Opinion ID: 208672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: displaying real-time data

Text: The district court construed displaying real-time data to mean displaying data substantially immediately without contextually meaningful delay so that the information is displayed in a time frame experienced by people. Claim Construction Op. at 9. As an alternative basis for affirmance, Timex argues that this construction was incorrect and that its products cannot infringe under the correct construction. Both before the district court and on appeal, Timex argues that displaying real-time data means displaying the measured parameter at the given moment in time that the measurement of the parameter occurs. Id. at 8. Paragon argues that the district court's construction was correct and that Timex's proposed construction would require instantaneous display, which is not possible in practice.
Although not addressed by the district court or the parties, we find important aspects of the claim language itself to provide at least some insight into the meaning of real-time. Specifically, claim 1 recites that the display unit configured for displaying real-time data is separate from [the] data acquisition unit that includes the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor that provide the data. '759 patent col.28 ll.3-6. Thus, when the claimed system is in operation, the displayed data must first be acquired by the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor and then transmitted to the display unit for display. Even assuming that this transmission happens at the speed of light, it still takes a non-zero amount of time. Thus, what the claims describe as displaying real-time data cannot possibly mean displaying data literally instantaneously, because the claims themselves require a transmission that necessarily takes some time, however minute that might be. Second, claim 1 identifies five types of real-time data, at least one of which must be displayed: location, altitude, velocity, pace, and distance traveled. Three of these types of real-time datalocation, altitude, and distance traveledrequire the electronic positioning device to receive three or more signals that enable the device to calculate a position. See, e.g., '759 patent col.3 ll.6-10 (The electronic positioning device is configured to receive electromagnetic signals from three or more sources so that the monitoring system can determine at least one of a subject's location, altitude, velocity, pace, and distance traveled.); id. col.6 ll.46-52 (The electronic positioning device uses electromagnetic signals from three or more sources in order to provide data indicative of one or more of the subject's location, altitude, velocity, pace and/or distance traveled. By way of example, the electronic positioning component may comprise a GPS device which utilizes signals from satellites of the Global Positioning System. ...). Receiving and processing these signals necessarily takes a non-zero amount of time. See, e.g., id. col.9 ll.27-28 (describing processing of GPS signals in order to determine the subject's location). Moreover, the other two of the claimed types of real-time datavelocity and paceare calculations of the rate of movement. Because a rate of movement is simply distance moved over time (or time over distance moved), calculation of a rate of movement necessarily requires the passage of a non-zero amount of time. More particularly, calculation of a rate of movement requires sufficient time to have elapsed to allow for a meaningful measurement. Similarly, in dependent claim 14, the physiological monitor comprises a heart rate monitor. Id. col.28, ll.51-52. The measurement of a heart rate necessarily requires the passage of time between at least two heartbeats. Thus, from the claim language alone, it is clear that in this case real-time cannot mean instantaneous, and must permit at least some amount of time to pass to allow for both the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately measure the data that is to be displayed.
Each of the parties relies heavily on the specification for its construction of real time. Timex first points out that the specification is critical of prior art that does not provide instantaneous feedback, because [h]uman nature requires instantaneous feedback for motivation and encouragement. '759 patent col.1 ll.29-30; see also id. col.23 ll.50-52 (criticizing prior art because runner cannot determine instantaneous velocity). Timex is correct that the specification criticizes the prior art as failing to provide instantaneous feedback. However, taken in context, the specification's criticisms are targeted at systems that do not provide any feedback during the course of the physical activity itself, so that the person engaged in the activity would have the opportunity to modify his activity in response. Specifically, immediately following the sentence concerning instantaneous feedback for motivation and encouragement, the specification states: [M]any athletes also do not know how to train effectively for maximal improvement. For example, competitive runners may have difficulty determining whether their pace on a particular day of training is too fast or too slow. Id. col.1 ll.31-36. The specification also includes a section entitled Analytical and Training Methods, in which it describes in detail the use of the electronic monitoring systemincluding various alarmsto allow the user to modify his or her activity in response to data collected and displayed during the activity. See id. col.23 l.28-col.27 l.63. Thus, the specification's criticism of prior art as not providing instantaneous feedback cannot be read as suggesting that the patented invention displays data literally instantaneously. Rather, the criticism of prior art is more appropriately read to distinguish the invention's real-time display from prior art methods that stored data for review only after the activity was complete, so that the user could not make modifications during the course of the activity. Thus, the specification supports a construction of real-time in this case that precludes intentionally delaying the display of data by storing it for later review. The specification's references to instantaneous feedback do not preclude some delay to allow for the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately measure the data that is to be displayed. Timex also relies on the specification's references to providing data at any given moment. See '759 patent col.13 ll.4-8 (disclosing that an individual can use the GPS device of the monitoring system ... in order to determine their velocity at any given moment (e.g., in miles per hour), their pace at any given moment (e.g., in terms of minutes per mile)); id. col.13 ll.16-29 (disclosing that a heart rate monitor device incorporated into a monitoring system according to the present invention may display a subject's heart rate at any given moment). The problem with Timex's reliance on the language at any given moment is that this language is no more or less clear than real-time. The term at any given moment might mean literally instantaneously, or it might allow for the passage of some amount of time. As the district court recognized, Timex's given moment language is therefore unhelpful in ascertaining the meaning of real time. In addition to the portions of the specification identified by the parties and the district court, we note two additional aspects of the specification relevant to the construction of displaying real-time data. First, the specification expressly states that the invention can be practiced using commercially available technology. See '759 patent col.12 ll.1-4 (In order to provide the above-described functionality, the GPS device utilized in embodiments of the present invention may employ conventional, commercially-available components.); id. col.14 ll.52-55 (The oximeter device utilized in embodiments of the present invention may employ commercially-available components in order to provide the functionality described above.). Plainly, the commercial GPS technology available at the time of filingNovember 9, 1999 was not able to display data literally instantaneously. Thus, the fact that the specification describes embodiments using commercially available products confirms that displaying real-time data does not require instantaneous display. Second, like the claims, the specification expressly describes measuring rate data, which necessarily requires the passage of time. See, e.g., '759 patent col.3 ll.6-10 (The electronic positioning device is configured to receive electromagnetic signals from three or more sources so that the monitoring system can determine at least one of a subject's location, altitude, velocity, pace, and distance traveled.) (emphases added); id. col.3 ll.11-13 (The physiological monitor may be chosen from the group consisting of: an oximeter and a heart rate monitor.) (emphasis added); id. col.22 ll.16-23 (describing a display unit with regions displaying the subject's heart rate (in beats per minute) and the subject's velocity (in miles per hour or kilometers per hour) or the subject's pace (e.g., in minutes per mile)). In this respect, the specification again confirms that that displaying real-time data must permit the passage of time required to accurately measure the data that is to be displayed. Paragon defends the district court's construction by referring to a separate portion of the specificationthe only part of the specification in which the term real-time data actually appears. That portion of the specification states that [t]he systems and methods of the present invention, for example, provide real-time data and feedback useful to individuals performing a physical activity (such as athletes). '759 patent col.6 ll.39-41. According to Paragon, this sentence supports the district court's construction of real-time as substantially immediately without contextually meaningful delay. Claim Construction Op. at 9. In essence, in the views of both Paragon and the district court, the amount of delay that the system can impose and still be displaying real-time data depends on the use to which the system is being put. Under the district court's construction, if the system is being used in a context in which the delay is meaningful, then the displaying real-time data limitation is not met; if, however, the system is being used in a context in which the delay is not meaningful, the display is in real-time and the limitation is met. Thus, the district court offers as an example that, for a runner, [data must be displayed] presumably within the stride to meet the displaying real-time data limitation. Id. at 8. The problem with construing displaying real-time data as used in the claims of the '759 patent to preclude contextually meaningful delay is that such a construction injects a use limitation into a claim written in structural terms. [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.Cir.1990). If the district court's construction were correct, then the same apparatus might infringe when used in one activity, but not infringe when used in another. For example, consider a device that had a delay of thirty seconds between the time at which it calculated a user's velocity and the time that it displayed it. A thirty-second delay might be insignificant in some contextsincluding walking, climbing, and snowshoeing, all of which are listed in the specification as activities for which the patented invention is suitable. '759 patent col.4 ll.52, 54. By contrast, a thirty-second delay in determining velocity would be highly significant in other contextsfor example, short and middle-distance running or skiing. See id. col.4 l.53. Moreover, the wide variety of contexts disclosed as suitable uses for the claimed exercise monitoring system would render it nearly impossible to determine in advance whether the delay in a particular system would be sufficient to avoid infringement. See, e.g., id. col.4 l.53 (listing flying as suitable physical activity); id. col.4 l.53 (listing singing as suitable physical activity); id. col.5 ll.38-39 (describing use of invention to monitor activity of horses and camels); id. col.7 ll.27-28 (describing use of invention for rehabilitating an injured animal). See also, e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed.Cir. 1999). (discussing importance of public notice function in claim construction). Absent an express limitation to the contrary, any use of a device that meets all of the limitations of an apparatus claim written in structural terms infringes that apparatus claim. See, e.g., Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed.Cir.2002) (holding that a patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sale, or importing the claimed apparatus or composition for any use of that apparatus or composition (emphasis added)); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157, 23 L.Ed. 267 (1875) (The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.). Construing a non-functional term in an apparatus claim in a way that makes direct infringement turn on the use to which an accused apparatus is later put confuses rather than clarifies, frustrates the ability of both the patentee and potential infringers to ascertain the propriety of particular activities, and is inconsistent with the notice function central to the patent system. See, e.g. PSC Computer Prods., Inc. v. Foxconn Int'l, Inc., 355 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2004) (emphasizing the important public notice function of patentsthe mechanism whereby the public learns which innovations are the subjects of the claimed invention, and which are in the public domain); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed.Cir.2008) (emphasizing that claim language should provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of subject matter embraced by the claim and noting that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims).
