Opinion ID: 211813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: network for data communications

Text: 15 The district court construed the phrase network for data communications to mean establishing data communications between every pair of processor systems in the distributed computer system using any kind of network. SeaChange, 115 F.Supp.2d at 482. The district court reasoned that the claim language does not command a specific type of network, that claim differentiation doctrine favors a broad interpretation, that the written description does not require a narrow construction, and that the prosecution history does not show clear disavowal. Id. at 478-81. 16 Claim 37 does not suggest that the claimed network is limited to networks employing direct, point-to-point interconnections. The language specifies only that each processor system be interconnected to each other processor system. Moreover, the technical dictionary definition of network does not suggest the point-to-point limitation; indeed, it implies that a network for data communications can employ direct or indirect interconnections. See The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 842 (5th ed.1993) (hereinafter  IEEE ). 17 Seachange agrees with this assessment and asks that we apply the doctrine of claim differentiation. The doctrine of claim differentiation stems from the common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope. Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971-72 (Fed.Cir.1999). Although the doctrine is at its strongest where the limitation sought to be `read into' an independent claim already appears in a dependent claim, Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed.Cir.2004), there is still a presumption that two independent claims have different scope when different words or phrases are used in those claims, Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int'l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1365-69 (Fed.Cir.2000); see also Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed.Cir.1987). However, the doctrine only creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope; it is not a hard and fast rule of construction. Kraft, 203 F.3d at 1368 (internal quotations omitted). [T]he doctrine of claim differentiation can not broaden claims beyond their correct scope, determined in light of the specification and the prosecution history and any relevant extrinsic evidence.... [C]laims that are written in different words may ultimately cover substantially the same subject matter. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed.Cir. 1998). 18 Claim 1 of the '312 patent requires interconnecting each one of said processor systems in a point-to-point two way channel interconnection with each other one of said processor systems. '312 patent, col. 17, II. 54-56. Claim 37 is identical to claim 1, except that claim 37 requires only that the interconnection be through a network for data communications. The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that these limitations in claim 1 and claim 37 are of different scope and suggests that claim 37 does not require point-to-point, two-way channel interconnections. However, that presumption is not a hard and fast rule and will be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history. Kraft, 203 F.3d at 1368. 19 As to the written description, C-COR argues that Seachange limited the scope of network for data communications to point-to-point networks by implication. C-COR asserts that the written description discloses only point-to-point interconnections and establishes that the point-to-point interconnections achieve a necessary objective of the invention. C-COR adds that the written description eliminates embodiments incompatible with point-to-point wiring. C-COR cites several cases in support of its arguments. E.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1351-52 (Fed.Cir.2004) (construing claim to require feature that was central to the functioning of the claimed invention[]); Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1369-70 (Fed.Cir.2003) (construing claim to include limitation because very character of the invention required that the limitation be part of every embodiment); Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882-83 (Fed.Cir.2000) (construing claim to include limitation, in part, because specification limited invention to embodiments with that feature); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed.Cir.2001) (construing claim to reflect inventor's consistent usage of claim term in specification); Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3d 1295, 1300-01 (Fed.Cir.1999) (construing claim to require a particular configuration where specification described the importance of the configuration and did not disclose others). 20 Seachange responds that the written description does not show a clear disavowal or a redefinition. Seachange argues that the type of network connection used is not important to the invention and that the invention resides in RAID Squared. Seachange explains that the text of the specification contains little disclosure of the types of network interconnections covered by the patent because that was not significant. Seachange asserts that a patentee is entitled to claims that are broader than embodiments described and that C-COR seeks to erroneously import a limitation from a preferred embodiment. 