Opinion ID: 209917
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: remote interface

Text: The evolution of the '205 application, through various continuation applications, left the '007 patent specification with a single disclosed embodiment: a system for providing the automatic processing of loans, without human intervention, using computer equipment housed in a kiosk. The claims of the '007 patent, however, more broadly recite a remote interface and are not by their terms limited to a kiosk-housed interface. Decisioning thus contends that the claim term remote interface should be construed to encompass systems accessed by customers not only through kiosks located in public places but also, for example, through their own personal computers over the Internet. The district court construed the term remote interface to require dedicated computer equipment, meaning equipment supplied by the entity providing the financial account or service. Claim Construction Order at 3. The court later explained that [t]he intent of this construction was to exclude personal computer systems owned and controlled by the consumer, or by the applicant. E.g., Federated Summary Judgment Order at 9. Decisioning argues that the district court erred in restricting the remote interface limitation to computer equipment that is dedicated to financial transactions and supplied by the entity providing the account. According to Decisioning, the term is broad and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which encompasses any device, equipment, or means that has input and output to allow the exchange of information between the applicant and the computer controller. Appellees argue that the district court properly narrowed the claims because the specification and prosecution history support only dedicated computer equipment, and because Decisioning abandoned other embodiments  specifically, consumer-owned personal computers when it filed the '007 patent application. For the following reasons, we agree with the district court's general conclusion that the term remote interface does not encompass computer equipment that is privately owned by the consumer establishing the financial account. However, we disagree with the dedicated and supplied by limitations that the district court specifically adopted in order to exclude consumer-owned personal computers. At the outset, we acknowledge that there is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification. Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed.Cir.1998); accord Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323-24 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (In the end, there will still remain some cases in which it will be hard to determine whether a person of skill in the art would understand the embodiments to define the outer limits of the claim term or merely to be exemplary in nature.). This court has recognized that attempting to resolve that problem in the context of the particular patent is likely to capture the scope of the actual invention more accurately than either strictly limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification or divorcing the claim language from the specification, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323-24, and, thus, that there can be no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction, id. at 1324. We must read the specification in light of its purposes in order to determine whether the patentee is setting out specific examples of the invention to accomplish those goals, or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive. Id. at 1323. The manner in which the patentee uses a term within the specification and claims usually will make the distinction apparent. Id. Ultimately, our focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms. Id. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term remote interface is admittedly broad. Divorced from the specification, it could encompass almost any user interface that is located remotely from the data processing system and that facilitates the exchange of information between the applicant and the transaction processor, including a consumer-owned personal computer. Read in light of the specification, however, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term remote interface in the '007 patent to encompass a consumer-owned personal computer. The term remote interface does not appear in the written description of the '007 patent. Indeed, interface appears only once, where the preferred user-interface of the invention is described as computer equipment that is housed in a kiosk. '007 patent col.3 ll.44-51. The inventor used the term kiosk in the specification in two ways. First, the specification describes the kiosk as being merely a housing for the computer equipment that constitutes the remote interface. Id. col.9 ll.7-10 (A kiosk is basically a housing that can contain all of the equipment for a borrower to use in contacting and communicating with a remote, centrally located transaction processor. . . .). Second, the specification uses the term kiosk to represent the entire remote interface itself, including the required computer equipment. See id. col.3 ll.55-58 (The kiosk can enable the consumer to establish checking and savings accounts [and] apply for and be immediately issued or sent credit and debit cards . . . .), col.6 ll.6-9 (Kiosk 40 is activated by drawing an ATM or bank card or equivalent through a magnetically encoded card reader 70 or by providing a member number for credit unions or a merchant number for merchants and finance companies.), col.9 ll.61-63 ([L]oans and credit cards are but one of many types of services that can be provided by a kiosk of the type described or with slight modifications.). In construing