N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________
SECURE WEB CONFERENC E CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATIO N, Defendant

- Appellee

LOGITECH INC., Defendant

______________________

2015

- 1321

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in No. 2:13

- cv

- 02642

- JG

AKT, Judge John Gleeson.

______________________
Decided: February 17, 2016

______________________

W AYNE M ICHAEL H ELGE , Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for plaintiff

appellant. Also represented by J AMES D ANIEL B ERQUIST , Arlington, VA ; J ONATHAN T AD S UDER , Friedman, Suder & Cooke, Fort Worth, TX.SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 2

C HAD J. P ETERMAN , Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by W ILLIAM F. C AVANAUGH , J R

.

______________________
Before L OURIE , B RYSON , and S TOLL , Ci rcuit Judges.

S TOLL , Circuit Judge

. Secure Web Conference Corporation (“Secure Web”) appeals the district court’s construction of several patent claim terms in a patent infringement lawsuit it initiated against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)

. Secure Web argues that the district court improperly imported limit ations from specific embodiments into the challenged construction s. Because the district court correctly co nstrued the term s at issue by considering the language of the claims themselves and by l ooking to the patent spec ification for guidance on claim term meaning , we affirm

. B ACKGROUND
Secure Web owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856, 686 (“ ’ 686
p atent”) and 6,856,687 ( “ ’687 p atent ”) , which are both directed to providing a method and system for enabling

e ncryption of data in a manner that provides increased security

. ’686 p atent , col. 1, ll. 50

– 51 ; ’687 patent, col. 1 ll. 34

– 41

. T he patents differ little. The ’686 p atent, issued on February 15, 2005, describes a method for securing communications between two microprocessor devices, such as between two telephones, fax machines, and/or computers. The patent describes achieving s ecured communications through the use of a “security device,” which has encryption and decryption capabilities and interfaces with each of the microprocessor devices. Figure 1 depicts the system at a high level

.SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 3

Exemplary c laim 1, with the term at issue in this a ppeal italicized, recites :

1. A method for exchanging data between a pl urality of microprocessor based devices over a co mputer network so as to frustrate unauthorized access to said data, said method comprising:
providing a plurality of security devices each being associated with at least one of said plurality of microprocessor based devices;
establishing a point

- to

- point electronic co mmunications session between a first of said secur ity devices being associated with a first of said microprocessor based devices and a second of said security devices being associated with a second of said microprocessor based d evices;
exchanging security data between said first and second security devices using said point

- to

point communications session;
encrypting data to be transmitted using said first security device and said security data; and,SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 4

transmitting said encrypted data from said first microprocessor based device to said second microprocessor based device over said computer network. ’686 patent col. 14 ll. 40

– 61. The ’687 patent issued on February 15, 2005 as a co ntinuation

- in

- part of the application that beca me the ’686

pa tent. The ’687 patent further claims a security device operable on both wired and wireless networks and with varying network bandwidths

. Claim 2 9, with the terms at issue in this appeal italicized , is the only asserted claim from the ’687 p atent :

29. A device for providing secure communications over a network comprising:
a communication port for transfer of audio d ata; a plurality of communication ports for transfer of digital data;
a keypad;
an encoding/decoding device;
a conversion device operable to convert b etween audio and digital data;
a processor, in communication with a memory, said keypad and said encoding/decoding device, operable to execute code for:
selecting a configuration of a transmission and a reception port from among said communication ports dependent upon the presence of a network communication device and an input/output device in communication with said selected ports;SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 5

providing data received from said selected r eception port to said encryption/decryption device for enc rypting; and
providing said encrypted data to said selected transmission port.
’668 patent col. 10 l. 58 – col. 12 l. 6.

Secure Web sued Microsoft in the United States Di strict Court for the Eastern District of New York, accusing Microsoft’s Skype and Lyn c products of infringing the asserted claims of the ’686 and ’687 patents. The district court entered a claim construction order largely in M icrosoft’s favor, at which point the parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. The stipulation provide s that , for each patent, each of the appealed claim constructions constitutes a separate and independent ground for noninfringement , both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents

. Secure Web timely appealed

, and w e have jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)( 1).

D ISCUSSION The “ultimate interpretation” of a claim term, as well as interpretations of “evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history),” are legal conclusions, which this court reviews de novo

. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. , 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015)

. Where a district court “make[s] factual findings about .

. . extrinsic evidence[, however,] th[e] subsidiar y factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. Because the district court relied only on intrinsic evidence in this case, our review is de novo

. I. ’686 Patent The district court construed the claim term “security device” as “ a stand

- alone telecommunications device,SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 6

external to and separate from the associated microproce ssor based or electronic device, capable of encrypting and decrypting data.” Secure Web Conference Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. , No. 13

- CV

- 2642, 2014 WL 4954644, at *2– 5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2014) (Dist. Ct

. Op. ) (emphases added). Secure Web disputes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having considered the intrinsic record, would unde rstan d that a security device is limited to “stand -alone” devices that are “ex ternal to and separate from” the underlying microprocessor based device (s).