21 We agree with C-COR that the written description consistently refers to the network interconnections as point-to-point, e.g., '312 patent, col. 3, II. 30-34; col. 4, II. 36-43; col. 2, II. 15-25; Abstract; col. 5, II. 1-4, 52-58; col. 6, II. 7-9, and suggests an upper limit on the number of processor systems compatible with point-to-point wiring, id., col. 5, II. 58-61; col. 8, II. 30-38 ([M]ore or less processor systems can be used, although a practical upper limit may be between nine and thirteen.... When more cluster members are employed, the point to point wiring becomes progressively more difficult and expensive. Indeed, nine cluster members would require thirty-six interconnecting channels while thirteen cluster volumes would have 78 interconnecting channels.). Furthermore, point-to-point interconnections achieve an object of the invention in that they increase read and write bandwidth. See id., col. 2, II. 7-9; col. 7, II. 63-67. However, it is unclear whether these references to point-to-point are simply the consistent description of one possible embodiment or a description of the invention itself. In all of the cases cited by C-COR, the conclusion compelled by the written description is that the limitation in issue is a limitation on the invention, not just a feature of a possible embodiment. The issue is unresolved with certainty from the written description in this case. We turn next to the prosecution history for guidance. 22 On October 24, 1995, Mann et al. (Applicant) filed the application which matured into the '312 patent. In a September 30, 1996, Preliminary Amendment ( Preliminary Amendment ), Applicant added thirty-six claims, including claim 37, which was numbered as claim 40 throughout examination (claim 37(40)). Applicant also added claims 68-72, and 74, which included a limitation directed to an interconnecting data communications network. Id. at 11-13. Applicant stated that it added claims to more fully cover the scope of the invention. Preliminary Amendment at 13. 23 In a December 12, 1996, Office Action ( First Action ), the Examiner rejected claims 1-75. The Examiner grouped claims 1, 37(40), and others, and rejected them under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morita et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,502,980 (Morita), in view of Benner et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,072,371 (Benner). First Action at 3. In a June 12, 1997, Amendment ( Amendment ), Applicant's attorney stated: 24 With respect to the various prior art rejections, the Examiner grouped various claims and rejected the grouped claims. Applicant submits that with respect to each group of claims that certain of the claims in the group add further patentably distinct features to the invention and thus are further patentably distinct over the applied references. For simplicity, however, Applicant will in general treat a single claim as being representative of the group of claims but reserves its right to later argue that additional ones of the claims are patentably distinct over the combination of references. 25 Amendment at 29-30. Applicant's attorney then argued: 26 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9-12, 19, 20, 23-27, 40, 48-51, 53-55, 63-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over [Morita] in view of [Benner]. 27 As an illustrative claim in this grouping, Applicant's claim 1 .... recites a method in which at least three processor systems are interconnected using a point-to-point two-way channel interconnection with each one of the other processor systems. That is, any one processor system can communicate directly with any one of the other processor systems. The claim also recites that data is stored at each of the processor systems which also stores a portion of a redundant representation of the data. Neither the point to point two-way channel interconnection nor the arrangement of stored data and redundant data is suggested by the combination of Morita and Benner. 28 .... 29 Morita, as the Examiner, [sic] admits does not describe at least three processor systems in a distributed computing system and also does not describe a point to point interconnection. Applicant submits that Morita also does not describe or suggest that the processor system stores data in the manner recited in claim 1.... 30 .... 31 Benner describes a parallel computing system of the hypercube type. As such, although Benner does describe more than two processor systems, Benner does not describe that each of the processor systems are interconnected in a point to point two-way channel interconnection with each other one of the processor systems as recited in Applicant's claim 1. The Examiner indicates, however, that Benner suggests such an arrangement.... Although Benner ... describes his connections as point to point paths, Benner does not suggest that each of the processors in the hypercube arrangement are coupled to each one of the other processors in the hypercube arrangement as recited in claim 1. Rather, Benner teaches away from such an interconnection scheme.... 