NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

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-JGAKT, Judge John Gleeson.

______________________ 

Decided: February 17, 2016

______________________ 

 WAYNE MICHAEL HELGE, Davidson Berquist Jackson 

& Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for plaintiffappellant. Also represented by JAMES DANIEL BERQUIST,

Arlington, VA; JONATHAN TAD SUDER, Friedman, Suder &

Cooke, Fort Worth, TX.
2 SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORP. 

 CHAD J. PETERMAN, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 

LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also

represented by WILLIAM F. CAVANAUGH, JR. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, 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 limitations from specific embodiments into the challenged 

constructions. Because the district court correctly construed the terms at issue by considering the language of 

the claims themselves and by looking to the patent specification for guidance on claim term meaning, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Secure Web owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856,686 (“ ’686 

patent”) and 6,856,687 (“ ’687 patent”), which are both 

directed to providing a method and system for enabling 

encryption of data in a manner that provides increased 

security. ’686 patent, col. 1, ll. 50–51; ’687 patent, col. 1 

ll. 34–41. The patents differ little. The ’686 patent, 

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 secured 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 claim 1, with the term at issue in this appeal italicized, recites: 

1. A method for exchanging data between a plurality of microprocessor based devices over a computer 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 communications session between a first of said security 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 devices; 

exchanging security data between said first 

and second security devices using said point-topoint communications session; 

encrypting data to be transmitted using said 

first security device and said security data; and, 
4 SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORP. 

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 continuation-in-part of the application that became the ’686 

patent. The ’687 patent further claims a security device 

operable on both wired and wireless networks and with 

varying network bandwidths. Claim 29, with the terms at 

issue in this appeal italicized, is the only asserted claim 

from the ’687 patent: 

29. A device for providing secure communications 

over a network comprising: 

a communication port for transfer of audio data; 

a plurality of communication ports for transfer 

of digital data; 

a keypad; 

an encoding/decoding device; 

a conversion device operable to convert between 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 reception port to said encryption/decryption device 

for encrypting; 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 District Court for the Eastern District of New York, accusing 

Microsoft’s Skype and Lync products of infringing the

asserted claims of the ’686 and ’687 patents. The district 

court entered a claim construction order largely in Microsoft’s favor, at which point the parties stipulated to a 

judgment of noninfringement. The stipulation provides 

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 we have jurisdiction 

to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

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] subsidiary 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, 
6 SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORP. 

external to and separate from the associated microprocessor 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 understand that a security device is limited to “stand-alone” 

devices that are “external to and separate from” the 

underlying microprocessor based device(s). 

Claim construction seeks to ascribe the “ordinary and 

customary meaning” to claim terms as they would be 

understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the 

time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1312–14 (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 terms,” id. at 1314, and 

therefore “the context of the surrounding words of the 

claim also must be considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms,” ACTV, Inc. 

v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

But “the 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.” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Indeed, the specification is 

“the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed 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 understood a security device to be a stand-alone 

device that is separate from and external to the associated 
SECURE 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. Nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that the 

patentee intended a broader notion of a security device. 

Significantly, at no point does the specification contemplate a security device embedded within a microprocessorbased device. To the contrary, the specification touts the 

separate and stand-alone nature of the security device as 

an advantage.

First, the Background of the Invention section characterizes the security device as an add-on component to 

existing microprocessor-based devices, explaining that “as 

many users already possess telephones, facsimile machines and computers, it is desirable to provide a security 

device capable of performing [security] functions in connection 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 mere 

happenstance. 

For example, in an embodiment where the microprocessor-based device is a computer, the specification explains that separating the security device from the 

microprocessor-based device advantageously allows a user 

to secure data residing in the microprocessor-based device 

in the event it is lost or stolen. Explaining how the separate security device will store a decryption key needed to 

decipher messages, the specification notes that “separation 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.” 
8 SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORP. 

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 specification describe specific advantages gained from separating the security device from 

the microprocessor-based device, but also it never once 

suggests embedding the security device within the microprocessor-based device. Figure 1 of the ’686 patent illustrates the system described by the patent and clearly 

depicts the security device separate from and external to 

the microprocessor-based devices connecting to it. Figure 2 provides a detailed view of the security device itself. 

Figure 2 shows, and the associated text describes, several 

sets of input/output ports on the security device so that 

various microprocessor-based devices may become “coupled” 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 existence of ports for 

interfacing with other devices and the use of an independent microcontroller exhibit the level of self-sufficiency 

expected of a stand-alone device.

We are mindful not to limit claims to preferred embodiments, 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 embodiment. Particularly, the specification describes Figure 1 as 

depicting “a communication system according to the 

present invention” and Figure 2 as depicting “a telecommunications security device according to the instant 

invention.” Id. col. 2 ll. 16–19. While the specification 

later describes Figure 2 as “a block diagram of a preferred

form of the security device according to the instant invention” (Id. col. 3 ll. 7–9), this statement does not change the 

understanding of “security device” at least because the 

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.3d 
SECURE 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 

definitions led the district court astray, despite recognizing that “the district court did not expressly cite to or rely 

on Microsoft’s dictionary definitions in its Order.” Appellant Br. 25. This argument is unpersuasive, as the intrinsic record alone wholly supports 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 mandatory); Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1316 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Although courts are permitted to consider extrinsic evidence like expert testimony, dictionaries, 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 construed 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 “encryption/decryption device” embedded within the security 

device, an inference can be drawn that the patentee used 

the term “device” throughout the patent to mean a component capable of being embedded. This attenuated 

argument does not overcome the specification’s consistent 
10 SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORP. 

treatment of the actual term-in-dispute—“security device”—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 security device to describe a stand-alone, external 

device that is separate from the underlying microprocessor device(s). Therefore, the district court did not err in 

construing “security device.” 

The parties stipulated to a final judgment of noninfringement of the ’686 patent under the construction of 

“security device” adopted by the district court. Because 

we adopt the district court’s construction of “security 

device,” we do not address the construction underlying the 

alternative stipulated ground for noninfringement as we 

need not decide more than is necessary to dispose of the 

case regarding to the ’686 patent. See Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353, 1357 n.3 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (declining to construe claim term when 

noninfringement judgment is affirmed on other claim 

construction ground).

II. ’687 Patent

The claim construction dispute for the related ’687 patent concerns not the security device, but the network 

communication and input/output devices, which are the 

devices with which the security device interfaces. Nevertheless, 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, construing the ’687 claim 

term “network 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 network” 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 (emphases 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. 

The constructions the district court reached for the 

terms “network communication device” and “input/output 

device” have considerable support, particularly from the 

language of the ’687 patent’s sole asserted claim, claim 29. 

As noted, “the claims themselves provide substantial 

guidance as to the meaning 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 contains “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 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.” Id. col. 11 ll. 4–8 (emphases added). 

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

resulting in a configuration change of the security device. 

If the network communication device and input/output device were not separate from the security 

device, this capability would be unnecessary; the security 

device would not need to determine whether a network 

communication device or input/output device was present 

because they always would be. Instead, the claim language makes clear that the network configuration device 

and input/output device are, as the district court ex-
12 SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORP. 

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 communication with selected ports” limitation somehow cuts 

against this 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, the 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 communications device” and “input/output device.” Per the stipulated final judgment entered by the parties, each of these 

constructions is a ground for noninfringement of the ’687 

patent for Microsoft. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s entry of stipulated judgment of noninfringement. 

AFFIRMED