Opinion ID: 221848
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: means for The function “cou- The function of

Text: coupling a pling” means that “means for cou- calling party signals can be sent pling” is “connectstation to a from the calling party ing a telephone special station to the special used by a user to a exchange exchange. special exchange.” The structure corre- The corresponding sponding to the structure that “means for coupling” performs the is the regular tele- function is not phone system. disclosed in the patent specifica- tion. (d) means for The function “moni- The function of monitoring toring the credit” “means for moni- the credit of includes monitoring toring” is “keeping the calling by time which is track of the differ- party during converted to money ence between the a completed or monitoring by time prepayment call which is a function of amount less deductions for the AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP 14 money. running cost of the call.” The structure corre- sponding to the The patent specifi- “means for monitor- cation does not ing” includes a com- disclose the corre- puter programmed to sponding structure monitor time which is for performing this a function of money function. (e.g., a talking time or time cutoff), a counter for timing the call, and a compara- tor for comparing the call duration to the time cutoff. An alternative structure is a computer pro- grammed to monitor time which is con- verted to money and then determine whether there is credit remaining. Although it is not entirely clear from the record, the parties ultimately reached some agreement regarding the scope of the structure for the “means for coupling.” Specifically, at the Markman hearing, counsel for Aerotel informed the court that Telco “agreed that there is no dispute regarding the structures of the means for coupling and the means for completing a call.” A1626. Aerotel represented that Telco “adopt[s] Aerotel’s position that the means for coupling the structure is the regular telephone system and the means for completing a call.” Id. at 1626-27. 15 AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP On May 13, 2010, the court issued its Claim Construction Order. Aerotel, Ltd v. Telco Group, Inc., No. 1:04-cv10292, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47266 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2010) (“Claim Construction Order”). With respect to Claim 1’s use of the word “monitoring” in the “monitoring the prepayment amount less deductions for the running cost of the call” limitation, the court found that the claim and the specification “expressly call for comparison of money.” Id. at . Based on the parties’ representations at the Markman hearing, the district court noted that “the parties are in agreement that the ‘calling party station’ of claim 9 means ‘any available telephone.’” Id. at -72. Accordingly, the court found that “a means for coupling the calling party station to a special exchange is simply a means of connecting a telephone to a special exchange.” Id. at . The court found, however, that the patent is silent with respect to the corresponding structure that performs the coupling function. Although Aerotel argued that the “specification states that the structure corresponding to the ‘means for coupling’ is the regular telephone system,” the court found that nothing in Aerotel’s citations to the specification stated “which structure provides the means for coupling.” Id. at -73. The court concluded, therefore, that the function of the means for coupling is “connecting a telephone to a special exchange” but that the patent “does not recite a structure for performing that function.” Id. at . Despite Aerotel’s arguments to the contrary, the court found that the claim element “means for monitoring the credit of the calling party” was limited to monitoring based on money, rather than monitoring based on time. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that, “[o]f course, that credit is the result of a computation involving time and the cost-per-time of the call, but that computaAEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP 16 tion would occur within one of the corresponding structures and the ultimate purpose of the monitoring is the eventual comparison with credit.” Id. at . Accordingly, the court found that the “credit” is “simply the amount of money in the calling party’s account. Thus the function of ‘monitoring the credit’ is comparing the amount of money in the calling party’s account with the cost of the call.” Id. at . The court further found that the corresponding structure for the “means for monitoring” “is a comparator, which makes use of information from a time and distance computing circuit.” Id.