Timex argues that the prosecution history supports its construction requiring instantaneous display of data. Specifically, Timex argues that the applicants stressed the `real-time data' limitation in their Remarks to overcome the Examiner's rejections and argued that the `real-time data' limitation was supported by the specification, which disparages non-instantaneous systems. Br. of Appellee Timex Corp. at 58. To the contrary, we conclude that the prosecution history offers further evidence that real-time, as used in this case, does not mean instantaneous. After claims 1 and 18 were rejected as anticipated by Root, the applicants amended the claims to add the displaying real-time data limitation. Doc. 21, Ex. 2-P (J.A. 310); id., Ex. 2-Q (J.A. 318). In their remarks, the applicants stated, Furthermore, the personal computer depicted in Fig. 7 of Root cannot be used to display real-time data, as required by claim 1. Rather, the personal computer in Fig. 7 of Root will merely display performance data after the athlete has completed their activity. Doc. 21, Ex. 2-P (J.A. 308). The applicants similarly remarked that Claim 18 also requires that the display unit display real-time data acquired by the electronic positioning device. Id. (J.A. 309). The applicants' remarks distinguishing Root therefore echo the criticism of the prior art in the specification. In the applicants' view, the invention is preferable because it does not intentionally delay the display of data by storing it for later review after the athlete has completed his or her activity (as in Root). Rather, in this invention, the data is displayed without any intentional delayi.e., in real time.
The district court relied heavily on extrinsic evidencenamely, a dictionary definitionin construing displaying real-time data. Specifically, the district court relied on a Microsoft Computer Dictionary, which defined real time as [o]f or relating to a time frame imposed by external constraints. Claim Construction Op. at 9 (quoting Microsoft Computer Dictionary 375 (4th ed.1999)). We have made clear that dictionaries and treatises can be useful in claim construction, particularly insofar as they help the court to better understand the underlying technology and the way in which one of skill in the art might use the claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. However, we find the dictionary definition relied on by the district court too vague to be of significant help in resolving the dispute in this case. The cited definition sheds no light on whether real-time means instantaneous or, if not, how much of a delay is permissible. Moreover, we note that definitions of real-time in other technical dictionaries suggest that a real-time process cannot involve intentional delay or storage for later processing. See Rudolf F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics 627 (7th ed.1999) (including definition of real time as The performance of a computation during the actual time that the related physical process transpires in order that results of the computations are useful in guiding the physical process); id. (including definition of real-time operation as Data-processing technique in which information is utilized as events occur and the information is generated, as opposed to batch processing at a time unrelated to the time the information was generated); IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed.2000) (including definition of real time related to software as Pertaining to a system or mode of operation in which computation is performed during the actual time that an external process occurs, in order that the computation results can be used to control, monitor, or respond in a timely manner to the external process. Contrast: batch.); Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary 639 (2004) (including definition of real-time as In computers, that which is processed, or otherwise acted upon, without any delay.); Harry Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary 758 (22d ed. 2006) (In data processing or data communications, real time means the data is processed the moment it enters a computer, as opposed to BATCH processing where the information enters the system, is stored and is operated on [at] a later time.). For the foregoing reasons, we modify the district court's construction of displaying real time data to reflect that, while the data need not be displayed instantaneously, it must be displayed without any intentional delay, taking into account the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately measure the data. We therefore construe displaying real-time data, as used in the claims of this case, as displaying data without intentional delay, given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately measure the data.