Opinion ID: 2808717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disclosure of Corresponding Structure

Text: Having found that the “distributed learning control module” is subject to application of § 112, para. 6, we next determine whether the specification discloses sufficient structure that corresponds to the claimed function. We conclude that it does not. Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. The court must first identify the claimed function. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Then, the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Where there are multiple claimed functions, as we have here, the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions. Id. at 1318–19. If the patentee fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite. Id. at 1311–12. The district court identified three claimed functions associated with the “distributed learning control module” term: (1) receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems; (2) relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system; and (3) coordinating the operation of the streaming data module. The district court then found that the specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the “coordinating” function. On appeal, it is undisputed that the claimed “coordinating” function is associated with the “distributed learning control module.” Thus, we must ascertain whether adeWILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC 21 quate structure corresponding to this function is disclosed in the specification. Id. at 1311. Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as “corresponding structure” if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. Id. (citing B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even if the specification discloses corresponding structure, the disclosure must be of “adequate” corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1311–12 (citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paras. 2 and 6, therefore, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a meansplus-function clause is indefinite. Id. at 1312 (citing AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The district court was correct that the specification of the ’840 patent fails to disclose corresponding structure. The written description of the ’840 patent makes clear that the distributed learning control module cannot be implemented in a general purpose computer, but instead must be implemented in a special purpose computer—a general purpose computer programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software. A special purpose computer is required because the distributed learning control module has specialized functions as outlined in the written description. See, e.g., ’840 patent col.5 ll.48–64. In cases such as this, involving a claim limitation that is subject to § 112, para. 6 that must be implemented in a special purpose computer, this court has consistently required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. E.g., Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing WMS Gam22 WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC ing, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We require that the specification disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312 (citing Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Williamson points to certain disclosures in the specification that, it claims, meet the § 112, para. 6 requirements. Williamson argues that the “distributed learning control module” controls communications among the various computer systems and that the “coordinating” function provides a presenter with streaming media selection functionality. These disclosures, however, are merely functions of the “distributed learning control module.” The specification does not set forth an algorithm for performing the claimed functions. Williamson argues that figures 4 and 5 disclose the required algorithm. This is not the case. Figure 4 is a representative display from the presenter computer system under the direction of the “distributed learning control module.” ’840 patent col.7 ll.1–3. WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC 23 Id. figure 4. This display includes an address or uniform resource locator or URL field, a channel field, an “add this node” button, and a “back” link. Id. col.7 ll.5–7, 13–15, 18–19. This is not a disclosure of an algorithm corresponding to the claimed “coordinating” function; it is a description of a presenter display interface. Figure 5 similarly fails to disclose an algorithm, as it is another representative display on the presenter computer system. Id. col.7 ll.20–24. This display allows the presenter to preview data before presenting it to the audience. Id. col.7 ll.32–34. 24 WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC Id. figure 5. This figure contains a box listing the sources of data and a media window that displays the current feed received from the source of data selected in the list box. Id. col.7 ll.24–28. Again, this figure is a description of a presenter display interface; it is not a disclosure of an algorithm corresponding to the claimed functions. Williamson has failed to point to an adequate disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification. Williamson points to the declaration of Dr. Souri to show that the ’840 patent discloses structure. The testimony of one of ordinary skill in the art cannot supplant the total absence of structure from the specification. Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The prohibition against using expert testimony to create structure where none otherwise exists is a direct consequence of the requirement that the specification adequately disclose corresponding structure. Id. (quoting AllVoice Computing, 504 F.3d at 1240). WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC 25 Thus, the testimony of Dr. Souri cannot create structure where none otherwise exists. Because the ’840 patent fails to disclose any structure corresponding to the “coordinating” function of the “distributed learning control module,” we affirm the judgment that claims 8–16 are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2.