Opinion ID: 211813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: processor systems

Text: 57 The district court construed processor systems to require that each system have at least one [CPU] capable of running application type software, and at least one mass storage subsystem. SeaChange, 115 F.Supp.2d at 483. C-COR argues that the district court erroneously imported the capable of running application type software limitation from a preferred embodiment. Seachange counters that C-COR's position is inconsistent with the patent's objective of applying RAID-5 at the system level. Seachange asserts that because the system runs application software, if each processor system did not run the application software, then the claims would simply cover a prior art RAID-5 arrangement. Seachange points us to the language that a component of a single processor system is a remote file provider, '312 patent, col. 8, II. 39-42, that [t]he remote file provider represents any third party application or device driver that might use the cluster technology, id., col. 9, II. 7-9, and that [e]xamples include Lotus Notes, medical applications, or database systems, id., II. 9-11. C-COR responds by noting that nothing in the ordinary meaning of CPU or in the intrinsic record requires that the claimed processor system be capable of running application software. C-COR adds that Seachange's citation to the written description bolster's C-COR's own position because the citation suggests that processors can simply execute device driver instructions. 58 The claim states that each processor system compris[es] at least one [CPU] and at least one mass storage sub-system. '312 patent, col. 22, II. 19-20. The claim requires that data [be] stored at each of [the] processor systems, id., col. 22, II. 25-28, presumably within the mass storage sub-system. However, the claim provides no more detail about the CPU and does not state that it must be capable of running application-type software. The ordinary meaning of CPU is [t]he unit of a computing system that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation of instructions and their execution. IEEE 171. That definition likewise says nothing about a CPU being capable of running application-type software. Moreover, although the written description teaches an embodiment in which the CPU runs a third party application, that is not the only embodiment. The written description says that the remote file provider can be any third-party application or device driver. '312 patent, col. 9, II. 7-9. A device driver need not be the same as application-type software. See IEEE 387 (defining driver). Thus, C-COR is correct that the written description supports a broader construction. Because we do not import limitations from a preferred embodiment, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 386 F.3d 1095, 1106 (Fed.Cir.2004), each processor system need not have a CPU capable of running application software. 59 Seachange's final argument is a plea for the import of a limitation to help preserve the validity of the asserted claims. However, we must decline Seachange's invitation to import a limitation to preserve validity because this is not a case in which the court concludes, after applying all the available tools of claim construction, that the claim is still ambiguous. Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 911. The limitation finds no support in the claims, written description, prosecution history, or technical dictionary. 60 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court erred in its construction of the processor system limitation. A processor system must have a CPU but it need not be capable of running application-type software.