Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04636/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04636-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEATNIK, INC., and MICROSOFT CORP.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-04636 JSW

CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION

ORDER RE MEANS-PLUSFUNCTION CLAIMS

On March 14, 2006, this Court held a claim construction hearing to construe the disputed

means-plus-function terms of U.S. Patent No. 5,886,274 (“the `274 Patent”) pursuant to

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The was the second claim

construction hearing in this matter. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, heard the

parties’ arguments and considered the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the

Court will now construe the disputed claim terms within the `274 Patent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Seer Systems, Inc. (“Seer Systems”) seeks to prevent Defendant Microsoft

Corp. (“Microsoft”) from infringing Seer Systems’ patent. The `274 Patent relates to a system

and method for generating, distributing, storing and performing musical work files. (See `274

Patent at 1:7-10.)

At issue are disputed terms in claims 26 and 44. The parties agree that the disputed

terms in these claims are means-plus-function claims and agree on the functions for the disputed

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

claims. Therefore, the only issue before the Court is to determine the corresponding structures

disclosed in the specification as clearly linked to the linked to these claimed functions.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard.

“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to

which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water

Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The interpretation of the scope and

meaning of disputed terms in patent claims is a question of law and exclusively within the

province of a court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372

(1996). In addition, the determination of whether a claim is written in means-plus-function

format and the determination of the claimed function and corresponding structure in the

specification of a means-plus-function claim limitation is a question of law. Kemco Sales, Inc.

v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

The inquiry into the meaning of the claim terms is “an objective one.” Innova/Pure

Water, 381 F.3d at 1116. As a result, a court undertaking the construction of disputed terms

“looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would

have understood the disputed claim language to mean.” Id. In most cases, a court’s analysis

will focus on three sources: the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Markman

v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370

(1996). However, on occasion, reliance on extrinsic evidence regarding the relevant scientific

principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art at the time at the time the

patent issued is appropriate.

The starting point of the claim construction analysis is an examination of the specific

claim language. A court’s “claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the

claim language itself, for that is the language that the patentee chose to particularly point out and

distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.” Innova/Pure

Water, 381 F.3d at 1116 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, in the absence of an

express intent to impart a novel meaning to a term, an inventor’s chosen language is given its

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ordinary meaning. York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568,

1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, “[c]laim language generally carries the ordinary meaning of the

words in their normal usage in the field of the invention.” Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg.,

L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Claim language generally carries the ordinary

meaning of the words in their normal usage in the field of invention.”); see also Renishaw v.

Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (recognizing that “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”). A court’s final construction,

therefore, must accord with the words chosen by the patentee to mete out the boundaries of the

claimed invention.

A court also may look to intrinsic evidence, including the written description, the

drawings, and the prosecution history, if included in the record, to provide context and

clarification regarding the intended meaning of the claim terms because the claims do not stand

alone. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Rather,

“they are part of ‘a fully integrated written instrument.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,

1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). The specification “may act

as a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention and may define the terms used in the

claims.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification also can indicate whether the patentee

intended to limit the scope of a claim, despite the use of seemingly broad claim language. 

SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir.

2001) (recognizing that when the specification “makes clear that the invention does not include

a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent,

even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be

considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question”). 

If the analysis of the intrinsic evidence fails to resolve any ambiguity in the claim

language, a court then may turn to extrinsic evidence, such as expert declarations and testimony

from the inventors. Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

(“When an analysis of intrinsic evidence resolves any ambiguity in a disputed claim term, it is

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

improper to rely on extrinsic evidence to contradict the meaning so ascertained.”) (emphasis in

original). When considering extrinsic evidence, a court should take care not to use it to vary or

contradict the claim terms. Rather, extrinsic evidence is relied upon more appropriately to assist

in determining the meaning or scope of technical terms in the claims. Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

A patentee may write a claim in a means-plus-function format pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

section 112, paragraph 6, by defining a particular function in the claims and a corresponding

structure in the specification. Kemco Sales, 208 F.3d at 1360. Section 112, paragraph 6

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

performing a specified function without the recital of structure ... in support thereof, and such

claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure ... described in the specification

and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (2000). Construction of means-plus-function

claims entails a two-step process. Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elektra AB,

