process one or more tee-time requests sent from a single user input module

to said plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems.” Patent at

10:3-23. 

The Summary of the Invention refers to a “network that allows the user to issue

multiple concurrent transactions to multiple vendor reservation systems within a single

communication.” Id. at 2:58-60. Figure 5 of the Patent “is a transactional diagram of the

communication classifications between the modules of the present invention.” Id. at

3:62-63, 8:4-5. The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment describes Figure 5

as categorizing the instructions and communications into four preferred categories: 

shopping, booking, maintenance, and internal. Id. at 8:5-43. The description of the four

categories uses the terms “instructions,” “communications,” and “requests”

interchangeably. See id. The shopping category includes requests from the user input

module to either the interface module or the vendor service module and includes

retrieving information regarding golf courses in a particular geographic area and

availability of a specific tee time on a specific course. Id. at 8:13-22. “All booking

instructions[] are communications from the user input module[] to the vendor service

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 11 of 29
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 -

module[]” and “include requests to book a specific tee time at a specific course[], requests

to modify a previous reservation[], requests to cancel a previous tee time[], and requests

to verify or confirm a previous tee time reservation[].” Id. at 8:24-30. “Maintenance

communications are typically transactions from the vendor service module[] either

requesting the interface module[] to change the information[] stored within its database

server, such as course layout descriptions or statistics, or a request to notify[] the user of a

change in previously reserved tee time.” Id. at 8:32-37. Internal communications are

performed within the interface module and include functions that check performance or

verify that all servers and applications are running properly. Id. at 8:38-43. 

The term “tee-time requests” was not used in the initial application for the Patent. 

File History at 480-523. It first was used in the amended claims submitted in October

2003:

72. (New): A golf tee-time reservation system for implementing

seamless real time access to one or more golf courses, said system

comprising:

means for inputting a tee-time request;

means for interfacing a protocol with one or more different

protocols;

means for issuing one or more tee-time transactions to one or more

golf course reservation systems;

means for displaying one or more tee-time schedules; and

means for reserving one or more tee-times from said one or more

golf course in real time.

73. (New): The golf tee-time reservation system of claim 72,

wherein said means for inputting a tee-time request comprises a graphical

user interface.

Id. at 389 (italics added). 

In November 2004, the above claims were canceled, but a newly added claim 109

included “each user input module having an interface capable of receiving one or more

tee-time requests,” “an interface module having a data link connection with each of said

user input modules for processing said tee-time requests as real time transactions,” and

“said interface module ... being arranged to interface with each different protocol of said

golf course reservation systems to effect acceptance of each of said tee-time requests at

the golf course reservation systems to which said requests are directed.” Id. at 173-74. 

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 12 of 29
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 -

At that point, claim 109 was the sole independent claim presented for consideration. Id.

at 175. The accompanying remarks include the following:

The present invention thus allows tee-time reservations to be made with

respect to golf course reservation system[s] that are not part of a common

system but instead have their own different protocols. ... An interface

module has a data link with each of the user input modules to process teetime requests as real time transaction[s]. The interface module additionally

has a data link connection with each of the golf course reservation systems

and is arranged to interface with the different protocols associated with the

different golf course reservation systems so that tee-time requests can be

accepted at the golf course reservation systems.

Id. at 175 (italics added). 

The June 2005 claim amendments replaced “tee-time transactions” with “tee-time

requests” in claim 103 “in order to be consistent with the terminology used in patent

claim 109.” Id. at 125, 127. The amendments also included replacing “receiving” with

“sending” in claim 109, so that the user input module now was described as “having an

interface capable of sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently.” Id. at 126. The

patentees attached to their amendments a white paper by one of the inventors titled “U.S.

Patent Defense” and dated May 3, 2005, which distinguished the GolfSwitch invention

from prior art and responded to the Examiner’s findings. Id. at 130-53. The paper states,

“GolfSwitch provides for simultaneous seamless real time tee-time interaction (tee-time

availability searches, reservations and cancellations) with multiple golf courses running

disparate tee-time reservation systems located at diverse geographical locations.” Id. at

132, 133 (emphasis in original); see also id. at 144. The paper refers to “the issue of how

the Golf Course manages the tee time reservations (i.e. available tee time schedules,

cancellations, check-in, communicate reservations to the golf course administrators,

etc...).” Id. at 138. 

On October 24, 2005, patentees submitted a paper titled “Concurrent Processing of

Tee Time Requests” dated October 17, 2005, which compares the GolfSwitch application

to the Hunt, Germain, and Arnold patents. Id. at 49-62. It does not address the meaning

of “tee-time request” or suggest that the term is relevant to distinguishing the GolfSwitch

invention from prior art. It does summarize a portion of the application using the phrase

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 13 of 29
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

- 14 -

“multiple booking, shopping, maintenance or internal processes” with the phrase “a

plurality of reservation transactions.” Id. at 51. 

Thus, the term “tee-time request” was added to the Patent through amendments

during prosecution, but its use did not narrow the scope of any claims. It refers to usergenerated, response-seeking interaction with the golf course reservation network related

to reserving tee times and not to maintenance and internal administrative transactions

processed by the GolfSwitch invention. 

The court therefore adopts Defendants’ proposed construction of “tee-time

request” as “request from an individual user of the tee-time reservation network for teetime availability, booking, modification, verification, and/or cancellation.” 

Further, the court construes “to effect acceptance of one or more tee-time requests

at the plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems” as “to generate a

response to one or more tee-time requests from the plurality of disparate individual golf

course reservation systems.”

B. “Seamless”

Plaintiffs and the Cypress Defendants propose the construction of “seamless” as

“not apparent to the user that the system is interacting with different golf course

reservation systems or protocols.” The Tee Connect Defendants urge the court to

construe “seamless” as “direct connectivity between the plurality of user input modules

and the plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems.”

Claim 1 discloses an apparatus that includes “each user input module having an

interface capable of sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently to said plurality

of disparate individual gol[f] course reservation system[s]” and “an interface module

having a data link with each of said user input modules ... and said interface module

having a data link connection with each of said plurality of disparate interface

modules....” Thus, the plain language of the claim discloses an invention connecting the

user input modules to the golf course reservation systems through the interface module

and not directly. 

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 14 of 29
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 -

Moreover, although how communications between modules are structured may

affect seamlessness, connectivity does not constitute seamlessness. A person having

ordinary skill in the art would understand “seamless” to refer to the user’s perception that

he is interacting with a single integrated system. See Hearing Transcript, May 30, 2008,

at 66:8-15.

The court therefore construes “seamless” as “not apparent to the user that the

system is interacting with different golf course reservation systems or protocols.”

C. “Real time” and “Real time transactions”

Claim 1 includes the terms “real time access” and “real time transactions.” Patent

at 9:64, 10:11. Plaintiffs propose that “real time access” be construed as “the system is

capable of communicating in a timely fashion with different golf course reservation

systems so as to effectively make online tee-time reservations.” Plaintiffs propose that

“real time transactions” be construed as “as timely as is necessary to satisfy the need of a

user making online tee-time reservation (e.g., within one internet session).”

The Cypress Defendants propose that the court construe “real time” as “within a

time frame that seems immediate to the user of the system” and “real time transactions”

as “tee-time requests that are processed to the individual golf course reservation systems

within a time frame that seems immediate to the user of the system.” The Tee Connect

Defendants’ proposed construction of “real time” is “without delays or lag times” and of

“real time transactions” is “tee-time requests that are processed against the most current

and/or valid data without delays or lag times.” 

In remarks submitted with the October 2003 amendment, patentees asserted:

The present invention provides a golf tee-time reservation system

that comprises real-time concurrent processing. All other known prior art

reservation systems/networks utilize a dependent database for retrieving and

scheduling tee-time transactions. Real-time concurrent processing provides

immediate processing of transactions for scheduling a tee-time. ... The

subject invention permits tee-time information to be retrieved by

systematically extracting the information and displaying it to the user

without delays or lag times from separate hardware and database

components.

