Opinion ID: 785085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sending, Transmitting, and Receiving Limitations

Text: 29 On appeal, Multi-Tech first challenges the district court's construction of the limitations that refer to sending, transmitting, and receiving data packets in claim 1 of the '649 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 13 of the '627 patent; and claim 11 of the '532 patent. Multi-Tech argues that the court erred in restricting those limitations to the transmission of data packets over a direct point-to-point telephone line connection. According to Multi-Tech, the claims are directed only to the ends of the disclosed communications system and do not address what happens once the data packets are sent from the local user to the telephone line. Multi-Tech also argues that the specification describes a telephone line connected to a modem, which may be a direct end-to-end connection or may connect to a packet-switched network such as the Internet. Furthermore, Multi-Tech maintains that it did not disclaim transmission through a packet-switched network during prosecution of the '627 patent because it distinguished the Lewen reference by amending claims 1 and 13 to require a modem. Multi-Tech also argues that the term point-to-point, which it used in remarks made to the PTO during prosecution, can refer to a connection made over a packet-switched network. In any event, Multi-Tech contends, any disclaimer arising from the statements made during prosecution of the '627 patent should not be applied to the other two patents because the '649 patent issued before those statements were made and because the inventions claimed in the '649 and '532 patents are distinct from the invention claimed in the '627 patent. 30 Microsoft and Net2Phone respond that the claim language, particularly that of claim 7 of the '627 patent, and the specification require a direct point-to-point connection over a telephone line. They also argue that the prosecution history of the '627 patent mandates such an interpretation because Multi-Tech defined its invention as establishing a direct connection between the local and remote sites over a telephone line and argued that its claims require a point-to-point connection from the communications system through the [telephone] line to a receiving communications system at the other end of the line. Finally, Microsoft and Net2Phone maintain that the prosecution history of the '627 patent is relevant to an understanding of the other two patents, which stem from the same parent application and share a common specification. 31 Thus, the parties' dispute over the sending, transmitting, and receiving limitations reduces to a single issue: whether those limitations are restricted to communications over a telephone line or whether they may encompass communications over a packet-switched network such as the Internet. For the reasons enumerated below, we agree with Microsoft and Net2Phone that the district court properly construed the sending, transmitting, and receiving limitations in the '649, '627, and '532 patents as being limited to communications over a telephone line and excluding the use of a packet-switched network. 32 Claim interpretation begins with the claims themselves, the written description, and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002). Claim language generally carries the ordinary meaning of the words in their normal usage in the field of invention. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2003). Although it is improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims, Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed.Cir.1998), [c]laims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part, Markman, 52 F.3d at 979; see also United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966) ([C]laims are to be construed in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the invention.); Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1987) (Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read in light of the specification.). Indeed, [o]ne purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims. Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed.Cir.2000). When the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question. SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir.2001). A patentee may also limit the scope of the claims by disclaiming a particular interpretation during prosecution. Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomed., Inc., 946 F.2d 850, 862 (Fed.Cir.1991). 33 We thus begin our analysis with the claim language itself. Claim 1 of the '627 patent recites a modem connected to a telephone line for receiving incoming packets from a remote site and for sending the outgoing packets to the remote site in full duplex communication mode. '627 patent, col. 46, ll. 50-53. Claim 7 of the '627 patent requires sending the outgoing packets to a remote site over a telephone line using a modem and receiving incoming packets through the modem from the remote site. Id. at col. 47, ll. 15-18. Similarly, claim 13 of the '627 patent recites transmitting the compressed outgoing digital voice packets on a communication line using a modem and receiving the compressed incoming digital voice data packets from the communication line. Id. at col. 48, ll. 44-47. Claim 1 of the '649 patent and claim 11 of the '532 patent recite transmitting the outgoing packet stream and receiving multiplexed incoming data. '649 patent, col. 47, ll. 18-19; '532 patent, col. 49, ll. 7-8. 