344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the first step, the court must identify the particular

claimed function. Id. In the second step, the court looks to the specification and identifies the

structure that corresponds to that function. Id. A structure is a “corresponding structure” only if

that element is necessary to perform the function recited in the claim and is clearly linked to that

function by the disclosure in the specification. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364,

1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The patentee’s “duty to clearly link or associate structure to the claimed

function” represents the fair exchange for the convenience of employing means-plus-function

claim limitations. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

In the electronic context, “[a] computer-implemented means-plus-function term is

limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and

the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp. v. Ericsson, Inc., 417 F.3d 1241,

1253 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, “[i]n a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure

is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure

is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

perform the disclosed algorithm.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349

(Fed. Cir. 1999). 

An algorithm, broadly defined, is “a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or

accomplishing some end.” In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976)). The Federal Circuit has made clear that “every

step-by-step process, be it electronic or chemical or mechanical, involves an algorithm in the

broad sense of the term.” Id. There is “no need for a disclosure of the specific program code”

when software is linked to the claimed function and one of ordinary skill in the art would know

the kind of program to use. Medical Instrumentation, 344 F.3d at 1214; see also Intel Corp. v.

VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the “core logic” modified

to perform a particular program was adequate corresponding structure for a claimed function

although the specification did not disclose the internal circuitry of the core logic).

B. Claim Construction.

1. The Disputed Claim Terms and the Specification Disclose a Specially

Programmed Processor.

The parties have raised a threshold issue that affects the construction of both claim 26

and claim 44 of the `274 Patent. Seer Systems contends, following WMS Gaming, that the

specification describes a central processing unit (“CPU”) specially programmed to perform the

disclosed corresponding structure or algorithm. Microsoft argues that the `274 Patent nowhere

states or suggests that a computer, microprocessor, or CPU performs the claimed functions

recited in claims 26 and 44.

In WMS Gaming, the Federal Circuit held that “[i]n a means-plus-function claim in

which the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an

algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special

purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” 184 F.3d at 1349. 

Although the holding of WMS Gaming applies here, its analysis is not exactly on point because

in that case, unlike here, the parties stipulated that the patent disclosed a microprocessor to

control the operation of the slot machine at issue. See id. at 1347.

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Rather, the case governing the precise issue here is Harris, which interpreted WMS

Gaming. In Harris, the Federal Circuit construed claim 1 of the patent at issue, pertaining to a

communication system comprising “time domain processing means.” Harris, 417 F.3d at 1245-

46. The district court had found that the corresponding structure for the “time domain

processing means” was a symbol processor disclosed in the patent. Id. at 1246. On appeal, the

Federal Circuit held that this construction was legally insufficient under WMS Gaming because

although the patent disclosed that the processor was linked to, and implemented the recited

function, the corresponding structure was “a microprocessor programmed to carry out” the

algorithm described in the patent. Id. at 1253-54.

As in Harris, the `274 Patent here describes a “computer-implemented means-plusfunction term.” Id. at 1253. First, with respect to the composition system of claim 26, the

specification discloses that “[c]omposition system 240 also may be stored in data storage device

235 and loaded into RAM 210 for execution by CPU.” (See `274 Patent at 3:38-40 (emphasis

added).) Microsoft stresses the language in the specification that “[i]t will further be

appreciated that since the entire composition system 240 is implemented in software . . .” to

demonstrate that the `274 Patent discloses no hardware as corresponding structure for the

claimed functions. (See id. at 5:18-19.) However, remainder of this sentence belies Microsoft’s

argument. The sentence concludes: “. . . it is possible to maintain any number of channels and

any number of tracks, but, of course, limited by processor speed, system bandwith and memory

availability.” (See id. at 5:19-22 (emphasis added).) This language in the specification clearly

discloses that a CPU is used to implement the disclosed algorithm or software. Therefore, the

Court finds that with respect to the composition system, the `274 Patent discloses a CPU

programmed to implement an algorithm.

