Opinion ID: 209917
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: verify the applicant's identity

Text: The district court construed verify the applicant's identity as follows: to confirm or substantiate the applicant's identity. This is not limited to checking biometric information and does not exclude verification using information such as name, address, and social security number plus some additional information less likely to have been improperly obtained (e.g., mother's maiden name, years at current address, years at job, etc). Claim Construction Order at 3-4 (emphasis in original). However, at summary judgment, the district court interpreted its construction to require the verification to consist of information that is both quantitatively and qualitatively more substantial than that based on name, address, and social security number alone. Federated Summary Judgment Order at 13; TD Ameritrade Summary Judgment Order at 10. As an initial matter, Appellees argue that Decisioning is judicially estopped from challenging this construction because it failed to object to and did not seek reconsideration of this construction, even though it requested reconsideration of other constructions. We are unpersuaded by Appellees' argument. The district court's initial construction, which Appellees assert Decisioning failed to challenge, is at best ambiguous, because on its face it does not also exclude Decisioning's proffered construction, which would permit verification using name, address, and social security number only. At summary judgment, however, the construction was interpreted as requiring additional information when verification was based on those three types of information alone. Cf. Federated Summary Judgment Order at 13 ([T]he construction adopted by the court recognizes that identity `verification' requires a check of information which is qualitatively different from the specifically listed items of `name, address, and social security number.' That qualitative difference must be such as to make the information `less likely to have been improperly obtained' than the three specifically listed items. (emphasis in original)); TD Ameritrade at 10. Decisioning opposed this interpretation of the claim term at summary judgment when Appellees urged the district court to apply it. Consequently, judicial estoppel is inapplicable. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001) (judicial estoppel determination based on several factors, including (1) whether the party's later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position; (2) whether the party succeeded in persuading a court to accept its earlier position; and (3) whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped). With respect to the merits of the district court's construction, Decisioning argues that the district court improperly engrafted limitations onto the claims by requiring that additional information less likely to have been improperly obtained be used in conjunction with name, address, and social security number. Appellees counter that the district court's construction is supported by the specification and prosecution history. We agree with Decisioning and conclude that this claim term is entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning: to confirm or substantiate the applicant's identity. The claim language itself does not require that any particular type or quantity of information be used to verify the applicant's identity; it requires only that the account processing system verify the applicant's identity by comparing certain of the information received from the applicant with certain of the information received from said at least one database relevant to the applicant's identity. '007 patent col. 11 ll.3-6. Although the specification contains sparse disclosure detailing how verification of the applicant's identity is to occur, nowhere can a disavowal of the broad claim scope fairly be found. Appellees seize on the specification's description of a preferred embodiment, where the specification reveals that the identity of the applicant may be verified, in the course of a fraud check, using information in addition to name, address, and social security number: Before the application is approved, however, there are several checks made by transaction processor 10 to prevent fraud. For example, the name of the applicant and the applicant's signature is verified, both electronically. Information obtained from the applicant including date of birth and the number of years with present employer, is compared to that available from a credit report or other sources such as the national death and birth records, drivers' licenses, criminal records, etc. Id. col.7 l.66-col.8 l.7. This description of a preferred embodiment, in the absence of a clear intention to limit claim scope, is an insufficient basis on which to narrow the claims. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906.