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 15 of 29
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 -

In yet another differing aspect of the present invention, the present

invention provides a real-time reservation network that utilizes a multithreading technique. This technique provides immediate processing of

transactions for the user []. A system database is not required for retrieving

a tee-time request, and a database is only provided for storing user schedule

information at the end of a transaction.

...Again, the present invention provides a real-time seamless

reservation system that functions immediately with differing golf

reservation networks using multi-thread processing [].

File History at 396-97 (italics added). 

The essence of the parties’ arguments and citations to both intrinsic and extrinsic

evidence is that “real time” means that it occurs now, in the present time, while the user is

interacting with the system, and not in a batch to be processed later, and it operates on

current data, not on a snapshot of past data. The term does not define the length of time

during which the processing will be completed, only when the processing will occur. 

Whether a transaction is completed quickly enough to satisfy the user or to seem

immediate to the user without delays or lag times may be a result of real-time processing

combined with use of certain methods of processing, e.g., concurrent multi-threaded

processing, but it does not define “real time.” 

Claim 1 refers to “an interface module having a data link ... for concurrently

receiving one or more tee-time requests ... as real time transactions.” Patent at 10:7-11. 

If “transactions” means only “tee-time requests,” as Defendants propose, the quoted

language means “receiving tee-time requests as real time tee-time requests,” and the word

“transaction” provides no information. Rather than render the term “transaction”

superfluous, the court concludes “transaction” is a commonly understood word and need

not be construed. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.

Therefore, the court rejects all of the parties’ proposed constructions of “real time”

and “real time transactions.” The court construes “real time” as “occurring in the present

time” and “real time transactions” as “transactions occurring in the present time.”

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 16 of 29
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

- 17 -

D. “Disparate individual golf course reservation systems”

Plaintiffs propose construing “disparate individual golf course reservation

systems” as “more than one golf course reservation system.” The Cypress Defendants

and the Tee Connect Defendants’ proposed construction is “computerized golf course

reservation systems that use different software platforms.” 

The intrinsic evidence supports Defendants’ construction. The Patent’s Abstract

states: “The vendor service module incorporates multiple vendor systems running

different software platforms.” Patent at page 1. The Abstract further refers to “multiple

vendors running different software platforms.” Id. The Background of Invention states:

In general, this invention relates to a seamless reservation network and

more specifically, to a seamless user/service reservation network enabling

multiple user interfaces to concurrently access multiple vendor reservation

systems running different software reservation platforms.

Id. at 1:12-16 (emphasis added). The Summary of Invention refers to “a plurality of

different reservation systems,” “multiple vendor reservation systems,” and “multiple

vendor systems running different software reservation platforms.” Id. at 2:53, 55, 59-60. 

The Patent describes prior art golf reservation systems as being limited to specific golf

courses that run the reservation system’s specific software and concludes there is a need

for a golf reservation system that “can communicate with any vendor reservation network

or individual vendor reservation software platform, and can facilitate the concurrent

processing of a plurality of requests to different software platforms.” Id. at 1:29-33,

2:37-45.

The court therefore construes “disparate individual golf course reservation

systems” as “computerized golf course reservation systems that use different software

platforms.”

E. “Protocols”

Plaintiffs propose that “protocols” be construed as “format for transmitting data.” 

The Cypress Defendants and the Tee Connect Defendants propose that “protocols” be

construed as “communication standards that govern the physical transport or transmission

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 17 of 29
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 -

of data from one computer to another, such as Transmission Control Protocol/Internet

Protocol (TCP/IP), User Datagram Protocol/Internet Protocol (UDP/IP), and X.25.” 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly limits the meaning of

“protocols” to standards for the physical transmission of data and impermissibly restricts

the claim to preferred embodiments. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs referred to the

specific communication protocols TCP/IP, UDP/IP, and X.25, Plaintiffs’ proposed

construction expands the meaning of “protocols” to include “specifically disclaimed

general application layer types of formats such as HTTP or SOAP,” and the term should

be construed to refer to communications layer protocol only. (Docs. ##181 at 12-13, 182

at 16.)