Claim construction seeks to ascribe the “ordinary and customary meaning” to claim term s as they would be understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventio n

. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 13 12

– 14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) )

. “[T] he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim t erm s, ” i d. at 1314 , and therefore “t he context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the ord inary and customary meaning of those terms ,” ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

. But “t he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the partic ular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. ” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In deed, t he specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disput ed term” and “[u]sually, it is dispositive

. ” Id. Thus, “claims ‘ must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part. ’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’ d , 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). Applying those principles here , we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would have underst ood a security device to be a stand -alone device that is separate from and external to the associatedSECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 7

microprocessor device (s)

. All descriptions of the security device in the intrinsic record are limited to a stand

- alone device. N othing in the intrinsic record suggests that the pat entee intended a broader notion of a security device. Significantly, at no point does the specification conte mplate a security device embedded within a microprocessor

based devic e

. To the contrary, the specification touts the separate and stand

- alone nat ure of the security device as an advantage.
First, t he Background of the Invention section characteriz es the security device as an add

- on component to existing microprocessor

- based devices, explaining that “ as many users already possess telephones, facsimile m achines and computers, it is desirable to provide a security device capable of performing [security] functions in co nnection with these existing devices. ” ’686 patent col. 1 ll. 43

– 48. The remainder of the specification reinforces that using a stand -alone security device is not mer e happenstance.
For example

, in an embodiment where the micropr ocessor

- based device is a computer, the specification e xplains that separating the security device from the microprocessor

- based device advantageously all ows a user to secure data residing in the microprocessor

- based device in the event it is lost or stolen . Explaining how the sep arate security device will store a decryption key needed to decipher messages, the specification notes that “separ ation of the [ security ] device 10 from the computer 40 acts as a means of securing data residing in the computer 40 .” Id. col. 10 l. 67 – col. 11 l. 2. Continuing, the specification explains that a user “could instruct computer 40 to transmit a file to the [security] device 10 for encryption with the permanent key” and the “encrypted file would then be re

- transmitted back to the computer.” Id. col. 11 ll. 4

– 6. “In this way, even if the computer 40 becomes lost or stolen, unauthorized access to the encrypted file could still be frustrated by adequately safeguarding device 10.”SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 8

Id. col. 11 ll. 12

– 15. This benefit is derived directly from the separation of the security device and the computer. Not only does the specific ation describe specific a dvantages gained from separating the security device from the microprocessor

- based device, but also it never once suggest s embedding the security device within the micr oprocessor

- based device. Figure 1 of the ’686 patent illu strat es the system described by the patent and clearly depicts the security device separate from and external to the microprocessor

- based devices connecting to it. Fi gure 2 provides a detailed view of the security device itself. F igure 2 shows, and the associ ated text describes , several sets of input/output ports on the security device so that various microprocessor

- based devices may be come “co upled” to it. Id. Fig. 2 and col. 3 ll. 8

– 34. Figure 2 and its associated text also indicate that the security device has its own microcontroller. Id

. The e xistence of ports for interfacing with other devices and the use of an indepen dent microcontroller exhibit the level of self

- sufficiency expected of a stand

- alone device.

W e are mindful not to limit claims to preferred e mbodiments, but in this case, the district court did not err in concluding that Figures 1 and 2 depict the essence of the claimed invention rather than a preferred embod iment. Particularly, the specification describes Figure 1 as depicting “a c ommunication system according to the present invention ” and Figure 2 as depicting “a teleco mmunications security device according to the instant invention .” Id. col. 2 ll. 16

– 19. While the specification later describes Figu re 2 as “a block diagram of a p referred form of the security device acco rding to the instant inve ntion” ( Id. col. 3 ll. 7–9)

, this statement does not change the understanding of “security device” at least because t he specification repeatedly notes the importance of using an external security device, reinforcing that the security device of the invention is limited to stand

- alone security devices. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3dSECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 9

1295, 1300

– 01 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing claim to require a particular configuration where specification described the importance of the configuration and did not disclose others).

