Opinion ID: 209664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim Constructionthe Assigning Limitation

Text: Targus argues that the claims in the Neville patents require assignment of a service location telephone number to the telephone number of each potential caller before any call is placed. Adept does not dispute that the assignment must occur before a call is placed, but argues that the assigning limitation can be satisfied by placing in or with a database an algorithm or criteria for determining the correct service location, even though the calculations necessary to implement the algorithm or apply the criteria are performed during the telephone call. Targus responds that any calculations needed to complete the assignment of service location numbers to potential callers must occur before the call. The ultimate question, then, is not when the assigning step must occur, which the parties agree must be prior to any telephone call, but rather what constitutes an assignment. To that end, Targus argues that the trial court erred when it added to its original claim construction the However . . . statement that the patents do not exclude calculations made during the telephone call because that allowed the jury to apply Adept's flawed interpretation. Though in claim construction matters we give due weight to a trial court's claim construction, ultimately claim construction is a matter of law the final responsibility for which lies with us. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). As usual, we start with the language of the claims themselves. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc). The relevant language ( see, e.g., claim 29 of the '111 patent, above) is: assigning to the physical location of said potential first parties a telephone number of a service location of a second party that will receive calls . . . . [8] '111 patent col. 15 ll.33-35. Use of the word potential to describe the callers and use of the future tense (will receive calls) for the recipient points directly to the conclusion that the assigning step must occur before a call is placed. The plain language of the claims makes clear that the assigning step requires that a telephone number of a service location be assigned to each potential caller. Nothing in the claims suggests that storing an algorithm that will be used to determine the telephone number of the correct service location during a telephone call constitutes an assignment of a service location telephone number to a potential caller before a telephone call is placed. The patents' written description confirms this. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315-17. The Neville patents disclose a method for routing 800 calls using routing instructions contained in a database. According to the written description, the database is constructed by assigning the telephone number of an appropriate service location to each potential caller. '111 patent fig. 1, col. 11 ll.42-54. The assignments are made by applying customer-provided criteria, such as existence within a previously-defined geographic area, a custom defined geographic area, or through calculations such as the shortest distance between coordinate points. Id. abstract. As summarized in the abstract, the patents make clear that assignment of service location telephone numbers to potential callers must be completed before a telephone call is ever placed:  Once all such assignments have been made, a database is assembled to be used by a long distance carrier for direct routing of telephone calls. Id. (emphasis added). The assigning step in the Neville patents results in direct routing instructions that are submitted to an LDC to be used for routing calls. Adept argues that these routing instructions could include stored procedures such as the distance calculations mentioned in the abstract. The written description, however, does not support Adept's position. The routing instructions are always described as a database containing potential caller telephone numbers and corresponding service location telephone numbers. Id. col.4 ll.10-12, col.12 ll.48-51. To the extent that procedures like distance calculations are implemented or geographic criteria are applied, it is only to construct a database containing assignments of service locations telephone numbers to potential callers, a step that is completed prior to any call. Nowhere do the patents characterize the routing instructions given to an LDC as a stored procedure, algorithm, or criteria to be used later during a call to determine an appropriate service location telephone number. Statements made by the applicant during prosecution reinforce the conclusion that any calculations necessary for assigning service location telephone numbers to callers must be performed before any calls are placed. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 ([T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention. . . .). During prosecution of the original application that led to the Neville patents, the examiner rejected most of the claims as anticipated by a prior art patent to Finucane, et al. (Finucane). In response, the applicant distinguished Finucane on several grounds, one of which was that Finucane requires . . . a computer [to] perform `point of origin' to `point of termination' calculations while a caller is on the line. J.A. 8572. The applicant contrasted this feature with his system, which performs all such calculations prior to the call even being made and, in fact, prior to delivery of the data base to the Long Distance Carrier (LDC). Id. The examiner maintained his rejection during prosecution of a continuation application. In remarks accompanying an amendment in which he canceled all independent claims and added new claims, the applicant once again distinguished his invention from Finucane: The major difference [between the present invention and Finucane] is that with the present invention all point of origin to point of termination calculations have already been performed by determining in which response zone (client-defined polygon) the call originated, and to which corresponding terminating number the call should be routed. The results of these calculations are stored in a database at the service provider's location. Thus, the present invention eliminates the need to perform online-calculations to determine the appropriate terminating number. J.A. 8626 (emphasis added). Thus Adept and Neville repeatedly characterized the invention as one in which all calculations necessary for assigning service location telephone numbers to callers are performed before any telephone calls are made. Adept argues that it is improper to rely