remote interface, we consider both senses in which the term kiosk is used throughout the written description. On one hand, it is clear that the invention is not limited to a remote interface that is housed in a kiosk structure. The patent describes the kiosk housing as merely a preferred embodiment. Id. col.3 ll.44-45 (In a preferred embodiment, the user-interface is a kiosk housing a computer controller . . . . (emphasis added)), col.9 ll.4-6 (The preferred embodiment for enabling a borrower to complete a loan or credit card application is housed in kiosk 40. (emphasis added)). The preferred kiosk housing, which resembles a typical bank automated teller machine, is depicted in figures 2 and 3 of the patent. We agree with Decisioning that the invention is not limited to a remote interface that is enclosed by the preferred kiosk housing disclosed in the specification. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed.Cir.2004) (Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.). In alternate embodiments, a different style of housingor even no housing at allmay be used to enclose the remote interface. More importantly, Decisioning made clear during prosecution that the claims of the '007 patent do not require a kiosk housing. As originally filed, claim 1 recited: 1. A system for providing a closed loop financial transaction to a consumer, said system comprising: a kiosk; a computer controller carried by said kiosk and programmed to interact with said consumer . . .; means carried by said kiosk and responsive to said computer controller for communicating to said consumer; input means carried by said kiosk for enabling information to be communicated by said consumer to said computer controller, said computer controller responsive to said input means; output means carried by said kiosk and responsive to said computer controller for responding to said financial transaction requested by said consumer; and . . . (emphases added). It is apparent that claim 1 originally recited the limitation of a kiosk housing. Kiosk is first recited as a limitation, and the components subsequently recited are  carried by said kiosk. However, in an amendment dated August 15, 1995, the inventor deleted all references to the kiosk housing in claim 1 (the portions underlined above). In the remarks accompanying the amendment, the inventor explained that [c]laim 1 has been amended to delete the kiosk element, which is not required for performing the method of the present invention. We think that the effect of this amendment was to remove the requirement that the remote interface be enclosed by a kiosk housing. In that regard, however, we do not agree with Decisioning that the amendment actually broadened the scope of the applicant interface itself. Next, we consider the inventor's alternate use of kiosk in reference to the entire remote interface itselfnot merely a preferred housing that encloses the remote interface. The remote interface is a component of the invention itself, and the inventor's use of kiosk in that manner does not merely describe a preferred embodiment of the invention. Rather, it describes the invention itself. E.g., '007 patent Abstract (The transactions are provided from a kiosk . . . .), col.4 ll.16-18 (The use of a kiosk to make available to borrowers the communications capability for applying for a loan or credit card is another important feature of the present invention.  (emphasis added)), col.4 ll.35-39 (In fact, the present invention greatly reduces the need for financial institutions to maintain offices and makes it more cost effective for them to provide kiosks in remote areas rather than branch offices. (emphasis added)), col.9 l.63-col.10 l.6 ([A]ll the basic services provided by financial institutions . . . can be done using the kiosk and computer controller of the present invention.  (emphasis added)). The common meaning of the term kiosk strongly suggests to one of ordinary skill that the claimed remote interface is installed in a publicly-accessible location. The Oxford English Dictionary defines kiosk to include a structure . . . used for the sale of newspapers and a telephone kiosk. VII Oxford English Dictionary 455 (2d ed.1989); see also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 966 (4th ed.2000) (a small structure, often open on one or more sides, used as a newsstand or booth); The New Oxford American Dictionary 938 (2001) (a small open-fronted hut or cubicle from which newspapers, refreshments, tickets, etc., are sold and a telephone booth); Random House Webster's College Dictionary 730 (2d ed.1999) (an interactive computer terminal available for public use, as one with Internet access or site-specific information); Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1059 (2d ed.2001) (a small structure having one or more sides open, used as a newsstand, refreshment stand, bandstand, etc. and a telephone booth). The specification is consistent with this ordinary meaning of kiosk. The specification provides that the kiosks are placed in convenient locations. See '007 patent col.3 ll.1-9 ([T]he present invention is the closed loop performance of financial functions via a computer and monitor mounted in a kiosk, located in convenient places . . . .), col.3 ll.51-55, col.4 ll.18-20. The specification further defines those convenient locations to include, e.g., an airport terminal, a bank, a shopping area, or a store. Id. col.3 ll.51-55. All of these locationsconsistent with the ordinary meaning of kiosk  indicate public accessibility. Nowhere does the specification suggest that kiosk might encompass a consumer's privately-owned personal computer. Further, the specification describes various features of the kiosk that would not be associated with consumer-owned personal computers. For