Microsoft presented the district court with dictionary definitions of the word “device .” Secure Web argues these definition s led the district court astray, despite recogni zing that “the district court did not expressly cite to or rely on Microsoft’s dictionary definitions in its Or der.” Appe llant Br. 25. This argument is unpersuasive

, as the intri nsic record alone wholly sup ports the district court’s construction. Therefore, we, like the district court, do not rely on dictionary definitions to reach our construction. See Phillips , 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 980) (indicating that use of extrinsic evidence in claim construction is permissive, not mand atory); Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 767 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“ Although courts are permitted to co nsider extrinsic evidence like expert testimony, d ictiona ries, and treatises, such evidence is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record. ”).
Even were we to rely on dictionaries in this case, we would not likely find the definition of “device” useful because our construction does not hinge on the word “device” used in isolation. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’ l, Inc. , 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“ Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be const rued in the claim in which it appears. ”)

. For this same reason, we are also unconvinced by Secure Web’s argument that because Figure 2 depicts an “encry ption/decryption device” embedded within the security device, an inference can be drawn that the patent ee used the term “device” throughout the patent to mean a co mponent capable of being embedded. This attenuated argument does not overcome the specification ’s consistentSECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 10

treatment of the actual term

- in

- dispute

— “security d evice”

— as a separate, stand

- alone device.

In sum , a person of ordinary skill in the art having considered the intrinsic record would have understood the term securi ty device to describe a stand

- alone, external device that is separate from the underlying micropr oce ssor device(s). Therefore, the district court did not err in construing “security device

. ”
The parties stipulated to a final judgment of non i nfringement of the ’686 patent under the construction of “security device” adopted by the district court

. Bec ause we adopt the district court’s construction of “security device ,” we do not address the construction underlying the alternative stipulated ground for non infringement as we need not decide more than is necessary to dispose of the case regarding to the ’ 686 patent

. See Network Co mmerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 422 F.3d 1353, 1357 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ( declining to construe claim term when

non infringement judgment is affirmed on other claim construction ground ).

II. ’687 Patent The claim construction dispute for the related ’687 p atent concerns not the security device, but the network communication and input/output devices

, which are the devices with which the security device interfaces

. Neve rtheless , the heart of the dispute remains the same: whether the security device and the interfacing devices must be separate from and external to one another.

The district court determined that the devices needed to be separate and external, con struing the ’687 claim term “net work communications device” as “ a separate, external device, connected via a communications port on the ‘device for providing secure communications over a network,’ that allows for communications over the ne twork ” and the term “input/output device” as “ a separate,SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 11

external device, connected via a communications port on the ‘device for providing secure communications over a network,’ that inputs data into and receives data from the device .” Dist. Ct. Op. , 2014 WL 4954644, at * 7–8 (emph ases added ). Similar to its argument for the “security device” term in the ’686 patent, Secure Web disputes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “separate, external ” limitation for these devices

. T he constructions the district court reached for the terms “network communication device” and “input/output device” have considerable suppor t , particularly from the lan guage of the ’687 patent’s sole asserted claim, claim 29

. As noted

, “ the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the me aning of particular claim terms.

. . . the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive .” Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1314 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 ; ACTV, 346 F.3d at 1088). Here , asserted claim 29 recites that the security device contain s “a plurality of communication ports for the transfer of digital data.” ’687 patent col. 10 ll

. 61

– 62. The security device also contains a processor used for

“ selecting a configuration of a transmission and a rece ption port from among said communication ports dependent upon the presence of a network communication device and an input/output device in communication with said selected ports .” Id. col. 11 ll. 4 –8 (emphas e s added)

. Thus, the claim is drawn to a security device that diffe rent devices can be connected to or disconnected from

, resulting in a configuration change of the security device

. If the network communication device and i nput/output device were not separate from the security device, this capability would be un necessary ; t he security device would not need to determine whether a network communication device or input/output device was pre sent because they always would be

. Instead, the claim la nguage make s clear that the network configuration device and input/output device are, as the district court e x-SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP

. v. MICROSOFT CORP

. 12

plained , “only contingently present.” Dist. Ct. Op. , 2014 WL 4954644, at * 13

. This is to say that the devices are separate from and external to one another. We are not convinced by Secure Web’s argument that the “in comm unication with selected ports” limitation somehow cuts against t his inference. Beyond support from claim 29

, the ’687 patent specification provides additional support for the district court’s construction

, similar to that found for the security device construction in the ’686 patent. For example, t he specification describes that the security device is “portable,” which is made possible by use of a battery. ’687 patent col. 4 ll. 59

– 63; see also id. col. 1 ll. 37, 55. The logical import of this description is that the security device and the devices with which it interfaces must be separate so that the security device remains portable. And, as with the ’686 patent, the ’687 patent figures and associated descriptions consistently depict and describe the security device as separate from and external to the network communication device and the input/output device.
Based on the intrinsic evidence, we conclude that the district court correctly construed “network communic ations device” and “input/output device .” Per the stipula ted final judgment entered by the parties, each of these constructions is a ground for non in fringement of the ’687 patent for Microsoft

. C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s entry of stipulated judgment of noninfringement

. AFFIRMED