Opinion ID: 788714
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Separate and Distinct RF Receiver and Destination Processor

Text: 95 In its summary judgment motion, RIM argued to the district court that certain of the asserted claims required that the RF receiver be distinct and separable from the destination processor. This separate and distinct limitation is, in RIM's view, applicable to all claims of the '960, '670, and '592 patents, and to claims 248, 309, 313, and 317 of the '451 patent. The court declined to impose this limitation, stating that while it appears that Campana envisioned a portable and mobile RF receiver that is physically separate from the bulkier destination processor ( i.e., laptop or desktop computer) the claims do not impose this requirement. Non-Infringement Order, slip op. at 10-11. We agree with the district court. 96 As RIM correctly notes, the specification does indicate that Campana contemplated a separate housing as a way of achieving increased mobility and portability. For example, the specification suggests that an advantage of the invention is that the RF receiver may be carried with the user, while the location of the destination processor remains fixed. '960 patent, col. 18, ll. 60-66. But the specification also states that a preferred embodiment of the invention is with portable destination processors. Id. at col. 18, ll. 57-58. 97 RIM focuses its argument as to this alleged claim limitation on two claim terms, transfer, which can be found in the asserted claims of the '960 and '670 patents, and connected to or coupled to, which can be found in claims 150, 278, and 287 of the '592 patent and claims 248, 309, 313, and 317 of the '451 patent. Repeated statements in the specification echo these claim terms. See, e.g., id. at col. 18, ll. 50-53 (The RF receiver automatically transfer [sic] the information to the destination processor upon connection of the RF receiver to the destination processor. (emphasis added)); id. at col. 20, l. 66 — col. 21, l. 1 (The RF receiver may be detached from the destination processor during reception of the information with a memory of the RF receiver storing the information. (emphasis added)). 98 Our case law requires a textual hook in the claim language for a limitation of this nature to be imposed. Generally, a party wishing to use statements in the written description to confine or otherwise affect a patent's scope must, at the very least, point to a term or terms in the claim with which to draw in those statements. Without any claim term that is susceptible of clarification by the written description, there is no legitimate way to narrow the property right. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed.Cir.1998). In other words, there must be a textual reference in the actual language of the claim with which to associate a proffered claim construction. Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 990 (Fed.Cir.1999); see also, e.g., McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co, 160 U.S. 110, 116, 16 S.Ct. 240, 40 L.Ed. 358 (1895) ([I]f we once begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in order to limit such claim ... we should never know where to stop.). 99 In an effort to justify the limitation it urges, RIM first points to the claim term, transfer. In the '960 patent, for example, claim 1 requires that the RF receiver ... transfer[] the originated information to the at least one of the plurality of destination processors. '960 patent, col. 49, ll. 15-18. According to RIM, the fact that information must be transferred, i.e., moved from one place to another, implies that the RF receiver and destination processor are separately housed. This reading stretches the meaning of transfer. As NTP points out, a transfer of information can equally occur between two entities that are physically housed together. The suggestion that information will be transferred between these two entities does not require the physical separation of those entities. 100 RIM also cites the claim terms connected to and coupled to used in the '592 patent. In that patent, independent claim 150 (from which asserted claims 278 and 287 depend) describes 101 a wireless receiver connected to the one mobile processor with the one mobile processor receiving the information contained in the electronic mail after the identification of the wireless device is detected by the wireless receiver in a broadcast by the wireless system. 102 '592 patent, col. 41, ll. 18-22 (emphasis added). Independent claim 301 of the '592 patent, from which asserted claims 309, 313, and 317 depend, recites similar requirements: 301. A communication system comprising: 103 mobile devices, each mobile device comprising a wireless device connected to a mobile processor which executes electronic mail programming to function as a destination of electronic mail, the wireless device after receiving a broadcast of information contained in the electronic mail and an identification of the wireless device transmits the information to the connected mobile processor.... 104 Id. at col. 53, ll. 32-40. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 480 (1993) defines connected as to join, fasten, or link together. Although connected more strongly connotes a physical link between the mobile processor and the wireless receiver than does the term transfer, it still does not require that the mobile processor and wireless receiver be physically disposed in separate housings. A connection can occur between these two devices regardless of whether they are housed separately or together. Indeed, the two components could be connected, joined, or linked together by wires or other electrical conductors and still be located in the same housing or even on the same circuit board. Because the claim language does not support RIM's interpretation, we agree with the district court and decline to impose this additional restriction on the claims.