At a minimum, the term “protocols” as used in the Patent means standards or

formats for transmitting data. The term usually is found in the Patent specification in the

context of or preceded by the word “communication” or “communications.” 

Occasionally it is used in the context of or preceded by the word “transaction” or

“transactional.” In such contexts “format for transmitting data” is sufficient construction

of “protocols.” But Claim 1 refers to “different protocols” of “disparate individual golf

course reservation systems” without reference to communication, transaction, or

application:

...apparatus for implementing ... access ... to a plurality of disparate

individual golf course reservation systems ... at least some of which use

different protocols...

said interface module having a data link connection with each of said

plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems and being

arranged to interface with each different protocol of said plurality of

disparate individual golf course reservation systems....

Patent at 9:63-67, 10:11-16. As previously construed, “disparate individual golf course

reservation systems” means systems that use different software platforms. Claim 1

therefore discloses an invention that provides access to and can interface with golf

reservation systems that use different software platforms and different protocols.

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 18 of 29
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 -

The Abstract states, “Each vendor software platform is linked with a dedicated

network server that can accordingly translate all standard communications to the specific

protocol of the individual software vendor.” Id. at page 1. The Background of the

Invention concludes there is a need for a golf reservation system that, among other things,

“can accommodate a communication protocol such that the system can communicate with

any vendor reservation network or individual vendor reservation software platform.” Id.

at 2:37-43.

The Summary of the Invention states: 

[I]t is an object of the present invention to provide a seamless user/service

reservation network which can establish a communication protocol that is

capable of interfacing with a plurality of different reservation systems. ... 

It is a further object of the present invention to provide a communications

protocol that allows the user to communicate with the seamless interface

network irrespective of, and via multiple forms of entry, including an

Internet web application, ....

...Thus, the user interface varies the display format of the input means to

correspond with and accommodate the needs of the particular type of user,

while keeping transaction protocol standardized....

...Because its transactions are conducted through the interface module, and

because all user inputs incorporate the same protocol, the vendor service

module processes all transactions irrespective of the embodiment of user

input.

Id. at 2:50-64, 3:16-19, 3:37-40 (italics added). In the drawings, Fig. 6 “is an example of

the preferred communication protocol of the present invention.” 

The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment includes the following:

...Because each vendor module may or may not be running software

specifically designed to communicate directly with the interface module [],

each server within the network [] must be specifically programmed to

correspond with and translate the standard transactions supported by the

present invention into the specific protocol for each vendor reservation

system....

By standardizing the communications between modules, the present

invention allows multiple user inputs to utilize the same instructions to

access different vendors running different software platforms. Accordingly,

the interface module[] receives these transactions and processes them

accordingly. FIG. 6 represents the preferred format for all communication. By following this format all communications are decoded and processed by

the interface module[] in the same manner by the decoding server. In the

preferred embodiment, the communication protocol includes a header

segment[], an originating system code[], a message[], a time stamp of

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 19 of 29
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

- 20 -

transaction origination[], a time stamp of response[], and a user ID[]. As

would be understood, this template could be modified and still be

considered within the scope of the present invention.

...As mentioned in the above-mentioned discussion, the current prior

art reservations systems in the golfing industry cannot accommodate

multiple software platforms. Additionally, each prior art reservation system

has its own unique user interface. The present invention includes a method

of supporting multiple user inputs incorporating identical transactional

protocols which are connected, via an interface, to multiple vendor software

reservation platforms. Currently, the golf tee time reservation industry

cannot incorporate both the translational and communication functions into

one single reservation network. The present invention provides the industry

with such a method.

Id. at 6:56-62, 8:44-58, 9:17-29.

