Opinion ID: 209598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amendment of said at least one index to at least one said index

Text: Under 35 U.S.C. § 305, [n]o proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent will be permitted in a reexamination proceeding. Claims that are impermissibly broadened during reexamination are invalid, and a violation of 35 U.S.C. § 305 is an invalidity defense in a patent infringement action. Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, PLC, 65 F.3d 1577, 1584 (Fed.Cir.1995). Whether amendments made during reexamination enlarge the scope of a claim is a matter of claim construction, which this court reviews de novo. Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed.Cir. 2002). The district court concluded that shifting of the word said in the instantiating step of claim 1 broadened the claim's scope. Jan. 25 Op. at 10, 13. In the claim, the first step of both the original and the amended versions requires generating... at least one hierarchical index. '798 patent, Reexamination Certificate, col.1 ll.30-31. In the original claim, there is an instantiating step that requires instantiating said at least one index. Id. col.1 l.39 (emphasis added). In the amended claim, each instantiation step requires instantiating at least one said index. Id. col.1 l.41, l.43 (emphasis added). The district court construed said to have its ordinary meaning of aforementioned, and therefore reasoned that said at least one index of the original claim must be the index or indexes that are generated in the generating step. Jan. 25 Op. at 11. The district court reasoned that, because the antecedent of said at least one index in the instantiating step is the at least one index generated in the generating step, all of the indexes that are generated in the generating step must be instantiated in the instantiating step. Id. at 12. The district court then concluded that, by contrast, the amended claim languageinstantiating at least one said indexdid not require instantiation of all generated indexes. Id. The district court reasoned that, in the amended claim, at least one said index refers to at least one of the indexes generated in the generating step, but not necessarily all of the generated indexes. Thus, the district court concluded that, after amendment, [n]o longer are all of the generated ... indexes required to be instantiated. Id. If four indexes are generated in the generating step, only one of those indexes would have to be instantiated in each instantiating step. Id. In the district court's words: [I]f a third-party's program generated four indexes, stored four indexes, instantiated only two of those indexes, stored the results of those instantiations and then compared those results, the program would not violate a patent with the terms of original claim 1, but would violate a patent with the terms of amended claim 1. Hence, the amendments to claim 1 broaden the scope of the patent, and therefore constitute a substantive change. Id. at 13. In analyzing the breadth of the claim before and after amendment, the district court was correct to ask whether any conceivable process would infringe the amended claim, but not infringe the original claim. See Quantum, 65 F.3d at 1582 n. 4 (The test for determining whether a reexamined claim is broader than an original claim under 35 U.S.C. § 305 is the same as that in 35 U.S.C. § 251, last paragraph, for determining whether reissue claims filed more than two years after issuance of the original patent are broader than the original claims.); Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2006) (A claim of a reissue application is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A reissue claim that is broader in any respect is considered to be broader than the original claims even though it may be narrower in other respects. (quoting Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999))). But the district court's analysis in considering its hypothetical infringing process was flawed. The district court described its hypothetical infringing process as a process that generated four indexes, stored four indexes, instantiated only two of those indexes, stored the results of those instantiations and then compared those results. Jan. 25 Op. at 13. For illustrative purposes, we depict this hypothetical infringing process as follows: This hypothetical process plainly infringes the amended claim. The generating... at least one hierarchical index step of the amended claim is met by generating indexes A, B, C, and D. The storing said at least one index step is met by storing indexes A, B, C, and D. The first instantiating at least one said index step is met by instantiating index A. The second instantiating at least one said index step is met by instantiating index B. The storing said first and second instantiations of at least one said index step is met by storing the instantiations of indexes A and B. And the comparing step is met by comparing the data sets linked with A to the data sets linked with B. Contrary to the conclusion reached by the district court, the hypothetical process also infringes the original claim. The generating ... at least one hierarchical index step is met by generating indexes A and B. Although the accused process also generates two additional indexesC and Dthose indexes are extraneous and do not affect the infringement analysis because the claim is an open-ended comprising claim. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (The transition `comprising' in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps. (quoting Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir.2003))). The storing said at least one index limitation is met by storing indexes A and Bthe said indexes that were generated in the generating step. Again, the fact that the hypothetical process also stores indexes C and D does not affect the infringement analysis. The instantiating said at least one index step is met by instantiating indexes A and Bthe said indexes that were generated in the generating step. The storing said instantiation of said at least one index step is met by storing the instantiations of indexes A and B. And the comparing step is met by comparing the data sets linked with A to the data sets linked with B. Thus, the hypothetical infringing process described by the district court would infringe not only the claim as amended, but also the original claim. The hypothetical process does not demonstrate that the claim was broadened. Moreover, we can imagine no conceivable processand the parties have identified nonethat would infringe the amended claim but would not infringe the original claim. We therefore conclude that the amendment of said at least one index to at least one said index did not broaden the scope of claim 1.