32 .... 33 ... Accordingly, in view of the fact that neither Morita nor Benner whether taken separately or in combination suggest the above-mentioned elements of Applicant's invention and furthermore since the combination of Morita and Benner does not appear to be suggested from the references nor appear to be logical, it is submitted that the rejection has been overcome by argument. 34 Therefore, claim 1 and claims 9-12, 19, 20, 23-27, 40, 48-51, 53-55 and 63-66 are all patentably distinct over Morita in view of Benner. 35 Id. at 29-35. In this amendment, Applicant did not separately argue that claim 37(40) was patentably distinct on any other basis. 36 In the same December 12, 1996, First Action, the Examiner also grouped claims 68-72 and 74 and rejected them under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morita in view of Benner and Madonna, U.S. Patent No. 5,544,163 (Madonna). First Action at 14. The Examiner employed reasoning similar to what he employed in rejecting the grouping that included claim 37(40), except that the Examiner relied on Madonna for disclosure of a switching system which was not a limitation in claim 37(40). Id. at 14-15. In response, applicant's attorney argued: 37 Applicant's claim 68 which is representative of this group of claims is patentably distinguished over the art of record since the references neither describe nor suggest ... at least three processor systems ... interconnecting data communications network ... and data storage control as recited in claim 68 as argued previously with respect to the Morita and Benner references. 38 Amendment at 46-47. 39 In a September 16, 1997, Office Action ( Allowance ), the Examiner allowed claims 1-28 and claims 32-75. Allowance at 1. His statement of reasons for allowance noted that the prior [art] of record fail to teach `storing data input at any one of the processor systems according to a distributed redundant storage process with data stored at each of the processor systems and a portion of the redundant representation of the data stored at each of said processor system[s].' Id. at 3. 40 On November 26, 1997, after the Examiner had concluded his examination and issued his notice of allowance, a protest petition ( Protest ) was filed. In that Protest, the protester argued that Gardner anticipated claims 1-28, 36-67, and 72-75. Protest at 2. The protester asserted that claims 29-35 and 68-71 were obvious over Gardner in view of Madonna and other references. Id. at 3. The protester emphasized that Gardner taught the use of RAID-5 at the system level and asserted that such feature could not be the point of novelty. However, the protester conceded that [i]f there exists a difference between [Gardner] and [Seachange's application], the difference may relate to the selected network. Id. at 3-4. 41 In a January 1998 Office Action, the Examiner requested that Applicant respond to the protest. On May 4, 1998, Applicant responded by asserting that [n]owhere in [Gardner] does the patentee describe or suggest a store/retrieve two-way point-to-point configuration. Protest Response at 2 (internal citation omitted). The response further argued that Gardner actually recites ... a network which may, for example, comprise an Ethernet&#8482;, Fiber Distributed Data Interchange (FDDI), Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), a small computer system interface (SCSI) or any other network used for transporting data amongst the media service. Id. (internal quotation omitted). Applicant's attorney added that Gardner relates to an allocation scheme for a plurality of media servers connected in a conventional client-server computer network. Id. at 3. The attorney said that Gardner does not suggest interconnecting each of the processors in a point to point configuration (claims 1-15); .... [or] interconnecting each one of said processor systems through a network for data communications with each other one of said processor systems (claims 40-54).... Id. at 3-4. The Examiner then allowed the claims to issue. 42 C-COR argues that Applicant's arguments made during prosecution narrowed the scope of the network for data communications limitation in claim 37(40) to cover only a point-to-point network. Seachange counters that Applicant's arguments did not amount to a clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope. We agree with C-COR. 43 The prosecution history constitutes a public record of the patentee's representations concerning the scope and meaning of the claims, and competitors are entitled to rely on those representations when ascertaining the degree of lawful conduct, such as designing around the claimed invention. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed.Cir.2000). Thus, in construing the claim, we consider the prosecution history to determine whether the patentee disclaimed or disavowed subject matter, narrowing the scope of the claim terms. Nystrom v. Trex Co., 374 F.3d 1105, 1113 (Fed.Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). In doing so, we examine the entire prosecution history, which includes amendments to claims and all arguments to overcome and distinguish references. Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2002); Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979 (Fed.Cir.1999). Where an applicant argues that a claim possesses a feature that the prior art does not possess in order to overcome a prior art rejection, the argument may serve to narrow the scope of otherwise broad claim language. Rheox, Inc., 276 F.3d at 1325 (Explicit arguments made during prosecution to overcome prior art can lead to narrow claim interpretations....); Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed.Cir.1997) ([S]ince, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover, he is by implication surrendering such protection.). A disclaimer must be clear and unambiguous. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323-25 (Fed.Cir. 2003). 44 The Examiner grouped several claims together, including claims 1 and 37(40), and rejected them as a group as being obvious over Morita in view of Benner. First Action at 4. Applicant responded, stating, inter alia, that applicant will in general treat a single claim as being representative of the group. Amendment at 29. Applicant then selected claim 1 as an illustrative claim and argued that Morita and Benner do not suggest connecting each processor to each other processor via point-to-point, two-way channel interconnections. Id. at 30-32. Applicant also argued that Morita and Benner do not disclose the arrangement of stored data and redundant data required by claim 1. Id. at 30-31. Applicant concluded that in view of the fact that neither Morita nor Benner ... suggest the above-mentioned elements of Applicant's invention ..., it is submitted that the rejection has been overcome by argument. Id. at 35. Even though Applicant reserve[d] its right to later argue that additional ones of the claims are patentably distinct over the combination of references, id. at 29-30, Applicant made no separate patentability argument for claim 37(40). Because Applicant provided clear notice of th[e] linkage between claim 1 and claim 37(40) for the purpose of its argument to overcome the prior art rejection on the basis of the point-to-point and redundant storage limitations, it would be improper to now broadly construe claim 37(40) not to contain those limitations. See Elkay, 192 F.3d at 980 (holding that arguments made with respect to a claim during the prosecution of an earlier patent applied to a claim in a later patent where the claims were affirmatively linked by the applicant); Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed.Cir.1998) (holding that a general statement distinguishing prior art applied to all claims linked to the statement). 45 Seachange argues that Applicant made two arguments to overcome Morita and Benner, and because the point-to-point argument relates directly to the point-to-point language of claim 1 rather than the network for data communications language of claim 37(40), and because the redundant storage argument relates to all claims of the grouping, the public was on notice that claim 37(40) did not necessarily contain the point-to-point feature. Seachange buttresses this argument by citing the notice of allowance in which the Examiner allowed all claims based only on the redundant storage feature. However, the conclusion that Seachange would have us reach-that Applicant responded to the First Action and distinguished claim 37(40) over Morita and Benner based only on the redundant storage feature, and not based on the point-to-point feature—is unwarranted. Nothing in the prosecution history suggests that the point-to-point argument did not apply to all of the grouped claims. Applicant did not indicate that the point-to-point argument applied only to claim 1. Instead, the natural reading of Applicant's statements suggests that the point-to-point argument applied to each claim in the grouping. 46 The conclusion that Applicant narrowed the meaning of the word network as used in claim 37(40) to require point-to-point interconnections is consistent with similar treatment of claims 68-72 and 74. Claims 68-72 and 74 each recite an interconnecting data communications network in language that Seachange admits is almost identical to the network for data communications language of claim 37(40). In arguing for patentability of claims 68-72 and 74 (of which claim 68 was representative), Applicant stated that the references neither describe nor suggest ... interconnecting data communications network... and data storage control as recited in claim 68 as argued previously with respect to the Morita and Benner references. Amendment at 46-47. Applicant's only previous argument relevant to the data communications network limitation was the argument in response to the rejection of the group of claims including claims 1 and 37(40) that Morita and Benner did not disclose that each of the processor systems are interconnected in a point-to-point two-way channel interconnection with each other one of the processor systems. See id. at 28-48. By arguing for patentability in both groups of claims based upon an interpretation of network as requiring point-to-point interconnections, the inescapable conclusion is that claims 68-72 and 74, and likewise, claim 37(40), must be so limited. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1342-45 (Fed.Cir.2001) (drawing the inescapable conclusion, from reading together portions of the intrinsic record, that the inventor disavowed claim scope and that a claim term has a narrow meaning). 