Second, with respect to the player system of claim 44, the specification also describes a

CPU programmed to carry out an algorithm. For example, the specification teaches that

“[p]layer system 740 may be stored in data storage device 735 and loaded into RAM 710 for

execution by CPU 705.” (See id. at 6:45-47 (emphasis added).) Consequently, with respect to

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 6 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

the player system as well, the Court finds that the `274 Patent discloses a CPU as part of the

corresponding structure.

Having concluded that the `274 Patent discloses a CPU, the Court will now construe the

disputed claim terms in light of the disclosed algorithms. See WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349.

2. “Means for receiving music control signals”

Claim 26 of the `274 Patent claims, in pertinent part, “[a] composition system

comprising: means for receiving music control signals.” (See `274 Patent at 10:34-35.) The

parties agree that the function is “receiving music control signals.” Seer Systems proposes that

the disputed structure be construed as: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the

disclosed algorithm of receiving musical control signals through loading them from composer

server data storage or RAM after transmission from input device, and equivalents thereof.” 

Microsoft proposes the term be construed as: “This ‘means’ corresponds to ‘synthesizer engine

305’ in Fig. 3, ‘sequencer 325’ in Fig. 3, or ‘input device’ referred to in the Abstract and the

Summary of the Invention.” At the hearing, the Court proposed the following construction: “A

central processing unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of receiving music

control signals from MIDI input device and passing them through a synthesizer engine to the

sequencer for storage, and equivalents thereof.”

The patent specification teaches that “composition system 240 . . . includes synthesizer

engine 305 coupled to signal bus 225 for processing input control signals from input device

105.” (See `274 Patent at 3:59-61.) The specification further teaches that composer server 110,

which includes composition system 240, “receives input control signals representing sound via a

Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) input device 105.” (See id. at 3:2-4.) In particular,

the specification discloses the following algorithm: “Step 940 includes receiving other input

control signals such as intonation and expression information from MIDI input device 105 and

passing the signals through synthesizer engine 305 to sequencer 325 for storage.” (See id. at

7:41-45.) Accordingly, the Court construes the corresponding structure of “means for receiving

music control signals” to be: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 7 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

disclosed algorithm of receiving music control signals from MIDI input device and passing

them through a synthesizer engine to the sequencer for storage, and equivalents thereof.”

3. “Means for receiving at least a portion of a sound bank containing at least

one instrument sound”

Claim 26 of the `274 Patent claims, in relevant part, “[a] composition system

comprising: . . . means for receiving at least a portion of a sound bank containing at least one

instrument sound.” (See `274 Patent at 10:34-37.) The parties agree that the claimed function is

“receiving at least a portion of a sound bank containing at least one instrument sound.” 

Seer Systems proposes that the disputed structure be construed as: “A central processing

unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of receiving at least a portion of a sound

bank containing at least one instrument sound through loading it from local sound bank and, if

there are work links, downloading it from locations specified in computer network, and

equivalents thereof.” Microsoft proposes the term be construed as: “This ‘means’ corresponds

to ‘synthesizer engine 305’ in Fig. 3 or ‘work manager 345’ in Fig. 3.” At the hearing, the Court

proposed the following construction: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the

disclosed algorithm of receiving at least a portion of a sound bank containing at least one

instrument sound through retrieving composer-selected instrument sounds either from local

sound bank or, if there are work links, from locations in music network system, and equivalents

thereof.”

The composition system includes a synthesizer engine coupled to a signal bus for

processing control signals from an input device, including instrument sound selections. (See

`274 Patent at 3:58-62.) The specification teaches that “to incorporate instrument sounds,

synthesizer engine 305 retrieves the composer-selected instrument sounds either from local

sound bank 250 or from the locations in system 100 referenced by work links.” (See id. at 4:35-

39.) Similarly, “to incorporate samples, the synthesizer engine 305 retrieves the samples either

from the local sound bank 252 or from the locations in system 100 referenced by work links.” 

(See id. at 4:39-42.) Moreover, the specification discloses the corresponding structure through

the algorithm of “selecting one of the sounds from sound bank 250, or selecting a previously

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 8 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

created sound from a location somewhere within network 120 and adding a work link 630 to

reference that location.” (See id. at 7:21-25.) Accordingly, the Court construes the

corresponding structure of “means for receiving at least a portion of a sound bank containing at

least one instrument sound” to be: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the

disclosed algorithm of receiving at least a portion of a sound bank containing at least one

instrument sound through retrieving composer-selected instrument sounds either from

local sound bank or, if there are work links, from locations in music network system, and

equivalents thereof.” 