In their October 2003 remarks to the examiner, distinguishing the Tagawa system,

patentees represented:

In the present invention, each golf course operates independently

from the other, whereby no relationship exists between networking,

computer hardware, communication protocols, or software applications. 

The present invention is novel in that it provides a true seamless network

coupling all non-related golf reservation systems/networks into a single golf

course reservation system/network regardless of the hardware, software, or

protocols used. It provides the translation of differing protocols in order to

communicate a tee-time request from any one of the independent networks.

File History at 397 (italics added). 

In their May 2005 submission, distinguishing the Hunt system, patentees

represented:

GolfSwitch not only provides a normalized way of connecting to multiple

disparate golf reservations systems from multiple disparate Tee Time

Resellers (Travel Agents, Hotel Concierge, Websites, Kiosks, etc.) but also

affords a single Wide Area Network link from the location (either Golf

Course or Tee Time Reseller) into the “real-time” GolfSwitch

communications switching engine that provides the appropriate routing and

protocol conversion. GolfSwitch provides the following normalizations for

both the Golf Course and the Tee Time Reseller:

Wide Area Network Communications Mediums:

• Private Frame Relay Connection

• Private T1 Lease Data Line Connection

• Private Satellite (VSAT) Data Link Connection

• Private Wireless CDPD Data Link Connection

• Virtual Private Network (VPN) Via The Public Internet

Communications Protocols:

• TCP/IP

• UDP/IP

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 20 of 29
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 -

• X.25

• SNA 6.2

Electronic Messaging Protocols:

• GolfSwitch Standarized Messaging Protocol

• Golf Tee Sheet Reservation Proprietary Messaging Protocol

• Tee Time Reseller Proprietary Messaging Protocol

....

GolfSwitch improves upon the prior art of Hunt by allowing for only a

single data connection from both the Travel Agents/Web

Sites/Hotels/Vacation Packagers to the centralized real-time switching

network of GolfSwitch as well as only a single data connection from each of

the Golf Courses.

Id. at 152-53. 

In their October 2005 submission, distinguishing the Arnold system, patentees

stated, “Since Arnold is silent to the protocol used to interact with the different golf

courses who are all running the same software, it is impossible for the examiner to make

the statement that Arnold teaches the use of different protocols.” Id. at 61. Patentees’

remark was directed to the examiner’s parenthetical comment that “using multiple

protocol[s] is inherent in a web system, i.e. HTTP and SOAP,” which suggested that any

web-based system such as Arnold necessarily uses multiple protocols. Id. Contrary to

Defendants’ arguments, patentees’ remark does not disclaim the inclusion of application

protocols in the term “protocols,” as used in Claim 1, but rather requires the inclusion of

more than HTTP and SOAP. In other words, “different protocols” in Claim 1 is not

satisfied if the only way tee-time requests can be processed at disparate golf course

reservation systems is via the Internet. 

The intrinsic evidence, supported by Plaintiffs’ expert’s hearing testimony, shows

that “different protocols” as used in Claim 1 means the “disparate individual golf course

reservation systems” include systems that use different communication protocols and

different application protocols and the interface module is able to communicate with

“each different protocol” of the disparate golf course reservation systems. As used in

other parts of the Patent, the context adequately indicates whether “protocols” refers to

communication protocols, application protocols, or both.

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 21 of 29
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

- 22 -

The court therefore construes “protocols” as “format for transmitting data.” The

court further construes “different protocol(s)” in claim 1 as “different communication

protocols and different application protocols.”

F. “Access concurrently,” “Concurrently receiving one or more tee-time

requests,” “Sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently,” and

“Concurrently process one or more tee-time requests”

All parties agree that “concurrently” means, at a minimum, “simultaneously.” 

Plaintiffs propose that “access concurrently,” “concurrently receiving one or more teetime requests,” and “sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently” all be construed

as “simultaneously with other user input modules.” Plaintiffs propose that “concurrently

process one or more tee-time requests” be construed as “an interface that allows one user

to make at least one tee-time request (as defined) for golf at multiple different courses,

and where more than one request is made, they are acted on simultaneously.” 

