Opinion ID: 788714
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dual Pathways

Text: 75 RIM argues that claim 8 of the '670 patent and claims 15, 32, and 34 of the '960 patent, when properly construed, require `dual pathways' ... whereby at least one of the destination processors in the system must be reachable through two independent pathways, one through the email system, and the other through the RF system. Appellant's Br. at 20. 76 We begin our analysis with the words of the claims. 7 Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. We refer again to claim 1 of the '960 patent, from which claim 15 ultimately depends, which is illustrative and states in pertinent part: 77 1. A system for transmitting originated information from one of a plurality of originating processors in an electronic mail system to at least one of a plurality of destination processors in the electronic mail system comprising:... 78 a RF information transmission network for transmitting the originated information to at least one RF receiver which transfers the originated information to the at least one of the plurality of destination processors; ... 79 the electronic mail system transmits other originated information from one of the plurality of originating processors in the electronic mail system to at least one of the plurality of destination processors in the electronic mail system through a wireline without transmission using the RF information transmission network. 80 '960 patent, col. 49, ll. 2-45 (emphases added). 81 In considering RIM's proposed dual pathways limitation, we begin by noting that the preamble of claim 1 of the '960 patent limits the claim. Under our precedent, a preamble generally limits the claimed invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if the preamble helps to determine the scope of the patent claim, then it is construed as part of the claimed invention. Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed.Cir.1995) ([W]hen the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the one the patent protects.). When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention. Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2003); see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.Cir.1998) ([A] preamble usually does not limit the scope of the claim unless the preamble provides antecedents for ensuing claim terms and limits the claim accordingly.). 82 Because these limitations of claim 1 of the '960 patent derive their antecedent basis from the claim 1 preamble and are necessary to provide context for the claim limitations, the use of these limitations in the preamble limits the claim. Eaton, 323 F.3d at 1339; Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808. The limitations of claim 1 at least one of a plurality of destination processors and electronic mail system are first recited in the preamble. '960 patent, col. 49, ll. 2-45 (claim 1). The antecedent basis of the disputed claim limitation to the at least one of the plurality of destination processors, id. at col. 49, ll. 17-18 (emphasis added) (claim 1), is the destination processor recited in the preamble. 83 RIM's assertion that claim 1 of the '960 patent requires that [t]he same destination processor must therefore simultaneously be `in an electronic mail system' and reachable through an `RF information transmission network' is well-supported. RIM correctly argues that the claim language a RF information transmission network for transmitting ... originated information to the at least one of the plurality of destination processors, which employs the definite article the, refers to the antecedent at least one of a plurality of destination processors in the electronic mail system. '960 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). RIM also correctly argues that, based on this antecedent relationship, a destination processor accessible by RF transmission must also be in an electronic mail system. See generally Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2003) ([I]t is a rule of law well established that the definite article `the' particularizes the subject which it precedes. It is a word of limitation as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of `a' or `an.' (internal quotation omitted)). 84 However, the conclusions RIM seeks to advance do not follow from its assertion. One conclusion RIM advances, at least at one point in its briefing, is that this dual pathways assertion suffices to demonstrate non-infringement, arguing that [t]he Blackberry® system avoids this requirement since the Blackberry® handhelds are only reachable through an RF pathway. That sentence, which is the extent of RIM's analysis on this point, is simply insufficient to support a non-infringement determination. The argument relies on the implied premise that the BlackBerry handhelds are not in the electronic mail system. As defined by the district court, and approved above, an electronic mail system includes a plurality of processors running electronic mail programming wherein the processors and the electronic mail programming are configured to permit communication by way of electronic mail messages among recognized users of the electronic mail system. RIM has cited nothing in the record to suggest that BlackBerry handhelds do not contain processors running electronic mail programming or are not configured to permit communication by way of electronic mail messages among recognized users of the electronic mail system. 8 Accordingly, RIM's argument that the claim limitation requires that at least one destination processor must be in the electronic mail system and accessible by the RF information transmission network is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate non-infringement. 85 Another conclusion RIM attempts to draw from its assertion that at least one destination processor must be in the electronic mail system and accessible by the RF information transmission network is that there must be a dual pathway to the same destination processor. The term dual pathways is not a claim term, but the notion of dual communication paths was argued by Campana during the prosecution of the '960 patent and incorporated into the structure of the claims of the patent. In distinguishing his invention over a prior art reference, Zabarsky, Campana argued that Zabarsky would not meet the claims because of the recited dual communication paths involving telephonic and wireless communications which use the claimed interface switch between the electronic mail system and the RF information transmission system. The dual pathways distinction was mentioned during several exchanges between Campana and the examiner and was included in the recited structure of the claims. The first pathway is a pathway using both wireless connections in the RF information transmission network and either wireline or wireless connections in the email system (wireline-and-wireless pathway). This pathway is recited in the second paragraph after the preamble in claim 1. '960 patent, col. 49, ll. 13-17 (reciting transmission through an RF information transmission network). The second pathway is a pathway using only wireline connections in the email system (wireline-only pathway). This pathway is recited in the final paragraph of claim 1, which was added explicitly to incorporate a dual pathways limitation into the claims. See id. at col. 49, ll. 41-45 (reciting the transmission of information to at least one of the plurality of destination processors in the electronic mail system through a wireline without transmission using the RF information transmission network). 