4. “Means for storing the music control signals and received sound bank

portion as a musical work file”

Claim 26 of the `274 Patent claims, in pertinent part, “[a] composition system

comprising: . . . means for storing the music control signals and received sound bank portions as

a musical work file.” (See `274 Patent at 10:34-39.) The parties agree that the claimed function

is “storing the music control signals and received sound bank portion as a musical work file.”

Seer Systems proposes that the disputed structure be construed as: “A central processing

unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of storing the music control signals and

received sound bank portion through assigning and storing header data to file, computing and

storing initialization data to file, retrieving, reformatting and storing music control signals and

received sound bank portion to file, and certifying file, and equivalents thereof.” Microsoft

proposes the following construction: “This ‘means’ corresponds to ‘work manager’ in the

Abstract and the Summary of the Invention.” At the hearing, the Court proposed the following

construction: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of

storing the music control signals and received sound bank portion through a work manager that

assigns musical work file header data, computes initialization data, reformats, imports and

exports raw musical data, stores all such data into a musical work file and certifies said musical

work file, and equivalents thereof.”

The claimed composition system contains programs for generating an integral music

work file, later forwarded to the player client. (See `274 Patent at 3:32-38.) The specification

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 9 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

teaches that “[h]eader utilities engine 505 assigns and stores in musical work file 255 header

data including musical work file identification (ID) information . . . [and] may also compute and

store in musical work file 255 the number of channels needed . . . to perform the musical work.” 

(See id. at 5:56-63.) Similarly, “[d]ata I/O engine 510 retrieves, reformats and stores sound

bank 250, sample bank 252, effect bank 254 and raw musical data 330 into musical work file

255” and may also “use resource data 513 to compute and store initialization data . . . .” (See id.

at 5:64-67, 6:1.) The `274 Patent further discloses that this algorithm ends when the work

certifier certifies the musical work file so that the player client can authenticate it and verify its

performance rights. (See id. at 7:59-67, 8-1-11; see also Figs. 6, 9, 10.) Consequently, the

Court construes the corresponding structure of “means for storing the music control signals and

received sound bank portions as a musical work file” to be: “A central processing unit

programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of storing the music control signals and

received sound bank portion through a work manager that assigns musical work file

header data, computes initialization data, reformats, imports and exports raw musical

data, stores all such data into a musical work file and certifies said musical work file, and

equivalents thereof.”

5. “Means for receiving a musical work file containing downloadable-in-realtime topology information, downloadable-in-real-time music sequence data,

and a sound bank which includes at least one downloadable-in-real-time

instrument sound”

Claim 44 of the `274 Patent claims, in relevant portion, “[a] player system that can

receive and play downloadable-in-real-time musical data, comprising: means for receiving a

musical work file containing downloadable-in-real-time topology information, downloadable-inreal-time music sequence data, and a sound bank which includes at least one downloadable-in

real-time instrument sound.” (See `274 Patent at 12:12-18.) The parties agree that the claimed

function is “receiving a musical work file containing downloadable-in-real-time topology

information, downloadable-in-real-time music sequence data, and a sound bank which includes

at least one downloadable-in-real-time instrument sound.”

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 10 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Seer Systems proposes that the disputed structure be construed as: “A central processing

unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of receiving a musical work file through

loading from player client data storage device or RAM after its transmission from network

communications interface or CD Drive and accessing it to authenticate file and verifying

playback rights, and equivalents thereof.” Microsoft proposes the term be construed as: “This

‘means’ corresponds to ‘certifier 805’ in Fig. 8.” At the hearing, the Court proposed the

following construction: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the disclosed

algorithm of receiving a musical work file through downloading musical work file from

composer server via communications interface or CD drive, and examining certification of said

musical work file to authenticate and to determine performance rights, and equivalents thereof.”