The Cypress Defendants and the Tee Connect Defendants propose that “access

concurrently” be construed as “simultaneous interaction between a user and a plurality of

disparate golf course reservation systems by bundling multiple transactions within a

single communication and processing them within the same clock cycle using multithreaded processing.” Defendants propose that “sending one or more tee-time requests

concurrently” be construed as “simultaneously sending one or more tee-time requests as

bundled transactions within a single communication.” They propose that “concurrently

receiving one or more tee-time requests” be construed as “simultaneously receiving one

or more tee-time requests as bundled transactions within a single communication.” They

propose that “concurrently process one or more tee-time requests” be construed as

“simultaneously process one or more tee-time requests within the same clock cycle using

multi-threaded processing.”

The Abstract and the Summary of Invention portions of the Patent establish that

multi-threaded processing of bundled transactions from and to each user input module is

an essential component of the invention and not merely a preferred embodiment. The

Abstract expressly states:

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 22 of 29
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 -

...all user inputs accept the same input format and send all transactions via

a bundled communication. The interface module comprises multiple

servers designed to communicate with the user input module and the vendor

service module and decode and process all bundled requests. Utilizing

multi-thread processing, all transactions from either module are

concurrently processed.

Patent at page 1 (italics added). The Summary of Invention also states:

It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a seamless

user/service reservation network that allows the user to issue multiple

concurrent transactions to multiple vendor reservation systems within a

single communication....

The interface module serves the dual function of a transaction switch

and an information dissemination system. Utilizing a multi-threaded

process input means, the interface module processes multiple user

transactions bundled into a single communication and concurrently divides

and processes each transaction. The interface module communicates with

both the user input module and the vendor service module accepting and

sending communications to each module. ... Because of the multi-thread,

multiple server configuration, the interface module facilitates concurrent

processing of all bundled communications....

Combined, the system of the present invention provides the golf

reservation industry with a complete network capable of connecting

multiple user inputs having bundled transactions to multiple vendor

systems running different software reservation platforms.

Id. at 2:53-56, 3:21-34, 3:41-45 (italics added). Thus, the network is capable of

connecting multiple user inputs, each of which has bundled transactions, to multiple

vendor systems.

In addition, the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment states:

The present invention relates to a method of implementing a

seamless user/service reservation network capable of establishing a

concurrent communication link between multiple users and multiple vendor

reservation systems....

... Accordingly, the use of bundled transactions to a system using multithreaded technology allows for true concurrent processing of system

requests from either the user input module or the vendor service module.

As would be understood by someone skilled in the relevant art,

multi-thread processing technologies allows a processor to divide allotted

CPU time into multiple sub-processes that are processed within one clock

cycle. By bundling each request as sub-processes within a larger process, a

CPU would be allowed to process multiple booking, shopping, maintenance

or internal processes within one clock cycle as opposed to having [to]

process an individual request or communication in multiple clock cycles.

Depending on the number of processors bundled within a single

communication, this would reduce the processing time by a linear factor. 

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 23 of 29
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 -

Because of the multiple thread technology, an end user or vendor can

bundle requests and have these requests within each bundle processed

immediately and more efficiently by the system.

Id. at 4:4-7, 5:54-6:6 (italics added).

Patentees distinguished the invention from the THISCO system because “the

THISCO system can only process a single transaction per each communication” and

“transactions to different systems cannot be processed concurrently.” Id. at 2:17-25. 

Patentees also distinguished the GolfSwitch system from the Hunt, Germain, and Arnold

systems based on GolfSwitch’s concurrent processing of tee-time requests. File History

at 49-62. They told the examiner that their invention enables “multiple user interfaces to

concurrently access multiple vendor reservation systems,” “allows the user to issue

multiple concurrent transactions to multiple vendor reservation systems within a single

communication,” and “processes multiple user transactions bundled into a single

communication and concurrently divides and processes each transaction.” Id. at 50. 