86 RIM's correct assertion that at least one destination processor must be in the electronic mail system and accessible by the RF information transmission network does not, by itself, yield the conclusion that at least one destination processor must be accessible by dual pathways, that is, by a wireline-only pathway as well as a wireline-and-wireless pathway. RIM concedes that the final paragraph of claim 1 does not establish that a single destination processor must be accessible by dual pathways. 87 RIM does argue, however, that during the prosecution of the '960 patent, Campana urged a narrow definition of `electronic mail system' to distinguish over the wireless messaging system of Zabarsky. Thus, RIM ties its proposed narrow definition of electronic mail system to its dual pathways claim construction argument. RIM makes the following argument. First, at least one destination processor must be in the email system and accessible by the wireline-and-wireless pathway. Second, if a destination processor is in the email system, then it is accessible by a wireline-only pathway. Therefore, at least one destination processor must be accessible by dual pathways. This argument fails, however, because as we have concluded in section II.A.2.a, supra, the term electronic mail system as used in the patent is not limited to wireline-only pathways. 88 RIM also points to other statements Campana made in distinguishing the claimed invention over the Zabarsky reference. RIM argues that Campana's repeated reliance on a dual pathways requirement to distinguish over Zabarsky acted as a disclaimer of any claim interpretation that avoids a dual pathways requirement. NTP responds that there was no disavowal or disclaimer limiting Campana's invention to a system having dual pathways to the same destination processor. NTP argues that, instead, Campana simply distinguished Zabarsky as a purely wireless system, and noted that Zabarsky did not teach the claimed combination of a wireless system and an electronic mail system. Further, NTP contends that the examiner clearly stated his understanding that no dual pathways requirement exists. 89 RIM emphasizes the following passage from the prosecution history: 90 [T]he claims as described above ... define the combination of an electronic mail system and an RF information transmission system which transmits originated information from an originating processor to at least one destination processor using both an electronic mail system including a telephone network and an RF information transmission network which transmits originated information to at least one receiver which transfers the information to at least one destination processor. Thus, it is seen that the Examiner has not provided a teaching in the prior art or reasoning justifying a conclusion of obviousness with regard to the claimed system and method of operation of the electronic mail system and the RF information transmission system which define dual transmission paths of originated information with one of the paths being in the electronic mail system using a telephone network and the other of the paths being from the electronic mail system through an interface switch and through the RF information transmission system to the at least one destination processor. 91 Second Supplemental Amendment, May 13, 1994, at 23. RIM argues that Campana's statement that the claimed system ... define[s] dual transmission paths, id., serves to disclaim systems where the same destination processor cannot be reached through both wireline and RF transmissions. This characterization of the prosecution history is in error. Campana made these statements in the prosecution history to demonstrate how its combination of a wireline system and RF transmission system is distinguishable from the Zabarsky messaging system, which did not have the capacity to send a message using only wireline connections. Id. at 21-23. Although Campana clearly contemplated that various destination processors could be accessed through either a wireline system or the RF transmission network (or both), Campana did not limit his invention in these prosecution history passages to require that the same destination processor be accessible through both the wireline system and the RF transmission system. See Gemstar-TV Guide Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2004) (noting that the presumption of ordinary meaning will be `rebutted if the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.' (quoting ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1091 (Fed.Cir.2003))). The required words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction representing a clear disavowal of claim scope are not present in these passages from the prosecution history. 92 As NTP correctly points out, the examiner's Reasons for Allowance confirm that no requirement of dual transmission pathways to the same destination processor was required for the claims to be patentable: 93 The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a system for transmitting originated information from an originating processor in an electronic mail system to a destination processor in the electronic mail system comprising an RF information transmission network ... with an address of the destination processor added at the originating processor [and] the electronic mail system transmits other originated information from an originating processor to a destination processor in the electronic mail system through a wireline without transmission using the RF information transmission network. 94 Notice of Allowability, Feb. 7, 1995, at 2. Although information is transmitted to various destination processors via RF or wireline transmission systems, there is no requirement that there must be dual transmission pathways to the same destination processor. Thus, we conclude that the asserted claims of the '960 and '670 patents do not include the dual pathways limitation contended by RIM.