Figure 7 of the `274 Patent shows that the player system 740 is part of the player client

125. (See `274 Patent, Fig. 7.) “Player client 125 may receive the control signals and other data

from composer server 110 via computer network 120 or via a compact disk (CD) 135 . . . .” 

(See id. at 3:6-8.) Further, the specification discloses the following algorithm: “method 1100 for

performing a channel of musical work file 255 . . . begins with step 1105 by communications

interface 730 or CD drive 720 of player client 125 receiving musical work file 255. Certifier

805 in step 1110 examines certification 640 to determine whether player client 125 is certified

to perform the musical work file 255.” (See id. at 8:12-18.) If the player client is certified, the

specification teaches that the certifier forwards at least a portion of a first channel contained in

the musical work file to the sequencer, which forwards the corresponding channel portion to the

synthesizer engine. (See id. at 8:19-22.)

In addition, relevant excerpts from the prosecution history support the Court’s proposed

construction. The prosecution history states that “data from storage device 235 is

‘downloadable’ through network 120 to player system 740. Further, data in storage device 235

can be represented by work links 630, which is downloadable ‘in real time’ (page 15, lines 12-

15). ... Music sequence data (FIG. 6, item 615), part of downloadable-in-real-time raw musical

data 330 (FIG. 6), is [also] downloadable in real time.” (Declaration of Dr. Curtis Roads in

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 11 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Support of Seer Systems, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Roads Decl.”), Ex. B at P

0013 (citation in original).)

Accordingly, the Court construes the corresponding structure of “means for receiving a

musical work file containing downloadable-in-real-time topology information, downloadable-inreal-time music sequence data, and a sound bank which includes at least one downloadable-in

real-time instrument sound” to be: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the

disclosed algorithm of receiving a musical work file through downloading musical work

file from composer server via communications interface or CD drive, and examining

certification of said musical work file to authenticate and to determine performance

rights, and equivalents thereof.”

6. “Means for processing the music sequence data based on the topology

information and the sound bank”

Claim 44 of the `274 Patent claims, in pertinent part, “[a] player system that can receive

and play downloadable-in-real-time musical data, comprising: . . . means for processing the

music sequence data based on the topology information and the sound bank.” (See `274 Patent

at 12:12-20.) The parties agree that the claimed function is “processing the music sequence data

based on the topology information and the sound bank.”

Seer Systems proposes that the disputed structure be construed as: “A central processing

unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of processing the music sequence data

through playing the raw musical data, loading sounds from sound bank in the musical work file,

loading work linked sounds by downloading them in real time from composer server or

computer network and mixing the music sequence and effects, and equivalents thereof.” 

Microsoft proposes the term be construed as: “This ‘means’ corresponds to ‘sequencer 810’ in

Fig. 8, ‘synthesizer engine 815’ in Fig. 8, ‘mixer 820’ in Fig. 8, ‘reverb 825’ in Fig. 8, and

‘chorus 830’ in Fig. 8.” At the hearing, the Court proposed the following construction: “A

central processing unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of processing the music

sequence data through: (1) playing the raw musical data; (2) downloading in real time from the

composer server or computer network the composer-selected initial mix and effect parameters;

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 12 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

(3) retrieving from sound bank the instrument sounds referenced by the music sequence, and

from locations specified by work links any instruments, mixes, effects or other work link data;

and (4) determining availability of all sounds needed to perform musical work, and equivalents

thereof.”

The specification teaches that after certification of the music work file, for the first

channel portion, “synthesizer engine 815 in step 1120 downloads the composer-selected initial

mix parameters from raw musical data 330 of musical work file 255 to mixer 820, and in step

1125 downloads the composer-selected initial effect parameters 620” from the raw musical data

of the musical work file to the selected effects. (See `274 Patent at 8:23-29.) The synthesizer

then “retrieves from sound bank 250 the instrument sounds referenced by the music sequence

615, and . . . downloads any instruments, mixes, effects or other work link data from the

locations specified by work links 630.” (See id. at 8:29-33; see also Figs. 1, 6, 7, 8, 11.) In the

next step of the disclosed algorithm, the synthesizer engine determines the availability of all

sounds needed to perform the musical work. (See id. at 8:34-35.) If all needed sounds are

available, then the next step is to convert the channel portion to sound. (See id. at 8:36; 44-51.) 

If, however, “a custom sound is unavailable, synthesizer engine 1136 determines whether a fallback sound . . . is available to replace it.” (`274 Patent at 8:36-39.)

Moreover, the prosecution history reveals that “[t]opology information, sequence data,

and a sound bank contained in a musical work file of the claimed invention are also

downloadable in real time. Topology information . . . is downloadable . . . ‘during performance

of the musical work’ (page 14, lines 14-18, emphasis added), which is ‘real time.’” (Roads

Decl., Ex. B at P 0013 (emphasis and citations in original).) Music sequence data and work

links are also downloadable in real time. (Id.) These statements in the prosecution history

further support the Court’s proposed construction.

As a result, the Court construes the corresponding structure of “means for processing the

music sequence data based on the topology information and the sound bank” to be: “A central

processing unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of processing the music

sequence data through: (1) playing the raw musical data; (2) downloading in real time

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 13 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

14

from the composer server or computer network the composer-selected initial mix and

effect parameters; (3) retrieving from sound bank the instrument sounds referenced by

the music sequence, and from locations specified by work links any instruments, mixes,

effects or other work link data; and (4) determining availability of all sounds needed to

perform musical work, and equivalents thereof.”

7. “Means for converting the processed music sequence data to sound”

Claim 44 of the `274 Patent claims, in relevant part, “[a] player system that can receive

and play downloadable-in-real-time musical data, comprising: . . . means for converting the

processed music sequence data to sound.” (See `274 Patent at 12:12-22.) The parties agree that

the claimed function is “converting the processed music sequence data to sound.”

Seer Systems proposes that the disputed structure be construed as: “A central processing

unit programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of converting the processed music

sequence data to sound through controlling speaker system, and equivalents thereof.” Microsoft

proposes that the term be construed as: “This ‘means’ corresponds to ‘client sound output

device 130’ and ‘synthesizer driver 745’ in Fig. 8.” At the hearing, the Court proposed the

following construction: “A central processing unit programmed to perform the disclosed

algorithm of converting the processed music sequence data to sound by the synthesizer driver, in

conjunction with the client sound output device, or by the speaker system coupled to the mixer,

and equivalents thereof.”

The specification discloses the following algorithm: “[i]n step 1140, synthesizer engine

815 synthesizes and forwards the corresponding channel portion to synthesizer driver 745,

which in conjunction with client sound output device 130 (FIG. 1) converts the synthesized

channel portion to sound.” (See `274 Patent at 8:44-47.) In the next step, the sequencer

determines whether the musical work file includes another channel portion to be performed. 

(See id. at 8:48-50.) The specification also teaches that the player client, which includes the

player system, “uses a client sound output device 130 to convert the control signals and other

data to sound.” (See id. at 3:6-10.) Moreover, both the Abstract and the Summary of the

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 14 of 15
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

Invention refer to “a speaker system coupled to the mixer for converting the mixed music

control signals to sound.” (See id. at 1:66-67; Abstract.)

At the hearing, Microsoft argued that “the speaker system coupled to the mixer” does not

appear in the specification. However, as discussed above both the Abstract and the Summary of

the Invention disclose this corresponding structure. (See id. at 1:66-67; Abstract.) The Abstract

and Summary of the Invention are part of the specification. Thus, the Court must consider these

sections in construing the disputed means-plus-function terms. See Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek,

Inc., 174 F.3d 1352, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Therefore,

Microsoft’s argument is unfounded.

Accordingly, the Court construes the corresponding structure of “means for converting

the processed music sequence data to sound” to be: “A central processing unit programmed

to perform the disclosed algorithm of converting the processed music sequence data to

sound by the synthesizer driver, in conjunction with the client sound output device, or by

the speaker system coupled to the mixer, and equivalents thereof.”

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis set forth above, the Court adopts the foregoing constructions of the

disputed means-plus-function terms. Pursuant to Patent Standing Order ¶ 13, the parties are

ordered to submit a further joint case management report within twenty-one days of the filing of

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 111 Filed 03/22/06 Page 15 of 15