Patentees asserted:

The use of Multi-Thread technology allows the GolfSwitch technology to

truly concurrently (simultaneously) process a plurality of reservation

transactions to a plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation

systems situated in different locations. This is clearly distinct over the prior

art.

Id. at 51. Patentees specifically contrasted “the sequential Germain approach” with “the

concurrent GolfSwitch approach” using as an example of querying 30 golf courses for

tee-time availability:

The GolfSwitch User Input module bundles one single communication that

includes a request for tee time availability for each of the 30 golf courses....

–This single communication bundle is transmitted to the

Central GolfSwitch System,

–the communication is then un-bundled where each [of] 30

tee time availability requests is handled by a different

processing thread so that they all can be processed within the

same CPU clock cycle (Concurrent Multi-Thread

Processing–refer to GolfSwitch Patent page 10, paragraph 3).

–Each thread transmits the electronic tee time availability

request message to the specific golf course concurrently

(simultaneously).

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 24 of 29
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

- 25 -

–Each thread receives its independent response from the

specific golf course transaction it is serving.

–All responses are bundled into a single reply communication

back to the user input module.

Id. at 53. As an appendix to their paper explaining GolfSwitch’s concurrent processing of

tee-time requests, patentees included the Merriam-Webster online definition of

“concurrent”: “occurring or operating at the same time.” Id. at 62.

The Patent and the prosecution history describe two different types of “concurrent

processing”: (1) simultaneous processing of requests from a single (“each”) user input

module to a “plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems,” by

bundling multiple transactions within a single communication and processing them using

multi-threaded technology, and (2) simultaneous processing of requests from “a plurality

of user input modules” to a “plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation

systems,” which does not necessarily involve bundled transactions and multi-threaded

technology. The claim term “concurrently” therefore must be construed differently in

each of the two different contexts. 

Therefore, the court construes “access concurrently” in claim 1 as “access

simultaneously with other user input modules.”

The court construes “sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently” in claim

1 as “simultaneously sending one or more tee-time requests as bundled transactions

within a single communication.”

The court construes “concurrently receiving one or more tee-time requests” in

claim 1 as “simultaneously receiving one or more tee-time requests as bundled

transactions within a single communication.”

The court construes “concurrently process one or more tee-time requests” in claim

1 as “simultaneously process one or more tee-time requests within the same clock cycle

using multi-threaded processing.”

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 25 of 29
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

- 26 -

G. “Interface”

Plaintiffs propose “interface” be construed as “means for communicating or

exchanging.” The Cypress Defendants and the Tee Connect Defendants propose

“interface” be construed as “means by which an individual user interacts with the

plurality of disparate golf course reservation systems.” 

Claim 1 uses “interface” as a noun, adjective, and verb:

...each user input module having an interface capable of sending one or

more tee-time requests...; and an interface module having a data link ..., said

interface module ... being arranged to interface with each different protocol

of said plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems....

Patent at 10:3-16 (italics added). The Summary of the Invention states:

It is another object of the present invention to provide a graphical interface

that allows a user access to multiple vendor reservation systems via the

same single interface procedure. ... It is a further object of the present

invention to provide a communications protocol that allows the user to

communicate with the seamless interface network irrespective of, and via

multiple forms of entry, including an Internet web application, a graphical

user interface, and additional interfaces.

....

The input module includes a plurality of potential embodiments,

including a graphical user interface, an Internet web site interface and a

plurality of dedicated single use computer interfaces. The input module

allows a registrant to access the network via typical input means such as

mouse, keyboard or voice commands. Regardless of the type of interface

the user attempts to access, the user interface processes all transactions in

the same manner. Thus, the user interface varies the display format of the

input means to correspond with and accommodate the needs of the

particular type of user, while keeping the transaction protocol standardized.

Id. at 2:53-56, 60-65, 3:9-20 (italics added). 

