Opinion ID: 209598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amendment of instantiating to first instantiating and second instantiating

Text: Although our conclusion concerning the shifting of said alone requires that we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment, we nonetheless address the district court's conclusion that the amendment of instantiating to first instantiating and second instantiating was a substantive change. We do so because that issue will continue to be important to the ultimate disposition of the case on remand. See Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Organisation v. Buffalo Tech. (USA), Inc., 542 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2008) (addressing issue of infringement after vacating and remanding on issue of validity, because infringement issue will continue to be important to the ultimate disposition of the case). The district court did not find, and Distributive does not argue, that the amendment of instantiating to first instantiating and second instantiating broadened the scope of claim 1 of the '798 patent. Rather, the district court found that the amendment effected a substantive change by narrowing the claim. Jan. 25 Op. at 16. Under 35 U.S.C. § 307, a claim that is amended in reexamination has the same effect as a claim that is amended in reissue proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 252. 35 U.S.C. § 307(b) (2000) (Any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 252 of this title for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation for the same, prior to issuance of a certificate under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.). Correspondingly, under 35 U.S.C. § 252, a reissued patent is enforceable against infringing activity that occurred after the issuance of the original patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical to the claims of the original patent. Thus, [u]nless a claim granted or confirmed upon reexamination is identical to an original claim, the patent can not be enforced against infringing activity that occurred before issuance of the reexamination certificate. Bloom Eng'g Co., Inc. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., Inc., 129 F.3d 1247, 1250 (Fed.Cir.1997). `Identical' does not mean verbatim, but means at most without substantive change.... An amendment that clarifies the text of the claim or makes it more definite without affecting its scope is generally viewed as identical.... Id. The district court concluded that the amendment replacing the step of instantiating said at least one index with steps of first instantiating at least one said index and second instantiating at least one said index changed the scope of claim 1. Jan. 25 Op. at 16. Our review is de novo. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1346-47 (Fed.Cir.1998). As the district court correctly pointed out, the original instantiating step on its face requires only a single instantiation, whereas the amended instantiating steps clearly require two instantiations. Jan. 25 Op. at 14. However, as the district court also acknowledged, the original comparing step required comparing at least one of the data sets linked to at least one of said instantiated indexes to at least another of the data sets linked to at least another of said instantiated indexes.  '798 patent col.14 ll.17-20 (emphases added). Thus, even in the original claim, the comparing step requires two instantiations. This is entirely consistent with the specification's description of the instantiating and comparing steps. See id. col.3 l.65-col.4 l.2 (Once this formatted hierarchical index is created, the index is selectively instantiated at different occasions. The present invention also may include a comparing step, where the indexed data can be compared and analyzed to produce control data, if desired. (emphasis added)). Despite the comparing step's requirement of two instantiations, the district court found that the amendment changed the scope of the claim for two reasons. First, the district court reasoned that, in the original claim, only one instantiation might occur during the instantiating step, then that instantiation would be compared with a previously stored instantiation, which was generated outside of the claimed process. Jan. 25 Op. at 15. But critically, the comparing step does not compare data sets linked to  an instantiated index with data sets linked to  another instantiated index; it compares data sets linked to one of said instantiated indexes with data sets linked to another of said instantiated indexes. The  said instantiated indexes must be instantiated indexes with an antecedent basis elsewhere in the claimnamely, the indexes that are instantiated during the instantiating step. See, e.g., Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (noting that claim terms using said are anaphoric phrases, referring to the initial antecedent phrase); see also Jan. 25 Op. at 11 (district court construing said to have its ordinary meaning of aforementioned). Thus, the district court was incorrect to conclude that the instantiated indexes in the comparing step could be indexes other than those generated as part of the claimed process. Second, the district court reasoned that the comparing step might allow a comparison between data sets linked to two different instantiations of the same index, rather than two instantiations of different indexes. Jan. 25 Op. at 15. We agree that in both the original and the amended claim, the comparing step permits a comparison between data sets linked to either multiple instantiations of the same index, single instantiations of multiple indexes, or some combination. But the comparing step still requires that at least two instantiations (either of the same index, or of different indexes) be performed, because of the language one of said instantiated indexes and another of said instantiated indexes. There is nothing in the amended claim that suggests that the first instantiating and second instantiating steps must be performed on data linked to the same index; likewise, there is nothing in the amended claim that suggests that the first instantiating and second instantiating steps must be performed on data linked to different indexes. We therefore find the district court's reasoning unpersuasive. We conclude that the amendment of the instantiating step to the first instantiating and second instantiating steps did not result in a substantive change to claim 1 of the '798 patent. The original and amended claims are identical for purposes of § 252 and, correspondingly, § 307. See Bloom, 129 F.3d at 1250.