example, the specification provides that customers exchange information with the kiosk using touch screen or voice recognition technology and sign documents via an electronic pen and signature pad. The Summary of the Invention states that the present invention is the closed loop performance of financial functions via a computer and monitor . . . using `touch-screen' or voice recognition technology, for the consumer to indicate choices and provide information, and an electronic signature pad to obtain the signature of the applicant indicating understanding and acceptance of the terms of the transaction. Id. col.3 ll.1-9; see also id. col.4 ll.25-39 (describing the use of an electronic signature pad as a feature of the present invention), col.4 ll.43-45 (describing the use of a touch screen technology as a feature of the present invention). The kiosk is also described as including a magnetic bank card reader, id. col.9 ll.11-15, and security camera, id. col.9 l.18. Finally, the specification provides that credit or debit cards may be imprinted and issued through the kiosk's credit card port. Id. col.3 l.63-col.4 l.9 (An important feature of the present invention is the extent to which the financial transactions are processed by the computer controller and without human intervention. . . . Here, the processing by computer controller includes. . . [the] issuance of a transaction card, such as a credit, debit or `smart' card, imprinted with the necessary information.), col.10 ll.20-24. Many of these features do not evoke the use of consumer-owned personal computers today; it is even less likely that a skilled artisan would have associated them with consumer-owned personal computers as of the effective date of the patent application. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. We acknowledge that embodiments incorporating these features are claimed specifically in several of the patent's dependent claims, and that the features themselves do not limit the scope of the term remote interface. However, we think that these features would further indicate to a skilled artisan that the remote interface described in the specification does not encompass a consumer-owned personal computer. They play an important role in achieving the invention's stated purpose i.e., the closed loop processing of financial transactions without human involvement. See, e.g., '007 patent col.3 ll.36-42 (stating that the customer uses an electronic signature pad in order to sign loan documents, which is important for assuring that regulatory requirements have been met). The construction of the term remote interface must be resolved in the context of the particular facts before us. See Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed.Cir.1999) (Although precedent offers assorted quotations in support of differing conclusions concerning the scope of the specification, these cases must be viewed in the factual context in which they arose. Whether an invention is fairly claimed more broadly than the `preferred embodiment' in the specification is a question specific to the content of the specification, the context in which the embodiment is described, the prosecution history, and if appropriate the prior art. . . .). Based upon the written description in this case, we conclude that the claim term remote interface excludes consumer-owned personal computers. Our decision on this point has support in the case law. See Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1317-19 (Fed.Cir.2006) (limiting the broader claim term fuel injection system component to fuel filter, where a fuel filter was the only component disclosed in the written description and was described as the present invention); Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299-1302 (Fed.Cir.1999) (construing the broader claim term including as requiring permanent attachment of the restriction ring to the cover, where all embodiments of the invention showed a permanently attached restriction ring and a unitary structure was described as important to the invention). For the reasons outlined above, we conclude that the term remote interface in the context of the '007 patent does not encompass consumer-owned personal computers. [4] Nevertheless, we think that the district court erred in applying the dedicated and supplied by limitations to the claimed remote interface. Engrafting the claims with these limitations produces anomalous results, not supported by the specification or the claims themselves. For example, a kiosk that is provided by a bank would be encompassed by the district court's construction, but a kiosk provided by a third party that facilitates loans for that bank would not because the kiosk is no longer supplied by the entity providing the account. Further, the district court's construction would encompass a kiosk that is completely dedicated to financial transactions, but it would presumably exclude a kiosk that could also be used for one additional function, e.g., checking a weather report. In sum, the district court erred in requiring the computer equipment of the remote interface to be (1) dedicated solely to financial transactions and (2) supplied by the financial institution, as neither of those limitations finds support in the specification. [5] The claim term remote interface refers to computer equipment installed in publicly-accessible locations, although it need not be enclosed in a kiosk housing. However, remote interface does not encompass computer equipment that is privately owned by the consumer establishing the financial account. [6] As explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term remote interfaceread in light of the specificationto encompass a consumer-owned personal computer. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.