Opinion ID: 209980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Still Frame Buffer Claims

Text: Luma argues that the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity was based upon an incorrect construction of the claim 44 limitation “temporarily store” as it relates to the “still frame buffer.” Luma argues that to “temporarily store” an image requires more than pausing a single frame of the live video feed from a camera. 2007-1353, -1378 -8- Instead, Luma argues, it must be possible for the “still frame buffer” to recall the frozen image (rather than retrieve it from “long-term” memory) even after returning to a continuous display of the video feed from the input. Luma argues that this understanding is necessary to give useful meaning to the words “temporarily store.” Luma also argues that several statements in the specification support that interpretation. Appellees respond that Luma has resorted to reading a nonexistent limitation into the claims in order to distinguish the prior art. They argue that there is no language in the claims setting a time limit for storage of the frozen image in the “still frame buffer” and that there is absolutely no support in the specification for a requirement that an image be retrievable from the “still frame buffer” after a return to a display of the continuous input. We agree with the district court and appellees that Luma’s proposed interpretation lacks support in both the claims and the specification. “Anticipation is a question of fact, but, in reviewing a grant of summary judgment of invalidity for anticipation, we determine de novo whether the evidence creates genuine issues of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Here, Luma has not challenged the undisputed facts relied upon by the district court, but only the court’s construction of the limitation “still frame buffer.” As noted previously, we review issues of claim construction de novo. The claims include no reference to a temporal limitation on the storage of an image. Nor do the claims make any reference to recall of a previously temporarily 2007-1353, -1378 -9- stored image. Furthermore, the portions of the specification cited by Luma are inapposite. Nothing in the specification describes or suggests preserving the image in the still frame buffer once the output returns to display of the live images. In particular, Luma points to the description of the review function in columns 16-17 of the ’801 patent. However, nothing in that passage describes a form of intermediate storage. In fact, the specification states that the “review function operates quickly, thereby allowing [the] surgeon to see what’s already in memory.” Claim 44 describes “memory” as the location of “long-term” storage, not “temporary” storage. In addition, Figure 6 of the patent has a box labeled “Review” with an arrow pointing to another box that reads “[a]ssemble and display all images as a result of save command.” ’801 patent Fig. 6 (emphasis added). Whatever the inventor’s intention may have been with respect to the “still frame buffer,” the position articulated by Luma is not supported by the specification and not consistent with what was actually claimed. Because we affirm the district court’s construction of the “still frame buffer,” we conclude that the court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of claims 44 and 45 for anticipation was correct.