Opinion ID: 208672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: data acquisition unit

Text: The district court construed data acquisition unit to mean one structure that includes the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor. Claim Construction Op. at 5. Paragon disagrees, having argued to the district court that data acquisition unit meant an assemblage of inter-related components that unify the function of acquiring data from an electronic positioning device and a physiological monitor. Id. at 2. On appeal, Paragon offers a slightly modified proposed construction: an assemblage of inter-related components that perform the function of acquiring data from an electronic positioning device and a physiological monitor. Reply Br. of Plaintiff-Appellant Paragon Solutions, LLC at 29. Timex argues that the district court's construction was correct. The dispute between the parties thus reduces to the question of whether the data acquisition unit must be a single structure, or whether it can be made up of physically separate structures.
Each party argues that the claim language supports its construction. Timex argues that the claims are written in structural terms, specifying a data acquisition unit that is separate from the display unit. Br. of Appellee Timex Corp. at 31. Paragon argues that claim 7, which depends from claim 6 and, in turn, claim 1, shows that the data acquisition unit may be made up of separate structures. Claim 6 recites [t]he system of claim 1, wherein said electronic positioning device comprises a GPS device, and further wherein said data acquisition unit further comprises a support member, and said GPS device and said physiological monitor are provided on said support member. '759 patent col.28 ll.30-34. Thus, in claim 6, the data acquisition unit comprises a support member for both a GPS device (the electronic positioning device) and a physiological monitor. Claim 7 recites [t]he system of claim 6, wherein said GPS device and said physiological monitor are removably secured to said support member. Id. col.28 ll.35-37 (emphasis added). Because the GPS device and the physiological monitor are each removably secured to the support member, it stands to reason that they may be separate structures that are separately removable from the support member. Thus, claim 7's recitation of a removably secured electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor suggests that the data acquisition unit may be made up of separate physical structures. Timex next argues that the recitation in claim 29 that said electronic positioning device is provided as part of a data acquisition unit suggests that the data acquisition unit must be a single structure that encompasses the electronic positioning device. '759 patent col.30 ll.15-17 (emphasis added). Paragon counters by pointing out that, although claim 29 recites that the electronic positioning system is part of the data acquisition unit, by reciting a physiological monitor in a separate limitation, with no mention of the data acquisition unit, it is apparent that the data acquisition unit may be separate from and need not include the physiological monitor. Contrary to Timex's argument, it is our view that the recitation of a data acquisition unit in claim 29 casts doubt on rather than supportsthe district court's construction of data acquisition unit as one structure that includes the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor. Claim Construction Op. at 5 (emphasis added). From the foregoing, it can be appreciated that while the claim term unit might suggest that the data acquisition unit is a single structure, the separate recitation of a physiological monitor in claim 29 and the recitation of removably secured elements in claim 7 can be read to suggest persuasively that the data acquisition unit may be multiple structures. We turn next to the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of a fully integrated written instrument, consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In the specification, Paragon's proposed construction finds strong support in one key sentence: Of course, the data acquisition component of a monitoring system according to the present invention may even comprise multiple structures which are physically separate from each other. '759 patent col.8 ll.36-39. As discussed above, the '759 patent refers interchangeably to the data acquisition component and the data acquisition unit. See id. col.3 ll.15-16. The drawings of the '759 patentin particular figure 1 and its associated textare also instructive. Figure 1, reproduced supra, depicts one embodiment of the exercise monitoring system. Id. col.7 ll.30-32. In that figure, only three structures are shown and described: an electronic positioning device, a physiological monitor, and a display unit. Id. fig. 1. Each structure is shown separate from each of the other structures. Id. Figure 1 is consistent with and supports the conclusion that the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor may be separate structures. Timex seeks to avoid the implications of figure 1 by arguing that the specification discloses two separate embodiments, only one of which is claimed. Specifically, Timex concedes that, in the configuration depicted in figures 1 and 2, the electronic positioning device is separate from the physiological monitor. Br. of Appellee Timex Corp. at 32. However, according to Timex, figures 3, 4, and 5 introduce a single-structure data acquisition unit, and it is only this second embodimentwith a data acquisition unitthat is claimed. Id. But in the section that appears between the discussion of figures 2 and 3, the specification makes clear that the invention is not so limited. See '759 patent col.8 ll.6-8 (An exercise monitoring system according to the present invention may comprise a single structure, or may be subdivided into one or more component structures.); id. col.8 ll.36-40 ([T]he data acquisition component of a monitoring system according to the present invention may even comprise multiple structures which are physically separate from each other.). In light of this language, we disagree with Timex that the structural configuration depicted in figure 1 is nothing more than an unclaimed embodiment.
The district court did not suggest that either the claim language or the specification compelled a construction of data acquisition unit that was limited to a single structure. Rather, the district court reasoned that the applicants' statements during prosecution in response to the Patent Office's notification of problems due to the preexisting Root patent resulted in a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the concept of an assemblage of inter-related parts and embrace[d] a single structure unit concept. Claim Construction Op. at 5. Specifically, the district court relied on the applicants' amendment of claim 1 to require that the electronic positioning device and physiological monitor are provided as a `data acquisition unit,' and on the applicants' argument that the amendment overcame Root by separating the data acquisition unit from the display unit which in Root are apparently provided in a single unit. Id. at 4. We cannot agree with the district court's interpretation of the prosecution history. The examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by Root because Root disclosed an electronic positioning device, a physiological monitor, and a display unit. Doc. 21, Ex. 2-N (J.A. 295). Root disclosed all three elements in a single structure. See, e.g., Root fig. 6. To overcome Root, the applicants amended the claims to separate out the display unit from the remaining structure. The way that the applicants chose to express this separation was to characterize the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor collectively as a data acquisition unit, then to add the limitation requiring that the display unit be separate from the data acquisition unit. See '759 patent col.27 ll.66-67, col.28 ll.5-6; Doc. 21, Ex. 2-P (J.A. 308) ([C]laim 1 has been amended to require that the electronic positioning device and physiological monitor are provided as a data acquisition unit. ... Claim 1 has also been amended to require that the display unit is separate from the data acquisition unit. ...). The applicants argued that this amendment overcame Root, because the monitor described in Root is a unitary structure in which the data acquisition unit and the display screen are provided as a single unit. Doc. 21, Ex. 2-P (J.A. 308). [A] patentee may limit the meaning of a claim term by making a clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution. Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (quoting Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2008)). By amending the claims to require a separate data acquisition unit and display unit, and by remarking that this distinguished the unitary structure of Root, the applicants clearly and unmistakably disavowed a single structure that encompassed an electronic positioning device, a physiological monitor, and a display unit. The claimed exercise monitoring system must be at least two structures. However, there is nothing in the amendment or the applicants' comments that clearly and unmistakably disavows a monitoring system with more than two structures. Thus, there was no clear and unmistakable disavowal of a data acquisition unit made up of physically separate structures. We conclude that, read in light of the specification, the claim term data acquisition unit is not limited to a single structure but may comprise multiple physically separate structures, and that the applicants did not make a clear and unmistakable disavowal of multiple physically separate structures during prosecution. We therefore construe data acquisition unit as used in the '759 patent as a structure or set of structures that includes at least the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor.