Opinion ID: 209735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: each pre-programmed code being representative of a syllabic element

Text: Next, we turn to the proper construction of the claim phrase each pre-programmed code being representative of a syllabic element. As explained in detail above, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Defendant-Appellee Motorola on the ground that the accused devices do not rel[y] upon a vocabulary of only syllabic elements. Summary Judgment Opinion, slip op. at 9-10. While the parties agree that this statement is true, they disagree as to whether or not the asserted claims require the vocabulary to include only syllabic elements. The Board of Regents asserts that the claim simply requires matching with one or more syllabic elements. The theory is that infringement occurs whenever a match with a syllabic element occurs, even if matches are also made with non-syllabic elements. BENQ disagrees and asserts that the claim requires that the database be composed solely of syllabic elements. This dispute compels us to construe the claim phrase each pre-programmed code being representative of a syllabic element, as recited by claim 10. Two of the method steps in claim 10 are relevant to the meaning of this phrase: matching said binary code with one or more pre-programmed codes, each pre-programmed code being representative of a syllabic element; [and] [f]orming a representation of the word from the one or more syllabic elements represented by the matched one or more pre-programmed codes .... '112 Patent, col.9 ll.3-8 (emphases added). In the former of these steps, the claim specifies that one or more pre-programmed codes exist and that each of those pre-programmed codes are representative of a syllabic element. Moreover, the claim distinguishes between each pre-programmed code and the matched one or more pre-programmed codes. While the Board of Regents's arguments assume that claim 10 [merely] requires that each of the one or more matched pre-programmed codes is representative of a syllabic element, the Board of Regents is mistaken. (Emphasis added). Claim 10 requires that each pre-programmed code  not each matched pre-programmed code  is representative of a syllabic element. Id., col.9 ll.3-5. The relevance of this difference is underscored by the fact that claim 10 later refers to using the one or more syllabic elements represented by the matched one or more pre-programmed codes. Id., col.9 ll.6-8 (emphasis added). The fact that the claim distinguishes between each pre-programmed code and  the matched one or more pre-programmed codes is significant. Id., col.9 ll.3-8 (emphasis added). Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir.2000) (In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.). Because the matched one or more pre-programmed codes clearly refers to the pre-programmed code(s) that are matched with the binary code in the matching step, we conclude that each pre-programmed code must refer to all potential pre-programmed codes in the vocabulary accessed by the method. This construction is supported by the prosecution history. As explained above, the examiner rejected the claims as anticipated by Rabiner. In response, the Board of Regents amended the pending claims and argued: Rabiner describes a data base comprising a limited vocabulary of complete words. In contrast, the present invention employs a data base of syllabic elements (i.e. syllable-like letter groups) which are combined to form a word of standard English text, giving an almost unlimited vocabulary. Following this amendment, the attorney for the Board of Regents and the examiner conducted two interviews to discuss the pending application. The examiner's interview summary, which is the only record of those conversations, states: Invention is patentable over Rabiner for reasons argued in [the applicant's amendment]. Claims would be allowable if made definite. Discussed indefiniteness and was [sic] to correct it. Applicants' attorney authorized the examiner to amend [the independent claims] to make each definite. The examiner's amendment made various changes to the claims, changing the matching limitation as follows: matching said binary code with a [one or more] pre-programmed code [codes], said [each] pre-programmed code being representative of one or more [a] syllabic elements [element]. While, in its amendment, the Board of Regents had correctly identified a difference between its invention and Rabiner  Rabiner described a database of complete words, but the invention employed a database of syllabic elements  this distinction was not reflected in the claims. The examiner thereafter amended the claim to require that  each pre-programmed code be[ ] representative of a syllabic element. (emphasis added). See United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942) (stating that definiteness requires claims to clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art). Based on all of the circumstances, we conclude that this change was significant in distinguishing the claim from the prior art. See Jansen, 342 F.3d at 1333 (stating that amendments made to gain allowance must be given weight). Thus, the language of the claim distinguishes between each pre-programmed code and the matched one or more pre-programmed codes, and the prosecution history attributes significance to the use of the word each in defining the claim over the art. Accordingly, we conclude that the claim phrase each pre-programmed code being representative of a syllabic element means that the vocabulary only includes syllabic elements. [6] On appeal, the Board of Regents argues that claim 10 uses the presumptively-open transitional phrase comprising, which should allow an accused device to infringe anytime it satisfies the matching limitation and, thus, the addition of unrecited steps (such as matching with a pre-programmed code that is not representative of a syllabic element) should not defeat infringement. The Board of Regents is correct that, generally, the use of the transitional phrase comprising does not exclude additional, unrecited steps. Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed.Cir.2007). This presumption, however, does not reach into each of the [claimed] steps to render every word and phrase therein open-ended  especially where, as here, the patentee has narrowly defined the claim term it now seeks to have broadened. Id. We do not hold that any added step would defeat infringement of this method claim. But, as we explained above, the '112 Patent's prosecution history narrowly defines the claim phrase at issue. The Board of Regents cannot rely on the word comprising to broaden the scope of a claim phrase that was limited during prosecution so as to gain allowance of the patent. See Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2005) (Such a use of the prosecution history ensures that claims are not construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.); Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed.Cir.1997) ([B]y distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.).