Opinion ID: 3155486
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Critical File”

Text: We now turn to the dispute over the district court’s construction of “critical file” as including “critical user files,” which both parties agree would render the term indefinite under Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129. Under Nautilus, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Id. A claim “must be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 737 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Google points out three references to “user” files in the specification of the ’247 patent: CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. 17 With the network interface program constrained in this way, malware programs are rendered una- ble to automatically corrupt critical system and user files located on the main memory storage ar- ea. ... It is an object of the present invention to provide a computer system capable of preventing malware programs from automatically corrupting critical user and system files. ... It is another object of the present invention to provide a user with an easy and comprehensive method of restoring critical system and user files that may have been corrupted by a malware infec- tion. ’247 patent col. 7 ll. 8-11, 40-44, 53-56 (emphasis added). Google also points to the following references to “critical . . . user” files or data in the prosecution history: Critical user data residing on the first electronic memory space is thereby protected from corrup- tion by a malicious (malware) process downloaded from the network and executing on the second log- ical process. ... [M]alware programs are rendered unable to au- tomatically corrupt critical system and user files located on the main memory storage area. J.A. 458-59 (emphasis added). The question is whether these five references to “user” files or data in the specification and prosecution history are sufficient to require that we read a “user files” limitation into the claim term “critical file.” On this point, our 18 CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. recent decision in Ancora, 744 F.3d at 732, is instructive. Ancora states that “[a] claim term should be given its ordinary meaning in the pertinent context, unless the patentee has made clear its adoption of a different definition or otherwise disclaimed that meaning.” Id. at 734. There, we upheld the district court’s ruling that the terms “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” were not indefinite because the parties did not dispute that there were “clear, settled, and objective” meanings for those terms in the art, and three “passing references” in the specification inconsistent with the established meanings were insufficient to overcome the clear ordinary meaning. Id. at 738. In this case, the experts from both sides agreed that “critical file” had a well-understood and objective definition to one of skill in the art. Cioffi’s expert, Mr. H.E. (“Buster”) Dunsmore, stated that a person of skill would understand that a “‘critical file’ refers to files required for the proper operation of the computer’s systems.” Dunsmore Decl. ¶ 35, Exhibit 24 of Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Br., Cioffi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123760 (2:13-cv-103), ECF No. 66 (“Dunsmore Decl.”). Similarly, Google’s expert, Dr. William A. Arbaugh, testified that, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art knows that ‘system files’ are synonymous with ‘critical file’ and ‘critical system file.’” Arbaugh Decl. at 32, Exhibit 23 of Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Br., Cioffi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123760 (2:13-cv-103), ECF No. 66 (emphasis added) (“Arbaugh Decl.”). 3 3 Based on this language, we disagree with Google’s characterization of Dr. Arbaugh’s testimony as explaining “that ‘system file’ can be a ‘critical file’ or a ‘critical system file,’ not that ‘critical file’ means ‘system file’ or only includes ‘system file.’” Appellee Br. 37. CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. 19 The surrounding text of the experts’ declarations does not alter this finding. The experts agreed that “critical user file” is entirely subjective. See Dunsmore Decl. ¶ 35 (“users may disagree [sic] what is and is not critical to them); Arbaugh Decl. at 32 (“it is my opinion that a ‘critical user file’ is entirely subjective because what is critical to one person may not be critical to another”). And the experts disagreed about whether “critical file” must be construed to include “critical user files” based on references to such files in the specification. See Dunsmore Decl. ¶ 35 (“One of skill would understand that a critical file would not be a user file”); Arbaugh Decl. at 33 (stating that, in light of the specification and prosecution history, a proposed construction of “critical file” that “does not include the concept of ‘critical user files’ . . . is underinclusive”). But neither party’s expert suggested that “critical file” alone is subjective or indefinite. Our analysis thus shows that, without taking into consideration the few references to “user files” or “user data” in the intrinsic evidence, both sides’ experts agreed on an objective and well-understood meaning for “critical file.” Ancora teaches that, if there is a well-understood meaning for a term in the art, we do not allow a few inconsistent references in the specification to change this meaning. This is because, if the terms at issue have “so clear an ordinary meaning[,] a skilled artisan would not be looking for clarification in the specification.” Ancora, 744 F.3d at 738. As in Ancora, “[t]here is no facial ambiguity or obscurity in the claim term,” and any ambiguity only arises from the specification. Id. Google argues that, unlike Ancora, where the “passing references” inconsistent with the ordinary meaning were “perplexing,” here, Cioffi deliberately intended to protect critical user data and critical user files from malware as part of its invention. See id. While the specification references upon which Google relies do reference the advantage of protecting files with which a particular user 20 CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. might be concerned, we see nothing that indicates that Cioffi intended its invention to do anything other than protect “critical files” as that concept is widely understood by those of skill in the art. We, thus, reject Google’s argument, and find that the few “passing references” to “user” files or data are insufficient to alter the wellunderstood, objective meaning of “critical file” agreed upon by the experts. We, therefore, reverse the district court’s holding that “critical file” in claim 21 of the ’103 patent is indefinite.