Opinion ID: 2679595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Programmable Device” Claims

Text: Gemalto also argues that any limitations barring the use of off-chip memory in an integrated circuit card are not relevant to claim 3 of the ’727 patent, which is directed to a “programmable device.” Gemalto asserts that the term should be construed broadly to mean “a device that can execute a computer program.” Appellant’s Br. 37. Gemalto suggests that its proposed construction reflects the ordinary meaning of “programmable device” to one of skill in the art. However, the testimony of two of the asserted patents’ inventors (Timothy Wilkinson and Scott Guthery), persons skilled in the relevant art, confirms that the term had no such meaning. When asked what the meaning of “programmable device” is, one inventor stated, “[i]t has no meaning.” J.A. 1074. The other averred, “I 14 GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION don’t remember anybody ever talking about a programmable device particularly. . . . Sounds like a patent term to me,” and agreed that even a punch-card computer could be considered a programmable device. J.A. 985. Gemalto does not assert that “programmable device” has any ordinary meaning to a skilled practitioner in the field of computer programming, let alone the particular construction it proposes. In any event, Gemalto’s central problem is that the limitation is not “programmable device” but “memory.” Claim 3 explicitly requires a device that has “a memory” and “at least one application loaded in the memory.” ’727 patent col. 19 ll. 30, 34. The meaning of terms appearing in the ’727 patent must be construed in light of the same terms recited in the ’317 patent. All three asserted patents are directly related (the ’727 patent is a continuation of the ’485 patent, which is a continuation of the ’317 patent), derive priority from the same provisional application, and share the same disputed claim language. Statements made by the applicant concerning the “memory” limitation in the ’317 patent’s claims therefore apply with equal force to the “memory” limitation in the ’727 patent’s claims with the same limitation. Elkay, 192 F.3d at 980. Claim 3 of the ’727 patent uses identical language to that of claim 65 of the ’317 patent, requiring the recited application to be “loaded in the memory to be interpreted by the interpreter” and converted into “a minimized form suitable for interpretation within the set of resource constraints by the interpreter.” ’727 patent col. 19 ll. 30– 43; see also ’317 patent col. 24 ll. 51–64. The claim requires the application to be loaded in the recited memory and processed into a form that allows the application to be interpreted (and thus executed) within the set of resource constraints. As construed by the district court—and not challenged on appeal—those constraints require the GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION 15 device to lack sufficient memory if the application had not been so converted. Here, the meaning of “memory” is made even clearer by the language of the programmable device claim that requires the application loaded in the memory to be converted “into a minimized form suitable for interpretation within the set of resource constraints by the interpreter.” ’727 patent col. 19 ll. 42–43 (emphasis added). Gemalto’s arguments to the PTO during prosecution of the ’317 patent directly make clear the meaning of “resource constraints” recited in claim 3 of the ’727 patent. To obtain the ’317 patent, Gemalto emphasized that the conversion of the application was necessary because of the resource constraints on the device on which it was stored. Gemalto explained that Appellants recognized the difficulty in operating Java (or other high level language) programs within the limited resources of an integrated circuit card or other microcontroller. To solve that problem, Appellants introduced the additional step of converting the compiled form from a Java compiler into a form suitable for interpretation on a specialized interpreter. Peyret does not teach or suggest this additional step. J.A. 1174. The prosecution history of the ’727 patent and those from which it derives priority do not support Gemalto’s theory that a “programmable device” can be any type of computer. Rather, the prosecution history demonstrates that a programmable device must have resource constraints that the patentee argued made squeezing Java applications on them “anything but obvious.” J.A. 1176. On appeal, Gemalto does not challenge the construction of “resource constraints” as meaning “insufficient memory to run the compiled application source program 16 GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION in an unconverted form.” J.A. 40–41. While Gemalto admits that the device must meet these limitations, it does not explain how the broad construction it proposes would satisfy them. To be consistent with the “resource constraints” limitation, the device must have insufficient memory to run the application in an unconverted form. Allowing the device to access external off-chip memory would effectively read this express limitation out of the claim. Gemalto contends that the prosecution history of the ’727 patent supports a broad construction, pointing to a statement by the examiner that “the present claims are merely considered a broader recitation of claims 1–86 of the ’317 patent.” Appellant Br. 34 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, the examiner made the exact same statement about the claims as originally drafted—at which point they recited a “smart card” rather than a “programmable device.” Further, the examiner also recognized that the “[t]he subject matter claimed in the instant application [for the ’727 patent] is fully disclosed in the [’317] patent and is covered by the [’317] patent.” J.A. 751; see also J.A. 1183. The ’317 patent expressly discloses prior art computers—devices capable of executing computer programs—that run Java applications without the claimed invention. The examiner’s statement, standing alone, does not support construing “programmable device” so broadly that it encompasses any device capable of executing program instructions, particularly those within the prior art as defined by the specification of the ’727 patent and shared by all three asserted patents. We thus agree with the district court that the pro- grammable device of claim 3 of the ’727 patent should be construed as “a single semiconductor substrate integrating electronic circuit components that includes a central GEMALTO S.A. v. HTC CORPORATION 17 processing unit and all program memory making it suitable for use as an embedded system.” J.A. 33.