34 From the plain language of those claims, only claim 7 of the '627 patent explicitly states that the transmission of data packets between the local site and the remote site must occur over a telephone line. Claim 1 of the '627 patent similarly refers to a telephone line, but is more ambiguous in that it refers to the modem connection rather than the data transmission. And the language of claim 13 of the '627 patent, claim 1 of the '649 patent, and claim 11 of the '532 patent is even more broad. It makes no reference to a telephone line and standing alone does not exclude data transmission over a packet-switched network. 3 35 Nonetheless, the claims must be interpreted in light of the specification, which is identical for all three patents and which repeatedly and consistently describes the local and remote systems of the claimed inventions as communicating directly over a telephone line. The Summary of the Invention portion of the specification states that the claimed personal communications system includes hardware to enable voice, fax and data communications with a remote site connected through a standard telephone line, '289 patent, col. 1, ll. 48-50, 4 as well as circuitry to transfer [data] over the telephone lines to a remote site, id. at col. 2, ll. 49-50. The specification further discloses that the hardware components of the local system communicate over a standard telephone line ... to one of a variety of remote sites. Id. at col. 5, ll. 63-64. It then describes various preferred embodiments of the invention, in all of which the hardware components of the local system communicat[e] over a standard telephone line to the disclosed hardware components, a facsimile machine, a modem, or a standard telephone at the remote site. Id. at col. 5, l. 64 to col. 6, l. 7; id. at fig. 1. The specification also discloses that the system allows the user to connect to remote locations equipped with a similar system or with modems, facsimile machines or standard telephones over a single analog telephone line. Id. at col. 6, ll. 36-39. 36 Those statements, some of which are found in the Summary of the Invention portion of the specification, are not limited to describing a preferred embodiment, but more broadly describe the overall inventions of all three patents. Indeed, they characterize the entire personal communications system as enabling communications between a local site and a remote site over a telephone line. Moreover, those descriptions of the claimed inventions are by no means limited to just the ends of the communications system as Multi-Tech argues. On the contrary, they explain that data packets from a local site are transferred over or through a telephone line to a remote site, making clear that the communications link between the local and remote systems is a telephone line. In fact, the specification refers to data transmission over or through a telephone line roughly two dozen times. Nowhere does it even suggest the use of a packet-switched network. In light of those clear statements in the specification that the invention (the present system) is directed to communications over a standard telephone line, we cannot read the claims of the '627 patent, the '649 patent, or the '532 patent to encompass data transmission over a packet-switched network such as the Internet. Instead, the specification shared by all three patents leads to the inescapable conclusion that the communications between the local and remote sites of the claimed inventions must occur directly over a telephone line. See SciMed Life Sys., 242 F.3d at 1342 (concluding that the common specification of three patents led to the inescapable conclusion that their claims required coaxial lumens, even though the claim language itself was not so limited); see also Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2003) (concluding that, read as whole, the common specification of three patents led to the inescapable conclusion that the claimed inventions must include play in every embodiment, even though the claim language was not so limited). Accordingly, we construe the sending, transmitting, and receiving limitations of the '627, '649, and '532 patents to require that the claimed data packets travel directly from a local site to a remote site (and vice versa) over a telephone line and not a packet-switched network. 37 Furthermore, an examination of the '627 patent's prosecution history confirms that Multi-Tech viewed its inventions as being limited to communications over a telephone line. In response to the examiner's first office action, Multi-Tech took the opportunity to provide a summary of the invention before addressing the § 103 rejection. It stated: 38 In their specification, Applicants disclose a communications system which operates over a standard telephone line. Such a telephone line is commonly referred to in the art as a plain old telephone service (POTS) line and establishes a point-to-point connection between telephone equipment on each end of the line. Applicants' invention ... transmits the packets across a POTS line to a remote site.... 39 (citations omitted). That statement, which expressly related to the specification shared by all three patents and the communications system disclosed in all three patents, makes clear that Multi-Tech viewed the local and remote sites of its inventions as communicating directly over a telephone line. Again, it does not describe just the connection at the ends of the claimed communications system, but explicitly states that the data packets travel across a [telephone] line to a remote site and further describes that path as being a point-to-point connection