Opinion ID: 2679595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Integrated Circuit Card” Claims

Text: Our claim construction methodology is described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Gemalto first challenges the district court’s construction of the “memory” limitation in the integrated circuit card claims to require all program memory on a single semiconductor substrate (or chip). Gemalto does not dispute that an integrated circuit card is “a card containing a single semiconductor substrate having a central processing unit and memory,” J.A. 31, but contends that the card should be able to access applications stored in off-chip memory, i.e., memory located on chips other than the chip containing the processor. The claim language does not support Gemalto’s theory. The claim language requires a “memory” that stores an “application” and a “processor” that is coupled to the memory. ’317 patent col. 19 ll. 42, 43, 64. The specification demonstrates that the entire purpose of the invention was to enable the application to be stored within the memory on the chip of the integrated circuit card. Integrated circuit cards, such as smart cards, are small, portable devices. Before Gemalto’s invention, applications for integrated circuit cards were typically written in low level programming languages to conserve memory. With the expansion of digital networking, there was a “need to load new applications on the card . . . . GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION 9 However, typically, this [wa]s not practical . . . using low level languages.” ’317 patent col. 3 ll. 47–48. The purpose of Gemalto’s invention was to make it possible to load applications written in high level languages, such as Java, into the memory of a resource-constrained integrated circuit card. Gemalto does not dispute that integrated circuit cards are one-chip devices, but argues that these cards can access applications stored in external memory sources, such as other chips, in accordance with its invention. The specification, however, identifies configurations in which a processor runs Java applications stored in offchip memory and ascribes them to the prior art—i.e., microprocessor-based personal computers. The specification describes “[c]onventional platforms that support Java” as “microprocessor-based computers,” which have “a central processing unit that requires certain external components (e.g., memory, input controls and output controls) to function properly.” ’317 patent col. 1 ll. 55–56; 62–66. Gemalto’s invention was not directed to these conventional prior art platforms for Java. Instead, it focused on resource-constrained computing platforms, such as integrated circuit cards and microcontrollers, which were previously unable to run Java applications. “In contrast to the microprocessor, a microcontroller includes a central processing unit, memory and other functional elements, all on a single semiconductor substrate, or integrated circuit (e.g., a ‘chip’).” ’317 patent col. 2 ll. 2–5. According to the specification, the crucial difference between prior art microprocessor-based computers and microcontrollerbased devices is that “[i]n a microcontroller, the amount of each kind of memory available is constrained by the amount of space on the integrated circuit,” ’317 patent col. 2 ll. 14–16, while “[a] microprocessor system . . . is not constrained by what will fit on a single integrated circuit 10 GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION device.” Id. ll. 26–31. The specification demonstrates that external memory storage was a defining feature of prior art Java technology, and that the patented invention was designed to eliminate the need for such external storage. Of course, “the claims cannot be of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification.” On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Gemalto’s interpretation of the term “memory” also conflicts with the prosecution history. During initial prosecution and reexamination of the ’317 patent, Gemalto repeatedly distinguished invalidating prior art by emphasizing the novelty of squeezing a Java application onto the memory of an integrated circuit card. Initially, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rejected all claims in the ’317 patent as anticipated and obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,923,884 (“Peyret”), titled “System and Method for Loading Applications onto a Smart Card,” as well as other prior art references. In response, the patentee emphasized the novelty of fitting the application onto an integrated circuit card, arguing that “Peyret does not deal with a solution of how to squeeze Java or another high level language onto a smart card.” 4 J.A. 1162. The applicant explained that [m]aking it possible to run programs written in a high level language on a smart card was not obvi- ous prior to Applicants’ invention . . . . To put Ja- va (or any other high level language) on an integrated circuit card is anything but obvious. At the time of the invention, the typical Java Virtual 4 The specification uses the terms integrated circuit card and smart card interchangeably. See, e.g., ’317 patent col. 2 ll. 37–38 (“microcontrollers frequently are used in integrated circuit cards, such as smart cards”). GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION 11 Machine required over 1 MB of memory. Any per- son of ordinary skill would realize that to squeeze such an interpreter into an integrated circuit card (such as a smart card) is anything but an obvious task.” J.A. 1164 (emphases added). Based on the applicant’s argument, the application subsequently issued as the ’317 patent. During reexamination of the ’317 patent, the patentee again argued for patentability based on the difficulty of fitting a Java application into the memory of a resourceconstrained device. Gemalto argued that “providing Java technology onto smart cards would be very challenging due to the size constraints of smart cards as contrasted to the minimum requirements of Java.” J.A. 1199. Because Java “applications typically compile into files much larger than the pragmatically available space in a smart card[,] . . . the problem of fitting them onto a smart card would be rather challenging. Also, the intermediate language interpreter, e.g., the JVM, would also have to fit on the card.” J.A. 1201. In obtaining and sustaining the ’317 patent, Gemalto emphasized the significance of fitting the application and interpreter onto the memory of an integrated circuit card. If the card could simply access external memory sources, there would be no need to “squeeze” the application or its interpreter onto the card. The integrated circuit card could simply access the application and interpreter from an external memory source without being constrained by the resources available on the integrated circuit card itself. However, Gemalto contends that claim differentiation supports its theory that the integrated circuit card claims should be construed to cover off-chip memory. That contention rests on claim 4 of the ’317 patent, which recites 12 GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION “[t]he integrated circuit card of claim 1 wherein at least a portion of the memory is located in the processor.” ’317 patent col. 20 ll. 6–7. According to this theory, by requiring a “portion of the memory” to be in the processor, claim 4 indicates that some program memory can be stored on separate chips. But the language of claim 4 only allows some memory to be outside the processor, not outside the chip. It implies that the memory recited in other claims may be located on the same chip as the processor, but not within the processor itself. Claim differentiation based on claim 4 only indicates that none of the memory recited in other claims needs to be located “in the processor”; it says nothing about the location of the memory with respect to the chip containing the processor. Thus, claim differentiation does not support Gemalto’s argument or overcome the conclusion that the claims require the processor to be “coupled to the memory,” id. col. 19 l. 64, i.e., on the same chip, storing the application and interpreter necessary for the integrated circuit card to run the application. The patentee’s arguments regarding the “memory” limitation recited in the integrated circuit card claims of the ’317 patent apply equally to the “memory” limitation recited in the integrated circuit card claims of the ’485 patent. As we held in Elkay Manufacturing Co. v. EBCO Manufacturing Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999),“[w]hen multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.” Id. (citing Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 817–18 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing claim language based on statements made during prosecution of parent application regarding similar claim language), Biovail Corp. Int’l v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 239 F.3d 1297, GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION 13 1301–02 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing disputed limitation based on statements relating to that limitation during prosecution of a patent deriving priority from the same original application as the patent-in-suit). The ’485 patent is a continuation of the ’317 patent and shares the same title, specification, and provisional application from which both derive their priority date. Further, claim 38 of the ’485 patent describes the memory and the application it stores using identical language as claim 1 of the ’317 patent. Compare ’317 patent col. 19 ll. 42–49 with ’485 patent col. 23 ll. 25–32. Claim 39 depends from claim 38 and incorporates the same memory limitation, adding additional limitations only to the process for converting the application before loading it onto the memory. In short, we agree with the district court that the memory recited in the integrated circuit card claims should be construed as “all program memory,” which means “sufficient memory to run the Java code [i.e., the application and interpreter] in accordance with the patentee’s invention.”