NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICHARD J. BAKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, UBISOFT, INC., 

NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., ELECTRONIC 

ARTS INC, HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT,

Defendant

______________________ 

2017-2357

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington in No. 2:16-cv-00396-

RAJ, Judge Richard A. Jones.

______________________ 

Decided: April 9, 2018

______________________ 

 RICHARD J. BAKER, Mermaid Waters, Queensland, 

Australia, pro se.
2 BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

 SONAL NARESH MEHTA, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees Microsoft Corporation, 

Electronic Arts Inc. Also represented by ADAM R. BRAUSA. 

 MICHELLE LYONS MARRIOTT, Erise IP, P.A., Overland 

Park, KS, for defendant-appellee Ubisoft, Inc. Also represented by ERIC ALLAN BURESH. 

 JONATHAN L. MCFARLAND, Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, 

WA, for defendant-appellee Nintendo of America, Inc.

 PATRICK JOSEPH COYNE, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, for 

defendant-appellee Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. Also 

represented by LINDA JEAN THAYER, Boston, MA.

______________________ 

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Richard Baker appeals the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Washington’s grant of 

summary judgment of noninfringement. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

I. The ’001 Patent

Mr. Baker is the owner and inventor of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,486,001 (“the ’001 Patent”), which is entitled “Personalized Instructional Aid.” The ’001 Patent describes 

an instructional aid intended to provide users with feedback on their body movements relating to a given activity, 

such as a golf swing. The ’001 Patent claims a method 

and an apparatus generally comprising the steps of capturing an image signal of a user’s movement in a first 

location; using a transceiver at the first location to send 

the captured signal over a communications network to a 

computer at a second location; comparing the captured 
BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3

signal with a pre-stored, preferred signal using the computer at the second location; generating and transmitting

an instructional signal from the computer at the second 

location to the transceiver at the first location; and displaying the instructional signal back to the user at the 

first location. 

Relevant to this appeal, during prosecution of the ’001 

Patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)

rejected Mr. Baker’s application as anticipated by U.S.

Patent No. 5,184,295 (“Mann”). Specifically, the Examiner noted:

Mann discloses a method for providing an instructional aid for assisting a person to emulate a preferred movement. The method includes the steps 

of capturing and storing visual image signals representative of a particular movement, comparing 

said captured image signals with stored image 

signals of a preferred movement, and generating 

further video image signals based on the original 

signals.

J.A. 149.

Mr. Baker amended the application, adding language

requiring certain functions to occur at different “locations.” Claim 1 of the ’001 Patent was amended, with the 

amended terms underlined, as follows: 

A method for providing an instructional aid for 

assisting a person to emulate a preferred movement, said method comprising: 

capturing and storing initial visual image signals 

representative of a particular movement at a first 

location, 

storing preferred image signals representative of 

a selected preferred movement at a second loca-
4 BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

tion remote from said first location in a data base 

of a computer, 

transmitting said captured and stored visual image signals from said first location to said computer at said second location, 

comparing said captured and stored image signals 

with stored preferred image signals in said data 

base of said computer, 

regenerating further visual secondary image signals based on said initial image signals of said 

particular movement adjusted to emulate said 

stored preferred image signals of said selected 

movement in said computer, and

transmitting said regenerated signals from said 

computer at said remote second location to said 

first location and stored in image presentation 

means which permits viewing thereof with dialogue relating to said regenerated visual secondary image signals. 

J.A. 90–91 (emphases added). Pending claim 17 (issued 

claim 10) was similarly amended, and pending claim 25 

(issued claim 18) contained originally-filed language 

requiring a means for transmission “to a remote location.” 

J.A. 93, 95–96. Following these amendments, and in light 

of Mr. Baker’s supporting remarks, the USPTO allowed 

Mr. Baker’s claims and issued the ’001 Patent. 

II. The Accused Products

Mr. Baker brought the underlying infringement suit

against Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., 

Ubisoft, Inc., and Nintendo of America, Inc. (collectively, 

“Appellees”). As relevant here, the purportedly infringing

products are video games that incorporate an image 

capturing device, i.e., a camera, connected to a gaming 
BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 5

console or personal computer. Mr. Baker contends that 

the accused cameras constitute a “first location,” while the 

gaming consoles or personal computers constitute a 

“second location,” and therefore, Appellees’ products 

infringe the ’001 Patent when combined.

Relying on the claim amendments during prosecution 

of the ’001 Patent, Appellees moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims. The 

district court granted summary judgment for Appellees 

concluding that Appellees’ products do not infringe the 

’001 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Subsequently, the district court denied Mr. 

Baker’s motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, Mr. Baker seeks to reverse the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

We review summary judgment decisions by applying 

the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit. See

Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 

1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit reviews 

“the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” 

Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 

817, 822 (9th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party, there is “no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Zetwick v. Cty. 

of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). 

I. Claim Construction

The district court construed the term “remote” in 

claims 1, 10, and 18 of the ’001 Patent as requiring “more 

than physical separation at the same location.” Baker v. 

Microsoft Corp., No. C16-396RAJ, 2017 WL 44517, at *4–
6 BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

5 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2017). Mr. Baker argues that the 

district court erred in its claim construction because the 

intrinsic record does not limit the term “remote” to mean 

that the separate locations cannot be in the same room. 

For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the district court’s construction. 

The ’001 Patent’s specification describes two components of the first location as an “image capturing device” 

and an “audio-visual signal transceiver.” The specification explains that at the first location, the image capturing device may either be “discrete” from the signal 

transceiver, or the two components “may be one in the 

same.” ’001 Patent, col. 6, ll. 5–9. The district court 

therefore reasoned that the use of the term “discrete” to 

describe physically separated components at the same 

location indicates that the term “remote” must require 

something more than mere physical separation. Baker, 

2017 WL 44517, at *4–5. 

The district court also noted that during prosecution, 

Mr. Baker overcame the Mann prior art reference and 

achieved patentability by adding the limitation of two 

separate locations to his pending claims. Id. at *5. Thus, 

the district court concluded that Mr. Baker “disavowed 

the interpretation of ‘remote’ he now seeks to use when he 

amended [the claims].” Id. 

“Statements made during prosecution may also affect 

the scope of the claims. Specifically, a patentee may limit 

the meaning of a claim term by making a clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution.” 

Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 

1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Mann discloses all the features of the ’001 

Patent but does not impose the ’001 Patent’s requirements incorporating separate, remote devices. See J.A. 

151; 256–58. Rather, Mann’s specification indicates that 

the invention’s functions are performed by a peripheral 
BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 7

camera connected to a single, capable computer. J.A. 243 

(“The computer utilized by the applicants in the practice 

of this invention is a model VAX 11/750, manufactured by 

Digital Equipment Corporation.”). 

In his remarks accompanying the proposed amendments, Mr. Baker argued that Mann did not anticipate

the amended claims because “[n]owhere in Mann is there 

a teaching that the computer system is located remotely 

from the teaching station as is emphasized in Applicant’s 

disclosure.” J.A. 99. Mr. Baker further argued that 

“[t]ransmittance to a separate location for analysis and 

feedback is critical in Applicant’s invention, because the 

programming can be efficiently performed at the remote 

computer station.” Id.

Mr. Baker made these amendments to distinguish the 

’001 Patent over Mann. We agree with the district court 

that Mr. Baker clearly and unmistakably disavowed any 

portion of his claim scope which combines the claimed 

features of the ’001 Patent’s remote computers into a 

single location or a single computer-like device, as disclosed in Mann. 

Lastly, for the reasons discussed by the district court, 

we agree that the word “remote” in claim 18 carries the 

same meaning as it conveys in claims 1 and 10. See 

Baker, 2017 WL 44517, at *4. 

II. Infringement

Before the district court, both parties stipulated to the 

fact that, at all relevant times, the cameras of Appellees’ 

products are “located in the same room, and in close 

proximity to,” the game consoles or personal computers. 

J.A. 451–52. Based on its claim construction that remote 

data bases cannot be located in a single location, the 

district court determined that Appellees’ accused products 

do not literally infringe the ’001 Patent because all com-
8 BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

ponents of the accused products, when combined, are 

located in the same room. Id. at *6–7. 

 We agree that Appellees’ accused products do not 

literally infringe the ’001 Patent. Rather than incorporating two remote, computer-like devices (plus a peripheral 

camera) as required by the claims, we observe—and Mr. 

Baker appears to concede1—that the accused products 

only employ a single game console or personal computer

in conjunction with a peripheral camera. As explained, 

Mr. Baker clearly and unmistakably disclaimed such a 

system during prosecution. Thus, we agree with the 

district court’s conclusion that the accused products do 

not literally infringe each limitation of claim 1, 10, or 18

of the ’001 Patent. See Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. 

X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 

Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 

1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“To establish literal infringement, 

every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an 

accused product, exactly.”).

The district court also concluded that prosecution 

history estoppel barred Mr. Baker from pursuing his

infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents. See

Baker, 2017 WL 44517, at *7–8. For the same reasons 

discussed in the district court’s order, we agree.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Baker’s remaining arguments and find them unconvincing. Accordingly, we 

 

1 Mr. Baker’s infringement argument requires identifying a peripheral camera as a first location and a PC or 

game console as a second location remote from the peripheral camera. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 42 (“Again, 

Appellees [sic] use of a peripheral device camera puts 

them on working [sic] camera and computer in two separate locations mentioned in the [’]001 patent.”).
BAKER v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 9

affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in 

favor of Appellees. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.