between each end. That statement unambiguously reflects Multi-Tech's own understanding of its inventions in the '627, '649, and '532 patents as being limited to the transmission of data packets over a telephone line. We cannot construe the claims to cover subject matter broader than that which the patentee itself regarded as comprising its inventions and represented to the PTO. 5 40 Moreover, although Multi-Tech made the above-quoted statement during prosecution of the '627 patent, it is also applicable to both the '649 and the '532 patents. In the past, we have held that the prosecution history of one patent is relevant to an understanding of the scope of a common term in a second patent stemming from the same parent application. E.g., Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 818 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc., 143 F.3d 1456, 1460 n. 2 (Fed.Cir.1998) (applying the prosecution histories of two sibling patents, which shared a common written description, to one another). We likewise believe that Multi-Tech's statement made during prosecution of the '627 patent is relevant to an understanding of the common disclosure in the sibling '649 and '532 patents. Multi-Tech's statement was expressly directed to the communications system disclosed [i]n the[] specification. That communications system encompasses the inventions of all three patents, see '289 patent, col. 1, ll. 35-37 (stating that the communications system ... contains multiple inventions), and as noted above, the specification is identical for all three patents. Multi-Tech's statement to the PTO was thus not limited to the invention disclosed in the '627 patent, but was a representation of its own understanding of the inventions disclosed in all three patents. We therefore conclude that that statement from the '627 patent's prosecution history is pertinent to an interpretation of the later issued '532 patent. See Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed.Cir.1999) (applying the prosecution history of one patent to a related, subsequently issued patent). 41 Furthermore, even though the '649 patent had already issued, we think that it is not unsound to apply the same interpretation to that patent. We take the patentee at its word and will not construe the scope of the '649 patent's claims more broadly than the patentee itself clearly envisioned. We also reject Multi-Tech's argument, based on Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed.Cir.1999), that the statements made during prosecution of the '627 patent should not be applied to the '649 patent because the examiner could not have relied on those statements in allowing the claims of the '649 patent. We have stated on numerous occasions that a patentee's statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation. Laitram Corp., 143 F.3d at 1462 (The fact that an examiner placed no reliance on an applicant's statement distinguishing prior art does not mean that the statement is inconsequential for purposes of claim construction.); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1438 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Regardless of the examiner's motives, arguments made during prosecution shed light on what the applicant meant by its various terms.). Georgia-Pacific is not to the contrary. In that case, we rejected the argument that the patentee was bound by statements made by the applicant in connection with a later application after the patent in suit had already issued. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 195 F.3d at 1333. The accused infringer argued that the patentee was foreclosed by the later statement from arguing in favor of a broader construction of the earlier patent, even though intrinsic evidence supported that broader construction. We rejected the argument that the patentee was bound, or estopped, by a statement made in connection with a later application on which the examiner of the first application could not have relied. We did not suggest, however, that such a statement of the patentee as to the scope of the disclosed invention would be irrelevant. Any statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a related application as to the scope of the invention would be relevant to claim construction, and the relevance of the statement made in this instance is enhanced by the fact that it was made in an official proceeding in which the patentee had every incentive to exercise care in characterizing the scope of its invention. Accordingly, we conclude that Multi-Tech's statements made during the prosecution of the '627 patent with regard to the scope of its inventions as disclosed in the common specification are relevant not only to the '627 and '532 patents, but also to the earlier issued '649 patent. 42 In sum, based on our analysis of the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, we conclude that the district court properly interpreted the sending, transmitting, and receiving limitations of the '627, '649, and '532 patents as requiring the direct transmission of data packets between the local and remote sites over a telephone line and excluding the use of a packet-switched network such as the Internet. This conclusion in and of itself leads to our affirmance of the district court's decisions. However, inasmuch as other issues of claim construction were decided by the district court and argued before us, we consider it to be in the interest of judicial efficiency, as well as in the interest of any future litigation concerning these patents, to review the other contested claim limitations. 6 43