Opinion ID: 2786705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ’231 patent (call alerts)

Text: The ’231 patent discloses a communication device, such as a mobile phone, that permits a user to stop a ringtone alert for an incoming call without notifying the caller. ’231 patent, Abstract. According to the ’231 patent, when a user received an unwanted call, the prior art provided several options for silencing the ringtone triggered by receipt of that call: (i) answering but then quickly “hang[ing] up,” thus “forcibly disconnecting” the call, or (ii) turning off the phone. Id. at 1:17–25. Forcibly disconnecting the call, however, left the caller with “an unpleasant feeling” because the caller “c[ould] notice that the circuit was broken off intentionally.” Id. at 1:26–29. Turning off the phone was not preferable because the user could forget to turn the phone on again, “possib[ly] missing the next incoming call.” Id. at 1:37–42. The ’231 patent provides several alternatives to silence a ringtone without these drawbacks. Id. at 4:66–5:17. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 33 In one embodiment, a user can press the phone’s power key for some amount of time in order to stop the ringtone sound without ending the call. Id. at 2:57–3:6; see also id. at Fig. 3 (“stop alert sound”). In another embodiment, pressing the phone’s power key reduces the volume of the ringtone sound. Id. at 4:40–47; see also id. at Fig. 4 (“reduce volume of alert sound”). Asserted claim 12 is excerpted below: 12. A communication terminal for informing a us- er of a received call from a remote caller by an alert sound, comprising: an alert sound generator for generating the alert sound when the call is received from the remote caller; control means for controlling said alert sound generator; ...; wherein said alert sound generator is generating the alert sound and . . . , said control means con- trols said alert sound generator to change a vol- ume of the generated alert sound only for the received call, without affecting the volume of the alert sound for future received calls, while leaving a call ringing state, as perceived by the remote caller, of the call to the terminal from the remote called unchanged . . . . ’231 patent (reexamination certificate), 2:11–39 (emphasis added). Asserted claim 2, which depends from claim 12, recites: 2. The communication terminal according to claim 12, wherein said control means controls the state of said alert sound generator to stop the sound. Id. at 1:31–34 (emphasis added). Asserted claim 3, which also depends from claim 12, recites: 34 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 3. The communication terminal according to claim 12, wherein said control means controls the state of said alert sound generator to reduce the volume of the sound. Id. at 1:35–39 (emphasis added). Relevant to MobileMedia’s cross-appeal, the district court construed the term “to change a volume of the generated alert sound” in claim 12 as “to alter the degree of loudness of the alert sound that is being generated without cutting off the telephone circuit.” MobileMedia SJ, 907 F. Supp. 2d at 598. Further, the district court interpreted the “stop[ping] the sound” limitation in dependent claim 2 as not encompassed by the “chang[ing] a volume” limitation in independent claim 12. Id. Thus, rather than narrowing the scope of claim 12’s “change a volume” limitation, the district court appears to have interpreted dependent claim 2’s “stop the sound” limitation as providing an additional, separate function to the claimed communication terminal recited in independent claim 12. In support of its construction, the district court reasoned that “chang[ing] a volume” and “stop[ping] the sound” were described in the specification as “alternatives, not interchangeable terms.” Id. Under this construction, the district court determined Apple did not infringe any asserted claim of the ’231 patent. Id. at 599. In particular, while Apple’s accused iPhones include a control means that can stop the sound of a ringtone, the district court found that Apple’s iPhones do not “reduce, increase, mute, or otherwise change the volume of the audio [alert sound] playback [as required by claim 12].” Id. at 598. MobileMedia contends that the district court erred by construing this limitation of the independent claim to exclude both the narrower “stop the sound” and “reduce the volume of the sound” embodiments disclosed in the ’231 patent’s specification and recited in asserted dependent claims 2 and 3, respectively. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 35 Because the district court’s construction relies only on intrinsic evidence, we review its construction de novo. Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841. Neither party disputes that the “control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Thus, this means-plus-function limitation covers the corresponding structure described in the specification for performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 561 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The language of the claims indicates that the function performed by the “control means” is “controlling the alert sound generator to change a volume of the generated alert sound.” See ’231 patent (reexamination certificate), 2:26– 27. The only structure disclosed in the specification for performing this claimed function is the phone’s CPU and alert sound generator on/off controller. Id. at 2:49–52. In response to depression of the phone’s power key, the specification indicates that the CPU and on/off controller can “stop the generation of the alert sound.” Id. at 3:3–6; see also id. at 2:53–55. As an alternative, the specification indicates that depression of the power key can instead result in the “volume of an alert sound [being] reduced.” Id. at 4:37–43, 5:7–11. Compare id. at Fig. 3 (stopping a sound), with id. at Fig. 4 (reducing a volume). In short, the specification indicates that the “control means” controls the alert sound generator to change a volume of the generated alert sound by either stopping the alert sound or reducing a volume of the alert sound. In the context of the specification, “chang[ing] a volume” encompasses both “stop[ping] the sound” and “reduc[ing] the volume of the sound.” See id. Further, neither party has identified anything in the prosecution history or extrinsic evidence that would suggest otherwise. Apple contends that dependent claim 2 does not ex- plicitly tie the “stop the sound” limitation to the “change a volume” limitation in claim 12. In essence, Apple defends the district court’s construction on the ground that it is possible to construe claim 12 and claim 2 in a manner 36 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. such that “stop[ping] the sound” and “chang[ing] a volume” are mutually exclusive. Apple speculates that a device could practice both by “dialing down the audio level to alter the degree of loudness . . . and then stopping the generation of the sound.” Cross-Appellee’s Br. 75. Apple, however, provides no support in the specification or prosecution history for its example. Regardless, Apple’s construction ignores that claim 2 ties “stop[ping] the sound” to the control means—the CPU and alert sound on/off controller. And as discussed supra, the specification describes this control means structure as stopping or reducing the volume of the alert sound. Finally, Apple contends that MobileMedia seeks to improperly use the doctrine of claim differentiation in order to broaden the scope of independent claim 12 beyond what is supported by the specification. While we agree with Apple that “[t]he dependent claim tail cannot wag the independent claim dog,” N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1993), no such concern is present here. Rather, it is Apple that urges us to affirm a claim construction that would exclude a preferred embodiment of the invention disclosed in the specification. Such a construction is rarely correct without any persuasive evidentiary support. Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Consistent with the specification, “controlling the alert sound generator to change a volume of the generated alert sound” by the “control means” encompasses both stopping and reducing the volume of the alert sound as recited in dependent claims 2 and 3, respectively. Because the district court’s grant of Apple’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 2–4 and 12 of the ’231 patent was based on an erroneous construction, we vacate the district court’s grant of this motion and remand to the district court for further proceedings. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 37