47 We find unpersuasive Seachange's argument that the Examiner cited the redundant storage feature as the reason for allowance. The fact that the Examiner did not indicate reliance on the point-to-point distinction is of no consequence. An applicant's argument made during prosecution may lead to a disavowal of claim scope even if the Examiner did not rely on the argument. Microsoft, 357 F.3d at 1350. 48 Seachange further argues that to distinguish Benner, Applicant needed only to argue that claim 1 requires each processor be interconnected to each other processor, and did not need to argue that each processor be interconnected to each other processor by point-to-point connections. Seachange asserts that Applicant's as argued previously statement referred only to the argument that Benner did not disclose a system in which each processor system was interconnected to each other processor system. However, Applicant did not argue that claim 1 was patentable merely because it featured a system in which each processor system was interconnected to each other processor system. Applicant argued that Benner does not describe that each of the processor systems are interconnected in a point-to-point two-way channel interconnection with each other one of the processor systems as recited in Applicant's claim 1. Amendment at 32. Applicant made no separate patentability argument for claim 37(40) at that time. Consequently, Seachange cannot now rewrite the prosecution history to distinguish claims 37(40), 68-72 and 74, based only on the limitation that each processor be interconnected to each other processor, and thereby erase the requirement that all connections be point-to-point. Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 957 (explaining that an argument that would erase from the prosecution history the inventor's disavowal of a particular aspect of a claim term's meaning is inimical to the public notice function provided by the prosecution history). 49 Seachange also argues that the file wrapper shows that Applicant added claim 37(40) to more fully cover the scope of the invention, Preliminary Amendment at 13, and that Applicant would not have added claim 37(40) if it was of the same scope as claim 1. However, Seachange inappropriately emphasizes Applicant's subjective intent. Courts must view[] the prosecution history not for ... applicant's subjective intent, but as an official record that is created in the knowledge that its audience is not only the patent examining officials and the applicant, but the interested public. Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132, 1139 (Fed.Cir.2003). 50 Seachange's final argument is that Applicant's response to the protest shows that claim 1 is of different scope than claim 37(40). Protest Response at 3-4. On the one hand, Applicant stated that Gardner did not disclose either a point-to-point network as in claim 1 or a network for data communications as in claim 37(40), implying a difference in the scope of claim 1 and claim 37(40). On the other hand, Applicant distinguished over Gardner based on the network element and contended that Gardner disclosed a number of different types of networks—Ethernet&#8482;, FDDI, ATM, and SCSI networks used for transporting data among the media—but did not disclose a store/retrieve two-way point-to-point configuration. Id. at 2. C-COR cites to Digital Biometrics for the proposition that this global statement limits claim 37(40) to point-to-point networks. In Digital Biometrics, the applicant made a global statement distinguishing its invention from the prior art and applying specifically the remarks to all of the pending claims [that] stand rejected under 35 USC 102(b) or 35 USC 103. 149 F.3d at 1347 (internal quotation omitted). Although the applicant then distinguished each claim on narrower grounds, we held that the argument with respect to individual claims did not eliminate [the import] of global comments made to distinguish applicants' `claimed invention' from the prior art. Id. 51 In the final analysis, the Protest Response does not alter our conclusion that the statements Applicant made in responding to the First Action and in distinguishing over Morita and Benner inescapably narrowed the meaning of the data communications network in claim 37(40) to a point-to-point network. Applicant's response to the First Action was a deliberate surrender of claim scope, unmistakable in its effect because it is not suitable to multiple interpretations. Omega Eng'g, 334 F.3d at 1327. The Protest Response addressed Gardner, did not alter the bases upon which the Applicant distinguished Morita and Benner, and did not undo this disclaimer already made. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 957. 52 The district court erred in construing the network for data communications element of claim 37(40) and the claims dependent therefrom. The presumption attendant to claim differentiation doctrine is rebutted. The phrase network for data communications is limited to networks in which every processor system is connected to every other processor system via direct, point-to-point, two-way channel interconnections.