on these statements from the prosecution history because they are too ambiguous to serve as a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. See Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325-26 (Fed.Cir.2003). Adept points out that the issued claims are quite different from those pending at the time the statements were made. Because there is no link between the applicant's arguments and the specific claim language at issue, Adept asserts, there can be no disclaimer. The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer to which Adept refers is typically invoked to limit the meaning of a claim term that would otherwise be read broadly. See id. at 1324 ([W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender. (emphasis added)); see also Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002) (construing the broad term calcium orthophosphate to exclude monocalcium orthophosphate based on prosecution disclaimer although excluded compound was within the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the claim term); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576-77 (Fed.Cir.1995) (holding that sputter-deposited dielectric could not be formed by a two-step process because patentee argued during prosecution that it was formed by a one-step process). In this case, however, we do not consult the prosecution history for that purpose. We simply use it as support for the construction already discerned from the claim language and confirmed by the written description, i.e., that all calculations necessary to assign a service location telephone number to a potential caller are completed before any call is placed. Although the claims pending at the time of the quoted statements did not include the assigning limitation, the applicant was quite clear throughout prosecution that his invention performed calculations for assigning service location telephone numbers to callers prior to any call being placed. As is true of the written description, nothing in the prosecution history supports Adept's position that a stored algorithm constitutes an assignment of a service location to a caller. Adept asserts that a claim construction requiring all calculations to be performed prior to any telephone calls cannot be correct because even its preferred embodiment performs some calculations during the telephone call. Specifically, Adept claims that when a call arrives, the Neville system must perform lookup calculations to retrieve from the database the service location assigned to the caller. Adept fails to recognize, however, that these lookup calculations are not part of the assigning step in the Neville patentsservice location telephone numbers are assigned to callers when the database is created, i.e., before any calls take place. Under the correct claim construction, only calculations that are necessary to complete the assignment must be performed before any calls are made. As long as that requirement is met, the claims do not preclude any additional calculations during the telephone call. According to Adept, three dependent claims not asserted in the case should compel a different claim construction. In these claims28, 40, and 52 of the '111 patentthe originating telephone number is that of a non-stationary telephone, such as a mobile, cellular or transportable telephone. Adept contends that these mobile telephone claims require some sort of spatial calculation at the time of the call to determine the correct service location based on the caller's physical location and therefore would be impossible to practice under a claim construction such as the one we adopt. We are not persuaded. As discussed, the plain language of the independent claims requires each potential caller to be assigned a service location telephone number before any call is placed. Since the mobile telephone claims depend from the independent claims, all potential mobile telephone callers must also be assigned a service location before a call is placed. Nothing in the language of the claims indicates otherwise. While the claims and the written description appear to contemplate that the assignment will be based on the caller's physical location at the time of the call, the written description does not teach a method for doing so. Significantly, the patents do not disclose the use of stored algorithms that could be used to assign service location telephone numbers during a call from either a mobile telephone or a fixed landline, and thus the written description does not support Adept's proposed construction. Furthermore, it is not clear that the mobile telephone claims would be impossible to practice under the correct claim construction. Prior to any calls, a service location could be assigned to a mobile telephone based on, for example, a physical location associated with its NPA-NXX. Be that as it may, we need not resolve this question. Even if the mobile telephone claims are rendered inoperative by a proper claim construction, preserving the validity of unasserted claims is an insufficient reason to ignore the meaning of the claims actually asserted in the case. See Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs. Corp., 483 F.3d 1328, 1337 (Fed.Cir.2007). In sum, based on consideration of the claims, the written description, and the remainder of the intrinsic evidence, we conclude that the trial court was correct in the first instance when it construed the assigning language to refer to a designation made prior to the telephone call of the first parties. We must also recognize, however, what the assignment entailsthe telephone number of a service location is assigned to the physical location or telephone number of each potential caller. As noted, this assignment must be made before any calls are placed. Thus, to the extent any calculations are needed to complete the assignment of service location telephone numbers to potential callers, they must be performed prior to any calls. The trial judge modified the original claim construction by adding that the Neville patents do not exclude calculations made during the telephone call. That statement is imprecise in the context in which it was presented, i.e., as part of the construction of the term assigning, and allowed Adept to argue before the jury that calculations for completing the assigning step could be performed while a caller is on-line, an argument that is not consistent with the patented invention. Under the correct claim construction, assignment of service location telephone numbers to potential callers must occur prior to any calls, and thus any calculations necessary for completing that assignment must be performed before any telephone calls are placed.