Opinion ID: 3066478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “Operatively connected”

Text: The district court construed the claim term “operatively connected” to mean “joined or linked together to produce the designed effect.” District Court Opinion at 20. The court also held that the “operatively connected” limitation, when read in light of the ’041 patent specification, should be construed to mean “joined or linked together to produce the designed effect within the terminal.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). Catalina challenges this construction, arguing that the district court improperly imported “within the terminal” into the “operatively connected” limitation. Catalina argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the “operatively connected” limitation is not restricted to operative connections only within the coupon-dispensing terminal. We are not persuaded by Catalina’s argument on appeal. The language of claim 1 itself describes “[a] syste[m] . . . wherein each terminal comprises” the device recited by the claim 1 limitations. ’041 patent col. 30, ll. 46-49 (emphasis added). It is within those limitations that the “operatively connected” term is used. Furthermore, the patent specification itself often refers to the disclosed invention as a “stand alone coupon dispensing terminal.” See, e.g., ’041 patent col. 2, ll. 5-7. Clearly, the language of the claims and the intrinsic evidence supports the district court’s construction of the “operatively connected” term in claim 1. Accordingly, the district court’s construction of “operatively connected” is upheld. 03-1548, -1627 9