Opinion ID: 4546751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prespecified parameters

Text: The district court concluded that the claim term “prespecified parameters” is indefinite because “there is no explanation in the text of the Asserted Patents from which to determine what event, action, or condition in advance of which the parameters of data transmission must be chosen in order to satisfy the claim.” J.A. 26. In other words, the district court’s concern with the claim term boils down to the meaning of “prespecified”—the court could not discern in advance of what event or action the parameters must be specified. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Case: 19-2269 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 07/08/2020 VIA VADIS, LLC v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 7 meaning of “prespecified parameters” is reasonably ascertainable in the context of this patent and refers to parameters specified in advance of a data transmission. “[C]laim construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Claim 1 uses “prespecified parameters” as follows: means for detecting prespecified parameters of the data transmission between the data storage means and the computer unit, with data being preferably stored in the data storage means as a function of said detected prespecified parameters, and with the computer unit accessing one of the data storage means as a function of said detected prespecified parameters . . . wherein the data storage means copies data which is redundantly stored in the system independent of an access of the computer unit as a function of the detected prespecified parameters for data transmissions between said data storage means. ’521 patent claim 1 (emphases added). Similarly, claim 30 uses “prespecified parameters” as follows: accessing the stored data by at least one computer unit via data transmission means, with prespeci- fied parameters of the data transmission between the data storage means and the computer unit be- ing determined, the data being stored in a redun- dant manner in at least two of the at least two data storage means as a function of the determined pre- specified parameters of the data transmission, the access to the data being effected as a function of the determined prespecified parameters of the data transmission . . . Id. at claim 30 (emphases added). The claims on their face require the data be both stored and then accessed for Case: 19-2269 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 07/08/2020 8 VIA VADIS, LLC v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. transmission “as a function of the detected [or determined] prespecified parameters.” Consideration of the parameters relevant to a particular cell is therefore necessary before selecting a particular cell for storing data in that cell as well as transmitting data to a client from that cell. Thus, in the context of the claims, the parameters logically must be specified prior to the transmission of data. A skilled artisan is deemed to read a claim term not only in the context of the particular claim, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis and is, in fact, the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). According to the specification, the patented invention’s purpose is to optimize the speed and reliability of data transmission, and it achieves this by first (1) redundantly storing data in different data storage locations and then (2) using parameters associated with each location (i.e., cell) to assess which location will most rapidly and reliably deliver the desired data to a requesting client. The ’521 patent’s specification contains a number of references to prespecified parameters: Further it is to be preferred that the determination of the prespecified parameters of data transmis- sions between the individual data storage means and the computer unit comprises the determina- tion of the duration of the transmission, and/or the fault rate, and/or the duration of data processing operations of the individual data storage means prior to the transmission of the data in order to access data more rapidly and/or reliably. ’521 patent col. 5 ll. 27–35; see also id. at col. 3 ll. 39–47, col. 4 ll. 16–24 (“Preferably, these prespecified parameters Case: 19-2269 Document: 39 Page: 9 Filed: 07/08/2020 VIA VADIS, LLC v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 9 comprise the duration of the transmission, and/or the fault rate, and/or the duration of the data processing operations of the individual computer units and/or the individual users prior to the transmission of data.”). Reviewing these passages and understanding the express purpose of the invention, a skilled artisan would understand that the parameters are specified in advance of a given data transmission, as they are employed to select the source of that data transmission. In other words, knowledge of the parameters is needed before the system can select an optimal data source, and thus the parameters must be specified, that is, available and on-hand, before the transmission of the data. Blizzard, for its part, contends that the above-quoted passages’ usage of permissive terms such as “[p]referably” and “it is to be preferred” suggests that the patent does not necessarily require the “prespecified parameters” to be specified “prior to the transmission of data,” thereby making the meaning of “prespecified” unclear. Appellees’ Br. at 26–28. We disagree. The far better reading of these permissive terms is that they refer to the disclosed preferred, non-limiting list of types of parameters that can be used with the invention, like the duration of the transmission, and are not applicable to when the parameters are specified. Nowhere in the specification does the patent suggest specifying the parameters during a transmission or after a transmission. Nor would it be logical to do so where those parameters are needed for the determination of which cell or data storage means will be accessed for a data transmission. For the same reason, we disagree with Blizzard’s view that “prior to the data transmission” modifies only the last identified parameter in the disclosed list. See, e.g., id. at col. 3 ll. 39–47 (listing prespecified parameters as “duration of the transmission, and/or the fault rate, and/or the duration of data processing operations of the individual data storage means prior to the transmission of the data”). The more reasonable interpretation of these passages is Case: 19-2269 Document: 39 Page: 10 Filed: 07/08/2020 10 VIA VADIS, LLC v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. that this phrase conveys that each of the identified parameters is “prespecified” prior to a data transmission. For example, a prespecified parameter could be the fault rate determined prior to the transmission of the data. To the extent Blizzard further argues that “prespecified” is unclear because the patent fails to require a precise moment in time the parameters are specified, we find that argument lacks merit. Precisely when the parameters are specified is unimportant so long as they are specified in advance of data transmission. The specification in fact explains how the parameters can be updated periodically when a given cell’s recent performance provides more information related to its data transmission parameters. See id. at col. 9 ll. 25–37. To update and further optimize the parameters, a skilled artisan would understand that the parameters would have to be known prior to the transmission of data and that the parameters are not required to be static values generated at a single fixed time. As to Blizzard’s argument that the term “prespecified parameters” is indefinite because neither the claims nor the specification explains how the data transmission parameters are specified or who or what specifies those parameters, we see no reason why in the context of this patent such details are needed to understand the scope and meaning of the disputed claim term. In our view, this argument sounds more like a potential enablement question than an indefiniteness problem. Blizzard does not cite any analogous cases, nor are we aware of any, to support its proposition that to reasonably discern the meaning of “prespecified parameters” in this case, a skilled artisan would have to know not only what they are, but also know specifically how they are generated. Via Vadis, on the other hand, relies on a case that we believe is consistent with our ruling here. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In IGT, we analyzed the phrase “predetermined event” and found that the word predetermined has a plain and ordinary meaning—defined in advance. Id. Case: 19-2269 Document: 39 Page: 11 Filed: 07/08/2020 VIA VADIS, LLC v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 11 at 1118–19. Although in IGT “predetermined event” was not directly challenged as indefinite, its holding that all that is required is for a skilled artisan to understand that there is an event with a temporal aspect as to when it is determined applies here. “Prespecified” signifies that parameters are specified or determined in advance of some event. In this instance, both the patent specification and claims inform a skilled artisan that the parameters are specified ahead of the data transmission. Because we conclude that the patent’s intrinsic evidence renders the meaning of the term “prespecified parameters” sufficiently clear, we cannot affirm this basis for the district court’s indefiniteness finding. 3