Construing “interface” as limited to user interactions would add redundancy where

the communication or interaction expressly involves users, and confusion where it does

not. Such a construction would not make the claim term more understandable to the jury. 

The court therefore construes “interface” as “means for communicating or

exchanging.”

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 26 of 29
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

- 27 -

H. “Interface module”

Plaintiffs propose that “interface module” be construed as “a module configured

for processing communication requests.” Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ construction

introduces a new term, “communication requests,” that would require further

construction. The court agrees.

The Cypress Defendants and the Tee Connect Defendants propose that “interface

module” be construed as “component that provides a communication link between, and

concurrently processes bundled transactions to and from, the user input module and the

plurality of disparate golf course reservation systems.” Defendants’ proposed

construction unnecessarily includes “concurrently processes bundled transactions,” a

feature of the invention more appropriately included in the claim terms expressly

including the word “concurrently.”

Claim 1 discloses “an interface module having a data link with each of said

plurality of user input modules” and “having a data link connection with each of said

plurality of disparate individual golf course reservation systems.” Patent at 10:7-13. In

the Summary of the Invention, the Patent discloses:

The interface module serves the dual function of a transaction switch and an

information dissemination system. Utilizing a multi-threaded process input means,

the interface module processes multiple user transactions bundled into a single

communication and concurrently divides and processes each transaction. The

interface module communicates with both the user input module and the vendor

service module accepting and sending communications to each module. 

Implementing a dedicated server communication format, the interface module

facilitates communication irrespective of the individual embodiments of the other

modules. Because of the multi-thread, multiple server configuration, the interface

module facilitates concurrent processing of all bundled communications.

Id. at 3:21-34. Further, the Abstract states, “The interface module comprises multiple

servers designed to communicate with the user input module and the vendor service

module and decode and process all bundled requests.” Id. at page 1. Thus, the interface

module must be able to perform certain functions, i.e., concurrently receive tee-time

requests from user input modules, translate and communicate requests to disparate golf

course reservation systems, and effect acceptance of tee-time requests, all as real-time

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 27 of 29
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

- 28 -

transactions. But those functions are disclosed by separate claim terms and should not be

incorporated into the construction of “interface module.”

Therefore, the court rejects all of the parties’ proposed constructions of “interface

module.” The court construes “interface module” as “a component that transmits data

between user input modules and disparate individual golf course reservation systems.”

I. “User input modules”

Plaintiffs propose that “user input modules” be construed as “modules that receive

user input (information); a system or network component for receiving user input such as

remote access devices.” The Cypress Defendants and the Tee Connect Defendants’

proposed construction is “components through which an individual user of the tee-time

reservation system inputs information to and/or interacts with the plurality of disparate

golf course reservation systems.”

Claim 1 discloses multiple user input modules, each of which “having an interface

capable of sending one or more tee-time requests concurrently.” Patent 10:1-6. The

Summary of the Invention describes an invention “that allows a user access to multiple

vendor reservation systems via the same single interface procedure” and “to communicate

with the seamless interface network.” Id. at 2:58-63. It teaches that the “input module

includes a plurality of potential embodiments, including a graphical user interface, an

Internet web site interface and a plurality of dedicated single use computer interfaces”

and the “input module allows a registrant to access the network via typical input means

such as mouse, keyboard or voice commands.” Id. at 3:9-14. Thus, the Patent makes

clear that the user input modules permit the end user to access and interact with the golf

reservation network and not merely “input” data. The user input modules, therefore, must

also provide information to the end user. Defendants’ proposed construction is consistent

with the specification if it is understood that the user input modules interact with the

plurality of disparate golf course reservation systems through the interface module and

not directly.

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 28 of 29
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

- 29 -

The court therefore construes “user input modules” as “components through which

an individual user of the tee-time reservation system inputs information to and/or interacts

with the plurality of disparate golf course reservation systems through the interface

module.”

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court construes the disputed claim terms as set forth

in the table above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1st day of August, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01119-NVW Document 213 Filed 08/01/08 Page 29 of 29