Opinion ID: 3066478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Activation means”

Text: The district court construed the term “activation means for activating such terminal for consumer transactions” as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and found that the function of the term is “activating the terminal for consumer transactions.” District Court Opinion at 8. The court then examined the ’041 patent specification and identified the corresponding structure to be a magnetic card reader. Id. at 10. While not disputing the district court’s determination of the limitation’s function, Catalina argues that the corresponding structure for the “activation means” limitation should be the “asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART)” which sends the interrupt signal which activates the disclosed invention for consumer transactions. See ’041 patent col. 7, ll. 42-54. Catalina asserts that the ’041 patent identifies an activator that contains three major components—a “card reading apparatus,” a “conventional card reader interface,” and the UART. It argues that only the UART should be considered corresponding structure to the “activation means” term because only the UART sends the interrupt signal that activates its disclosed device. We disagree with Catalina and agree with the district court that the corresponding structure to the “activation means” is a magnetic card reader. The specification contains numerous references to a magnetic card reader in connection 03-1548, -1627 5 with the “activation means” limitation. See ’041 patent col. 5, ll. 38-58; col. 7, ll. 42-49. It is clear in the specification that what “activates” the disclosed terminal for consumer transactions is “activator A.” Id. at col. 5, l. 43. Furthermore, as the specification notes, “Activator A is a conventional magnetic card reading apparatus.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 45-46. Finally, neither the specification nor the prosecution history identifies any other structure as the “activation means” for the terminal disclosed in claim 1 of the ’041 patent. It is therefore clear from the specification that the structure corresponding to the “activation means” is a magnetic card reader. Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s construction of the “activation means” limitation found in claim 1 of the ’041 patent.